The Flat Earth Society

Other Discussion Boards => Technology, Science & Alt Science => Topic started by: Rayzor on February 13, 2017, 10:36:59 PM

Title: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 13, 2017, 10:36:59 PM
Quote
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on Today at 07:27:01 AM
So by this I assume he is an official story guy? If that is the case you can't expect too much from him ;D....Also, he should never give any crap about their views or believing in fairy tales.

I'll  take that challenge.   What real evidence is there for a conspiracy about 911?   Innuendo and speculation don't count as evidence.

My starting position is that there is no conspiracy,  I remember watching the coverage on TV,  and my first comment, even before the towers collapsed was Osama Bin Laden is behind this,  I've not seen anything since that would change my mind. 

So over to Babyhighspeed for the fairy tales.   :)

Here's an archive of interest, many thanks to denspressure.

https://archive.org/details/911/day/20010911
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 13, 2017, 10:49:57 PM
Fall acceleration of building 7.

You are going to end this a jibbering mess of failed insults and logic.

But you asked for it.

Mods can we move to tech and alt please. ty.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 13, 2017, 10:57:21 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 13, 2017, 10:49:57 PM
Fall acceleration of building 7.

You are going to end this a jibbering mess of failed insults and logic.

But you asked for it.

Mods can we move to tech and alt please. ty.

Just so you know for future reference,  "Flat Earth General" is the correct forum for discussions of conspiracy theories, 

You keep saying I've insulted you, so set me straight,  could you quote where I have insulted you in the past. 

As far as WTC7 goes I've already explained how things fall at free fall rate when the structure underneath is falling as well.   Have you got any real evidence?

 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 13, 2017, 10:59:41 PM
It doesn't have anything to do with a flat earth, general os the wrong place for it.

Tech and alt is a more suitable home, don't worry, I only know because I made the same mistake.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 13, 2017, 11:04:20 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 13, 2017, 10:26:02 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 13, 2017, 09:32:43 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 13, 2017, 09:27:01 PM
So by this I assume he is an official story guy? If that is the case you can't expect too much from him ;D....Also, he should never give any crap about their views or believing in fairy tales.

I'd  take that challenge,  but I don't want to derail this thread.    Keep your stick on the ice champ,  we'll get back to you about fairy tales in due course. 

There are many threads available already in existence if you are feeling froggy sugar lips  :-*

Though I must question ....

Quote from: Rayzor on February 13, 2017, 09:28:50 PM
My major was maths and physics,  Also I happen to like calculus.

Was this at a reputable school? Did you pass? Were you graded on a curve?

Or maybe a fan of Harry Potter? We all want to believe in magic rayzor...I want to believe my ex wife loved me and didn't sleep with an area code of people (guys and girls)...But sadly faith, doesn't always mean something is true.


Anyways.... You know what to do if you think your mouth can cash the check your ass wrote snookums :-*

So that's your best argument for a conspiracy?     I expected better.   
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 13, 2017, 11:05:34 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 13, 2017, 10:57:21 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 13, 2017, 10:49:57 PM
As far as WTC7 goes I've already explained how things fall at free fall rate when the structure underneath is falling as well.   Have you got any real evidence?

What made the underlying structure fall underneath it at free fall?

Was there a big ass hole under the building? Or was it built on a solid concrete slab? Are you relying on the building losing 100% of its structural integrity?

Because that is what would have to happen to accelerate at g, also note the NIST report doesn't dare say the building lost 100% of its structural integrity. Also why did it hold steady until it plummeted down at g, could the whole building support itself at 99.9% loss of structural integrity but collapsed when it lost 100% of its structural integrity????

Like I said before, I work in the industry, I don't have an engineering PhD, I am not infallible I can only present evidence and ask logical questions.

If you want to get schooled on the actual physics behind it I have a feeling it can happen here.

Good luck.

Edit typos
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 13, 2017, 11:06:09 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 13, 2017, 10:59:41 PM
It doesn't have anything to do with a flat earth, general os the wrong place for it.

Tech and alt is a more suitable home, don't worry, I only know because I made the same mistake.

What if  911 was just a smokescreen to  hide the truth about the flat earth?   You never know what might be revealed.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 13, 2017, 11:18:08 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 13, 2017, 11:05:34 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 13, 2017, 10:57:21 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 13, 2017, 10:49:57 PM
As far as WTC7 goes I've already explained how things fall at free fall rate when the structure underneath is falling as well.   Have you got any real evidence?

What made the underlying structure fall underneath it at free fall?

Was there a big ass hole under the building? Or was it built on a solid concrete slab? Are you relying on the building losing 100% of its structural integrity?

Because that is what would have to happen to accelerate at g, also note the NIST report doesn't dare say the building lost 100% of its structural integrity. Also why did it hold steady until it plummeted down at g, could the whole building support itself at 99.9% loss of structural integrity but collapsed when it lost 100% of its structural integrity????

Like I said before, I work in the industry, I don't have an engineering PhD, I am not infallible I can only present evidence and ask logical questions.

If you want to get schooled on the actual physics behind it I have a feeling it can happen here.

Good luck.

Edit typos

We already debunked that free-fall argument.   But just to recap,  how is it possible for the rooftop of a building to fall?   Doesn't the fact that it collapsed at all mean that the building structure supporting the roof is collapsing,    why would you be surprised that it fell at a free fall rate.   At least until it hit ground and other debris piled up,   The graph in the NIST shows it quite clearly.   

You say you work in the industry,  you mean the building industry?   In what capacity?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 13, 2017, 11:27:21 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 13, 2017, 11:05:34 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 13, 2017, 10:57:21 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 13, 2017, 10:49:57 PM
As far as WTC7 goes I've already explained how things fall at free fall rate when the structure underneath is falling as well.   Have you got any real evidence?

What made the underlying structure fall underneath it at free fall?

Was there a big ass hole under the building? Or was it built on a solid concrete slab? Are you relying on the building losing 100% of its structural integrity?

Because that is what would have to happen to accelerate at g, also note the NIST report doesn't dare say the building lost 100% of its structural integrity. Also why did it hold steady until it plummeted down at g, could the whole building support itself at 99.9% loss of structural integrity but collapsed when it lost 100% of its structural integrity????

Like I said before, I work in the industry, I don't have an engineering PhD, I am not infallible I can only present evidence and ask logical questions.

If you want to get schooled on the actual physics behind it I have a feeling it can happen here.

Good luck.

Edit typos

Lol... Rayzor .... You silly goose...

Oh and dispute, he is talking about progressive failure of the skeleton horizontal trusses causing a perfectly timed center fall of the vertical main I beams, which then caused the outside exoskeleton to collapse inward towards the center weakened and falling area to emulate a free fall collapse upon its own foot print.

He just forgot to include the Harry's wand....

Just that alone, the catalyst and the outcome is impossible, there are a 1000 other issues wrong with just that area alone. However, I can't wonder all over the place, the subject matter is too big.

Now....

Quote from: Rayzor on February 13, 2017, 10:36:59 PM
Quote
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on Today at 07:27:01 AM
So by this I assume he is an official story guy? If that is the case you can't expect too much from him ;D....Also, he should never give any crap about their views or believing in fairy tales.

I'll  take that challenge.   What real evidence is there for a conspiracy about 911?   Innuendo and speculation don't count as evidence.

My starting position is that there is no conspiracy,  I remember watching the coverage on TV,  and my first comment, even before the towers collapsed was Osama Bin Laden is behind this,  I've not seen anything since that would change my mind. 

So over to Babyhighspeed for the fairy tales.   :)


My starting position, is just the mechanics alone make it a conspiracy...Let alone all the back end issues of the who, what, why, how etc..

The official story is impossible in the real world...Just once, but 3 times (which one building not even being stuck) is something not even Harry's wand could do. Though " vaporized" is their abracadabra, it doesn't mean it's true. Does the magician truly cut the woman in half?

The catalyst, metallurgical values, rigidity, CG, total material recovered, time lapse, and a 1000 other things are impossible just with the buildings fall alone.

Then comes all the others keys such as back ground, finances, filmography and all the other what not to add more to the lie.

There is literally nothing that is not a lie in the official report except 3 buildings fell....But even that is a lie, because they left out building 7 conveniently.

There is a few opening arguments...The subject is huge though so you have to narrow down some areas sugar tits.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 13, 2017, 11:43:20 PM
Oh snap.

I knew I forgot something, the magic wand. Now the total progressive collapse hypothesis makes perfect sense.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 13, 2017, 11:48:37 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 13, 2017, 11:43:20 PM
Oh snap.

I knew I forgot something, the magic wand. Now the total progressive collapse hypothesis makes perfect sense.

It's OK...Easy mistake to make, You don't have your PhD yet. The first couple years is engineering, the rest is training how to use the wand. You get one of your own at graduation.

BUT YOU ONLY GET ONE!
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 13, 2017, 11:55:17 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 13, 2017, 11:18:08 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 13, 2017, 11:05:34 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 13, 2017, 10:57:21 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 13, 2017, 10:49:57 PM
As far as WTC7 goes I've already explained how things fall at free fall rate when the structure underneath is falling as well.   Have you got any real evidence?

What made the underlying structure fall underneath it at free fall?

Was there a big ass hole under the building? Or was it built on a solid concrete slab? Are you relying on the building losing 100% of its structural integrity?

Because that is what would have to happen to accelerate at g, also note the NIST report doesn't dare say the building lost 100% of its structural integrity. Also why did it hold steady until it plummeted down at g, could the whole building support itself at 99.9% loss of structural integrity but collapsed when it lost 100% of its structural integrity????

Like I said before, I work in the industry, I don't have an engineering PhD, I am not infallible I can only present evidence and ask logical questions.

If you want to get schooled on the actual physics behind it I have a feeling it can happen here.

Good luck.

Edit typos

We already debunked that free-fall argument.   But just to recap,  how is it possible for the rooftop of a building to fall?   Doesn't the fact that it collapsed at all mean that the building structure supporting the roof is collapsing,    why would you be surprised that it fell at a free fall rate.   At least until it hit ground and other debris piled up,   The graph in the NIST shows it quite clearly.   

You say you work in the industry,  you mean the building industry?   In what capacity?

That makes little to no sense tbh, I didn't really see you debunk anything.

I work with tall buildings, I have seen them being built and I understand the loads and stresses on them, In fact there was a roof of a hospital that collapsed recently while it was being built as the tradesman forgot to install drains. The rain water built up on the roof until it collapsed. The funny thing about a progressive collapse, is that it's progressive, that is not instantaneous.

Individual structural components failed which led to the failure of other structural components and the buildings roof progressively collapsed, not neat and instantaneous like the 9/11 effectTM would predict.

This is enough for you to know, unless you want to post your full name, phone number and home and work address. Then I will also.

I was not attempting an argument from authority far from it, I think this issue takes an open mind receptive to the truth and not blinded by what we want to believe.

I understand you think you are really really really smart, we get it. You've made that quite clear.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 13, 2017, 11:48:37 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 13, 2017, 11:43:20 PM
Oh snap.

I knew I forgot something, the magic wand. Now the total progressive collapse hypothesis makes perfect sense.

It's OK...Easy mistake to make, You don't have your PhD yet. The first couple years is engineering, the rest is training how to use the wand. You get one of your own at graduation.

BUT YOU ONLY GET ONE!

Lmao ;D
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 14, 2017, 12:03:19 AM
Oh and Rayzor, here is a video of NIST disagreeing with most of what you have said about the free-fall of building 7.



Should I believe you? Or NIST? I'm confused.

Gonna let BHS tear you apart on this actually, I'm probably just getting in the way. :P

Good luck I hope you actually try to present an argument.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 14, 2017, 12:10:48 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 13, 2017, 10:36:59 PM
Quote
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on Today at 07:27:01 AM
So by this I assume he is an official story guy? If that is the case you can't expect too much from him ;D....Also, he should never give any crap about their views or believing in fairy tales.

I'll  take that challenge.   What real evidence is there for a conspiracy about 911?   Innuendo and speculation don't count as evidence.

I remember watching the coverage on TV,  and my first comment, even before the towers collapsed was Osama Bin Laden is behind this.

One more thing, I lied, so, you are the only one who can use speculation and innuendo as evidence?

Ok I got it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 14, 2017, 12:16:34 AM
I didn't know you dealt with buildings dispute, I would have gotten more technical with some things. There has never been a point to get that far with any arguments here. So far it has just been people that think they know something because they read it somewhere, and that is what they want to believe. Get into the nitty gritty after about 10 posts in, they vanish. You can see how the recent 9/11 threads have ended since my time here lol. So really getting into the technical issues has not been needed.

Though it is funny, he uses the center collapse of a roof as "proof" when he is really shooting himself in the foot. It is typical of a steel framed skeleton designed building when demolished for the roof to sink briefly. This of course will happen when you hit the first charges, cuts in a 45 degree angle the upper parts of the main I beams first about 20 feet from the roof (depending on total height). They then slide down from gravity equally....causing...Drum roll...The roof to drop about 10 feet, then everything begins to follow.

The whole point of demoing a building is getting it to its own foot print, using mass and stored energy as your friend.  You could hit it with missle after missle and not accomplish this. You use gravity as your friend, and direct the mass where to go, removing restrictions and mass where needed.

Seeing a roof collapse saying it is evidence for a free fall natural collapse is no different than seeing a brown bear and brown fish, then stating they are the same species.

**Oh and rayzor, I was mad at first too and wanting to kill bin laden...Until I was able to remove myself from the anger and patriotism they wanted me to jump on. After that it was easy to use logic, education, and being "in the business"...And I used it to the fullest to hopefully help people being fooled. 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 14, 2017, 12:35:10 AM
(http://i68.tinypic.com/297rtj.jpg)

Metal skeleton with reinforced concrete is actually quite robust. This building was quite sound after the fire went out...On its own. Though I think there was a trash can on fire in building 7.

(http://i66.tinypic.com/2444rbb.jpg)

Only in China lol...Brand new steel framed building...Though since QC is not their thing, the foundation was built on the wrong grade, wrong soil pallet, enternal earth trusses wrong depth, AND they built an IN GROUND parking garage directly Infront of it. Fell over night.

If you notice, they are having to demolish it on the ground there because it stayed COMPLETELY intact.

Bet they wished they had the 9/11 magic wand. Make clean up a breeze.

I know you don't understand how loads are shifted, shared, flex, etc etc etc...But if you did, you would understand how what we saw on TV and the official story is completely impossible in our reality.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 14, 2017, 12:57:01 AM
 Ok,  lets start with the basics,  did you do an FEA model of the collapse?   If not what aspects of the NIST model,  and or report  do you disagree with?

What other building collapses of similar structure that have been impacted by large aircraft can you refer to support your claims.

In the case of WTC7  your claim that it was just a trash can on fire is wrong,  the entire central floors were blazing for 7 hours.  The water supply had failed and there were no sprinklers.

In order to bring some structure to this discussion,  why don't you present your most compelling piece of evidence,  and then let's see if it stands up.

Also I'd appreciate if you don't assume what I do or don't understand about structural engineering.  I'll afford you the same courtesy.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 14, 2017, 01:29:03 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 14, 2017, 12:57:01 AM
Ok,  lets start with the basics,  did you do an FEA model of the collapse?   If not what aspects of the NIST model,  and or report  do you disagree with?

What other building collapses of similar structure that have been impacted by large aircraft can you refer to support your claims.

In the case of WTC7  your claim that it was just a trash can on fire is wrong,  the entire central floors were blazing for 7 hours.  The water supply had failed and there were no sprinklers.

In order to bring some structure to this discussion,  why don't you present your most compelling piece of evidence,  and then let's see if it stands up.

Also I'd appreciate if you don't assume what I do or don't understand about structural engineering.  I'll afford you the same courtesy.

Lol...I apologise for the pictures, they were more tongue and cheek with truth behind them. I could continue on for a while with pictures and videos supporting what I am saying with a humourous approach. Especially the Chinese building, only in China can QC be ignored that badly. It even stood for a week after the parking garage was dug which is very surprising. The good thing though it happened before it was occupied.

As for a "trash can" on fire, that of course was a bit of an exaggeration. There were a few floors with office fires.

As for models..Yes last year of college worked with collapse of tower 2 on star-cd in last year of college. Then throughout the years on star-ccm+ as well as sim and nastran on all 3 buildings.

Not to mention real life tests using the resources of my business on 100s of different presented hypothesis concerning metallurgical, stress, rigidity, compression, stretch, heat distribution, fuel dynamics etc etc etc...As I said, way too much information to talk about without a guide. This is almost a decade of work to try and compress. EVERYTHING I speak about is from real world experience, or straight from the mouth of someone with real world experience that specializes in that certain field. The group I worked with for years on this was fantastic until the end destroyed it's purpose.

I even had original material from the destruction, though most has been destroyed from tests, though I still have a 5 gallon bucket of dust, and pieces of the skeleton trusses as well as a few other items. Pooled resources was amazing while it lasted.

As for examples, there are none...This would be a first (three times in a row in the EXACT same manor which should be the first red flag)...The mathematical chance of this is nil to put it politely.

As for smoking gun piece of evidence?? Well I have 1000s....I really don't know where to start.

Where do you want to start?

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 14, 2017, 02:02:02 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 14, 2017, 01:29:03 AM
Where do you want to start?

The most compelling argument you have,   direct physical evidence of demolition charges being used would  be good.   
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 14, 2017, 02:14:20 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 14, 2017, 02:02:02 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 14, 2017, 01:29:03 AM
Where do you want to start?

The most compelling argument you have,   direct physical evidence of demolition charges being used would  be good.

Direct physical evidence of demolition charges?

Is this your way of saying you don't want to play anymore?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 14, 2017, 02:23:09 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 14, 2017, 02:14:20 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 14, 2017, 02:02:02 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 14, 2017, 01:29:03 AM
Where do you want to start?

The most compelling argument you have,   direct physical evidence of demolition charges being used would  be good.

Direct physical evidence of demolition charges?

Is this your way of saying you don't want to play anymore?

You seem confused by the fact I'm asking for evidence.   

So, there is no direct evidence of demolition charges being used,  whereas I have direct evidence of aircraft impacting the building,  not just seen by millions live on TV, but also seen directly by thousands of eye witnesses. 

Why would you choose a cause for something for which there is contradictory circumstantial evidence,  over something that was not only witnessed by millions but analysed in detail by reputable agencies.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 14, 2017, 02:27:27 AM
Personally I believe aircraft did hit the buildings, I think they were drone driven and packed with explosives to give us a Hollywood plane crash. I think the witnesses were correct in saying planes hit the buildings.

But this is just my personal speculation, please, let's talk about the physics of the total progressive collapse hypothesis, BHS has presented some compelling points, why not pick one and try to debunk it.

Edit.

It is a weak strawman to try to shift the debate to speculation if there were actually planes or not. I would agree with you that the evidence of planes crashing into the buildings far outweighs any other evidence I have seen, CGI wings etc.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 14, 2017, 02:47:44 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 14, 2017, 02:27:27 AM
Personally I believe aircraft did hit the buildings, I think they were drone driven and packed with explosives to give us a Hollywood plane crash. I think the witnesses were correct in saying planes hit the buildings.

But this is just my personal speculation, please, let's talk about the physics of the total progressive collapse hypothesis, BHS has presented some compelling points, why not pick one and try to debunk it.

Edit.

It is a weak strawman to try to shift the debate to speculation if there were actually planes or not. I would agree with you that the evidence of planes crashing into the buildings far outweighs any other evidence I have seen, CGI wings etc.

Why would you assume that they were drones packed with explosives?  The evidence is clear that it was American Airlines Flight 11,   and United Airlines 175  both Boston to LA flights with large fuel loads.
 

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 14, 2017, 01:29:03 AM
Not to mention real life tests using the resources of my business on 100s of different presented hypothesis concerning metallurgical, stress, rigidity, compression, stretch, heat distribution, fuel dynamics etc etc etc...As I said, way too much information to talk about without a guide. This is almost a decade of work to try and compress. EVERYTHING I speak about is from real world experience, or straight from the mouth of someone with real world experience that specializes in that certain field. The group I worked with for years on this was fantastic until the end destroyed it's purpose.

Where was your research published,  I wouldn't mind having a look.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 14, 2017, 03:00:19 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 14, 2017, 02:14:20 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 14, 2017, 02:02:02 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 14, 2017, 01:29:03 AM
Where do you want to start?

The most compelling argument you have,   direct physical evidence of demolition charges being used would  be good.

Direct physical evidence of demolition charges?

Is this your way of saying you don't want to play anymore?

This is normal, no biggie...He is thinking he is leading me into a corner, but only cornering himself. I was dealing with this in college, he is about 600 debates behind lol. This rodeo is an old boring one.

Though I would say rayzor, please try to be a little more unique in your debate.

Anyways...As I have told many people before you, and I will tell many after you...I am only stating as a fact the buildings did not fall as stated.

I then suggest alternative theories based off available evidence for what brought them down, motivation, the who, ect.

So to confirm...If this were a court, I would present a purely factual case against the official report...Then a circumstantial case against the actual causation and aggressors.

As to you comment of "I saw the plane"....Reality doesn't work the way we saw it.

(http://i64.tinypic.com/2ivoa6e.jpg)

This is not reality.... rigid and brittle aluminum does not pass through concrete, steel vertical exoskeleton, steel horizontal exoskeleton reinforced with concrete, then we get into the real tough stuff that can flex and absorb impacts the central core inches of reinforced I beams...Pass through all of that times 2 all the way to the other side.

This is not trick photography, I have seen multiple angles of plane number 2 on professional reply equipment and watched it frame by frame more times I could stomach. There is always about 5-14 frame delay of where the plane literally goes inside the building..No mark, no debris.... Nothing....Sunny skies in new York...Then BOOM!! An explosion on the front and back.

What is left? A Wylie Coyote like imprint straight out of the cartoons...The EXACT width of the plane end to end.....

A third rate magic show is more convincing.

I am sure you will say something as "well they were going fast so that makes it possible" which is what NIST said to idiots they knew were just smart enough to know nothing at all, as well as the general uneducated public.

However, as people who work in the field know, you reach a point of diminished return on energy with any material, especially brittle rigid aluminum.

Once you get to a certain speed, you actually lose energy through atmospheric friction, heat, and many other factors at the point of impact per square inch. It spreads, not focuses. You can either look at aviation manuals, or see some cool experiments we did shooting aircraft aluminum at reinforced concrete and steel at over 1200 mph (more than double the speed reported, which was impossible in itself for a craft that size that low. Not only that, but controlled by idiots that couldn't even control a 100 mile-an-hour Cessna...But thank goodness their paper passport survived right on top of the wreckage so we knew who they were... titanium/reinforced steel and concrete/aluminum was the only thing that could be "vaporized"...The paper was too strong)

The planes would have been like porcelain to those buildings, not a magic knife that can literally cut through the building without even a mark. Then suddenly explode cartoon style.. Not to mention, that type of maneuverability is all but impossible at the proposed speeds and altitude, especially with am idiot navigating it.

I lost where I was....


Damn it...You see what I mean...I have too much info in my head, I get off on tangents.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 14, 2017, 03:02:52 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 14, 2017, 02:47:44 AM

Why would you assume that they were drones packed with explosives?  The evidence is clear that it was American Airlines Flight 11,   and United Airlines 175  both Boston to LA flights with large fuel loads.

Cause thermodynamics, mostly.

We can get into it, but I would really like to see you try to address at least one of BHS' points.

I also have no doubt that those planes looked the part but again... this is speculation, I am looking forward to starting the debate.

Edit @ BHS That's a really good point illustrated by an official photo.

I will give the no planes idea a lot more thought.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 14, 2017, 03:12:00 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 14, 2017, 03:00:19 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 14, 2017, 02:14:20 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 14, 2017, 02:02:02 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 14, 2017, 01:29:03 AM
Where do you want to start?

The most compelling argument you have,   direct physical evidence of demolition charges being used would  be good.

Direct physical evidence of demolition charges?

Is this your way of saying you don't want to play anymore?

This is normal, no biggie...He is thinking he is leading me into a corner, but only cornering himself. I was dealing with this in college, he is about 600 debates behind lol. This rodeo is an old boring one.

Though I would say rayzor, please try to be a little more unique in your debate.

Anyways...As I have told many people before you, and I will tell many after you...I am only stating as a fact the buildings did not fall as stated.

I then suggest alternative theories based off available evidence for what brought them down, motivation, the who, ect.

So to confirm...If this were a court, I would present a purely factual case against the official report...Then a circumstantial case against the actual causation and aggressors.

As to you comment of "I saw the plane"....Reality doesn't work the way we saw it.

(http://i64.tinypic.com/2ivoa6e.jpg)

This is not reality.... rigid and brittle aluminum does not pass through concrete, steel vertical exoskeleton, steel horizontal exoskeleton reinforced with concrete, then we get into the real tough stuff that can flex and absorb impacts the central core inches of reinforced I beams...Pass through all of that times 2 all the way to the other side.

This is not trick photography, I have seen multiple angles of plane number 2 on professional reply equipment and watched it frame by frame more times I could stomach. There is always about 5-14 frame delay of where the plane literally goes inside the building..No mark, no debris.... Nothing....Sunny skies in new York...Then BOOM!! An explosion on the front and back.

What is left? A Wylie Coyote like imprint straight out of the cartoons...The EXACT width of the plane end to end.....

A third rate magic show is more convincing.

I am sure you will say something as "well they were going fast so that makes it possible" which is what NIST said to idiots they knew were just smart enough to know nothing at all, as well as the general uneducated public.

However, as people who work in the field know, you reach a point of diminished return on energy with any material, especially brittle rigid aluminum.

Once you get to a certain speed, you actually lose energy through atmospheric friction, heat, and many other factors at the point of impact per square inch. It spreads, not focuses. You can either look at aviation manuals, or see some cool experiments we did shooting aircraft aluminum at reinforced concrete and steel at over 1200 mph (more than double the speed reported, which was impossible in itself for a craft that size that low. Not only that, but controlled by idiots that couldn't even control a 100 mile-an-hour Cessna...But thank goodness their paper passport survived right on top of the wreckage so we knew who they were... titanium/reinforced steel and concrete/aluminum was the only thing that could be "vaporized"...The paper was too strong)

The planes would have been like porcelain to those buildings, not a magic knife that can literally cut through the building without even a mark. Then suddenly explode cartoon style.. Not to mention, that type of maneuverability is all but impossible at the proposed speeds and altitude, especially with am idiot navigating it.

I lost where I was....


Damn it...You see what I mean...I have too much info in my head, I get off on tangents.

As you say, you are bouncing all over the place.   Let's take it one step at a time. 

1. Do you agree there is no direct physical evidence of demolition charges being used to bring down WTC1 and WTC2.

2. You seem to be asserting that WTC1 and WTC2 were not hit by Boeing 767's of  AA11 and UA175,  be clear in what you are asserting.   You seem to be implying it's some kind of trick photography?

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 14, 2017, 03:14:54 AM
Dude strawman.

You asked for the strongest proof, we both said the buildings wouldn't have fallen like they did by natural causes.

Now you wanna talk about holographic planes?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 14, 2017, 03:20:09 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 14, 2017, 03:14:54 AM
Dude strawman.

You asked for the strongest proof, we both said the buildings wouldn't have fallen like they did by natural causes.

Now you wanna talk about holographic planes?

What's natural about being hit by a fully loaded 767,   and you keep ducking the most basic of questions.

And it was BHS who introduced the idea that the planes weren't real,  I'm asking him to confirm that's actually what he meant.   
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 14, 2017, 03:25:14 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 14, 2017, 03:20:09 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 14, 2017, 03:14:54 AM
Dude strawman.

You asked for the strongest proof, we both said the buildings wouldn't have fallen like they did by natural causes.

Now you wanna talk about holographic planes?

What's natural about being hit by a fully loaded 767,   and you keep ducking the most basic of questions.

Natural causes being the official story, the plane hitting the building, subsequent fires etc.

Who's ducking questions?
Don't reply with another shitpost, copy and paste stuff from NISTs website or something, you're better than this.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 14, 2017, 03:28:39 AM
If you reread what I wrote rayzor...I am saying with absolute fact those planes did not hit like we "saw them" on television. It is impossible...I have seen those films frame to frame....It is not a glitch or anything of the sort...The shit just vanished, plain and simple.

I am also saying that they could not have penetrated like that, nor cause the collapse, the proof I stated is not "secret" things, it is standard metallurgy...As well as a little bit of aviation dynamics, though the handling of the planes is not my specialty, that comes from others that were close to me in the group.

Now you are asking my what I think hit the towers? Well I don't know...That is back to speculation. From what some of the film group said, they saw evidence of modulation in the film....My personal opinion is it was either a drone or a missle. When you only have one shot each, you want to remove human error.

Then cover up with editing, which is why we see the impossibilities on film.

As I have said...Despite whatever speculation, it is not speculation saying it did not happen as we saw, nor did that cause the free falls of 3 buildings
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 14, 2017, 03:33:00 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 14, 2017, 03:28:39 AM
If you reread what I wrote rayzor...I am saying with absolute fact those planes did not hit like we "saw them" on television. It is impossible...I have seen those films frame to frame....It is not a glitch or anything of the sort...The shit just vanished, plain and simple.

I am also saying that they could not have penetrated like that, nor cause the collapse, the proof I stated is not "secret" things, it is standard metallurgy...As well as a little bit of aviation dynamics, though the handling of the planes is not my specialty, that comes from others that were close to me in the group.

Now you are asking my what I think hit the towers? Well I don't know...That is back to speculation. From what some of the film group said, they saw evidence of modulation in the film....My personal opinion is it was either a drone or a missle. When you only have one shot each, you want to remove human error.

Then cover up with editing, which is why we see the impossibilities on film.

As I have said...Despite whatever speculation, it is not speculation saying it did not happen as we saw, nor did that cause the free falls of 3 buildings

Ok,  I have to be pedantic,  please be clearer, are you saying that no planes hit WTC 1 and WTC 2,   in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. 

Also please answer the first question,  is there any direct physical evidence of demolition charges being used on any of the buildings?   

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 14, 2017, 03:35:57 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 14, 2017, 03:12:00 AM
Let's take it one step at a time. 

1. Do you agree there is no direct physical evidence of demolition charges being used to bring down WTC1 and WTC2.

2. You seem to be asserting that WTC1 and WTC2 were not hit by Boeing 767's of  AA11 and UA175,  be clear in what you are asserting.   You seem to be implying it's some kind of trick photography?

So far we have at least two very strong clear points.

1. The buildings shouldn't have fallen like they did given the circumstances we were told.

2. The planes shouldn't have cut through the buildings like they did given that they were supposedly perfectly intact before impact.

Pick one.

For your questions.

1. I accept there is no direct physical proof that we have access to, otherwise it wouldn't still be a conspiracy silly.

2. I think planes hit the buildings already prepped for demolition so the impact can make slightly more physical sense. As i said before this is irrelevant I do not want to debate fake planes. I am very open to debating the mechanics of the plane hitting the building.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 14, 2017, 03:28:39 AM
As I have said...Despite whatever speculation, it is not speculation saying it did not happen as we saw, nor did that cause the free falls of 3 buildings

Beat me, was halfway through my post.

This.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 14, 2017, 03:49:38 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 14, 2017, 03:35:57 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 14, 2017, 03:12:00 AM
Let's take it one step at a time. 

1. Do you agree there is no direct physical evidence of demolition charges being used to bring down WTC1 and WTC2.

2. You seem to be asserting that WTC1 and WTC2 were not hit by Boeing 767's of  AA11 and UA175,  be clear in what you are asserting.   You seem to be implying it's some kind of trick photography?

So far we have at least two very strong clear points.

1. The buildings shouldn't have fallen like they did given the circumstances we were told.

2. The planes shouldn't have cut through the buildings like they did given that they were supposedly perfectly intact before impact.

Pick one.

For your questions.

1. I accept there is no direct physical proof that we have access to, otherwise it wouldn't still be a conspiracy silly.

2. I think planes hit the buildings already prepped for demolition so the impact can make slightly more physical sense. As i said before this is irrelevant I do not want to debate fake planes. I am very open to debating the mechanics of the plane hitting the building.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 14, 2017, 03:28:39 AM
As I have said...Despite whatever speculation, it is not speculation saying it did not happen as we saw, nor did that cause the free falls of 3 buildings

Beat me, was halfway through my post.

This.

Stop butting in.   My question was to try and unravel exactly what BHS was saying. 

But you pose two points
Quote
1. The buildings shouldn't have fallen like they did given the circumstances we were told.

Not true,  your point is a matter of conjecture,  and there is general disagreement on how they should have collapsed. 

Quote
2. I think planes hit the buildings already prepped for demolition so the impact can make slightly more physical sense. As i said before this is irrelevant I do not want to debate fake planes. I am very open to debating the mechanics of the plane hitting the building.

Umm,  so you have evidence for this theory? 

In any case what do you think is going to happen when a fully loaded 767 which weighs 175,000 kg, such as  AA11 which was travelling at 470 mph when it hit the building,  and UA175 was travelling at 590 mph

 


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 14, 2017, 03:54:05 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 14, 2017, 03:28:39 AM
As I have said...Despite whatever speculation, it is not speculation saying it did not happen as we saw, nor did that cause the free falls of 3 buildings

So you say, but all you have offered so far is pretty wild speculation and hinted at some circumstantial evidence.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 14, 2017, 04:06:55 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 14, 2017, 03:35:57 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 14, 2017, 03:12:00 AM
Let's take it one step at a time. 

1. Do you agree there is no direct physical evidence of demolition charges being used to bring down WTC1 and WTC2.

2. You seem to be asserting that WTC1 and WTC2 were not hit by Boeing 767's of  AA11 and UA175,  be clear in what you are asserting.   You seem to be implying it's some kind of trick photography?

So far we have at least two very strong clear points.

1. The buildings shouldn't have fallen like they did given the circumstances we were told.

2. The planes shouldn't have cut through the buildings like they did given that they were supposedly perfectly intact before impact.

Pick one.

For your questions.

1. I accept there is no direct physical proof that we have access to, otherwise it wouldn't still be a conspiracy silly.

2. I think planes hit the buildings already prepped for demolition so the impact can make slightly more physical sense. As i said before this is irrelevant I do not want to debate fake planes. I am very open to debating the mechanics of the plane hitting the building.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 14, 2017, 03:28:39 AM
As I have said...Despite whatever speculation, it is not speculation saying it did not happen as we saw, nor did that cause the free falls of 3 buildings

Beat me, was halfway through my post.

This.

This is confusion tactic dispute...Typical, he is trying to get me to trip up and say something he can use against me. While at the same time stalling with repetition in attempt to try and figure something to say. The problem is, as he stalls with basic information, I already have a comment for 200 post from now, then another 500 after that and so on. This is my wheel house Mr. Rayzor...Not only is it part of my degree, part of my business of almost a decade, part of a group a worked with for years, it is something I take very very personal.

Not only did people die senselessly (not 3000 people though) , people died all around the world because of this, caused a loss of many of our freedoms and allowed laws to be passed that would equal such a thing, it was the greatest lie ever told to the American public since my existence...And possibly ever.

So either up the game...Or let's end this early.

Now...

Back to your game...

Quote from: Rayzor on February 14, 2017, 03:33:00 AM
Ok,  I have to be pedantic,  please be clearer, are you saying that no planes hit WTC 1 and WTC 2,   in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. 

Also please answer the first question,  is there any direct physical evidence of demolition charges being used on any of the buildings?   

I was very clear on what I meant...But I will play along with your slow playing for now since I am sick and nothing much better i feel  like doing.

I don't know what hit the towers, I gave you my speculation on what could of happened. There is something incredibly wrong with the footage that is easily seen with examination. If it was just recording a plane wreck, there would be no reason for this.

As well as the dynamics of the actual wreck into the building is 100 percent impossible...you want my speculation of what hit the towers, I wrote that already. With help of explosives & pyrotechnics in the building itself. 1000s of testimonials was left out of the official report that said they saw something besides a commercial 767. A cohesion of reports from missle, to small plane, to jet tells me there is an issue. I don't know how many close proximity 767s you have been around...

But I can tell you from experience, you don't mistake the sound, feeling or look...They are intimidating close up. As for the first impact, I don't think there is anything needed, an explosion would be sufficient with no one expecting anything. There were many people that said they didn't hear a thing but an explosion.

My uncle is one of them, he still lives in Manhattan, but at the time he was in a hotel 11 blocks from the towers. View was horrible from there because of direction, he only heard an explosion first, then he heard a rocket ish sound and another explosion. He is ex Navy and actively served in his younger years, so his ears know the difference between fan jet and rocket.


So for demolition, yes their are plenty of clues....Particles found in the dust I confirmed myself. Shape charges in the I beams and other areas, dynamics in the buildings free fall rate and falling in its own foot print, Knowing the design of the building and how it would deal with stress in all situations, experiments I did in real world or simulation wise...I could keep going...But...

You are wanting me to speculate and so you can focus on my speculation and ignore what I am telling you as a cold hard fact. Yes demolition is the obvious option and easiest...However, it could have been a secret government death ray from space as some of the most out there theories go because of the isotopes found in the dust.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 14, 2017, 04:14:33 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 14, 2017, 03:49:38 AM
In any case what do you think is going to happen when a fully loaded 767 which weighs 175,000 kg, such as  AA11 which was travelling at 470 mph when it hit the building,  and UA175 was travelling at 590 mph

Sorry to butt in but I would think something similar to this would happen.

(https://s14.postimg.org/5xkeohnld/images_33.jpg)

(https://s12.postimg.org/3pxshvrf1/images_40.jpg)

But enough speculation, can we get to the part where you actually try to address the towers falling?

It's becoming painfully clear you are afraid of debating the physics involved.

Don't want to look silly in front of flat earthers?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 14, 2017, 04:14:52 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 14, 2017, 03:28:39 AM
I am also saying that they could not have penetrated like that, nor cause the collapse, the proof I stated is not "secret" things, it is standard metallurgy...As well as a little bit of aviation dynamics, though the handling of the planes is not my specialty, that comes from others that were close to me in the group.

I'll refrain in general from posting video responses,  since that would end up wasting all our time,  but this one is short  and to the point about the physics of the planes hitting the building. Please note that it directly  debunks the assertion by  BHS that planes could not have cause the damage.   The conclusion is that it was in fact planes that hit WTC1 and WTC2.

The details are described here https://news.uns.purdue.edu/x/2007a/070612HoffmannWTC.html


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 14, 2017, 04:16:58 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 14, 2017, 04:14:33 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 14, 2017, 03:49:38 AM
In any case what do you think is going to happen when a fully loaded 767 which weighs 175,000 kg, such as  AA11 which was travelling at 470 mph when it hit the building,  and UA175 was travelling at 590 mph

Sorry to butt in but I would think something similar to this would happen.

(https://s14.postimg.org/5xkeohnld/images_33.jpg)

(https://s12.postimg.org/3pxshvrf1/images_40.jpg)

But enough speculation, can we get to the part where you actually try to address the towers falling?

It's becoming painfully clear you are afraid of debating the physics involved.

Don't want to look silly in front of flat earthers?

That's the famous case of a WW2 plane  ( was it a B29?) Correrction it was a Mitchell B25  hitting the empire state building,  not relevant to WTC
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 14, 2017, 04:18:50 AM
Fo' sho' man plane hitting a building is in no way shape or form relevant to another plane hitting another building, Fo' sho'.

You are wasting our time.

Edit.

In that video.

"Computed using a state of the art simulation code."

No chance of that simulation code being developed to fit a narrative.

I hate to pull the conspiracy card but you pulled the "I don't know physics here watch a video." card.

While we're at it, here, watch a video.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 14, 2017, 04:25:49 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 14, 2017, 04:06:55 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 14, 2017, 03:35:57 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 14, 2017, 03:12:00 AM
Let's take it one step at a time. 

1. Do you agree there is no direct physical evidence of demolition charges being used to bring down WTC1 and WTC2.

2. You seem to be asserting that WTC1 and WTC2 were not hit by Boeing 767's of  AA11 and UA175,  be clear in what you are asserting.   You seem to be implying it's some kind of trick photography?

So far we have at least two very strong clear points.

1. The buildings shouldn't have fallen like they did given the circumstances we were told.

2. The planes shouldn't have cut through the buildings like they did given that they were supposedly perfectly intact before impact.

Pick one.

For your questions.

1. I accept there is no direct physical proof that we have access to, otherwise it wouldn't still be a conspiracy silly.

2. I think planes hit the buildings already prepped for demolition so the impact can make slightly more physical sense. As i said before this is irrelevant I do not want to debate fake planes. I am very open to debating the mechanics of the plane hitting the building.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 14, 2017, 03:28:39 AM
As I have said...Despite whatever speculation, it is not speculation saying it did not happen as we saw, nor did that cause the free falls of 3 buildings

Beat me, was halfway through my post.

This.

This is confusion tactic dispute...Typical, he is trying to get me to trip up and say something he can use against me. While at the same time stalling with repetition in attempt to try and figure something to say. The problem is, as he stalls with basic information, I already have a comment for 200 post from now, then another 500 after that and so on. This is my wheel house Mr. Rayzor...Not only is it part of my degree, part of my business of almost a decade, part of a group a worked with for years, it is something I take very very personal.

Not only did people die senselessly (not 3000 people though) , people died all around the world because of this, caused a loss of many of our freedoms and allowed laws to be passed that would equal such a thing, it was the greatest lie ever told to the American public since my existence...And possibly ever.

So either up the game...Or let's end this early.

Now...

Back to your game...

Quote from: Rayzor on February 14, 2017, 03:33:00 AM
Ok,  I have to be pedantic,  please be clearer, are you saying that no planes hit WTC 1 and WTC 2,   in spite of all the evidence to the contrary. 

Also please answer the first question,  is there any direct physical evidence of demolition charges being used on any of the buildings?   

I was very clear on what I meant...But I will play along with your slow playing for now since I am sick and nothing much better i feel  like doing.

I don't know what hit the towers, I gave you my speculation on what could of happened. There is something incredibly wrong with the footage that is easily seen with examination. If it was just recording a plane wreck, there would be no reason for this.

As well as the dynamics of the actual wreck into the building is 100 percent impossible...you want my speculation of what hit the towers, I wrote that already. With help of explosives & pyrotechnics in the building itself. 1000s of testimonials was left out of the official report that said they saw something besides a commercial 767. A cohesion of reports from missle, to small plane, to jet tells me there is an issue. I don't know how many close proximity 767s you have been around...

But I can tell you from experience, you don't mistake the sound, feeling or look...They are intimidating close up. As for the first impact, I don't think there is anything needed, an explosion would be sufficient with no one expecting anything. There were many people that said they didn't hear a thing but an explosion.

My uncle is one of them, he still lives in Manhattan, but at the time he was in a hotel 11 blocks from the towers. View was horrible from there because of direction, he only heard an explosion first, then he heard a rocket ish sound and another explosion. He is ex Navy and actively served in his younger years, so his ears know the difference between fan jet and rocket.


So for demolition, yes their are plenty of clues....Particles found in the dust I confirmed myself. Shape charges in the I beams and other areas, dynamics in the buildings free fall rate and falling in its own foot print, Knowing the design of the building and how it would deal with stress in all situations, experiments I did in real world or simulation wise...I could keep going...But...

You are wanting me to speculate and so you can focus on my speculation and ignore what I am telling you as a cold hard fact. Yes demolition is the obvious option and easiest...However, it could have been a secret government death ray from space as some of the most out there theories go because of the isotopes found in the dust.

I'll ignore the obvious troll about you thinking it's death rays from space.  But cute idea.

Let's cut to the chase,   what were the particles you found in the dust,  and where were those dust analysis results published? 

What is the evidence for shaped charges in the "I beams"  surely you would put the shaped charges on the center columns not the beams???  No demolition is not the easiest and obvious answer.

If you want go down that path you need proof,  not speculation.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 14, 2017, 04:30:15 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 14, 2017, 04:18:50 AM
Fo' sho' man plane hitting a building is in no way shape or form relevant to another plane hitting another building, Fo' sho'.

You are wasting our time.

Edit.

In that video.

Computed using a state of the art simulation code.

No chance of that simulation code being developed to fit a narrative.

I hate to pull the conspiracy card but you pulled the "I don't know physics here watch a video." card.

Huh?  Your definition of me wasting your time is refuting your arguments.  You do realise how that makes you look?

So, if that's what you think,  go to the Purdue University research and tell me what  you think they did wrong.  Phone numbers and email addresses are here

https://news.uns.purdue.edu/x/2007a/070612HoffmannWTC.html

PS,  that Plane was a B25 MItchell bomber weighs about  12,000 kg,  compared with 175,000 kg for a 767  So your example is hardly relevant,  except to point out that the Mitchell  B25 was also constructed of aluminium and BHS contends that aluminium aircraft cant' damage steel girders...   doesn't look like that assertion has any foundation in reality,
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 14, 2017, 04:35:35 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 14, 2017, 04:14:52 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 14, 2017, 03:28:39 AM
I am also saying that they could not have penetrated like that, nor cause the collapse, the proof I stated is not "secret" things, it is standard metallurgy...As well as a little bit of aviation dynamics, though the handling of the planes is not my specialty, that comes from others that were close to me in the group.

I'll refrain in general from posting video responses,  since that would end up wasting all our time,  but this one is short  and to the point about the physics of the planes hitting the building. Please note that it directly  debunks the assertion by  BHS that planes could not have cause the damage.   The conclusion is that it was in fact planes that hit WTC1 and WTC2.

The details are described here https://news.uns.purdue.edu/x/2007a/070612HoffmannWTC.html



What the hell is this?

I actually read the link...First they gave no details to calibration of whatever program they used. Plus they were just adjusting whatever they needed for "hours" upon end to make it match what they needed. What the hell does it prove making a program to fit a situation?

Plus they placed all that fuel in the building to cause it to "explode"..Hate to break it to you, but fluid isn't even going to break the windows uncompressed at 500 mph....And to even start to think about cutting through reinforced concrete and steel that thickness, anything less that 40k PSI, don't even bother.

And of course you ignore everything I said...You should email those people and ask them for a simulation on how material can pass through other material without leaving a mark. Bet they can help you with their wand.

I think I will stick with all my experiments in the real world, knowledge in every aviation book in the real world, and metallurgical reactions in the real world.

This is becoming disappointing if this is all that this is going to be....Not to mention, a waste of time I could be sleeping.


Also...I am sure every fire in similar destined buildings and plane wrecks into similar destined buildings mean nothing either right?

And obviously my death ray was tongue and cheek on the opennesa of "speculation"..Which you keep attempting to get me to do to avoid the elephant in the room.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 14, 2017, 04:42:32 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 14, 2017, 04:30:15 AM

PS,  that Plane was a B25 MItchell bomber weighs about  12,000 kg,  compared with 175,000 kg for a 767  So your example is hardly relevant,  except to point out that the Mitchell  B25 was also constructed of aluminium and BHS contends that aluminium aircraft cant' damage steel girders...   doesn't look like that assertion has any foundation in reality,

Never said anything about the inability to damage steel...I just said not like we saw...Watch it captain with putting words in my mouth.

The damage in that photo is what you would expect, an area where the fuselage hit, that was the main impact. Most of the plane was shed to the outside of the building. In actuality, most of the damage to that building was from a fire, that's it. Very little structural damage.

Not to mention, comparing that to the world trade center is a different story. Different mixture of steel, more of it, a full exo skeleton of steel, reinforced concrete, size, weight on and on.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: StillFlat on February 14, 2017, 04:46:14 AM
lived in Manhatten NYC since 1999. I can tell u I heard an explosion first, then a missile type sound second. not once did I hear a plane sound. take it how you want, but I witnessed the carnage that day, and it wasn't pleasant.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 14, 2017, 04:52:53 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 14, 2017, 04:35:35 AM
What the hell is this?

This your wheel house?  and you aren't familiar with simulations.   Sorry, I should be explicit.  It's simulation of a plane hitting the WTC.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 14, 2017, 04:35:35 AM
I actually read the link...First they gave no details to calibration of whatever program they used. Plus they were just adjusting whatever they needed for "hours" upon end to make it match what they needed. What the hell does it prove making a program to fit a situation?

Plus they placed all that fuel in the building to cause it to "explode"..Hate to break it to you, but fluid isn't even going to break the windows uncompressed at 500 mph....And to even start to think about cutting through reinforced concrete and steel that thickness, anything less that 40k PSI, don't even bother.

And that's exactly where you are wrong.   175,000 kg of just about anything travelling at 590 mph has enough kinetic energy to cause exactly the sort of damage we see on the WTC.


Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 14, 2017, 04:35:35 AM
And of course you ignore everything I said...You should email those people and ask them for a simulation on how material can pass through other material without leaving a mark. Bet they can help you with their wand.

Not true,  wherever you've made an assertion,  I've asked for proof, you've offered nothing at all so far.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 14, 2017, 04:35:35 AM
I think I will stick with all my experiments in the real world, knowledge in every aviation book in the real world, and metallurgical reactions in the real world.

This is becoming disappointing if this is all that this is going to be....Not to mention, a waste of time I could be sleeping.

Yes, it's disappointing, that  this is "your wheelhouse"  and all you do is make wild assertions with zero evidence,  seems to me you've achieved nothing with your research.  Or if you have you are strangely reluctant to share it with the rest of us plebs.

In order to try and make progress,  let's look at the dust analysis,  what was the evidence of explosives that you found?  What evidence do you have of shaped charges being used?


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 14, 2017, 04:59:15 AM
I agree the two crashes (twin towers and empire state) are very different. It was a pretty cheap tactic, seems Rayzor is all talk, I'm disappointed.

Rayzor look closely and notice that although the steel girder is bent, it is intact. So intact that people felt it was fine to walk on.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 14, 2017, 05:10:44 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 14, 2017, 04:59:15 AM
I agree the two crashes (twin towers and empire state) are very different. It was a pretty cheap tactic, seems Rayzor is all talk, I'm disappointed.

Rayzor look closely and notice that although the steel girder is bent, it is intact. So intact that people felt it was fine to walk on.

So your definition of all talk, is asking you to back up your assertions.   As for the Mitchell B25 hitting the Empire State,   the B25 weighs 12,000 kg and has a max cruise of 270 mph,  although I doubt  it was doing that sort of speed when it hit,   so in terms of impact energy  the mass is  15 times less and the velocity is probably 1/3   so the kinetic energy is roughly 130 times less than a 767 hitting the WTC at 590 mph. 
Now multiply the amount of damage to the Empire State by a factor of 130 times,  and what would that picture look like.

Quote
Hate to break it to you, but fluid isn't even going to break the windows uncompressed at 500 mph....

As far a fluid not being able to damage buildings or break windows,  that's just not true.  There are plenty of examples of just air destroying buildings at much lower velocities. 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 14, 2017, 05:19:03 AM
Quote from: StillFlat on February 14, 2017, 04:46:14 AM
lived in Manhatten NYC since 1999. I can tell u I heard an explosion first, then a missile type sound second. not once did I hear a plane sound. take it how you want, but I witnessed the carnage that day, and it wasn't pleasant.

Cool random Bonus....10 points....Isn't that word for word what my uncle said??? Thanks for the random boost stranger...But rayzor would never accept any of it.
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 14, 2017, 04:06:55 AM
My uncle is one of them, he still lives in Manhattan, but at the time he was in a hotel 11 blocks from the towers. View was horrible from there because of direction, he only heard an explosion first, then he heard a rocket ish sound and another explosion. He is ex Navy and actively served in his younger years, so his ears know the difference between fan jet and rocket.


As for kinetic energy, you have to look at the metallurgical analysis of what is hitting what. If that was the density, rigidity and tension levels of say 175k kgs of 4340 forged aluminum...Or tempered pressed steel...I would say, uh oh, that is going to damn near cut the top clean off.

It's not though...Please...Inform yourself with physics first before making a retort, this is already getting old.

If you want to address anything I am saying, then we can talk posting up evidence. Though everything I said is nothing secret and can be looked up in many different forms of educational material. I haven't even got past the surface on anything yet because you have not made a retort on anything I have said.

My very first simple question that requires only logic in the beginning of page one...How can a plane slip inside a building without a mark?

As for a quick reply tritium and nano thermite in the dust..Even on particles as small as 2 microns. (I predicted illiness years ago with another, and low and behold people are getting cancer left and right, there is something not right with that dust, I would gag just messing with it)

You want me to start posting up results, no problem, i got plenty from my personal company as for many other people I worked with or know about. .it's a give take. Start addressing what I am saying...I am not gonna keep dancing like a monkey listening to you while you ignore me. For an entire class here in the states, yes, some yokel in Australia, pass...Sleep is more important with 103 fever.

Wanna actually debate, I am in...Want me to dance, fuck off
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 14, 2017, 05:37:11 AM
Also....Funny, the plane crash posted happened exactly how I said it would... Minimal damage to the structure, some fire, most of the plane shedded outside the structure.. this is metallurgy and physics in the real world....But you are right...My real world experience means nothing right lol.

Smdh...


Though I will say on a separate subject, I was researching elevators in school for a project, a lady in the empire state building survived an elevator accident from I think 50 floors or so. She was hurt, and they put her on the elevator not knowing the cables were damaged. It let go and took off...But due to pressure of the descent of the elevator in the tube, it slowed it's descent enough for the cables and weight to beat her to the bottom...So when she reached, there was a "cushion" waiting for her and she survived. Unrelated, but Interesting.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 14, 2017, 05:38:04 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 14, 2017, 05:10:44 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 14, 2017, 04:59:15 AM
I agree the two crashes (twin towers and empire state) are very different. It was a pretty cheap tactic, seems Rayzor is all talk, I'm disappointed.

Rayzor look closely and notice that although the steel girder is bent, it is intact. So intact that people felt it was fine to walk on.

So your definition of all talk, is asking you to back up your assertions.   As for the Mitchell B25 hitting the Empire State,   the B25 weighs 12,000 kg and has a max cruise of 270 mph,  although I doubt  it was doing that sort of speed when it hit,   so in terms of impact energy  the mass is  15 times less and the velocity is probably 1/3   so the kinetic energy is roughly 130 times less than a 767 hitting the WTC at 590 mph. 
Now multiply the amount of damage to the Empire State by a factor of 130 times,  and what would that picture look like.

Damaged, that particular section might even collapse where the plane hit it.

Falling on its own footprint at pretty much freefall, three times, once not even initially damaged by a plane?

Priceless.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 14, 2017, 05:19:03 AM
Wanna actually debate, I am in...Want me to dance, fuck off
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 14, 2017, 05:43:16 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 14, 2017, 05:19:03 AM

As for kinetic energy, you have to look at the metallurgical analysis of what is hitting what. If that was the density, rigidity and tension levels of say 175k kgs of 4340 forged aluminum...Or tempered pressed steel...I would say, uh oh, that is going to damn near cut the top clean off.

It's not though...Please...Inform yourself with physics first before making a retort, this is already getting old.



Ok physics it is, let's start with the experimental evidence.

I've seen wood go clean through hi tensile steel,  your claim about the plane being unable to cause the observed damage is just not true.   There is ample evidence of buildings being completely flattened by 100 mph winds.   

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 14, 2017, 05:19:03 AM
If you want to address anything I am saying, then we can talk posting up evidence. Though everything I said is nothing secret and can be looked up in many different forms of educational material. I haven't even got past the surface on anything yet because you have not made a retort on anything I have said.

My very first simple question that requires only logic in the beginning of page one...How can a plane slip inside a building without a mark?

I'm not claiming it didn't leave a mark,  you are with no evidence I might add.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 14, 2017, 05:19:03 AM
As for a quick reply tritium and nano thermite in the dust..Even on particles as small as 2 microns. (I predicted illiness years ago with another, and low and behold people are getting cancer left and right, there is something not right with that dust, I would gag just messing with it)

That's interesting,  how did you assay the tritium?    The presence of metal oxides is not of itself suspicious, how was it determined to be "nano thermite"

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 14, 2017, 05:19:03 AM
You want me to start posting up results, no problem, i got plenty from my personal company as for many other people I worked with or know about. .it's a give take. Start addressing what I am saying...I am not gonna keep dancing like a monkey listening to you while you ignore me. For an entire class here in the states, yes, some yokel in Australia, pass...Sleep is more important with 103 fever.

Wanna actually debate, I am in...Want me to dance, fuck off

I'm not convinced by anything you've said so far, you've offered no evidence,  and  scattered into the mix several opinions which were easily demonstrated to be false. 

Go get some sleep,  I can wait.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Arealhumanbeing on February 14, 2017, 05:48:21 AM
Why dont you explain how the cell phone calls were made at 30,000 ft, when cell phones dont work that far up.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 14, 2017, 05:55:41 AM
Quote from: Arealhumanbeing on February 14, 2017, 05:48:21 AM
Why dont you explain how the cell phone calls were made at 30,000 ft, when cell phones dont work that far up. Lies anyone?

According to the 9/11 report the people on the phones were using the built-in verizon air phones or using cell phones when the plane was at a lower altitude. Only two were made via cell phone

Also, there is no reason cell phones won't work if in range of a cell tower,  there might be issues with hitting multiple cell towers at once, depending on protocol as to whether it's cdma, gsm, lte etc..   at some altitudes and locations it would work just fine.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Arealhumanbeing on February 14, 2017, 06:05:49 AM
Yeah they would work if they were in range of a cell tower but they werent!! They were 20,000 ft. too high, and moving at 500+ mph, making it impossible to even stay in one spot long enough to connect to a tower.

To those just opening their eyes to the hoax that is 9/11, spread your knowledge, implore your friends to do the same, so we may finally uncover the true architect to this sick and twisted game we have unwittingly become part of.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 14, 2017, 06:07:34 AM
WHaT The Hell rayzor

Did you really just come at me with wind as an example....

I don't think I can do this with you...This is too painful.

Let me just clarify something from a engineering perspective...You are damn right a 100 mile an hour wind can topple a building...A 30 mph wind can if there is a malfunction in the design or counterweights. The wind doesn't do it though by penetrating the building and destroying it from the inside...

It does it by providing a force to at least 2/3s of the upper section of the building, and if it knocks it off its CG then down it goes...The building knocks it self down. A high-rise works like a bowie....The building collapses itself, it isn't penetrated and destroyed from within ::)

Ever wonder why many buildings use an electronic CG counterweight that takes up an entire floor or two to control sway? There isn't a metal strong enough to take the direct weight of even a short high rise...Gravity, CG and compression is all that keeps them standing.

Even if a building did fall from that, it wouldn't demo itself into its own foot print at free fall speed...Would either split from itself in an area, or completely fall intact as I showed in that picture from china.


You want evidence, I am beginning to worry that you may lack the prerequisites to extrapolate it. Not really a knock, maybe just not be your strong area, everyone is strong in their own area of expertise.

Edit...CDMA, not GSM or lte would have been what they used in 2001...Never would have completed a call then. Took too much time to switch from tower to tower with CDMA, not my area of expertise, but I can get that proof from my friend at Ericsson . Easy stuff.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 14, 2017, 06:28:48 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 14, 2017, 06:07:34 AM
WHaT The Hell rayzor

Did you really just come at me with wind as an example....

I don't think I can do this with you...This is too painful.

So you are retracting the statement you made
Quote
Hate to break it to you, but fluid isn't even going to break the windows uncompressed at 500 mph....

Impact physics are clearly not your strong suit.   

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 14, 2017, 06:07:34 AM
Let me just clarify something from a engineering perspective...You are damn right a 100 mile an hour wind can topple a building...A 30 mph wind can if there is a malfunction in the design or counterweights. The wind doesn't do it though by penetrating the building and destroying it from the inside...

It does it by providing a force to at least 2/3s of the upper section of the building, and if it knocks it off its CG then down it goes...The building knocks it self down. A high-rise works like a bowie....The building collapses itself, it isn't penetrated and destroyed from within ::)

Ever wonder why many buildings use an electronic CG counterweight that takes up an entire floor or two to control sway? There isn't a metal strong enough to take the direct weight of even a short high rise...Gravity, CG and compression is all that keeps them standing.

Even if a building did fall from that, it wouldn't demo itself into its own foot print at free fall speed...Would either split from itself in an area, or completely fall intact as I showed in that picture from china.

All true but irrelevant when considering the impact of a 175,000 kg plane travelling at 590 mph,  which you claim wouldn't even break windows. 
If you really believe that then you are delusional.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 14, 2017, 06:07:34 AM
You want evidence, I am beginning to worry that you may lack the prerequisites to extrapolate it. Not really a knock, maybe just not be your strong area, everyone is strong in their own area of expertise.

I'm beginning to suspect you don't actually have any.  Since asking multiple times and all I'm  getting is evasive answers.  And things like "Wanna actually debate, I am in...Want me to dance, fuck off"  I thought you were better than that.   

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 14, 2017, 06:07:34 AM
Edit...CDMA, not GSM or lte would have been what they used in 2001...Never would have completed a call then. Took too much time to switch from tower to tower with CDMA, not my area of expertise, but I can get that proof from my friend at Ericsson . Easy stuff.

You are correct the two cell phone calls would have been cdma,  when did the old analog systems get phased out? Anyway my point is that most of the calls were people using the built in verizon air phone system. 

FWIW GSM has just been switched off in Australia. 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 14, 2017, 06:36:12 AM
Quote from: Arealhumanbeing on February 14, 2017, 06:05:49 AM
Yeah they would work if they were in range of a cell tower but they werent!! They were 20,000 ft. too high, and moving at 500+ mph, making it impossible to even stay in one spot long enough to connect to a tower.

To those just opening their eyes to the hoax that is 9/11, spread your knowledge, implore your friends to do the same, so we may finally uncover the true architect to this sick and twisted game we have unwittingly become part of.

Wrong,  the problem would be hitting too many cell towers at once,  not such a problem at lower altitude.   But as I pointed out most of the calls weren't on cell phones.

As for spreading lies about 911,  you are doing a great disservice to the truth,  911 was a plot by evil people who were motivated by religious zealotry.  To try and shift blame to others who are in fact innocent is nothing short of evil incarnate.  You should be ashamed of yourself for spreading unsubstantiated lies and speculation. 



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 14, 2017, 06:45:40 AM
Repost of a question that was ignored first time around.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 14, 2017, 05:19:03 AM
As for a quick reply tritium and nano thermite in the dust..Even on particles as small as 2 microns. (I predicted illiness years ago with another, and low and behold people are getting cancer left and right, there is something not right with that dust, I would gag just messing with it)

That's interesting,  how did you assay the tritium?    The presence of metal oxides is not of itself suspicious, how was it determined to be "nano thermite"

And once again I ask,  was any of your research ever published,  if so where?  if not why not?

Don't answer now,  get some sleep and get better.  I'm in no hurry.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 14, 2017, 06:53:11 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 14, 2017, 06:28:48 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 14, 2017, 06:07:34 AM
WHaT The Hell rayzor

Did you really just come at me with wind as an example....

I don't think I can do this with you...This is too painful.

So you are retracting the statement you made
Quote
Hate to break it to you, but fluid isn't even going to break the windows uncompressed at 500 mph....

Impact physics are clearly not your strong suit.   

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 14, 2017, 06:07:34 AM
Let me just clarify something from a engineering perspective...You are damn right a 100 mile an hour wind can topple a building...A 30 mph wind can if there is a malfunction in the design or counterweights. The wind doesn't do it though by penetrating the building and destroying it from the inside...

It does it by providing a force to at least 2/3s of the upper section of the building, and if it knocks it off its CG then down it goes...The building knocks it self down. A high-rise works like a bowie....The building collapses itself, it isn't penetrated and destroyed from within ::)

Ever wonder why many buildings use an electronic CG counterweight that takes up an entire floor or two to control sway? There isn't a metal strong enough to take the direct weight of even a short high rise...Gravity, CG and compression is all that keeps them standing.

Even if a building did fall from that, it wouldn't demo itself into its own foot print at free fall speed...Would either split from itself in an area, or completely fall intact as I showed in that picture from china.

All true but irrelevant when considering the impact of a 175,000 kg plane travelling at 590 mph,  which you claim wouldn't even break windows. 
If you really believe that then you are delusional.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 14, 2017, 06:07:34 AM
You want evidence, I am beginning to worry that you may lack the prerequisites to extrapolate it. Not really a knock, maybe just not be your strong area, everyone is strong in their own area of expertise.

I'm beginning to suspect you don't actually have any.  Since asking multiple times and all I'm  getting is evasive answers.  And things like "Wanna actually debate, I am in...Want me to dance, fuck off"  I thought you were better than that.   

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 14, 2017, 06:07:34 AM
Edit...CDMA, not GSM or lte would have been what they used in 2001...Never would have completed a call then. Took too much time to switch from tower to tower with CDMA, not my area of expertise, but I can get that proof from my friend at Ericsson . Easy stuff.

You are correct the two cell phone calls would have been cdma,  when did the old analog systems get phased out? Anyway my point is that most of the calls were people using the built in verizon air phone system. 

FWIW GSM has just been switched off in Australia.

You are disappointing me rayzor...I expected much more from an Aussie.

You know when I was speaking about breaking the windows we were talking about fluid only....I specifically said fluid only, uncompressed going 500 mph. Which a droplet would not break a WTC window, it wouldn't even hold together. Especially aviation jet fuel, it would vaporize before it even thought of hitting anything. If we ever get that far, I will explain how fires capable of compromising the structural integrity was not possible from the fuel...If we get that far, though I doubt it.

There is nothing to add currently...

I am not being evasive...I was just assuming I am talking to someone like myself to be honest. I thought you had a background in this, everything I have said so far is very simple and information available anywhere that provides Engineering education. I haven't even got into the advanced stuff yet.

If I started to provide "secret information" that only I have...Then I would understand...I do have some specialized information, but we aren't even in the ball park yet, we are still deep in the parking lot.

I don't have time to teach you the wheel so we can talk about the best way to roll it.


However, unfortunately, all you have done is attempt to false twist my words around without addressing a single thing I have said. This is the exact thing you accuse other people of doing..

Even the very first question I posed of how a plane can pass through a building without a single scratch to the building work. Nor any of the other questions...

I absolutely stand by my statement of "wanna actually debate..I am in...Want me to dance...Fuck off"

My time is money... Though I am sick and not doing much, I could still be sleeping or anything else at the time...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 14, 2017, 07:01:29 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 14, 2017, 06:45:40 AM
Repost of a question that was ignored first time around.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 14, 2017, 05:19:03 AM
As for a quick reply tritium and nano thermite in the dust..Even on particles as small as 2 microns. (I predicted illiness years ago with another, and low and behold people are getting cancer left and right, there is something not right with that dust, I would gag just messing with it)

That's interesting,  how did you assay the tritium?    The presence of metal oxides is not of itself suspicious, how was it determined to be "nano thermite"

And once again I ask,  was any of your research ever published,  if so where?  if not why not?

Don't answer now,  get some sleep and get better.  I'm in no hurry.

Yes it was actually...It has been published by multiple people, not just the group I worked with.

What does it matter? It didn't belong there at that level, it was foreign..How did it get there?

Though this is in the world of speculation and I keep saying I don't like that. I like talking about facts...Such how the buildings did not fall for the reasons stated. Then after all that is addressed, then maybe talk about plausible options of circumstance.

No different than your phone call issue...It is easy to prove, at 2001 with CDMA tech, phone from a plane at altitude was impossible. It took too long to port into each tower, CDMA is slow. So even just two lies of phone calls from a cell is enough to say we have an issue with the story. Though it was more than two...Any lies in a situation like this need to be addressed.

If you keep trying to force hypothetical stuff I will start talking about space lasers again.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 14, 2017, 07:19:06 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 14, 2017, 06:53:11 AM

You are disappointing me rayzor...I expected much more from an Aussie.

You know when I was speaking about breaking the windows we were talking about fluid only....I specifically said fluid only, uncompressed going 500 mph. Which a droplet would not break a WTC window, it wouldn't even hold together. Especially aviation jet fuel, it would vaporize before it even thought of hitting anything. If we ever get that far, I will explain how fires capable of compromising the structural integrity was not possible from the fuel...If we get that far, though I doubt it.

There is nothing to add currently...

I am not being evasive...I was just assuming I am talking to someone like myself to be honest. I thought you had a background in this, everything I have said so far is very simple and information available anywhere that provides Engineering education. I haven't even got into the advanced stuff yet.

If I started to provide "secret information" that only I have...Then I would understand...I do have some specialized information, but we aren't even in the ball park yet, we are still deep in the parking lot.

I don't have time to teach you the wheel so we can talk about the best way to roll it.


However, unfortunately, all you have done is attempt to false twist my words around without addressing a single thing I have said. This is the exact thing you accuse other people of doing..

Even the very first question I posed of how a plane can pass through a building without a single scratch to the building work. Nor any of the other questions...

I absolutely stand by my statement of "wanna actually debate..I am in...Want me to dance...Fuck off"

My time is money... Though I am sick and not doing much, I could still be sleeping or anything else at the time...

You haven't actually said anything vaguely interesting as yet.   I keep asking and you keep telling me how disappointed you are.   Umm, you do realise that it's your theory not mine. 

Now you go off on another tangent and  claim the 10,000 gallons fuel all vaporized without hitting anything.  You know I'm going to ask you for evidence of that assertion, and point out that there is plenty of evidence that the fires were over 1000 C,  there are lots of eye witnesses who saw glowing steel in the debris,  and the fires burnt until well into December, so what happens to the structural integrity of steel at 1000C, 

If you are going to claim that the fuel didn't contribute anything to the fire,  then quite simply you are going to have to prove it.

As for Secret Information that only you have...   you know what that sounds like,  you are starting to sound delusional.

You still never answered my question about the tritium assay and the nano-thermite.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 14, 2017, 07:23:34 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 14, 2017, 07:01:29 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 14, 2017, 06:45:40 AM
Repost of a question that was ignored first time around.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 14, 2017, 05:19:03 AM
As for a quick reply tritium and nano thermite in the dust..Even on particles as small as 2 microns. (I predicted illiness years ago with another, and low and behold people are getting cancer left and right, there is something not right with that dust, I would gag just messing with it)

That's interesting,  how did you assay the tritium?    The presence of metal oxides is not of itself suspicious, how was it determined to be "nano thermite"

And once again I ask,  was any of your research ever published,  if so where?  if not why not?

Don't answer now,  get some sleep and get better.  I'm in no hurry.

Yes it was actually...It has been published by multiple people, not just the group I worked with.

What does it matter? It didn't belong there at that level, it was foreign..How did it get there?

Though this is in the world of speculation and I keep saying I don't like that. I like talking about facts...Such how the buildings did not fall for the reasons stated. Then after all that is addressed, then maybe talk about plausible options of circumstance.

No different than your phone call issue...It is easy to prove, at 2001 with CDMA tech, phone from a plane at altitude was impossible. It took too long to port into each tower, CDMA is slow. So even just two lies of phone calls from a cell is enough to say we have an issue with the story. Though it was more than two...Any lies in a situation like this need to be addressed.

If you keep trying to force hypothetical stuff I will start talking about space lasers again.

I'd like to read some of that,  do you have a link? 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 14, 2017, 07:48:45 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 14, 2017, 07:19:06 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 14, 2017, 06:53:11 AM

You are disappointing me rayzor...I expected much more from an Aussie.

You know when I was speaking about breaking the windows we were talking about fluid only....I specifically said fluid only, uncompressed going 500 mph. Which a droplet would not break a WTC window, it wouldn't even hold together. Especially aviation jet fuel, it would vaporize before it even thought of hitting anything. If we ever get that far, I will explain how fires capable of compromising the structural integrity was not possible from the fuel...If we get that far, though I doubt it.

There is nothing to add currently...

I am not being evasive...I was just assuming I am talking to someone like myself to be honest. I thought you had a background in this, everything I have said so far is very simple and information available anywhere that provides Engineering education. I haven't even got into the advanced stuff yet.

If I started to provide "secret information" that only I have...Then I would understand...I do have some specialized information, but we aren't even in the ball park yet, we are still deep in the parking lot.

I don't have time to teach you the wheel so we can talk about the best way to roll it.


However, unfortunately, all you have done is attempt to false twist my words around without addressing a single thing I have said. This is the exact thing you accuse other people of doing..

Even the very first question I posed of how a plane can pass through a building without a single scratch to the building work. Nor any of the other questions...

I absolutely stand by my statement of "wanna actually debate..I am in...Want me to dance...Fuck off"

My time is money... Though I am sick and not doing much, I could still be sleeping or anything else at the time...

You haven't actually said anything vaguely interesting as yet.   I keep asking and you keep telling me how disappointed you are.   Umm, you do realise that it's your theory not mine. 

Now you go off on another tangent and  claim the 10,000 gallons fuel all vaporized without hitting anything.  You know I'm going to ask you for evidence of that assertion, and point out that there is plenty of evidence that the fires were over 1000 C,  there are lots of eye witnesses who saw glowing steel in the debris,  and the fires burnt until well into December, so what happens to the structural integrity of steel at 1000C, 

If you are going to claim that the fuel didn't contribute anything to the fire,  then quite simply you are going to have to prove it.

As for Secret Information that only you have...   you know what that sounds like,  you are starting to sound delusional.

You still never answered my question about the tritium assay and the nano-thermite.


What is wrong with you? Are you just wasting my time?

First, I did answer your question about tritium...

I was being sarcastic about "secret knowledge"...I did say specialized test...As in test designed just for this issue of the of the towers....Anyone with the proper equipment and knowledge could have done it, it's not secret, just specialized...Again quit putting words in my mouth.

Nor did I ever say 10k of gallons of jet fuel, if that is how much they really were carrying, could pass through without starting a fire.

However most would be burned up in the original impact through a flash explosion on the outside of the building (just as dispute accidentally proved what I was saying about how planes react in an impact to something like a building with his pictures)...That is how the fuel reacts...It does so to help prevent premature detonation in the fan jet combustion areas.

The rest would burn up and vaporize within 10 minutes. Not only vaporizing almost instantly, jet fuel doesn't like to burn in the open environment, that is why it is mixed the way it is, almost vapor, for highly compressed environments. It burns very cold if it can even maintain open ignition before it vaporizes. In an open area like that, it would be lucky to maintain a temp of 500 degrees of any sort of time. Or it flash bangs, and uses up most of its energy in the explosion..Plus it isn't condensed...I have ran my hand through an open fire like that and I can do it slowly without burning.

Just as the building shares and transfers load, it is made to do the same with heat transfer. So even if you could get a portion of metal to even 500 degrees, it would transfer through the entire structure...It was made to do this like all steel structured buildings...This is why none have collapsed until this from fire. And many have experienced fires that made these fires look like child's play for days at times. 

Not to mention, firefighters were already getting the fires under control and reporting so...They had almost extinguished them completely before the collapse.

As for the glowing metal....Yeah, that isn't right...That just goes on to my point, something else was going on. Even at a 1000 degrees that mixture of carbon and iron is not going to glow red hot (tried this myself) it doesn't even glow at all...You certainly wouldn't see liquid melted metal pouring from the building , or it glowing from 100s of feet away (even though you would be lucky to get it past 200 degrees in this situation)



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 14, 2017, 08:16:08 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 14, 2017, 07:48:45 AM

What is wrong with you? Are you just wasting my time?

First, I did answer your question about tritium...

I was being sarcastic about "secret knowledge"...I did say specialized test...As in test designed just for this issue of the of the towers....Anyone with the proper equipment and knowledge could have done it, it's not secret, just specialized...Again quit putting words in my mouth.

Nor did I ever say 10k of gallons of jet fuel, if that is how much they really were carrying, could pass through without starting a fire.

However most would be burned up in the original impact through a flash explosion on the outside of the building (just as dispute accidentally proved what I was saying about how planes react in an impact to something like a building with his pictures)...That is how the fuel reacts...It does so to help prevent premature detonation in the fan jet combustion areas.

The rest would burn up and vaporize within 10 minutes. Not only vaporizing almost instantly, jet fuel doesn't like to burn in the open environment, that is why it is mixed the way it is, almost vapor, for highly compressed environments. It burns very cold if it can even maintain open ignition before it vaporizes. In an open area like that, it would be lucky to maintain a temp of 500 degrees of any sort of time. Or it flash bangs, and uses up most of its energy in the explosion..Plus it isn't condensed...I have ran my hand through an open fire like that and I can do it slowly without burning.

Just as the building shares and transfers load, it is made to do the same with heat transfer. So even if you could get a portion of metal to even 500 degrees, it would transfer through the entire structure...It was made to do this like all steel structured buildings...This is why none have collapsed until this from fire. And many have experienced fires that made these fires look like child's play for days at times. 

Not to mention, firefighters were already getting the fires under control and reporting so...They had almost extinguished them completely before the collapse.

As for the glowing metal....Yeah, that isn't right...That just goes on to my point, something else was going on. Even at a 1000 degrees that mixture of carbon and iron is not going to glow red hot (tried this myself) it doesn't even glow at all...You certainly wouldn't see liquid melted metal pouring from the building , or it glowing from 100s of feet away (even though you would be lucky to get it past 200 degrees in this situation)

First,  No you didn't answer about how you did the tritium assay.   Nor did you answer about the nano-thermite you claimed to have found in the dust.

You did say that the fuel would instantly vapourize and not start a fire,  are you now retracting that?   Aviation fuel is not stored or mixed in almost vapour form,  it's stored in liquid form, and it doesn't burn cold as you claim,  where do you get these ideas from?  Jet fuel burns at 980C more than hot enough to get steel glowing at a orange / yellow.   There are numerous pictures of glowing steel in the debris some many days after the collapse.  The thermal modelling of the way heat transferred through the structure shows a different picture to the one you are trying to paint.  Didn't you do any thermal modelling in your studies?  Also you haven't mentioned the failure of thermal shielding on the columns



Why haven't any steel buildings ever collapsed from fire?  Seriously,  your going down that track...  Not many have been  hit by a 767 with a full fuel load. 


My heat treatment oven goes to 1250 C,  and I can assure you that at  1000 C steel is glowing bright yellow,  in fact you can easily measure the temperature by observing the colour.
As for  mixing carbon,  I also do  fire assays in the same oven,  carbon glows just fine,  you need to keep oxygen away otherwise it just burns off.

My foundry goes to over 1600C and I do a bit of cast iron now and then,  that's forced air and propane,  which burns at 1900C 

As for the fire being under control,  that's the most stupid thing you've claimed,  the fires actually burned from September 11th through until December the 19th.   Do you want to retract that statement as well.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 14, 2017, 08:32:09 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 14, 2017, 08:16:08 AM


This is a waste of my time..

Number one, I am American, I am talking about Fahrenheit not Celsius. If you are trying to pedal to me that the trusses got to 1000c on open burning jet fuel you are out of your mind. Yes a 1000c will get that mixture of iron and carbon to glow a pale yellow...Still not the crap we saw in the video.

Yes, jet fuel will burn hot in a compressed environment as that is its main purpose (prevents intake detonation), as I already stated, not in an open environment though...Nothing has changed from what I already said about that so reread it.

Also...I let you get away with a few videos even entertained one...But sorry, all I see is a hick with an anvil and a blow torch. And if he thinks blow torching a anvil is going to prove anything I have so oceanfront property in Arizona just for him.

I obviously did thermal imaging modeling , otherwise I would have not said anything about heat transfer.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 14, 2017, 08:35:41 AM
Forgot the fire thing...Yes...They did burn for a long time. It wasn't me that said it, was the fire fighters....Not to mention the color of the smoke was a giveaway as well. I don't know what burned so long under ground and caused RED color melted steel....It wasn't because of commercial airliners though...I can say that for sure.


Oh and for fuel vaporising before doing any damage...Yes, I was speaking about that if it was by itself ?? Where was the confusion in that, we were talking about liquid dynamics there. So I am not retracting something you are trying to place out of context .....Again...

I obviously know it is stored as a liquid...It it around atmosphere, it doesn't like that. Leave a tank open for about an hour...See how much you have left when you return. I have worked with the shit for a decade, along with alcohol based fuels, nitroglycerin and many other fun fuels. Don't insult me for with your attempted word scrambling.

The shit isn't dense, made to be compressed, move quickly, travel cooler, biggest thing is to prevent detonation in intakes. Thus why it's great for jet engines and very high compression internal combustion engines
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 14, 2017, 08:51:08 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 14, 2017, 08:32:09 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 14, 2017, 08:16:08 AM


This is a waste of my time..

Number one, I am American, I am talking about Fahrenheit not Celsius. If you are trying to pedal to me that the trusses got to 1000c on open burning jet fuel you are out of your mind. Yes a 1000c will get that mixture of iron and carbon to glow a pale yellow...Still not the crap we saw in the video.

Yes, jet fuel will burn hot in a compressed environment as that is its main purpose (prevents intake detonation), as I already stated, not in an open environment though...Nothing has changed from what I already said about that so reread it.

Also...I let you get away with a few videos even entertained one...But sorry, all I see is a hick with an anvil and a blow torch. And if he thinks blow torching a anvil is going to prove anything I have so oceanfront property in Arizona just for him.

I obviously did thermal imaging modeling , otherwise I would have not said anything about heat transfer.

Can we stick to Celsius,  everything I've mention so far is Celsius.   So just let me be clear,  you claim the fire never got hot enough to weaken the steel structure? 

So here is a picture that debunks that assertion,  this is a piece of glowing steel being pulled out of the debris,  I'd guess 700 or 800 C based on the colour.

(https://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/Graphics-Other/PSCI/WtcSteel.jpg)


Sorry about the hick with the anvil,  I thought it was funny the way he demonstrated you don't have to melt steel for the building to collapse. 

I was referring to thermal modelling not thermal imaging,  different subject.  If your thermal modelling was not based on 10,000 gallons of jet fuel being dumped into the middle of the building, I'd suggest you wouldn't get sensible results from your model.  If you've still got the model then try re-running it with the additional heat input from the 10,000 gallons of fuel
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 14, 2017, 08:58:59 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 14, 2017, 08:35:41 AM
Forgot the fire thing...Yes...They did burn for a long time. It wasn't me that said it, was the fire fighters....Not to mention the color of the smoke was a giveaway as well. I don't know what burned so long under ground and caused RED color melted steel....It wasn't because of commercial airliners though...I can say that for sure.

The red liquid metal was melted aluminium,  aluminium is funny stuff to heat because it doesn't change colour as it melts before it gets hot enough to emit black body radiation,  however if you keep heating aluminium up to 800 or 900 degrees C it will start to glow red,  same as steel.

The fires never got hot enough to melt steel,  no one have ever claimed that as far as I'm aware.

And,  no you can't say for sure it wasn't because of commercial aircraft.  I can however say for sure it wasn't demolition.

For one thing demolition makes no sense to start collapse up on the 90th floor,  if you wanted to demolish it, you'd  set the charges at the bottom.  How come the collapse started from the area the planes struck?



 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 14, 2017, 09:06:30 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 14, 2017, 08:35:41 AM

I obviously know it is stored as a liquid...It it around atmosphere, it doesn't like that. Leave a tank open for about an hour...See how much you have left when you return. I have worked with the shit for a decade, along with alcohol based fuels, nitroglycerin and many other fun fuels. Don't insult me for with your attempted word scrambling.


Don't insult me with misinformation about Jet fuel volatility,  it's just not that volatile,  Jet-A is basically the kerosene fraction,   put an open beaker of kerosene somewhere,  it will evaporate but only very slowly, compared to say gasoline.   Try to light it and you'll find it actually doesn't burn all that readily,  but once it starts it goes quite nicely,  certainly not flash-bang like an earlier claim you made.

As far as nitroglycerin goes, I've never hear of it being used as a fuel,  that's insane.   are you sure you don't mean nitromethane?   

From Shell Aviation Fuels
Aviation Turbine Fuel (Jet Fuel)
Today’s kerosine ‘Jet’ fuels have been developed from the illuminating kerosine used in the
early gas turbine engines. These engines needed a fuel with good combustion characteristics
and ahigh energy content. The kerosine type fuels used in civil aviation nowadays are
mainly Jet A-1 and Jet A. The latter has a higher freezing point (minimum –40°C instead of
minimum –47°C) and is available only in the U.S.A.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Space Cowgirl on February 14, 2017, 09:16:11 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 13, 2017, 10:59:41 PM
It doesn't have anything to do with a flat earth, general os the wrong place for it.

Tech and alt is a more suitable home, don't worry, I only know because I made the same mistake.

I'm moving it!

You can put discussions of FE conspiracy theories here, but if it's got nothing to do with FE then it belongs down in the bowels of the forum.  :P
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on February 14, 2017, 09:18:39 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 13, 2017, 10:36:59 PM
Quote
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on Today at 07:27:01 AM
So by this I assume he is an official story guy? If that is the case you can't expect too much from him ;D....Also, he should never give any crap about their views or believing in fairy tales.

I'll  take that challenge.   What real evidence is there for a conspiracy about 911?   Innuendo and speculation don't count as evidence.

My starting position is that there is no conspiracy,  I remember watching the coverage on TV,  and my first comment, even before the towers collapsed was Osama Bin Laden is behind this,  I've not seen anything since that would change my mind. 

So over to Babyhighspeed for the fairy tales.   :)

Even the OS admits there was a conspiracy.

The OS just identifies the wrong people as the conspirators.

You watched it happening and said to yourself, "Osama is behind this."

Aside from me labeling this statement from you as pure hoakum, I watched the events unravel and said to myself the low down dirty bastards from Texas are up to their spook shit again.

NIST report on WTC 7 admits free fall.

NIST report on WTC 7 does not offer the data used in their modeling in order to replicate the outcomes.

Everyone who watched the events that day understand they were watching controlled demolitions in action.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, that mother fucker is a duck.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on February 14, 2017, 09:21:29 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 14, 2017, 08:16:08 AM
Here is a stupid video that offers a totally laughable comparison of the types of steel and the types of fires and the amount of oxygen.  Just thought I would throw it in because I like posting shit.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 14, 2017, 09:22:10 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 14, 2017, 08:51:08 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 14, 2017, 08:32:09 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 14, 2017, 08:16:08 AM


This is a waste of my time..

Number one, I am American, I am talking about Fahrenheit not Celsius. If you are trying to pedal to me that the trusses got to 1000c on open burning jet fuel you are out of your mind. Yes a 1000c will get that mixture of iron and carbon to glow a pale yellow...Still not the crap we saw in the video.

Yes, jet fuel will burn hot in a compressed environment as that is its main purpose (prevents intake detonation), as I already stated, not in an open environment though...Nothing has changed from what I already said about that so reread it.

Also...I let you get away with a few videos even entertained one...But sorry, all I see is a hick with an anvil and a blow torch. And if he thinks blow torching a anvil is going to prove anything I have so oceanfront property in Arizona just for him.

I obviously did thermal imaging modeling , otherwise I would have not said anything about heat transfer.

Can we stick to Celsius,  everything I've mention so far is Celsius.   So just let me be clear,  you claim the fire never got hot enough to weaken the steel structure? 

So here is a picture that debunks that assertion,  this is a piece of glowing steel being pulled out of the debris,  I'd guess 700 or 800 C based on the colour.

(https://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/Graphics-Other/PSCI/WtcSteel.jpg)


Sorry about the hick with the anvil,  I thought it was funny the way he demonstrated you don't have to melt steel for the building to collapse. 

I was referring to thermal modelling not thermal imaging,  different subject.  If your thermal modelling was not based on 10,000 gallons of jet fuel being dumped into the middle of the building, I'd suggest you wouldn't get sensible results from your model.  If you've still got the model then try re-running it with the additional heat input from the 10,000 gallons of fuel

I edited my last post to show stuff I missed..

I also made specific mention of the metal removed after the collapse...That clearly is not possible from a simple fuel fire of an aircraft..Even if you add in possible ignition for magnesium in the aluminum, which there is no way it could have gotten hot enough to ignite anyways.

Something happened to that metal...But it isn't in the story arch whatever it is. That is back into speculation mode.

Even if their story line is right (which it isn't) in heating the supports enough to weaken them...The building would have never fell like that.

I don't know how many countless hours I worked with digital models on multiple programs I couldn't get it to recreate. Even dumping 10k gallons right in the building I couldn't get hot enough to temps for failure in a weakened state.

Running models for how the plane crash would have actually expelled the fuel, I only got a mild 270 +- degrees Fahrenheit average temp. Worst case, it was 500 something, don't remember the exact one.

The only I could get a remotely viable display of what was seen. Remove some supports, while super heating others to 1400c....Even at that I couldn't get free fall, a large percent of it, but not full.

Just not possible with the plane story. I feel I could demo these buildings as they did with thermite and shape charges. Besides the crazy ideas of death rays, this is the only plausible option.


Yes, 100 percent mean nitromethane...We make a block and head design for a few funny car teams.

Also, that is what I am trying to say about the jet fuel used here. It isn't that volitile unless compressed...It can't be, that is the point it travels cool so it can prevent pre detonation. That is why it is hard to open burn...You just said it yourself.

As for a flash bang, that was pages ago about impact on the building...When it gets spread everywhere forcefully like that it will be prone to a flash bang as it turns more to vapor. Way different that if you had gallons in a puddle..I could put my cigarette out in the liquid. Though even at that point, a flash bang is possible, as it could burn in uneven increments depending on vapor pooling.

So you are agreeing with me on the fuel...Why are you arguing it could cause the temps presented in an open burn situation?

Edit for stupid autocorrect and tiredness
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 14, 2017, 09:31:06 AM
Quote from: totallackey on February 14, 2017, 09:18:39 AM
I watched the events unravel and said to myself the low down dirty bastards from Texas are up to their spook shit again.

You came out of nowhere...

Wasn't us...We prefer to look out victims in the face and take their playhouse after defeat. Not burn it down in the dumbest attempted lie possible.

If I could just get the material those passports were made of, I would be famous...Stronger than all known metals.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 14, 2017, 09:36:11 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 14, 2017, 09:22:10 AM
Yes, 100 percent mean nitroglycerin...We make a block and head design for a few funny car teams.

I don't believe you,  nitroglycerin just wouldn't work,  you'd just get a god almighty explosion   nitromethane is what's used in top-fuel dragsters and funny cars.

Nitroglycerin is a highly unstable explosive that will blow you to kingdom come if you look sideways at it.   Soak it in clay and you've got a more stable form called dynamite.

I've heard of hydrazine being used in drag fuel,  that's bad enough but not nitroglycerin...

I'lll get back to your 911 conspiracy stuff tomorrow.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 14, 2017, 09:39:38 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 14, 2017, 09:36:11 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 14, 2017, 09:22:10 AM
Yes, 100 percent mean nitroglycerin...We make a block and head design for a few funny car teams.

I don't believe you,  nitroglycerin just wouldn't work,  you'd just get a god almighty explosion   nitromethane is what's used in top-fuel dragsters and funny cars.

Nitroglycerin is a highly unstable explosive that will blow you to kingdom come if you look sideways at it.   Soak it in clay and you've got a more stable form called dynamite.

I've heard of hydrazine being used in drag fuel,  that's bad enough but not nitroglycerin...

I'lll get back to your 911 conspiracy stuff tomorrow.

I already edited before you even said anything. I wasn't paying attention to autocorrect, I have been doing this on phone while assed out on couch.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: hoppy on February 14, 2017, 03:06:29 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 14, 2017, 05:38:04 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 14, 2017, 05:10:44 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 14, 2017, 04:59:15 AM
I agree the two crashes (twin towers and empire state) are very different. It was a pretty cheap tactic, seems Rayzor is all talk, I'm disappointed.

Rayzor look closely and notice that although the steel girder is bent, it is intact. So intact that people felt it was fine to walk on.

So your definition of all talk, is asking you to back up your assertions.   As for the Mitchell B25 hitting the Empire State,   the B25 weighs 12,000 kg and has a max cruise of 270 mph,  although I doubt  it was doing that sort of speed when it hit,   so in terms of impact energy  the mass is  15 times less and the velocity is probably 1/3   so the kinetic energy is roughly 130 times less than a 767 hitting the WTC at 590 mph. 
Now multiply the amount of damage to the Empire State by a factor of 130 times,  and what would that picture look like.

Damaged, that particular section might even collapse where the plane hit it.

Falling on its own footprint at pretty much freefall, three times, once not even initially damaged by a plane?

Priceless.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 14, 2017, 05:19:03 AM
Wanna actually debate, I am in...Want me to dance, fuck off
These brainwashed folks like to believe everything their friends in the government tell them.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 14, 2017, 04:37:12 PM
I have to agree, I am looking forward to when Rayzor starts actually addressing points made and not ad hominem arguments.

Apparently it's all he's got. Ad hominems and strawmen.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 14, 2017, 04:41:54 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 14, 2017, 03:35:57 AM

So far we have at least two very strong clear points.

1. The buildings shouldn't have fallen like they did given the circumstances we were told.

2. The planes shouldn't have cut through the buildings like they did given that they were supposedly perfectly intact before impact.

Pick one.

We have shown evidence to back up our point, you however just posted a video made to explain how the planes penetrated the building, made on software specifically designed to explain why the planes went through the building.

This is not the way the scientific method works, making a pre determined conclusion then making models to suit the pre determined conclusion is not scientific.

Occams Razor anyone?

Hint, if your model has to break the laws of physics to work we can be quite sure the people who made the model don't respect occams razor.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 14, 2017, 05:27:32 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 14, 2017, 04:41:54 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 14, 2017, 03:35:57 AM

So far we have at least two very strong clear points.

1. The buildings shouldn't have fallen like they did given the circumstances we were told.

2. The planes shouldn't have cut through the buildings like they did given that they were supposedly perfectly intact before impact.

Pick one.

We have shown evidence to back up our point, you however just posted a video made to explain how the planes penetrated the building, made on software specifically designed to explain why the planes went through the building.

This is not the way the scientific method works, making a pre determined conclusion then making models to suit the pre determined conclusion is not scientific.

Occams Razor anyone?

Hint, if your model has to break the laws of physics to work we can be quite sure the people who made the model don't respect occams razor.

I have awoken from my fever induced slumber and reread moderately quickly all written on this thread. There are some spelling errors, grammar, mistakes, and better explanations I would have liked to fix...But all in all I would say close enough considering the room was spinning for the majority of the conversation lol.

I will give rayzor credit for hanging in there though...I know it was late in Australia, I certainly wanted to get some sleep myself, got quite sloppy at the end.

However...After rereading I noticed an alarming trend...There was really no actual conversation from rayzor, excluding the very end talking about metal temps which was nice. Excluding that, he really answered nothing I had to say or anyone, but instead just attempted to twist words as a "victory".... Wouldn't even address my very first question, and it just went down hill from there.

What is the point of this? If you want to believe in a fairy tale, fine, I can respect that...Just say so, we are all free to believe what we believe. Just don't pretend you are looking for truth when that is not the case.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 14, 2017, 05:43:41 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 14, 2017, 05:27:32 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 14, 2017, 04:41:54 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 14, 2017, 03:35:57 AM

So far we have at least two very strong clear points.

1. The buildings shouldn't have fallen like they did given the circumstances we were told.

2. The planes shouldn't have cut through the buildings like they did given that they were supposedly perfectly intact before impact.

Pick one.

We have shown evidence to back up our point, you however just posted a video made to explain how the planes penetrated the building, made on software specifically designed to explain why the planes went through the building.

This is not the way the scientific method works, making a pre determined conclusion then making models to suit the pre determined conclusion is not scientific.

Occams Razor anyone?

Hint, if your model has to break the laws of physics to work we can be quite sure the people who made the model don't respect occams razor.
However...After rereading I noticed an alarming trend...There was really no actual conversation from rayzor, excluding the very end talking about metal temps which was nice. Excluding that, he really answered nothing I had to say or anyone, but instead just attempted to twist words as a "victory".... Wouldn't even address my very first question, and it just went down hill from there.

What is the point of this? If you want to believe in a fairy tale, fine, I can respect that...Just say so, we are all free to believe what we believe. Just don't pretend you are looking for truth when that is not the case.

100x this.

I gave you (Rayzor) the chance to say "this is what I believe, I can't justify why." Before this thread even started

I can respect, or at least understand that also.

Please don't pretend like you are actually debating however.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 14, 2017, 05:47:09 PM
Quote from: hoppy on February 14, 2017, 03:06:29 PM
These brainwashed folks like to believe everything their friends in the government tell them.

There's nobody I trust less than government,  or religion for that matter.   All governments lie,   science doesn't lie.  On the other hand scientists themselves do sometimes lie but they are always found out. 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 14, 2017, 05:48:34 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 14, 2017, 04:37:12 PM
I have to agree, I am looking forward to when Rayzor starts actually addressing points made and not ad hominem arguments.

Apparently it's all he's got. Ad hominems and strawmen.

So you haven't been following the discussion at all?   Please point to where I have made ad hominem arguments. 

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 14, 2017, 05:54:02 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 14, 2017, 03:12:00 AM
As you say, you are bouncing all over the place.   Let's take it one step at a time. 

Quote from: Rayzor on February 13, 2017, 11:06:09 PM
What if  911 was just a smokescreen to  hide the truth about the flat earth?   You never know what might be revealed.

Quote from: Rayzor on February 13, 2017, 11:04:20 PM
So that's your best argument for a conspiracy?     I expected better.

Quote from: Rayzor on February 13, 2017, 10:57:21 PM
Have you got any real evidence?

Quote from: Rayzor on February 13, 2017, 10:36:59 PM

So over to Babyhighspeed for the fairy tales.   :)

Shall I continue?

You are clearly losing the debate and lashing out however you can at whoever you can.

Edit.

Called it first reply.

Quote from: disputeone on February 13, 2017, 10:49:57 PM
Fall acceleration of building 7.

You are going to end this a jibbering mess of failed insults and logic.

But you asked for it.

Mods can we move to tech and alt please. ty.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 14, 2017, 06:19:49 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 14, 2017, 04:41:54 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 14, 2017, 03:35:57 AM

So far we have at least two very strong clear points.

1. The buildings shouldn't have fallen like they did given the circumstances we were told.

2. The planes shouldn't have cut through the buildings like they did given that they were supposedly perfectly intact before impact.

Pick one.

We have shown evidence to back up our point, you however just posted a video made to explain how the planes penetrated the building, made on software specifically designed to explain why the planes went through the building.

This is not the way the scientific method works, making a pre determined conclusion then making models to suit the pre determined conclusion is not scientific.

Occams Razor anyone?

Hint, if your model has to break the laws of physics to work we can be quite sure the people who made the model don't respect occams razor.

No you've shown nothing so far,  I've repeatedly asked for evidence, all I get nothing remotely relevant from you and I get easily disproven assertions from BHS.

Let's list a few of the more glaring errors of fact made so far by BHS,  who claims "this ls my wheelhouse"  and has done a decades worth of research on the topic.

First. he claimed that carbon and steel at 1000C doesn't glow.   Sorry BHS you are flat wrong it does. 

Second. he claimed that jet fuel burns cold,   sorry BHS it burns at 980 C,  he claimed 500 which is total BS.

Third. he claimed that the fire was almost out when the building collapsed,  this is despite evidence that it was still burning 3 months later, he changed his claim to say that wasn't what he said but some fireman claimed.

Fourth he claimed that the plane hitting WTC1 didn't leave a mark,  easily disproven.

Fifth he claimed that jet fuel was so volatile that it would all vapourize before even entering the building,  he tried to back up his claim by saying he had extensive experience with fuels of all types, but then backtracked completely when I told him Jet fuel was mostly just kerosense and not really volatile at all,  he also claimed that nitroglycerin was used as a fuel in funny cars,  when I corrected him that it was nitromethane, he repeated the claim and then back tracked by saying it was his phone autocorrrect that did it.  Yep.

He claimed that the fires never got hot enough to weaken steel,  and that thermal modelling ( which he erroneously called thermal image modelling ) he had done showed temperatures didn't get above 500, and that none of the debris could be over a few hundred,  He swapped course again after i showed him a picture of glowing hot steel being pulled from the debris.

... I could go on  but I suggest if this is an example of the best argument for demolition,  then someone is yanking your chain big time. 

Oh,  and repeated requests for the evidence of explosives  BHS claims to have discovered in the dust have been ignored,  that tells me all I need to know.

But to answer your two points
1. There's no compelling evidence that the buildings collapsed from demolition,  quite the reverse there's overwhelming  evidence that the fire caused the collapse.

2.  The notion that a  175,000 kg aircraft travelling at 590 mph would vapourize on the outside of the building is not supported by any facts or evidence,  quite the opposite.

Duty calls,  we will pick this up later,  meantime DisputeOne please try to catch up and add something to the discussion, instead of butting in with disconnected false comments,
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 14, 2017, 06:33:10 PM
You haven't even attempted to explain why the buildings fell in the first place.

I'm done here, toodle pip.

I don't really care what people believe as long as they think for themselves.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 14, 2017, 06:34:38 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 14, 2017, 05:47:09 PM
Quote from: hoppy on February 14, 2017, 03:06:29 PM
These brainwashed folks like to believe everything their friends in the government tell them.

There's nobody I trust less than government,  or religion for that matter.   All governments lie,   science doesn't lie.  On the other hand scientists themselves do sometimes lie but they are always found out.

For someone who doesn't trust government and religion (I feel the same way, even though I believe in a God) how in the world could you argue this position? Whenever I debate someone (intelligent at least) I am always moderately concerned what they will retort with. Will they throw a curve ball that throws me off...Will they actually win the debate with evidence I don't know of? Could I be wrong?

However, with this subject..I never even have an ounce of concern...It is just so STUPID and there is literally just SO much..Which is why I get off on tangents.

I don't even believe you would need specialized knowledge or higher education to understand the non-sense. Just simple logic, at least in my eyes.


As for the lies of science always being caught...That does happen, which is why so many scientist, engineers etc have called bullshit...Now hypothetical science...That is different, lies can exist there, they just use group think and control to keep it running.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 14, 2017, 06:36:30 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 14, 2017, 05:47:09 PM
science doesn't lie.

He's starting to see our point, I hope.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 14, 2017, 06:47:19 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 14, 2017, 06:33:10 PM
You haven't even attempted to explain why the buildings fell in the first place.

Sorry,  I thought you knew.  You evidently don't

The buildings WTC1 and WTC2 collapsed because they were impacted by AA11 and UA175,  the subsequent damage to the building structure caused by the impact and fires over a period of hours weakened the steel structure leading to the collapse

Other WTC buildings with the exception of WTC7 collapsed  from damage caused by debris from WTC1 and WTC2.   WTC7 collapse was caused by fires weakening the steel structure leading to collapse.

Now you know the truth.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 14, 2017, 06:56:05 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 14, 2017, 06:47:19 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 14, 2017, 06:33:10 PM
You haven't even attempted to explain why the buildings fell in the first place.

Sorry,  I thought you knew.  You evidently don't

The buildings WTC1 and WTC2 collapsed because they were impacted by AA11 and UA175,  the subsequent damage to the building structure caused by the impact and fires over a period of hours weakened the steel structure leading to the collapse

Other WTC buildings with the exception of WTC7 collapsed  from damage caused by debris from WTC1 and WTC2.   WTC7 collapse was caused by fires weakening the steel structure leading to collapse.

Now you know the truth.

I don't know how to take that except.

"This is what I believe and I can't justify why."

Good on you man, I think the outcome of this debate is quite clear. Honestly one of the better attempts I've seen (most guys threaten to hurt me when I start bringing up the physics of the collapse.)

You actually considered thinking about nearly attempting to try to make a point.

Bravo for that. Enjoy the rest of this thread.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 14, 2017, 07:15:22 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 14, 2017, 06:19:49 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 14, 2017, 04:41:54 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 14, 2017, 03:35:57 AM

So far we have at least two very strong clear points.

1. The buildings shouldn't have fallen like they did given the circumstances we were told.

2. The planes shouldn't have cut through the buildings like they did given that they were supposedly perfectly intact before impact.

Pick one.

We have shown evidence to back up our point, you however just posted a video made to explain how the planes penetrated the building, made on software specifically designed to explain why the planes went through the building.

This is not the way the scientific method works, making a pre determined conclusion then making models to suit the pre determined conclusion is not scientific.

Occams Razor anyone?

Hint, if your model has to break the laws of physics to work we can be quite sure the people who made the model don't respect occams razor.

No you've shown nothing so far,  I've repeatedly asked for evidence, all I get nothing remotely relevant from you and I get easily disproven assertions from BHS.

Let's list a few of the more glaring errors of fact made so far by BHS,  who claims "this ls my wheelhouse"  and has done a decades worth of research on the topic.

First. he claimed that carbon and steel at 1000C doesn't glow.   Sorry BHS you are flat wrong it does. 

Second. he claimed that jet fuel burns cold,   sorry BHS it burns at 980 C,  he claimed 500 which is total BS.

Third. he claimed that the fire was almost out when the building collapsed,  this is despite evidence that it was still burning 3 months later, he changed his claim to say that wasn't what he said but some fireman claimed.

Fourth he claimed that the plane hitting WTC1 didn't leave a mark,  easily disproven.

Fifth he claimed that jet fuel was so volatile that it would all vapourize before even entering the building,  he tried to back up his claim by saying he had extensive experience with fuels of all types, but then backtracked completely when I told him Jet fuel was mostly just kerosense and not really volatile at all,  he also claimed that nitroglycerin was used as a fuel in funny cars,  when I corrected him that it was nitromethane, he repeated the claim and then back tracked by saying it was his phone autocorrrect that did it.  Yep.

He claimed that the fires never got hot enough to weaken steel,  and that thermal modelling ( which he erroneously called thermal image modelling ) he had done showed temperatures didn't get above 500, and that none of the debris could be over a few hundred,  He swapped course again after i showed him a picture of glowing hot steel being pulled from the debris.

... I could go on  but I suggest if this is an example of the best argument for demolition,  then someone is yanking your chain big time. 

Oh,  and repeated requests for the evidence of explosives  BHS claims to have discovered in the dust have been ignored,  that tells me all I need to know.

But to answer your two points
1. There's no compelling evidence that the buildings collapsed from demolition,  quite the reverse there's overwhelming  evidence that the fire caused the collapse.

2.  The notion that a  175,000 kg aircraft travelling at 590 mph would vapourize on the outside of the building is not supported by any facts or evidence,  quite the opposite.

Duty calls,  we will pick this up later,  meantime DisputeOne please try to catch up and add something to the discussion, instead of butting in with disconnected false comments,

You know I thought you were an honorable person rayzor...You are just a fucking pathetic liar. 

You know damn well I did not know you were speaking in Celsius when you originally just said degrees. I was very clear with that...Thus we had a brief miscommunication.

Yes...Jet fuel does burn at 980c...In a compressed environment, not in an open flame...I have already explained that. You actually agreed.

Fire was going out in the buildings...I didn't say it. The color of the smoke did, the video evidence did, as well as the firefighters themselves. If you are dumb enough to not understand that, then not my problem. Whatever the hell caused the fires in the rubbe was more than likely the cause of the collapse. Certainly wasn't office carpet and jet fuel.

And when the fuck did I say there wasn't a mark on tower 1? I said I don't think a plane struck it...Wasn't needed. They can blow a hole in whatever shape you want. Commonsense and eye witnesses agree with this. Most heard an explosive but nothing else on tower one..Including my uncle. Even some random guy posted on here the same thing that lived in Manhattan at the time.

Yes i said the fuel would vaporize going 500 miles an hour if it weren't in a tank before it even hit a window. You know that. Also, yes, I wasnt paying attention on auto correct, I don't like using my phone for that reason on the shit, I use nitroglycerin alot in text because of the tablet. Deal with it, I corrected before you said anything when I was re reading, the edit marker is there.

I have said a 1000 times, with only using jet fuel I could get the  average temp to only a certain degree once distributed. I have said 100 times, whatever caused the fires after the collapse is what caused the it...But it wasn't a commercial jet and fuel. I didn't swap to shit....And I can call it what the fuck I what to call it, neither of us is correct, it should be called by the program name.

Plus I had 103 temp last night and my head was spinning...I can do what the fuck I want, the fact you couldn't even make a point to me in that condition is sad.

Also I never said all the damn plane would vaporize outside of the building...I told you the exact description of how it would happen...Don't be fucking stupid. Then dispute posted up pictures of the empire accident...What did you see...

Exactly what I said would happen in an actual collision


As for the dust, I told you a hundred times just answer 1 of my questions. If you weren't so lazy and actually cared about truth, they aren't hard to find with your pal Google. It is also circumstantial evidence....I kept saying I don't want to deal with that...I want to deal with facts...All this coming to mind liar?


Every single thing you have said in your post was a lie...What does that say about your position?

I will say after that post, I have lost all respect for you...I knew you were twisting my words, but now I know you are just an outright liar..Pathetic.

Though that makes sense why you can only argue with a YouTube video and not your own words, I am sure you have a background in absolutely nothing. Nor why you can not actually reply with anything.

None of this I care about, not all can be intelligent, but we can all not lie...I loathe liars.... Especially when they directly lie like you just did...You are pathetic rayzor.

Anyone wanting the truth feel free to read through the thread, to see what was actually said...It is all right there.


Also...On a side note rayzor...You want to make jabs at me personally, don't be a bitch....say it straight up. I actually prove whatever I say, I have done it many times here in the past, I can make you look stupid just like I have done others.

Now stop lying, it's pathetic.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 14, 2017, 07:28:28 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 14, 2017, 06:56:05 PM

You actually considered thinking about nearly attempting to try to make a point.

I actually thought that till the last post...Figured he was doing the best with what he had.

Nope...Just a liar... Pathetic.

Why the hell lie about something anyone could go reread the actual thread. Though I imagine, he counted on laziness or someone not caring enough. Which I give him credit for, I would bet the same, and on average would be accurate.

You can keep bantering with him, but after that last thread, I have no respect for him...He isn't worth the time.

I actually don't remember seeing a post here where every single thing stated was a lie easily rebuttaled...Either he has a problem with lying or a mental memory/processing issue. If it's the latter I feel bad for lashing out at him, and I will take back what I said.


And to be clear....I am not mad at a debate I am pissed because of blatant repugnant lies.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 14, 2017, 07:37:47 PM
Yeah, I'm done also, do you know who he is reminding me of? Aisantaros.

This isn't even quality bantz.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 14, 2017, 07:15:22 PM


Pretty much ;D.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: hoppy on February 14, 2017, 08:05:48 PM
Rayzor sucks. This thread is another victory for truth.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 14, 2017, 08:09:16 PM
HOPPY FOR MOD!!

We should just let rayzor have his fake victory.

I mean if I threw shit at my debate partners till they refused to talk to me all the while avoiding any and all subject matter like the plague, is it really a victory?

Apparently to Rayzor, it is the purest form of victory. Or at least, the only one he is familiar with.

I'm not even pissed off now, just feel sorry for him.

Look at him yelling "I WIN I WIN I WIN I WIN" while covering his ears.

Lol.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 14, 2017, 09:59:13 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 14, 2017, 07:15:22 PM
Also...On a side note rayzor...You want to make jabs at me personally, don't be a bitch....say it straight up. I actually prove whatever I say, I have done it many times here in the past, I can make you look stupid just like I have done others.

Well, you should  stop making stupid statements that are obviously wrong for a start

Everything I said is true,  and if you want to re-read what I posted,  there are no personal attacks on either you or dispute one.  But  the fact that I point out the errors in your demolition theory is enough grounds for you to launch  an expletive laden personal attack.   I don't think you really want to descend to the level of Hoppy or disputeone.   

So, If you want a slanging match, I'll be more than happy to oblige,  but I'd prefer it if you would argue the facts.

Let's take it one false assumption at a time

You assumed that the fire wasn't hot enough to weaken the steel structure.  Do you still claim that is the case in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.
I raise that as it seems to be central to your demolition theory that it was impossible for the fire to weaken the steel to the extent that it collapsed. 

Don't go off on tangents,  just stick to one thing at a time.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 14, 2017, 10:01:50 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 14, 2017, 07:28:28 PM
And to be clear....I am not mad at a debate I am pissed because of blatant repugnant lies.

Show me where I have lied.   If you can't then you should apologise.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 14, 2017, 10:08:57 PM
Quote from: hoppy on February 14, 2017, 08:05:48 PM
Rayzor sucks. This thread is another victory for truth.

Not yet,  but stick around the truth has a way of coming out in due course but you have to be persistent and relentless and assume nothing.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 14, 2017, 10:26:56 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 14, 2017, 09:59:13 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 14, 2017, 07:15:22 PM
Also...On a side note rayzor...You want to make jabs at me personally, don't be a bitch....say it straight up. I actually prove whatever I say, I have done it many times here in the past, I can make you look stupid just like I have done others.

Well, you should  stop making stupid statements that are obviously wrong for a start

Everything I said is true,  and if you want to re-read what I posted,  there are no personal attacks on either you or dispute one.  But  the fact that I point out the errors in your demolition theory is enough grounds for you to launch  an expletive laden personal attack.   I don't think you really want to descend to the level of Hoppy or disputeone.   

So, If you want a slanging match, I'll be more than happy to oblige,  but I'd prefer it if you would argue the facts.

Let's take it one false assumption at a time

You assumed that the fire wasn't hot enough to weaken the steel structure.  Do you still claim that is the case in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.
I raise that as it seems to be central to your demolition theory that it was impossible for the fire to weaken the steel to the extent that it collapsed. 

Don't go off on tangents,  just stick to one thing at a time.


Directly lying about what I said to you, and using that in an attempt to disqualify what I've said...That is a personal attack. I don't deal well with liars.

Your snarky sub tone was a personal attack too...If you question me personally I will prove every damn thing I have said about myself, it only takes a few minutes. I have done it before, not difficult...If you don't want to get in a shitting war like that, then let's stop snarkyness.

Every degree of heat weakens metal...But weaken to the point of failure from jet fuel burning in an open atmosphere causing 3 buildings to collapse in their own foot print at free fall speeds within hours of each other.

Not a chance.

Quote from: Rayzor on February 14, 2017, 10:01:50 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 14, 2017, 07:28:28 PM
And to be clear....I am not mad at a debate I am pissed because of blatant repugnant lies.

Show me where I have lied.   If you can't then you should apologise.


The entire first post of mine on this page is entirely of examples. I could be even more specific...But I want to see what your choice and attitude are before putting much time into this.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 14, 2017, 10:29:41 PM
Oh...And yes...I do agree that heat visible on cleanup was a factor in bringing down the towers, but I can say for a fact the heat was not there for the reasons stated. The rest is educated speculation from there
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 14, 2017, 10:52:12 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 14, 2017, 10:26:56 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 14, 2017, 09:59:13 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 14, 2017, 07:15:22 PM
Also...On a side note rayzor...You want to make jabs at me personally, don't be a bitch....say it straight up. I actually prove whatever I say, I have done it many times here in the past, I can make you look stupid just like I have done others.

Well, you should  stop making stupid statements that are obviously wrong for a start

Everything I said is true,  and if you want to re-read what I posted,  there are no personal attacks on either you or dispute one.  But  the fact that I point out the errors in your demolition theory is enough grounds for you to launch  an expletive laden personal attack.   I don't think you really want to descend to the level of Hoppy or disputeone.   

So, If you want a slanging match, I'll be more than happy to oblige,  but I'd prefer it if you would argue the facts.

Let's take it one false assumption at a time

You assumed that the fire wasn't hot enough to weaken the steel structure.  Do you still claim that is the case in spite of all the evidence to the contrary.
I raise that as it seems to be central to your demolition theory that it was impossible for the fire to weaken the steel to the extent that it collapsed. 

Don't go off on tangents,  just stick to one thing at a time.


Directly lying about what I said to you, and using that in an attempt to disqualify what I've said...That is a personal attack. I don't deal well with liars.

Your snarky sub tone was a personal attack too...If you question me personally I will prove every damn thing I have said about myself, it only takes a few minutes. I have done it before, not difficult...If you don't want to get in a shitting war like that, then let's stop snarkyness.

Every degree of heat weakens metal...But weaken to the point of failure from jet fuel burning in an open atmosphere causing 3 buildings to collapse in their own foot print at free fall speeds within hours of each other.

Not a chance.

Quote from: Rayzor on February 14, 2017, 10:01:50 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 14, 2017, 07:28:28 PM
And to be clear....I am not mad at a debate I am pissed because of blatant repugnant lies.

Show me where I have lied.   If you can't then you should apologise.


The entire first post of mine on this page is entirely of examples. I could be even more specific...But I want to see what your choice and attitude are before putting much time into this.

You accuse me of lying,  I take personal offence to that,  you need to show me where you think I've lied.   

Just to set the record straight on a minor point,  you claimed to not know I was talking  degrees C,  and wrongly assumed I was talking degrees F,  I did in fact say 1000 C,  and maybe you missed it,  so I'll give you a pass on that.   I'll also accept that your phone autocorrected  nitromethane to nitroglycerin,  a funny car on nitroglycerin would be something to watch.

BTW.  I can't recall when I've ever seen a scientific paper using degrees F.   

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 14, 2017, 11:05:43 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 14, 2017, 10:29:41 PM
Oh...And yes...I do agree that heat visible on cleanup was a factor in bringing down the towers, but I can say for a fact the heat was not there for the reasons stated. The rest is educated speculation from there

No you can't say that for a fact without stating your reasons.   You might think you have,  but facts are stubborn things,  they need proof.

There were many sections of where the fire reached temperatures high enough to melt aluminium and weaken steel.  Reports of red molten metal flowing from the building are well known,  as I've already stated, my contention is that was not molten steel but rather molten aluminium, which doesn't start to glow red until you get up into the 800C or so,  molten aluminium is just silver colour. 


NIST concluded that the source of the molten material was aluminum alloys from the aircraft, since these are known to melt between 475 degrees Celsius and 640 degrees Celsius (depending on the particular alloy), well below the expected temperatures (about 1,000 degrees Celsius) in the vicinity of the fires.




Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 14, 2017, 11:45:45 PM
Sigh, how does weakened steel lead to a collapse at gravitational acceleration?

Was the steel weakened by a factor of 100% to make it fall at gravitational acceleration? Or was it say X% weakend with the structure underneath it providing mechanical resistance during the collapse?

If the fires weakened the structure by a factor of 100% then fine, freefall is not only acceptable but logical.

If, however, the fires didn't take 100% of the structural strength of the tower, why didn't some of the towers potential energy get used to crush the structure as it was falling?

You haven't debunked this point, you get hysterical every time it's brought up.

And then have the gall to say that we are the ones being intellectually dishonest.

If you want to try to refute this point I will consider giving you the time of day again.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 14, 2017, 11:52:17 PM
For example, put a bowling ball on any structure you like. Weaken the structure until it collapses, does it collapse at g? Or does the structural resistance of the structure slow the fall speed as the balls potential energy is taken crushing the structure underneath it.

I dare you to answer that truthfully.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 12:06:42 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 14, 2017, 11:45:45 PM
Sigh, how does weakened steel lead to a collapse at gravitational acceleration?

Was the steel weakened by a factor of 100% to make it fall at gravitational acceleration? Or was it say X% weakend with the structure underneath it providing mechanical resistance during the collapse?

If the fires weakened the structure by a factor of 100% then fine, freefall is not only acceptable but logical.

If, however, the fires didn't take 100% of the structural strength of the tower, why didn't some of the towers potential energy get used to crush the structure as it was falling?

You haven't debunked this point, you get hysterical every time it's brought up.

And then have the gall to say that we are the ones being intellectually dishonest.

If you want to try to refute this point I will consider giving you the time of day again.

On WTC1 and WTC2  one wall collapsed first,  south wall on WTC1 and east wall on WTC2,  so some of those parts that were tilted  would have had little support from lower floors,  those would have been free-fall  or close to free fall.   There are lots of videos showing the top tilted over as it collapsed.

From the NIST report  6.14.4

The structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass
at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large
building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that through energy of
deformation.
Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy
released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as
seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the
demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.


That's the official explanation,  so why do you think it happened differently?

BTW.   I'll give you a pass on the ad-hominem attacks,  since I think this is an important debate, and a corrosive conspiracy that should be challenged.  But don't push it.

 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 15, 2017, 12:13:53 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 14, 2017, 11:52:17 PM
For example, put a bowling ball on any structure you like. Weaken the structure until it collapses, does it collapse at g? Or does the structural resistance of the structure slow the fall speed as the balls potential energy is taken crushing the structure underneath it.

I dare you to answer that truthfully.

Quote from: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 12:06:42 AM
That's the official explanation,  so why do you think it happened differently?

Because I think for myself and make my own decisions.

Troll me once, shame on you, troll me twice shame on me.

Quote from: disputeone on February 14, 2017, 11:52:17 PM
For example, put a bowling ball on any structure you like. Weaken the structure until it collapses, does it collapse at g? Or does the structural resistance of the structure slow the fall speed as the balls potential energy is taken crushing the structure underneath it.

I dare you to answer that truthfully.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 12:21:46 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 14, 2017, 11:52:17 PM
For example, put a bowling ball on any structure you like. Weaken the structure until it collapses, does it collapse at g? Or does the structural resistance of the structure slow the fall speed as the balls potential energy is taken crushing the structure underneath it.

I dare you to answer that truthfully.

It falls at 1G  I was sure you already knew that any unsupported mass will fall at 1G  --- Edit: correction,  only on the surface of the earth, and ignoring denspressure. :)

Quote from: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 12:06:42 AM
That's the official explanation,  so why do you think it happened differently?

Quote from: disputeone on February 14, 2017, 11:52:17 PM
Because I think for myself and make my own decisions.

Troll me once, shame on you, troll me twice shame on me.

Umm  seriously?  That's why I asked the question,  what do you think is wrong with the official explanation? 

If  asking for your version of the collapse is trolling you,  then this is going to be a very short discussion.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 15, 2017, 12:35:52 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 12:21:46 AM

Quote from: disputeone on February 14, 2017, 11:52:17 PM
For example, put a bowling ball on any structure you like. Weaken the structure until it collapses, does it collapse at g? Or does the structural resistance of the structure slow the fall speed as the balls potential energy is taken crushing the structure underneath it.

I dare you to answer that truthfully.

It falls at 1G  I was sure you already knew that any unsupported mass will fall at 1G

You are exactly right in saying, any unsupported mass will fall at exactly 1G, however, there's this thing called Terminal velocity (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Terminal+velocity) which means anything moving through a medium will eventually be slowed down by the medium.

So things don't fall at exactly 1G in our reality, air resistance, amongst other things (hardened structural steel and reinforced concrete under compression), will slow down the fall speed of any object.

Another experiment you could do is to try and shoot a cannon ball through a piece of say 10mm thick aluminum.

Would the cannon ball, given as much velocity as you like, eventually have enough energy to pass through the 10mm thick ally without expending any of its potential energy?

The answer is no because every action has an equal and opposite reaction, but I would like you to do your own tests.

You are digging a massive hole with me and BHS is the one with the PhD  ;D ;D

I see why you were scared to debate him.

Quote from: disputeone on February 14, 2017, 11:52:17 PM
For example, put a bowling ball on any structure you like. Weaken the structure until it collapses, does it collapse at g? Or does the structural resistance of the structure slow the fall speed as the balls potential energy is taken crushing the structure underneath it.

I dare you to answer that truthfully.

I am being condescending now, I admit it, you lost your chance on page two tbh.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 12:42:05 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 15, 2017, 12:35:52 AM
You are digging a massive hole with me and BHS is the one with the PhD  ;D ;D
I see why you were scared to debate him.

Why do you keep throwing out these unsupported claims,  I'm still debating BHS.    What makes you think I'm not.



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 15, 2017, 12:50:46 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 14, 2017, 10:52:12 PM
You accuse me of lying,  I take personal offence to that,  you need to show me where you think I've lied.   

Just to set the record straight on a minor point,  you claimed to not know I was talking  degrees C,  and wrongly assumed I was talking degrees F,  I did in fact say 1000 C,  and maybe you missed it,  so I'll give you a pass on that.   I'll also accept that your phone autocorrected  nitromethane to nitroglycerin,  a funny car on nitroglycerin would be something to watch.

BTW.  I can't recall when I've ever seen a scientific paper using degrees F.

I use that word alot for reasons unimportant...Plus my phone does not show long words if I use its suggested spelling to save time, just the beginning part and to be honest I hate typing on my phone. I also get impatient and never proof read anything I post up. I may proof read it later after I post, sometimes, sometimes not, I don't know, I can't explain some things I do. I also checked out the temp, there was nothing at first, I also started right away when you started talking about glowing I was speaking of Fahrenheit. It is natural, just like Celsius is for you.

Yes many papers are in Celsius here...But they are stated that, some are Fahrenheit...For you obviously, you wouldn't think anything other than Celsius.

Also...If you want to get into the lies I was speaking about...It's all in the first post on this page... It's up to you, if you are gonna try and play nice and stop that shit, fine, I will try and play nice as well.

Quote from: Rayzor on February 14, 2017, 11:05:43 PM
No you can't say that for a fact without stating your reasons.   You might think you have,  but facts are stubborn things,  they need proof.

There were many sections of where the fire reached temperatures high enough to melt aluminium and weaken steel.  Reports of red molten metal flowing from the building are well known,  as I've already stated, my contention is that was not molten steel but rather molten aluminium, which doesn't start to glow red until you get up into the 800C or so,  molten aluminium is just silver colour. 


NIST concluded that the source of the molten material was aluminum alloys from the aircraft, since these are known to melt between 475 degrees Celsius and 640 degrees Celsius (depending on the particular alloy), well below the expected temperatures (about 1,000 degrees Celsius) in the vicinity of the fires.


I have already stated some easy facts to argue this...You don't address them...You still have never even addressed my very first question lol. You just keep posting things for other people or NIST...But since you are trying to play nice, I will as well, just don't expect detailed answers until you start using your own words.

Also, remember, I don't need to look up information, this is my wheel house, this is what I do, if I really have to, I can dig it up in an education book...The information isn't secret. This is why I prefer to discuss this with engineers or people of the sort. Whenever I would do presentations to people that have no idea about the field, the presentation is COMPLETELY different.

As for your NIST quote...

Are you really telling me there was a mag fire in that building? Have you ever seen one in person? There is no mistaking them, they are brutal..Not to mention a different spectrum of light.

Not to mention their numbers are wrong...Are you telling me they don't know the mag and zinc mixture on the aluminum of the 767? "Depending on alloy mixture lol" ?? Does this not seem suspect to you?

Without getting into the numbers, you aren't gonna IGNITE that aluminum with how much magnesium it had in it at even 800 degrees (or even double that)..This is dumb, and should appear suspect alone...

Even if magic did happen...We would have seen it clearly on the video evidence.


Quote from: disputeone on February 14, 2017, 11:45:45 PM
Sigh, how does weakened steel lead to a collapse at gravitational acceleration?

Was the steel weakened by a factor of 100% to make it fall at gravitational acceleration? Or was it say X% weakend with the structure underneath it providing mechanical resistance during the collapse?

If the fires weakened the structure by a factor of 100% then fine, freefall is not only acceptable but logical.

If, however, the fires didn't take 100% of the structural strength of the tower, why didn't some of the towers potential energy get used to crush the structure as it was falling?

You haven't debunked this point, you get hysterical every time it's brought up.

And then have the gall to say that we are the ones being intellectually dishonest.

If you want to try to refute this point I will consider giving you the time of day again.

Even if weakening the support structure by 100 percent, you still have all the filler in between, it would never equal a free fall.

Unless you have a wand..

Quote from: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 12:06:42 AM
On WTC1 and WTC2  one wall collapsed first,  south wall on WTC1 and east wall on WTC2,  so some of those parts that were tilted  would have had little support from lower floors,  those would have been free-fall  or close to free fall.   There are lots of videos showing the top tilted over as it collapsed.

From the NIST report  6.14.4

The structure below the level of collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass
at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large
building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structure below to absorb that through energy of
deformation.
Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy
released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as
seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increased, further increasing the
demand on the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.


That's the official explanation,  so why do you think it happened differently?

BTW.   I'll give you a pass on the ad-hominem attacks,  since I think this is an important debate, and a corrosive conspiracy that should be challenged.  But don't push it.

 

Does this really make sense to you?? This would be possible if there were only horizontal supports magically floating in the air.

Do you not feel this is just double nonsensical talk? Can you not see it? No different that using the phrase "make America great again", and pretending everything is fixed after just that phrase.

Even if you cut the building in half, let the top half drop and achieve terminal velocity, then let it hit the bottom half, you still wouldn't have a free fall situation.

I really am perplexed on how this is so hard to grasp for you...

Simply, things just don't work that way in reality.

Especially with so many numbers and specifications being off in the NIST reports, broad phrases like "vaporized" being used countless times, 1000s of eye witnesses and testimonials not being used, etc etc etc etc...Then on top of that, leaving out building 7?

Does this not seem suspect to you?

You must be forcing yourself to choke on this for some other reason right?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 15, 2017, 01:10:34 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 15, 2017, 12:35:52 AM
BHS is the one with the PhD  ;D ;D

Of course I am I am proud of that...But it is really more of a meh type thing. It was something I had to do to do what I wanted to do if that makes any sense lol. None of my credit cards have PhD on them, and I don't have a giant neon sign pointed to the plaque on the wall lol. I am actually more proud of some of the certs I have gotten outside of schooling...Because some of those were very interesting and hands on.

But the thing I am very proud of is just my experience in the field itself...I very much enjoy real world experience.. no if ands or butts... I can say I did this on this day and this happened. This is where I try to debate from...I love speaking from something I lived in the flesh, not in a book.

Then there are times, like when rayzor was speaking of GSM and LTE, I told him no it would have been CDMA in 2001...Not my wheelhouse, but I can get my friend from Ericsson to confirm. Even if I know the answer from being told, I would still bring in confirmation because it's not my expertise.

People view the way I speak out of arrogance at times...It's not that, I just try to speak of what I lived and seen, because I really like it when people talk to me that way... I don't want to hear what you read in a book, I want to hear what you did with your hands...Not only is it exciting for me, it is REAL WORLD info that I will remember and know IT HAPPENED
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 01:24:36 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 15, 2017, 12:50:46 AM
...You still have never even addressed my very first question lol. You just keep posting things for other people or NIST...But since you are trying to play nice, I will as well, just don't expect detailed answers until you start using your own words.

What question was that?

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 15, 2017, 12:50:46 AM
Also, remember, I don't need to look up information, this is my wheel house, this is what I do, if I really have to, I can dig it up in an education book...The information isn't secret. This is why I prefer to discuss this with engineers or people of the sort. Whenever I would do presentations to people that have no idea about the field, the presentation is COMPLETELY different.

As for your NIST quote...

Are you really telling me there was a mag fire in that building? Have you ever seen one in person? There is no mistaking them, they are brutal..Not to mention a different spectrum of light.

Not to mention their numbers are wrong...Are you telling me they don't know the mag and zinc mixture on the aluminum of the 767? "Depending on alloy mixture lol" ?? Does this not seem suspect to you?

Without getting into the numbers, you aren't gonna IGNITE that aluminum with how much magnesium it had in it at even 800 degrees (or even double that)..This is dumb, and should appear suspect alone...

Even if magic did happen...We would have seen it clearly on the video evidence.


When did I suggest there was a magnesium fire?  I didn't  so why are you lying about me suggesting it? Yes I have seen magnesium fires. 


Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 15, 2017, 12:50:46 AM
Does this really make sense to you?? This would be possible if there were only horizontal supports magically floating in the air.
Do you not feel this is just double nonsensical talk? Can you not see it? No different that using the phrase "make America great again", and pretending everything is fixed after just that phrase.
Even if you cut the building in half, let the top half drop and achieve terminal velocity, then let it hit the bottom half, you still wouldn't have a free fall situation.
I really am perplexed on how this is so hard to grasp for you...
Simply, things just don't work that way in reality.

Especially with so many numbers and specifications being off in the NIST reports, broad phrases like "vaporized" being used countless times, 1000s of eye witnesses and testimonials not being used, etc etc etc etc...Then on top of that, leaving out building 7?

Does this not seem suspect to you?

You must be forcing yourself to choke on this for some other reason right?

No I find the NIST report well researched and complete.   The collapse happened  just as described,  If there is evidence otherwise,  I'd be interested to hear it.

You never answered my question about the temperatures reached in the fires being sufficient to weaken  the steel structure.   It's still open. and since it's critical to the demolition theory I'd like to hear your arguments on the subject.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 01:27:23 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 15, 2017, 01:10:34 AM
Then there are times, like when rayzor was speaking of GSM and LTE, I told him no it would have been CDMA in 2001...Not my wheelhouse, but I can get my friend from Ericsson to confirm. Even if I know the answer from being told, I would still bring in confirmation because it's not my expertise.

Yes, and when you raised it, if you recall,  I agreed with your correction,  but the main point was the majority of calls was from verizon air phones,  only 2 from cell phones.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 15, 2017, 01:44:38 AM
It's just not critical to the demolition hypothesis when we can measure free fall.

It's been, I think thoroughly proven, that a building will not fall at free fall under it's own weight, plus a plane impact and full fuel load. At the very least there have been some very good arguments put forward without the aid of youtube videos.

The fact that you just keep dodging this is concerning.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 01:48:42 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 15, 2017, 01:44:38 AM
It's just not critical to the demolition hypothesis when we can measure free fall.

It's been, I think thoroughly proven, that a building will not fall at free fall under it's own weight, plus a plane impact and full fuel load. At the very least there have been some very good arguments put forward without the aid of youtube videos.

The fact that you just keep dodging this is concerning.

I've never dodged,  I gave you the version I think is the truth.  You don't like it,  prove me wrong.

So what's your theory?   I keep asking and you keep ducking.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 15, 2017, 02:05:08 AM
Controlled demolition is the only way building 7 could have fallen at gravitational acceleration for 2.25 seconds.

Myself and Babyhighspeed have been implicitly clear on what we think is factual and what we think is speculation.

You are attempting to make strawmen and not engage the elephant in the thread.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 15, 2017, 02:15:58 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 01:24:36 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 15, 2017, 12:50:46 AM
...You still have never even addressed my very first question lol. You just keep posting things for other people or NIST...But since you are trying to play nice, I will as well, just don't expect detailed answers until you start using your own words.

What question was that?

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 15, 2017, 12:50:46 AM
Also, remember, I don't need to look up information, this is my wheel house, this is what I do, if I really have to, I can dig it up in an education book...The information isn't secret. This is why I prefer to discuss this with engineers or people of the sort. Whenever I would do presentations to people that have no idea about the field, the presentation is COMPLETELY different.

As for your NIST quote...

Are you really telling me there was a mag fire in that building? Have you ever seen one in person? There is no mistaking them, they are brutal..Not to mention a different spectrum of light.

Not to mention their numbers are wrong...Are you telling me they don't know the mag and zinc mixture on the aluminum of the 767? "Depending on alloy mixture lol" ?? Does this not seem suspect to you?

Without getting into the numbers, you aren't gonna IGNITE that aluminum with how much magnesium it had in it at even 800 degrees (or even double that)..This is dumb, and should appear suspect alone...

Even if magic did happen...We would have seen it clearly on the video evidence.


When did I suggest there was a magnesium fire?  I didn't  so why are you lying about me suggesting it? Yes I have seen magnesium fires. 


Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 15, 2017, 12:50:46 AM
Does this really make sense to you?? This would be possible if there were only horizontal supports magically floating in the air.
Do you not feel this is just double nonsensical talk? Can you not see it? No different that using the phrase "make America great again", and pretending everything is fixed after just that phrase.
Even if you cut the building in half, let the top half drop and achieve terminal velocity, then let it hit the bottom half, you still wouldn't have a free fall situation.
I really am perplexed on how this is so hard to grasp for you...
Simply, things just don't work that way in reality.

Especially with so many numbers and specifications being off in the NIST reports, broad phrases like "vaporized" being used countless times, 1000s of eye witnesses and testimonials not being used, etc etc etc etc...Then on top of that, leaving out building 7?

Does this not seem suspect to you?

You must be forcing yourself to choke on this for some other reason right?

No I find the NIST report well researched and complete.   The collapse happened  just as described,  If there is evidence otherwise,  I'd be interested to hear it.

You never answered my question about the temperatures reached in the fires being sufficient to weaken  the steel structure.   It's still open. and since it's critical to the demolition theory I'd like to hear your arguments on the subject.

My first question...Was in direct response to what you said.."I saw a plane hit the tower, so that is what brought it down"

So I asked, "if that is the case, tell me how a plane can fly inside a tower without making a mark on the building?" I then posted up a picture of evidence. I can post up a video too..

As for a mag fire...You suggested ignition of the aircraft aluminum...I stated no..They wouldn't IGNITE with anything we KNEW was in there. If it did, then we would have certainly seen it, it's unmistakable with the amount of magnesium and zinc present in that mixture. Why do you think NIST was so vague with what type aluminum it was? Trying to avoid that retort.


I have answered your question on the temps, many different times. In attempts to not repeat myself, I will just say, with the commercial liners only and fuel...Not hot enough. SOMETHING left out of the story was.

Quote from: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 01:27:23 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 15, 2017, 01:10:34 AM
Then there are times, like when rayzor was speaking of GSM and LTE, I told him no it would have been CDMA in 2001...Not my wheelhouse, but I can get my friend from Ericsson to confirm. Even if I know the answer from being told, I would still bring in confirmation because it's not my expertise.

Yes, and when you raised it, if you recall,  I agreed with your correction,  but the main point was the majority of calls was from verizon air phones,  only 2 from cell phones.

So if we go with your number of two (which there were more)... Two impossible calls, there for two lies doesn't bug you? That isn't minor in my opinion...One lie leads to many, especially in something as big as this.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 02:16:08 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 15, 2017, 02:05:08 AM
Controlled demolition is the only way building 7 could have fallen at gravitational acceleration for 2.25 seconds.

Myself and Babyhighspeed have been implicitly clear on what we think is factual and what we think is speculation.

You are attempting to make strawmen and not engage the elephant in the thread.

Controlled demolition doesn't match the facts.

Starting with  WTC7,   why wait 7 hours before the demolition?    Why detonate on the 13th floor?   The fires were most intense on the 13th floor, and thats where the collapse started.
If you wanted to demolish WTC7,  why wouldn't  you have placed charges on the lower floors.   

In the case of WTC1 and WTC2 the video evidence is clear that the collapse started at the floors where the planes impacted and the fires started,  does that sound like controlled demolition to you?

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 02:32:00 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 15, 2017, 01:10:34 AM
My first question...Was in direct response to what you said.."I saw a plane hit the tower, so that is what brought it down"

So I asked, "if that is the case, tell me how a plane can fly inside a tower without making a mark on the building?" I then posted up a picture of evidence. I can post up a video too..

My response was to post a simulation done by Perdue that refuted your assertion that the aircraft couldn't penetrate the structure.   Now you say I never answered?   Get your story straight.
Then when I repeated your assertion that it didn't leave a mark,  you accuse me of lying about what you said.   You can't have it both ways.   

A 175,000 kg anything travelling at 590 mph has enough kinetic energy to cause significant damage, do you claim otherwise?   



Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 15, 2017, 01:10:34 AM
As for a mag fire...You suggested ignition of the aircraft aluminum...I stated no..They wouldn't IGNITE with anything we KNEW was in there. If it did, then we would have certainly seen it, it's unmistakable with the amount of magnesium and zinc present in that mixture. Why do you think NIST was so vague with what type aluminum it was? Trying to avoid that retort.

Show me where I said the aluminium ignited?   I said that the fires were hot enough to melt aluminium and that molten metal pouring out the side of the building was molten aluminium at high enough temperature to look red,  you can look up the black body radiation curve and correct for the emissivity of Aluminium if you like to checkl.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 15, 2017, 01:10:34 AM
I have answered your question on the temps, many different times. In attempts to not repeat myself, I will just say, with the commercial liners only and fuel...Not hot enough. SOMETHING left out of the story was.

Not good enough,  considering this is central to supporting the demolition theory,  close to the fires it got up to 1000C and steel structure temperatures of 600-700C.  Add to that the glowing metal pouring out of the building, and the glowing steel girders recovered from the debris and your hypotheis doesn't stand up.

Quote from: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 01:27:23 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 15, 2017, 01:10:34 AM
Then there are times, like when rayzor was speaking of GSM and LTE, I told him no it would have been CDMA in 2001...Not my wheelhouse, but I can get my friend from Ericsson to confirm. Even if I know the answer from being told, I would still bring in confirmation because it's not my expertise.

Yes, and when you raised it, if you recall,  I agreed with your correction,  but the main point was the majority of calls was from verizon air phones,  only 2 from cell phones.
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 15, 2017, 01:10:34 AM
So if we go with your number of two (which there were more)... Two impossible calls, there for two lies doesn't bug you? That isn't minor in my opinion...One lie leads to many, especially in something as big as this.

At some altitude and location it would have been possible to get a connection to a cell tower,   that's all that is required to dismiss the claim it was impossible. 

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 15, 2017, 02:39:35 AM
Quote
does that sound like controlled demolition to you?

Sorry Rayzor but you lowered the bar first.







Yes, it does.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 15, 2017, 02:42:39 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 02:32:00 AM
My response was to post a simulation done by Perdue that refuted your assertion that the aircraft couldn't penetrate the structure.   Now you say I never answered?

Was not an answer, you just said, this is the official story. That video was not peer reviewed it doesn't give us access to their numbers.

I did actually send an email asking for the numbers they used, I don't think they will reply, you said I should earlier in the thread.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 02:44:15 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 15, 2017, 02:39:35 AM
Quote
does that sound like controlled demolition to you?

Sorry Rayzor but you lowered the bar first.


So rather than address the questions I raised, you resort to irrelevant videos,   ask the company who did that demolition,  where did they place the charges?  I'm going to bet it wasn't up in the top half of the building.


 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 02:46:58 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 15, 2017, 02:42:39 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 02:32:00 AM
My response was to post a simulation done by Perdue that refuted your assertion that the aircraft couldn't penetrate the structure.   Now you say I never answered?

Was not an answer, you just said, this is the official story. That video was not peer reviewed it doesn't give us access to their numbers.

I did actually send an email asking for the numbers they used, I don't think they will reply, you said I should earlier in the thread.

BHS claimed that the aircraft hit the building and didn't leave a mark,  that hardly deserves a response at all,  let alone a full simulation.   As for claiming it's not an answer.  You are kidding right?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 15, 2017, 02:50:19 AM
You keep asking about controlled demo...If my company were hired to do a demo (which we aren't a company that does that, but would only require a few certs on top what we already have to do so) here is how I would do it.

I would use the fact the building was almost vacant and prep for months or a year the buildings in advance. (Remember, most foot traffic in the buildings was from Subway traffic below. Buildings only became 70 percent occupied months before the destruction with companies that just "appeared"..And some how many of those same companies helped with the clean up and removal of materials after the destruction...CCA public records).

I would wire shape charges in lower levels (1000s of reports of explosions) reversed directional on the I beams, standard in cuts on the outers.

Upper levels, I would run thermite in a horizontal v in staggered directions varying ever 4th floor. Capped with a small load c4 charge on each v converged tail.

I would use the planes/missles ECT as a diversionary tactic..No different than a magician. After letting that simmer for a bit, I would then drop the towers. Controlling from building 7, I would start the sequence...First hit the thermite for show and weakening..(reports of liquid metal 3 minutes before collapse.)..

Then timed upper c4 charges to blow out the cut Vs....Then hit the shape charges on the ground floors...Then the mid floors c4...And down she comes.

Rinse and repeat....

Then when all looks good, do the same with evidence/building 7 and hope no one asks why the hell that one fell (should have thought the last one through)

(http://i68.tinypic.com/2djc76d.jpg)

Beauty of a cut...But thermite is very nasty burning and leaves a ton of slag..

It would be a work of art if it wasnt the essence of evil...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 15, 2017, 02:52:54 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 02:46:58 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 15, 2017, 02:42:39 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 02:32:00 AM
My response was to post a simulation done by Perdue that refuted your assertion that the aircraft couldn't penetrate the structure.   Now you say I never answered?

Was not an answer, you just said, this is the official story. That video was not peer reviewed it doesn't give us access to their numbers.

I did actually send an email asking for the numbers they used, I don't think they will reply, you said I should earlier in the thread.

BHS claimed that the aircraft hit the building and didn't leave a mark,  that hardly deserves a response at all,  let alone a full simulation.   As for claiming it's not an answer.  You are kidding right?

.

Regardless of what you think you've "got" on BHS the fact remains those planes violated the laws of physics penetrating and then exiting the building, the wings cut through hardened structural steel, you are kidding right?

The fuel then violated the laws of thermodynamics for its burn temperature and duration, you demonstrated this quite well with photos of three day old glowing red steel. You are kidding right?

The building then violated the laws of physics again when it fell at gravitational acceleration on its own footprint, actually, have a one in one billion chance, it happened three times, one building wasn't even hit by a plane. You are kidding right?


Edit.

If you want speculation and not facts I could fill this thread with pages of the occult connections/coincidences alone.

Or I can talk about shpayze lazers?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 02:57:16 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 15, 2017, 02:50:19 AM
You keep asking about controlled demo...If my company were hired to do a demo (which we aren't a company that does that, but would only require a few certs on top what we already have to do so) here is how I would do it.

I would use the fact the building was almost vacant and prep for months or a year the buildings in advance. (Remember, most foot traffic in the buildings was from Subway traffic below. Buildings only became 70 percent occupied months before the destruction with companies that just "appeared"..And some how many of those same companies helped with the clean up and removal of materials after the destruction...CCA public records).

I would wire shape charges in lower levels (1000s of reports of explosions) reversed directional on the I beams, standard in cuts on the outers.

Upper levels, I would run thermite in a horizontal v in staggered directions varying ever 4th floor. Capped with a small load c4 charge on each v converged tail.

I would use the planes/missles ECT as a diversionary tactic..No different than a magician. After letting that simmer for a bit, I would then drop the towers. Controlling from building 7, I would start the sequence...First hit the thermite for show and weakening..(reports of liquid metal 3 minutes before collapse.)..

Then timed upper c4 charges to blow out the cut Vs....Then hit the shape charges on the ground floors...Then the mid floors c4...And down she comes.

Rinse and repeat....

Then when all looks good, do the same with evidence/building 7 and hope no one asks why the hell that one fell (should have thought the last one through)

(http://i68.tinypic.com/2djc76d.jpg)

Beauty of a cut...But thermite is very nasty burning and leaves a ton of slag..

It would be a work of art if it wasnt the essence of evil...

Let's be a bit clearer,  you are saying that's how you would do it,  ok,  I get that,   but you aren't quite committing to saying you think that's how it was done? 

Let's cut to the chase,   what's your theory as to how it was done?

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 15, 2017, 03:00:01 AM
He's a lost cause man.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 15, 2017, 03:00:37 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 02:46:58 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 15, 2017, 02:42:39 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 02:32:00 AM
My response was to post a simulation done by Perdue that refuted your assertion that the aircraft couldn't penetrate the structure.   Now you say I never answered?

Was not an answer, you just said, this is the official story. That video was not peer reviewed it doesn't give us access to their numbers.

I did actually send an email asking for the numbers they used, I don't think they will reply, you said I should earlier in the thread.

BHS claimed that the aircraft hit the building and didn't leave a mark,  that hardly deserves a response at all,  let alone a full simulation.   As for claiming it's not an answer.  You are kidding right?

You said we saw it....So it's true....Right?

Well I saw a plane pass into the building without leaving a mark..

(http://i64.tinypic.com/2ivoa6e.jpg)

I can show multiple videos of that happening....

So you just gave yourself reason to question it....Because what we "saw" was "impossible" right?

And fyi.... A CDMA phone call would be impossible in 2001 at that speed and altitude, I can bring 100 percent confirmation of that if you would like. It was too slow porting...There was a cycle word I can't remember what he used to be honest, it would get stuck in a spider web like loop.



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 03:03:23 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 15, 2017, 02:52:54 AM
Regardless of what you think you've "got" on BHS the fact remains those planes violated the laws of physics penetrating and then exiting the building, the wings cut through hardened structural steel, you are kidding right?

The fuel then violated the laws of thermodynamics for its burn temperature and duration, you demonstrated this quite well with photos of three day old glowing red steel. You are kidding right?

The building then violated the laws of physics again when it fell at gravitational acceleration on its own footprint, actually, have a one in one billion chance, it happened three times, one building wasn't even hit by a plane. You are kidding right?

No I'm not kidding on any of those points.   

How did the plane penetrating and exiting the building "violate the laws of physics"?   
How do you think the laws of thermodynamics were violated by the fires?

As far as free fall,  I've already covered that over and over,  go back and read my earlier answers.


Quote from: disputeone on February 15, 2017, 02:52:54 AM
If you want speculation and not facts I could fill this thread with pages of the occult connections/coincidences alone.

Or I can talk about shpayze lazers?

For some reason,  I find that the most truthful thing I've seen you post. 

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: StillFlat on February 15, 2017, 03:05:47 AM
I can't believe this made it 5 pages. watch YouTube, or google, you'll find all the answers you need. at this point now all I'm reading is nonsense.

can't believe a building that wasn't even hit by a plane, just magically falls, like it was a controlled demo from debris. your kidding me with that right? just completely falls, seriously?

hahaha umm okay
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 15, 2017, 03:08:26 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 03:03:23 AM
For some reason,  I find that the most truthful thing I've seen you post.

(https://s14.postimg.org/hgda277n5/2017_02_15_19_06_26_38116883.jpg)

Someone bit off more than he can chew and is grasping at straws.

Edit.

Quote from: StillFlat on February 15, 2017, 03:05:47 AM
I can't believe this made it 5 pages. watch YouTube, or google, you'll find all the answers you need. at this point now all I'm reading is nonsense.

can't believe a building that wasn't even hit by a plane, just magically falls, like it was a controlled demo from debris. your kidding me with that right? just completely falls, seriously?

hahaha umm okay

Rayzor is a trooper.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 03:11:31 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 15, 2017, 03:00:37 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 02:46:58 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 15, 2017, 02:42:39 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 02:32:00 AM
My response was to post a simulation done by Perdue that refuted your assertion that the aircraft couldn't penetrate the structure.   Now you say I never answered?

Was not an answer, you just said, this is the official story. That video was not peer reviewed it doesn't give us access to their numbers.

I did actually send an email asking for the numbers they used, I don't think they will reply, you said I should earlier in the thread.

BHS claimed that the aircraft hit the building and didn't leave a mark,  that hardly deserves a response at all,  let alone a full simulation.   As for claiming it's not an answer.  You are kidding right?

You said we saw it....So it's true....Right?

Well I saw a plane pass into the building without leaving a mark..

(http://i64.tinypic.com/2ivoa6e.jpg)

I can show multiple videos of that happening....

So you just gave yourself reason to question it....Because what we "saw" was "impossible" right?

And fyi.... A CDMA phone call would be impossible in 2001 at that speed and altitude, I can bring 100 percent confirmation of that if you would like. It was too slow porting...There was a cycle word I can't remember what he used to be honest, it would get stuck in a spider web like loop.

Ok, let's be 100% clear on this,  you claim that the aircraft impacted the building and didn't leave a mark,  I want to be 100% sure, because last time I repeated what you said you falsely accused me of lying.

At what speed, altitude and location, do you think would it be impossible to make a CDMA call. Go ask your mate about CDMA before you get yourself in too deep,  I have a CDMA base station cell controller sitting on my workbench not 3 feet away from where I'm typing,  I'm planning on scavenging a few parts for an upcoming RF project.  It's pretty useless for anything else.  But I could fire it up and measure some times, If I had any CDMA handsets left.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 03:15:15 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 15, 2017, 03:08:26 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 03:03:23 AM
For some reason,  I find that the most truthful thing I've seen you post.

(https://s14.postimg.org/hgda277n5/2017_02_15_19_06_26_38116883.jpg)

Someone bit off more than he can chew and is grasping at straws.

Edit.

Quote from: StillFlat on February 15, 2017, 03:05:47 AM
I can't believe this made it 5 pages. watch YouTube, or google, you'll find all the answers you need. at this point now all I'm reading is nonsense.

can't believe a building that wasn't even hit by a plane, just magically falls, like it was a controlled demo from debris. your kidding me with that right? just completely falls, seriously?

hahaha umm okay

Rayzor is a trooper.

I'm curious,  what do you think a straw man argument actually is?    Show me an example in this thread?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 15, 2017, 03:24:54 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 15, 2017, 03:08:26 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 03:03:23 AM
For some reason,  I find that the most truthful thing I've seen you post.

(https://s14.postimg.org/hgda277n5/2017_02_15_19_06_26_38116883.jpg)

Someone bit off more than he can chew and is grasping at straws.

Sad thing is, I have literally only said 2 percent of what I could on this....Haven't even made a dent...Just like the magic planes lol.


Quote from: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 03:11:31 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 15, 2017, 03:00:37 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 02:46:58 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 15, 2017, 02:42:39 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 02:32:00 AM
My response was to post a simulation done by Perdue that refuted your assertion that the aircraft couldn't penetrate the structure.   Now you say I never answered?

Was not an answer, you just said, this is the official story. That video was not peer reviewed it doesn't give us access to their numbers.

I did actually send an email asking for the numbers they used, I don't think they will reply, you said I should earlier in the thread.

BHS claimed that the aircraft hit the building and didn't leave a mark,  that hardly deserves a response at all,  let alone a full simulation.   As for claiming it's not an answer.  You are kidding right?

You said we saw it....So it's true....Right?

Well I saw a plane pass into the building without leaving a mark..

(http://i64.tinypic.com/2ivoa6e.jpg)

I can show multiple videos of that happening....

So you just gave yourself reason to question it....Because what we "saw" was "impossible" right?

And fyi.... A CDMA phone call would be impossible in 2001 at that speed and altitude, I can bring 100 percent confirmation of that if you would like. It was too slow porting...There was a cycle word I can't remember what he used to be honest, it would get stuck in a spider web like loop.

Ok, let's be 100% clear on this,  you claim that the aircraft impacted the building and didn't leave a mark,  I want to be 100% sure, because last time I repeated what you said you falsely accused me of lying.

At what speed, altitude and location, do you think would it be impossible to make a CDMA call. Go ask your mate about CDMA before you get yourself in too deep,  I have a CDMA base station cell controller sitting on my workbench not 3 feet away from where I'm typing,  I'm planning on scavenging a few parts for an upcoming RF project.  It's pretty useless for anything else.  But I could fire it up and measure some times, If I had any CDMA handsets left.


Well to be honest I thought you were talking about in real life...But yes..If you are talking about what we "saw" on television...Then yes...Didn't leave a mark..That is what we saw, I was just stating it.

(http://i66.tinypic.com/2uo2y5g.jpg)

Another amazing feat from a different "camera".


As for your CDMA , we are talking way more than a receiver rayzor. We need actual service. I don't need my buddy unless you just want to hear more technical terms. He helped me at multiple conferences, a VP at Ericsson...Came from Nortel(the company who built the actual trunk equipment in the trade centers, Actually survived the bombing years ago) before Ericsson bought them..we have build structures for their mobile services in areas with "fake trees" that hold the equipment...I am definitely not going to "get into anything"....

If you want to make a call...You have to be fully ported..The towers talk to each other, determine where to port you depending on your position. You must be authenticated etc etc etc...They do this "preemptively" otherwise your call would drop all the time...

Between altitude and speed...This would never happen, even if you struck gold and found service for a minute, you would never be allowed to place a call from not being authenticated (this was also before the 911 service lock outs we have now)....It would just continuously tower bounce....

Things are different now, but we are talking then..

Long story short...No captian...Ain't gonna happen.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 15, 2017, 03:26:56 AM
straw man
noun
noun: strawman

1.
an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.
"her familiar procedure of creating a straw man by exaggerating their approach"

2.
a person regarded as having no substance or integrity.
"a photogenic straw man gets inserted into office and advisers dictate policy"

Quote from: Rayzor on February 14, 2017, 03:12:00 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 14, 2017, 03:00:19 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 14, 2017, 02:14:20 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 14, 2017, 02:02:02 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 14, 2017, 01:29:03 AM
Where do you want to start?

The most compelling argument you have,   direct physical evidence of demolition charges being used would  be good.

Direct physical evidence of demolition charges?

Is this your way of saying you don't want to play anymore?

This is normal, no biggie...He is thinking he is leading me into a corner, but only cornering himself. I was dealing with this in college, he is about 600 debates behind lol. This rodeo is an old boring one.

Though I would say rayzor, please try to be a little more unique in your debate.

Anyways...As I have told many people before you, and I will tell many after you...I am only stating as a fact the buildings did not fall as stated.

I then suggest alternative theories based off available evidence for what brought them down, motivation, the who, ect.

So to confirm...If this were a court, I would present a purely factual case against the official report...Then a circumstantial case against the actual causation and aggressors.

As to you comment of "I saw the plane"....Reality doesn't work the way we saw it.

(http://i64.tinypic.com/2ivoa6e.jpg)

This is not reality.... rigid and brittle aluminum does not pass through concrete, steel vertical exoskeleton, steel horizontal exoskeleton reinforced with concrete, then we get into the real tough stuff that can flex and absorb impacts the central core inches of reinforced I beams...Pass through all of that times 2 all the way to the other side.

This is not trick photography, I have seen multiple angles of plane number 2 on professional reply equipment and watched it frame by frame more times I could stomach. There is always about 5-14 frame delay of where the plane literally goes inside the building..No mark, no debris.... Nothing....Sunny skies in new York...Then BOOM!! An explosion on the front and back.

What is left? A Wylie Coyote like imprint straight out of the cartoons...The EXACT width of the plane end to end.....

A third rate magic show is more convincing.

I am sure you will say something as "well they were going fast so that makes it possible" which is what NIST said to idiots they knew were just smart enough to know nothing at all, as well as the general uneducated public.

However, as people who work in the field know, you reach a point of diminished return on energy with any material, especially brittle rigid aluminum.

Once you get to a certain speed, you actually lose energy through atmospheric friction, heat, and many other factors at the point of impact per square inch. It spreads, not focuses. You can either look at aviation manuals, or see some cool experiments we did shooting aircraft aluminum at reinforced concrete and steel at over 1200 mph (more than double the speed reported, which was impossible in itself for a craft that size that low. Not only that, but controlled by idiots that couldn't even control a 100 mile-an-hour Cessna...But thank goodness their paper passport survived right on top of the wreckage so we knew who they were... titanium/reinforced steel and concrete/aluminum was the only thing that could be "vaporized"...The paper was too strong)

The planes would have been like porcelain to those buildings, not a magic knife that can literally cut through the building without even a mark. Then suddenly explode cartoon style.. Not to mention, that type of maneuverability is all but impossible at the proposed speeds and altitude, especially with am idiot navigating it.

I lost where I was....


Damn it...You see what I mean...I have too much info in my head, I get off on tangents.

As you say, you are bouncing all over the place.   Let's take it one step at a time. 

1. Do you agree there is no direct physical evidence of demolition charges being used to bring down WTC1 and WTC2.

2. You seem to be asserting that WTC1 and WTC2 were not hit by Boeing 767's of  AA11 and UA175,  be clear in what you are asserting.   You seem to be implying it's some kind of trick photography?

Personally, I like the second definition more.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 03:37:01 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 15, 2017, 03:26:56 AM
straw man
noun
noun: strawman

1.
an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.
"her familiar procedure of creating a straw man by exaggerating their approach"

2.
a person regarded as having no substance or integrity.
"a photogenic straw man gets inserted into office and advisers dictate policy"

Personally, I like the second definition more.

In the context of a debate it's commonly the first definition that is used,  and as I suspected you didn't actually know that,
otherwise you would have given an example,  you seemed to imply that you thought a straw man was someone who grasped at straws.


Quote from: disputeone
Someone bit off more than he can chew and is grasping at straws.

Can't say I'm totally surprised.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 03:43:43 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 15, 2017, 03:24:54 AM
You said we saw it....So it's true....Right?

Well I saw a plane pass into the building without leaving a mark..

Well to be honest I thought you were talking about in real life...But yes..If you are talking about what we "saw" on television...Then yes...Didn't leave a mark..That is what we saw, I was just stating it.

I'll defer to you on the CDMA,  I don't agree that it was impossible,  but I see no way to resolve the issue.  Let's move on to bigger issues.

Let's go back to the video of the aircraft impacting the building,  can you go to the next few frames,  you seem to stop just before the plane hits and use that as proof they didn't leave a mark,  the video evidence I've seen contradicts your assertion,   I won't link to it here,  you can find plenty of examples on line.

So are you claiming all those videos are somehow doctored?   What about the live tv coverage?

What the hell,  you linked to videos so why not. 



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 15, 2017, 03:45:29 AM
I've been here for quite a while, I have also posted on forums for quite some time. I know what a strawman argument is.

(https://s10.postimg.org/jkxd5wtdl/1485475822528m.jpg)

Quality.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on February 15, 2017, 03:48:00 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 01:24:36 AM
No I find the NIST report well researched and complete. It does not bother me the data inputs utilized for modeling outcomes was never released so the results can be verified.

FTFY, you disingenuous _ _ _ _.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 15, 2017, 03:50:52 AM
Posting up something just for rayzor...The TRUTH...

(http://i64.tinypic.com/2e2m8w0.jpg)

Fits the other video evidence you accept. (Since you keep ignoring me)


Though one serious question...Where IS the plane??

(http://i66.tinypic.com/kf056v.jpg)

I have looked through all available public video evidence in high quality equipment for 100s of hours, and have never found one trace of a plane...Nothing on the ground???

Nothing in the building??

Where did it go?? Or was it that vaporized word?...That is NIST favorite word, the magic interchange right? Don't mind that has never happened ever in any plane crash...This was obviously a very magic day.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 03:52:43 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 15, 2017, 03:45:29 AM
I've been here for quite a while, I have also posted on forums for quite some time. I know what a strawman argument is.
Quality.

It would seem you don't otherwise you  could have given me an example.  I think you are well out of your depth and clutching  at straws
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 03:55:38 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 15, 2017, 03:50:52 AM
Posting up something just for rayzor...The TRUTH...

(http://i64.tinypic.com/2e2m8w0.jpg)

Fits the other video evidence you accept. (Since you keep ignoring me)


Though one serious question...Where IS the plane??

(http://i66.tinypic.com/kf056v.jpg)

I have looked through all available public video evidence in high quality equipment for 100s of hours, and have never found one trace of a plane...Nothing on the ground???

Nothing in the building??

Where did it go?? Or was it that vaporized word?...That is NIST favorite word, the magic interchange right? Don't mind that has never happened ever in any plane crash...This was obviously a very magic day.

The plane was shredded by the impact,  did you learn nothing from the simulation?

If you want a serious argument,  then fine,  but stop with the road runner crap,  it makes you look like you aren't interested in the truth.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: hoppy on February 15, 2017, 04:13:57 AM
Rayzor, you really suck dude. Bhs and d1 are beating the fuck out you. I don't even know why they keep responding to you. They have offered plenty if evidence and you keep offering strawmen. You believe the governments stupid report, either for pay or due to brainwashing. You really suck.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 04:21:02 AM
Quote from: hoppy on February 15, 2017, 04:13:57 AM
Rayzor, you really suck dude. Bhs and d1 are beating the fuck out you. I don't even know why they keep responding to you. They have offered plenty if evidence and you keep offering strawmen. You believe the governments stupid report, either for pay or due to brainwashing. You really suck.

LOL

Thanks,  I appreciate that you haven't got a clue about the subject,  but please kick in with your valuable contributions whenever the drugs wear off enough that you can type.  Nice to see yet another who doesn't know what a straw man is,  you probably think it's something like a scarecrow.

PS Your God doesn't exist,  deal with it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 15, 2017, 04:27:10 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 03:37:01 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 15, 2017, 03:26:56 AM
straw man
noun
noun: strawman

1.
an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.
"her familiar procedure of creating a straw man by exaggerating their approach"

2.
a person regarded as having no substance or integrity.
"a photogenic straw man gets inserted into office and advisers dictate policy"

Personally, I like the second definition more.

In the context of a debate it's commonly the first definition that is used,  and as I suspected you didn't actually know that,
otherwise you would have given an example,  you seemed to imply that you thought a straw man was someone who grasped at straws.

It was a pun, you utter moron.

Thanks hoppy.

Quote from: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 04:21:02 AM
PS Your God doesn't exist,  deal with it.

Notice he is still grasping at straws.

Consider the bolded text of my reply and you can see it is a literal strawman argument. That wasn't the only one you tried to pull.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on February 15, 2017, 04:28:54 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 03:55:38 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 15, 2017, 03:50:52 AM
Posting up something just for rayzor...The TRUTH...

(http://i64.tinypic.com/2e2m8w0.jpg)

Fits the other video evidence you accept. (Since you keep ignoring me)


Though one serious question...Where IS the plane??

(http://i66.tinypic.com/kf056v.jpg)

I have looked through all available public video evidence in high quality equipment for 100s of hours, and have never found one trace of a plane...Nothing on the ground???

Nothing in the building??

Where did it go?? Or was it that vaporized word?...That is NIST favorite word, the magic interchange right? Don't mind that has never happened ever in any plane crash...This was obviously a very magic day.

The plane was shredded by the impact,  did you learn nothing from the simulation?

If you want a serious argument,  then fine,  but stop with the road runner crap,  it makes you look like you aren't interested in the truth.

And your blind acceptance of the NIST reports, despite the fact the data inputs used for modeling has not been released so the results can be replicated or falsified (i.e., SCIENTIFIC METHOD) is indicative of a total _ _ _ _ .

(http://i.imgur.com/Syqga.gif)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on February 15, 2017, 04:30:58 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 04:21:02 AM
PS Your God doesn't exist,  deal with it.

My god is the NIST. Bow down and worship the NIST.

FTFY, you sick _ _ _ _.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 04:36:02 AM
Quote from: totallackey on February 15, 2017, 04:30:58 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 04:21:02 AM
PS Your God doesn't exist,  deal with it.

My god is the NIST. Bow down and worship the NIST.

FTFY, you sick _ _ _ _.

Keep up the good work totallackey,  you are making a compelling case reinforcing my view of 911 conspiracy theories. 

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 15, 2017, 04:39:50 AM
Actually he raised a very important and relevant point.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 04:48:25 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 15, 2017, 04:39:50 AM
Actually he raised a very important and relevant point.

No he posted a selfie and mumbled something about NIST model inputs.

I think he was looking for this http://ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=101013

But I doubt he would know what to do with it.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on February 15, 2017, 04:48:52 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 04:36:02 AM
Quote from: totallackey on February 15, 2017, 04:30:58 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 04:21:02 AM
PS Your God doesn't exist,  deal with it.

My god is the NIST. Bow down and worship the NIST.

FTFY, you sick _ _ _ _.
Keep up the good work totallackey,  you are making a compelling case reinforcing my view of 911 conspiracy theories.

And you keep up the party line and OS mantra!

It is true nothing will ever be effectively done about changing the actual guard or catching the real criminals in this case.

The spooks from Texas are the real killers and they have made everyone a lot of money and that is all anyone really cares about in the end.

Comfort while alive here on Earth.

I remain convinced a vast majority of people who watched the buildings fall that day knew exactly what they were watching: a controlled demolition in progress.

It really was quite impressive aside from the fact people died and the OS gave birth to further drug and oil wars, designed only to enrichen the criminals in office, who also happened to be the owners and major investors in Blackwater and Halliburton.

See, shit like that does not fucking bother you though...

You are the most pathetic type of person alive.

I only write that because it is true and it will always be true.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on February 15, 2017, 04:54:26 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 04:48:25 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 15, 2017, 04:39:50 AM
Actually he raised a very important and relevant point.

No he posted a selfie and mumbled something about NIST model inputs.

I think he was looking for this http://ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=101013

But I doubt he would know what to do with it.

And neither would you because this information offers nothing relative to the fucking theory planes brought down WTC 1 and 2.

Not to mention it offers absolutely nothing relative to WTC 7.

Stop being a total fucking

(http://media.gettyimages.com/photos/woman-teasing-man-with-small-penis-picture-id154958940)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 04:56:24 AM
Quote from: totallackey on February 15, 2017, 04:48:52 AM

It really was quite impressive aside from the fact people died and the OS gave birth to further drug and oil wars, designed only to enrichen the criminals in office, who also happened to be the owners and major investors in Blackwater and Halliburton.

See, shit like that does not fucking bother you though...

You are the most pathetic type of person alive.

I only write that because it is true and it will always be true.

By denying that the real perpetrator was radical islam led by Osama Bin Laden,  you are doing a great disservice to the memory of the thousands of innocents who died.   

The truth will always win out in the end.  Science doesn't lie.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 05:00:48 AM
Quote from: totallackey on February 15, 2017, 04:54:26 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 04:48:25 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 15, 2017, 04:39:50 AM
Actually he raised a very important and relevant point.

No he posted a selfie and mumbled something about NIST model inputs.

I think he was looking for this http://ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=101013

But I doubt he would know what to do with it.

And neither would you because this information offers nothing relative to the fucking theory planes brought down WTC 1 and 2.

Not to mention it offers absolutely nothing relative to WTC 7.

Stop being a total fucking


You asked for the models, I linked you to that.   Also stop with the insults and stupid teenage meme pictures. 

Now you want WTC7  ok
https://www.nist.gov/node/599811?pub_id=861610
https://www.nist.gov/node/592186?pub_id=861611
https://www.nist.gov/node/595636?pub_id=861612

You can find the rest yourself.  I'm not your private library.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 15, 2017, 05:01:36 AM
(https://s21.postimg.org/xhx0n4f5z/Screenshot_20170215_205717.png)


Quote from: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 04:56:24 AM
The truth will always win out in the end.  Science doesn't lie.

It is my great hope that one day truth will win out in this situation.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 15, 2017, 05:04:46 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 04:56:24 AM
Quote from: totallackey on February 15, 2017, 04:48:52 AM

It really was quite impressive aside from the fact people died and the OS gave birth to further drug and oil wars, designed only to enrichen the criminals in office, who also happened to be the owners and major investors in Blackwater and Halliburton.

See, shit like that does not fucking bother you though...

You are the most pathetic type of person alive.

I only write that because it is true and it will always be true.

By denying that the real perpetrator was radical islam led by Osama Bin Laden,  you are doing a great disservice to the memory of the thousands of innocents who died.

straw man
noun
noun: strawman

1.
an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.
"her familiar procedure of creating a straw man by exaggerating their approach"

2.
a person regarded as having no substance or integrity.
"a photogenic straw man gets inserted into office and advisers dictate policy"
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 05:09:41 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 15, 2017, 05:04:46 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 04:56:24 AM
Quote from: totallackey on February 15, 2017, 04:48:52 AM

It really was quite impressive aside from the fact people died and the OS gave birth to further drug and oil wars, designed only to enrichen the criminals in office, who also happened to be the owners and major investors in Blackwater and Halliburton.

See, shit like that does not fucking bother you though...

You are the most pathetic type of person alive.

I only write that because it is true and it will always be true.

By denying that the real perpetrator was radical islam led by Osama Bin Laden,  you are doing a great disservice to the memory of the thousands of innocents who died.

straw man
noun
noun: strawman

1.
an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.
"her familiar procedure of creating a straw man by exaggerating their approach"

2.
a person regarded as having no substance or integrity.
"a photogenic straw man gets inserted into office and advisers dictate policy"

Yep, I suspected you didn't have a clue thanks for confirming it.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 15, 2017, 05:12:59 AM
If you are special needs, I apologize for the harsh things I said.

You seem to have lost all logical ability in a fit of rage nearly like

Quote from: disputeone on February 13, 2017, 10:49:57 PM
Fall acceleration of building 7.

You are going to end this a jibbering mess of failed insults and logic.

But you asked for it.

Mods can we move to tech and alt please. ty.

I predicted.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 05:16:07 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 15, 2017, 05:01:36 AM
(https://s21.postimg.org/xhx0n4f5z/Screenshot_20170215_205717.png)


Quote from: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 04:56:24 AM
The truth will always win out in the end.  Science doesn't lie.

It is my great hope that one day truth will win out in this situation.

They published their detailed findings,  which I suspect few conspiracy theorists ever bother to read or have the background to understand.   

Why not release all the data?   I'm guessing they didn't want conspiracy theorists second guessing their analysis,  but that hasn't stopped the conspiracy theorists from advancing ever more wacky theories.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on February 15, 2017, 05:18:37 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 04:56:24 AM
Quote from: totallackey on February 15, 2017, 04:48:52 AM

It really was quite impressive aside from the fact people died and the OS gave birth to further drug and oil wars, designed only to enrichen the criminals in office, who also happened to be the owners and major investors in Blackwater and Halliburton.

See, shit like that does not fucking bother you though...

You are the most pathetic type of person alive.

I only write that because it is true and it will always be true.

By denying that the real perpetrator was radical islam led by Osama Bin Laden,  you are doing a great disservice to the memory of the thousands of innocents who died.   

The truth will always win out in the end.  Science doesn't lie.

What scientific methods were utilized to prove radical ISLAM led by Osama Bin Laden was the real perp of the events of 9/11?

Interesting...Do you count hundreds of thousands dead in Iraq as innocent or is that just okay...

What about their memory?

You really are a disingenuous piece of (http://www.fullstopindia.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Fresh-Cow-Dung-India1.jpg)
Quote from: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 05:00:48 AM
I do not have the data inputs as requested. I will still trumpet the OS because I am weak and pathetic.
FTFY
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 05:19:37 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 15, 2017, 05:12:59 AM
If you are special needs, I apologize for the harsh things I said.

You seem to have lost all logical ability in a fit of rage nearly like

Quote from: disputeone on February 13, 2017, 10:49:57 PM
Fall acceleration of building 7.

You are going to end this a jibbering mess of failed insults and logic.

But you asked for it.

Mods can we move to tech and alt please. ty.

I predicted.

Another reality disconnect from you.  Seems to be your favourite thing.   Maybe you need help with reading comprehension.

 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 05:20:27 AM
Quote from: totallackey on February 15, 2017, 05:18:37 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 04:56:24 AM
Quote from: totallackey on February 15, 2017, 04:48:52 AM

It really was quite impressive aside from the fact people died and the OS gave birth to further drug and oil wars, designed only to enrichen the criminals in office, who also happened to be the owners and major investors in Blackwater and Halliburton.

See, shit like that does not fucking bother you though...

You are the most pathetic type of person alive.

I only write that because it is true and it will always be true.

By denying that the real perpetrator was radical islam led by Osama Bin Laden,  you are doing a great disservice to the memory of the thousands of innocents who died.   

The truth will always win out in the end.  Science doesn't lie.

What scientific methods were utilized to prove radical ISLAM led by Osama Bin Laden was the real perp of the events of 9/11?

Interesting...Do you count hundreds of thousands dead in Iraq as innocent or is that just okay...

What about their memory?

You really are a disingenuous piece of (http://www.fullstopindia.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Fresh-Cow-Dung-India1.jpg)
Quote from: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 05:00:48 AM
I do not have the data inputs as requested. I will still trumpet the OS because I am weak and pathetic.
FTFY

LOL  Nice selfie,
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on February 15, 2017, 05:25:51 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 05:16:07 AM

They published their detailed findings,  which I suspect few conspiracy theorists ever bother to read or have the background to understand.   

Why not release all the data?   I'm guessing they didn't want conspiracy theorists second guessing their analysis,  but that hasn't stopped the conspiracy theorists from advancing ever more wacky theories. 

That is utter bullshit.

That statement is totally ludicrous and so are you.

The FOIA request was denied specifically because the NIST chief stated the data inputs/results : ..."might jeopardize public safety."

Here is a photo of suspected 9/11 co-conspirators
(http://images.wisconsinhistory.org/700099990330/9999006062-l.jpg)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 15, 2017, 05:33:00 AM
Rayzor, if after all this, you can't even admit that the official story has a few holes in it (to say the least) then I am honestly not sure what your motivation is, I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt but this is crazy.

As for your comment about "conspiracy theorists" not having the background or knowledge to understand the models, please see this thread where we destoyed you.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.0

Even putting the truth about 9/11 aside, this debate has been awfully one sided.
I am not the only one who sees it.

I also strongly support totallackeys statement that you are being disingenuous.




@Totallackey, I heard it was the emus, kangaroos are relatively easy to box but the emus have an organised military.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 05:33:44 AM
Quote from: totallackey on February 15, 2017, 05:25:51 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 05:16:07 AM

They published their detailed findings,  which I suspect few conspiracy theorists ever bother to read or have the background to understand.   

Why not release all the data?   I'm guessing they didn't want conspiracy theorists second guessing their analysis,  but that hasn't stopped the conspiracy theorists from advancing ever more wacky theories. 

That is utter bullshit.

The FOIA request was denied specifically because the NIST chief stated the data inputs might lead to another terrorist attack.

That statement is totally ludicrous and so are you.

Here is a photo of suspected 9/11 co-conspirators


More insults and more meme pictures.  You really don't get it do you.   
Who knows why they didn't  release some specific data,  certainly not me and definitely not you.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on February 15, 2017, 05:37:34 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 05:33:44 AM
More insults and more meme pictures.  You really don't get it do you.   
Who knows why they didn't  release some specific data,  certainly not me and definitely not you.

If you feel insulted, you absolutely should.

This proves you have some fucking clue regarding interpretation of language and data.

Now, if you would just take the next, most obvious step.

The NIST chief clearly stated why the data inputs were not released.

They were not released because of fears the inputs could be of use in another terrorist attack.

Laughable, just like your continued advocacy of the OS.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 15, 2017, 05:39:18 AM
(https://s10.postimg.org/nlx36mpcp/mememagick.jpg)

Memes aside,
We gave you every chance to present an argument. You didn't take it.

Quote from: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 05:33:44 AM

Who knows why they didn't  release some specific data,  certainly not me and definitely not you.

I'm 99.99% sure I know.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 05:43:03 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 15, 2017, 05:33:00 AM
Rayzor, if after all this, you can't even admit that the official story has a few holes in it (to say the least) then I am honestly not sure what your motivation is, I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt but this is crazy.

As for your comment about "conspiracy theorists" not having the background or knowledge to understand the models, please see this thread where we destoyed you.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.0

Even putting the truth about 9/11 aside, this debate has been awfully one sided.
I am not the only one who sees it.


Your aim was to present argument that would prove to me beyond doubt that the WTC1 WTC2 and WTC7 were brought down by controlled demolition,  you failed

Your argument was non existent,  you never offered a shred of evidence,  and BHS tried to convince me that no planes hit the WTC1 and 2 claiming that they didn't even mark the outside of the building.  He further kept claiming the fires weren't hot enough despite ample evidence to the contrary.

Sorry,  but your failure to present a coherent argument is not your fault,  the evidence was against you.  Pity you are too blind to see it.

My motivation is to uncover the truth and let the fact speak for themselves.  Conspiracy theorists cherry pick facts and ignore others.

People like totallackey,  don't advance your case,  having him on your side is not something to be proud of.

PS.  Meme pictures say more about the quality of your argument than anything else you have posted,  and it's not good.

 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 05:54:52 AM
Here is what BHS and dispute one say never happened.



BHS claims all these video's are faked doesn't look like it to me.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: hoppy on February 15, 2017, 05:56:45 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 05:16:07 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 15, 2017, 05:01:36 AM
(https://s21.postimg.org/xhx0n4f5z/Screenshot_20170215_205717.png)


Quote from: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 04:56:24 AM
The truth will always win out in the end.  Science doesn't lie.

It is my great hope that one day truth will win out in this situation.

They published their detailed findings,  which I suspect few conspiracy theorists ever bother to read or have the background to understand.   

Why not release all the data?   I'm guessing they didn't want conspiracy theorists second guessing their analysis,  but that hasn't stopped the conspiracy theorists from advancing ever more wacky theories.
What wins out by not releasing data? Truth or ignorance?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 06:06:27 AM
Quote from: hoppy on February 15, 2017, 05:56:45 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 05:16:07 AM
They published their detailed findings,  which I suspect few conspiracy theorists ever bother to read or have the background to understand.   

Why not release all the data?   I'm guessing they didn't want conspiracy theorists second guessing their analysis,  but that hasn't stopped the conspiracy theorists from advancing ever more wacky theories.
What wins out by not releasing data? Truth or ignorance?

Not truth that;s for sure,  but speculation based on conspiracy is not a reasonable assumption either.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 15, 2017, 06:22:15 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 05:54:52 AM
Here is what BHS and dispute one say never happened.



BHS claims all these video's are faked doesn't look like it to me.

Don't put words in my mouth rayzor, you are being dishonest.

You are still clutching at straws.

Edit.

I believe NIST didn't release the data because the collapse of building 7 how we were told it happened, violated the laws of physics.

If they released the data people like BHS and to a much lesser extent myself would tear it to bits.

I have been clear about this from the start, you are the one putting on a circus performance.

This was the best they could do and they couldn't release the data????

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 06:26:38 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 15, 2017, 06:22:15 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 05:54:52 AM
Here is what BHS and dispute one say never happened.



BHS claims all these video's are faked doesn't look like it to me.

Don't put words in my mouth rayzor, you are being dishonest.

You are still clutching at straws.

No I'm being honest,  BHS claimed that no planes hit the WTC1 and 2  and purported to prove that the planes entered the building without leaving a mark.   Are you disagreeing with BHS?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 15, 2017, 06:35:16 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 14, 2017, 02:27:27 AM
It is a weak strawman to try to shift the debate to speculation if there were actually planes or not. I would agree with you that the evidence of planes crashing into the buildings far outweighs any other evidence I have seen, CGI wings etc.

straw man
noun
noun: strawman

1.
an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.
"her familiar procedure of creating a straw man by exaggerating their approach"

2.
a person regarded as having no substance or integrity.
"a photogenic straw man gets inserted into office and advisers dictate policy"



Quote from: Rayzor on February 10, 2017, 11:00:36 PM
I'm thinking of becoming a free-thinking flat earther,  we can dispense with boring traditional physics and maths,  we can ignore any facts that are inconvenient and focus education on watching youtube conspiracy videos. 

hypocrisy
hɪˈpɒkrɪsi

noun

the practice of claiming to have higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case.
"his target was the hypocrisy of suburban life"

synonyms:   sanctimoniousness, sanctimony, pietism, piousness, affected piety, affected superiority, false virtue, cant, humbug, pretence, posturing, speciousness, empty talk
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 06:43:30 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 15, 2017, 06:35:16 AM

It is a weak strawman to try to shift the debate to speculation if there were actually planes or not. I would agree with you that the evidence of planes crashing into the buildings far outweighs any other evidence I have seen, CGI wings etc.


Ok so you disagree with BHS.   That was never clear.  You certainly never expressed that view previously.

It's only a strawman argument if I misrepresented BHS's proposition,  I double checked what he wrote, and no it's exactly what he claimed.   So your strawman accusation is false.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sceptimatic on February 15, 2017, 07:10:32 AM
To find the truth you have to delve deep down into ordinary life logic without the added large dose of coincidence trimmings.

If people can understand what coincidence entails, then they can be 100% sure that the official report is complete bullshit.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: StillFlat on February 15, 2017, 07:17:05 AM
I'm glad someone on the other side of the world knew what happen that day.

I remember it clearly. I was sitting at the kitchen table working on school work(I was still bein home schooled at the time) while eating a bowl of ceral, you know only a mile away from the building. birds cherping, the normal sounds of new york, then all of a sudden a loud horrible bang. you know like someone blowing something up (I lived in pa prior to this, my friends father use to blow stuff up for the heck of it) wasn't just one bang, there was multiple.

you would think that if there was a "plane" we would hear that. like I said I was only a mile away on at the cornee of Mott and prince street.

it's a joke.. guess I was hearing things that day. glad the TV just so happen to catch it all.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on February 15, 2017, 08:21:55 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 05:16:07 AM

They published their detailed findings,  which I suspect few conspiracy theorists ever bother to read or have the background to understand.   

Why not release all the data?   I'm guessing they didn't want conspiracy theorists second guessing their analysis,  but that hasn't stopped the conspiracy theorists from advancing ever more wacky theories.

Quote from: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 05:33:44 AM
Who knows why they didn't  release some specific data,  certainly not me and definitely not you.

Why do you believe the NIST report but do not take at face value the stated reason they refuse to release the input/results data leading to the conclusions in the reports?

Patrick Gallagher stated the reason for not releasing the data as: "...might jeopardize public safety."

Why do you disagree with that written statement by Mr. Gallagher?

Why do you not question:

1. What public?

2. What safety?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on February 15, 2017, 09:28:18 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 15, 2017, 05:33:00 AM
@Totallackey, I heard it was the emus, kangaroos are relatively easy to box but the emus have an organised military.

Penguins hard at it also...

This previously unreleased photo of the co-conspirators, post deployment of boxcutters...

This photo also survived the resultant fires...

(https://images4.alphacoders.com/682/thumb-1920-682197.jpg)

A further image (previously unreleased) of the flight training...
(http://ihdwallpapers.com/download/penguins_of_madagascar_2014_movie-1920x1200.jpg)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 15, 2017, 02:57:32 PM
Quote from: StillFlat on February 15, 2017, 07:17:05 AM
I'm glad someone on the other side of the world knew what happen that day.

We are legion.
We do not forgive.
We do not forget.
Expect us.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 15, 2017, 09:10:55 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 06:26:38 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 15, 2017, 06:22:15 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 05:54:52 AM
Here is what BHS and dispute one say never happened.



BHS claims all these video's are faked doesn't look like it to me.

Don't put words in my mouth rayzor, you are being dishonest.

You are still clutching at straws.

No I'm being honest,  BHS claimed that no planes hit the WTC1 and 2  and purported to prove that the planes entered the building without leaving a mark.   Are you disagreeing with BHS?

Misrepresented and pathetic as always rayzor...Oh what it must be like to be you.

I clearly said I don't know what happened, and only presented a logical theory. I don't think a plane hit building 1, building two I think it was a missle or drone. This comes from 1000s of people's testimonials (one even being someone here, the other being a family member), video issues, and many other items stacked together. It has become painfully obvious your ONLY argument is attempted confusion.

Leaving out the fact these two "plane wrecks" would be the first of their kind in human history (eaten inside the building, complete vaporization..Instead of reality such as the empire state building, which ironically happened EXACTLY how I explained to you a collision would happen) causing THREE buildings to fall being the first of their kind in human history in impossible form....Actually wait, let's leave out all science.

You still have never answered my question form page number one.... How does a plane pass through a building without leaving a mark?

This isn't "BHS" saying ANYTHING....Just a simple question about the video evidence.

For once....In this entire freaking thread....Answer one damn question with a direct answer rayzor.....

How does a plane pass through a building without leaving a mark or even a single shred of debris?

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 15, 2017, 09:15:09 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 05:16:07 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 15, 2017, 05:01:36 AM
(https://s21.postimg.org/xhx0n4f5z/Screenshot_20170215_205717.png)


Quote from: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 04:56:24 AM
The truth will always win out in the end.  Science doesn't lie.

It is my great hope that one day truth will win out in this situation.

They published their detailed findings,  which I suspect few conspiracy theorists ever bother to read or have the background to understand.   

Why not release all the data?   I'm guessing they didn't want conspiracy theorists second guessing their analysis,  but that hasn't stopped the conspiracy theorists from advancing ever more wacky theories.

You just sound deranged here....

By they way....They had zero detail...I have actually provided better detail in this short thread than they did.

Though I am sure their complete withholding of "information" was for our "safety"....Idiots.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 11:45:15 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 15, 2017, 09:10:55 PM

You still have never answered my question form page number one.... How does a plane pass through a building without leaving a mark?

This isn't "BHS" saying ANYTHING....Just a simple question about the video evidence.

For once....In this entire freaking thread....Answer one damn question with a direct answer rayzor.....

How does a plane pass through a building without leaving a mark or even a single shred of debris?

Actually I did,  the fact that you didn't understand the answer is not my problem.

First,  the question implies something that isn't factual. 
 
Second. by the way you ask the question you are calling for speculation on something which impossible.

Third,  this is your theory not mine,  you want to claim that no planes hit the WTC1 and 2,  and all the video including real time tv was faked,  go ahead and give it your best shot.   

But I have to say the evidence against your theory is overwhelming.

I'm sure you have a reason for chasing this line of thought,  so over to you!


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 15, 2017, 11:57:26 PM
integrity
ɪnˈtɛɡrɪti/
noun

1.
the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles.
"a gentleman of complete integrity"
synonyms:   honesty, uprightness, probity, rectitude, honour, honourableness, upstandingness, good character, principle(s), ethics, morals, righteousness, morality, nobility, high-mindedness, right-mindedness, noble-mindedness, virtue, decency, fairness, scrupulousness, sincerity, truthfulness, trustworthiness
"I never doubted his integrity"

2.
the state of being whole and undivided.
"upholding territorial integrity and national sovereignty"
synonyms:   unity, unification, wholeness, coherence, cohesion, undividedness, togetherness, solidarity, coalition
"internal racial unrest threatened the integrity of the federation"





Get some.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 12:02:11 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 11:45:15 PM
Actually I did,  the fact that you didn't understand the answer is not my problem.

Remember when Scepti said the same thing to you and you called him an idiot. Actually I think you said you were going to "spit-roast" him, which considering what me and BHS have done to you, is hilarious, quite frankly.

hypocrisy
hɪˈpɒkrɪsi

noun
the practice of claiming to have higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case.
"his target was the hypocrisy of suburban life"
synonyms:   sanctimoniousness, sanctimony, pietism, piousness, affected piety, affected superiority, false virtue, cant, humbug, pretence, posturing, speciousness, empty talk.

irony
ˈʌɪrəni
noun

1. The expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect.
"‘Don't go overboard with the gratitude,’ he rejoined with heavy irony"
synonyms:   sarcasm, sardonicism, dryness, causticity, sharpness, acerbity, acid, bitterness, trenchancy, mordancy, cynicism.

2. A state of affairs or an event that seems deliberately contrary to what one expects and is often wryly amusing as a result.
plural noun: ironies
"the irony is that I thought he could help me"
synonyms:   paradox, paradoxical nature, incongruity, incongruousness, peculiarity
"the irony of the situation hit her"

3. A literary technique, originally used in Greek tragedy, by which the full significance of a character's words or actions is clear to the audience or reader although unknown to the character.
noun: dramatic irony; plural noun: tragic irony
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 12:17:31 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 12:02:11 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 11:45:15 PM
Actually I did,  the fact that you didn't understand the answer is not my problem.

Remember when Scepti said the same thing to you and you called him an idiot. Actually I think you said you were going to "spit-roast" him, which considering what me and BHS have done to you, is hilarious, quite frankly.

hypocrisy
hɪˈpɒkrɪsi

noun
the practice of claiming to have higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case.
"his target was the hypocrisy of suburban life"
synonyms:   sanctimoniousness, sanctimony, pietism, piousness, affected piety, affected superiority, false virtue, cant, humbug, pretence, posturing, speciousness, empty talk.

irony
ˈʌɪrəni
noun

1. The expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect.
"‘Don't go overboard with the gratitude,’ he rejoined with heavy irony"
synonyms:   sarcasm, sardonicism, dryness, causticity, sharpness, acerbity, acid, bitterness, trenchancy, mordancy, cynicism.

2. A state of affairs or an event that seems deliberately contrary to what one expects and is often wryly amusing as a result.
plural noun: ironies
"the irony is that I thought he could help me"
synonyms:   paradox, paradoxical nature, incongruity, incongruousness, peculiarity
"the irony of the situation hit her"

3. A literary technique, originally used in Greek tragedy, by which the full significance of a character's words or actions is clear to the audience or reader although unknown to the character.
noun: dramatic irony; plural noun: tragic irony

So zero contribution to the discussion yet again from disputeone.   Try making a case for what you believe for a change,  and leave off posting dictionary definitions,  I know you've just got a new dictionary, and are keen to use it, but do it somewhere else.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 12:26:20 AM
Quote from: Papa Legba on February 16, 2017, 12:17:31 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 12:02:11 AM
Quote from: Papa Legba on February 15, 2017, 11:45:15 PM
Actually I did,  the fact that you didn't understand the answer is not my problem.

Remember when Scepti said the same thing to you and you called him an idiot. Actually I think you said you were going to "spit-roast" him, which considering what me and BHS have done to you, is hilarious, quite frankly.

hypocrisy
hɪˈpɒkrɪsi

noun
the practice of claiming to have higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case.
"his target was the hypocrisy of suburban life"
synonyms:   sanctimoniousness, sanctimony, pietism, piousness, affected piety, affected superiority, false virtue, cant, humbug, pretence, posturing, speciousness, empty talk.

irony
ˈʌɪrəni
noun

1. The expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect.
"‘Don't go overboard with the gratitude,’ he rejoined with heavy irony"
synonyms:   sarcasm, sardonicism, dryness, causticity, sharpness, acerbity, acid, bitterness, trenchancy, mordancy, cynicism.

2. A state of affairs or an event that seems deliberately contrary to what one expects and is often wryly amusing as a result.
plural noun: ironies
"the irony is that I thought he could help me"
synonyms:   paradox, paradoxical nature, incongruity, incongruousness, peculiarity
"the irony of the situation hit her"

3. A literary technique, originally used in Greek tragedy, by which the full significance of a character's words or actions is clear to the audience or reader although unknown to the character.
noun: dramatic irony; plural noun: tragic irony

So zero contribution to the discussion yet again from disputeone.   Try making a case for what you believe for a change,  and leave off posting dictionary definitions,  I know you've just got a new dictionary, and are keen to use it, but do it somewhere else.

I've contributed a decent amount to be fair. We all do the best with what we have Rayzor... I don't pick on people for it. I do pick on people for trying to lie and cheat their way out of a debate.

Quote from: disputeone on February 15, 2017, 02:52:54 AM
The fact remains those planes violated the laws of physics penetrating and then exiting the building, the wings cut through hardened structural steel, you are kidding right?

The fuel then violated the laws of thermodynamics for its burn temperature and duration, you demonstrated this quite well with photos of three day old glowing red steel. You are kidding right?

The building then violated the laws of physics again when it fell at gravitational acceleration on its own footprint, actually, have a one in one billion chance, it happened three times, one building wasn't even hit by a plane. You are kidding right?

If anything I am giving you an option of engaging a "weaker target", ironically, I have been destroying your "arguments" from page one.

Please explain, using your own words and math, how did building 7 fall at gravitational acceleration. Given the OS.

Shillary Clinton.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 16, 2017, 12:27:21 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 11:45:15 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 15, 2017, 09:10:55 PM

You still have never answered my question form page number one.... How does a plane pass through a building without leaving a mark?

This isn't "BHS" saying ANYTHING....Just a simple question about the video evidence.

For once....In this entire freaking thread....Answer one damn question with a direct answer rayzor.....

How does a plane pass through a building without leaving a mark or even a single shred of debris?

Actually I did,  the fact that you didn't understand the answer is not my problem.

First,  the question implies something that isn't factual. 
 
Second. by the way you ask the question you are calling for speculation on something which impossible.

Third,  this is your theory not mine,  you want to claim that no planes hit the WTC1 and 2,  and all the video including real time tv was faked,  go ahead and give it your best shot.   

But I have to say the evidence against your theory is overwhelming.

I'm sure you have a reason for chasing this line of thought,  so over to you!

No no no rayzor...No twista word here...I am gonna get an answer from you before the end of this thread...Just one..

You didn't answer my question before fyi...You just said "looks real to me" then showed a video of the "first plane" (by the way, if you want to believe some guy was recording city employees doing remedial tasks first thing in the morning, then suddenly, perfectly aligned with the WTC he focuses right on the towers...Waits...Then Boom the plane hits...I have some beach property in Oklahoma for you...Prime view) Also, fyi, that was not the sound of fan jet engines (experience, not google)...Not to mention, the mystery engines were decelerating...And that alone is impossible from the pitch and trim of the visual we saw. Just to begin with, the engines would almost need to be 100 percent to just have a chance of keeping that boat stable in the air at that altitude and supposed speed (which isn't possible anyways).. Actually..I am digressing, just this video alone I could run on for pages about.

Back to the point

Describe how this is possible.

(http://i66.tinypic.com/2uo2y5g.jpg)

Or this

(http://i64.tinypic.com/2ivoa6e.jpg)

Or this



I will stop there for a second.

Matter doesn't pass through matter without disturbing itself. If you can tell me how this happens you could be a very rich man.

So...Again...Rayzor...How does 175,000 kg pass through the WTC without a trace?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 12:31:32 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 16, 2017, 12:27:21 AM


I will stop there for a second.

Matter doesn't pass through matter without disturbing itself. If you can tell me how this happens you could be a very rich man.

So...Again...Rayzor...How does 175,000 kg pass through the WTC without a trace?

My answer is that it didn't and your video shows that quite clearly.   In fact it looks exactly like the early part of the Purdue University simulation.  That I posted when you first asked the question.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 12:33:09 AM
How do you explain the official pictures and video?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 12:39:05 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 12:33:09 AM
How do you explain the official pictures and video?

I assume that question is directed to BHS,  but here is that Perdue university analysis for comparison.



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 16, 2017, 12:53:38 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 12:31:32 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 16, 2017, 12:27:21 AM


I will stop there for a second.

Matter doesn't pass through matter without disturbing itself. If you can tell me how this happens you could be a very rich man.

So...Again...Rayzor...How does 175,000 kg pass through the WTC without a trace?

My answer is that it didn't and your video shows that quite clearly.   In fact it looks exactly like the early part of the Purdue University simulation.  That I posted when you first asked the question.



So this is reality to you? (Mind you this is of no consequence to me, I have zero problem with two 767s hitting these towers, they would have never fell, and if they did, not like this. I don't care if two planes hit each one....Ask the designer of the buildings...He would agree with me "poking a hole in a screen" "lots of death and fire, but they wouldn't fall")

This isn't reality to me...Do you know how many plane wrecks through history we have on video? Between war and all other avenues, commercial etc. How many we have studied the after math on even if we didn't witness it? 100s of thousands....This doesn't even include test footage of controlled tests..

So you are telling me that the planes can break the laws of physics and our reality twice that day....3 towers can defy our reality and physics that day?? Must be a magic day...

I suggest the more logical call...The towers were brought down by something other than stated...The video evidence has been altered in attempt to tell a story.

Which option makes more sense to you?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 01:02:58 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 16, 2017, 12:53:38 AM

So this is reality to you? (Mind you this is of no consequence to me, I have zero problem with two 767s hitting these towers, they would have never fell, and if they did, not like this. I don't care if two planes hit each one....Ask the designer of the buildings...He would agree with me "poking a hole in a screen" "lots of death and fire, but they wouldn't fall")

This isn't reality to me...Do you know how many plane wrecks through history we have on video? Between war and all other avenues, commercial etc. How many we have studied the after math on even if we didn't witness it? 100s of thousands....This doesn't even include test footage of controlled tests..

So you are telling me that the planes can break the laws of physics and our reality twice that day....3 towers can defy our reality and physics that day?? Must be a magic day...

I suggest the more logical call...The towers were brought down by something other than stated...The video evidence has been altered in attempt to tell a story.

Which option makes more sense to you?

You offer only invalid choices,  either the laws of physics were broken or the towers were brought down by something else,   so again a choice between two incorrect answers. 

There's a name for that debating tactic, and I thought you were smarter than that.

So,  let's go back a step.
What laws of physics do you consider were broken,  you need  evidence and proof if you want to support that conjecture.
If you can prove the the laws of physics were broken, then you can ask the second question,  but not before, and not as an alternative.




Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 01:17:30 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 01:02:58 AM
What laws of physics do you consider were broken.

Quote from: disputeone on February 15, 2017, 02:52:54 AM
The fact remains those planes violated the laws of physics penetrating and then exiting the building, the wings cut through hardened structural steel, you are kidding right?

The fuel then violated the laws of thermodynamics for its burn temperature and duration, you demonstrated this quite well with photos of three day old glowing red steel. You are kidding right?

The building then violated the laws of physics again when it fell at gravitational acceleration on its own footprint, actually, have a one in one billion chance, it happened three times, one building wasn't even hit by a plane. You are kidding right?

If anything I am giving you an option of engaging a "weaker target", ironically, I have been destroying your "arguments" from page one.

Please explain, using your own words and math, how did building 7 fall at gravitational acceleration. Given the OS.

Shillary Clinton.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 01:33:41 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 12:17:31 AM
So zero contribution to the discussion yet again from disputeone.   Try making a case for what you believe for a change,  and leave off posting dictionary definitions,  I know you've just got a new dictionary, and are keen to use it, but do it somewhere else.

Quote from: disputeone on February 14, 2017, 11:45:45 PM
Sigh, how does weakened steel lead to a collapse at gravitational acceleration?

Was the steel weakened by a factor of 100% to make it fall at gravitational acceleration? Or was it say X% weakend with the structure underneath it providing mechanical resistance during the collapse?

If the fires weakened the structure by a factor of 100% then fine, freefall is not only acceptable but logical.

If, however, the fires didn't take 100% of the structural strength of the tower, why didn't some of the towers potential energy get used to crush the structure as it was falling?

You haven't debunked this point, you get hysterical every time it's brought up.

And then have the gall to say that we are the ones being intellectually dishonest.

If you want to try to refute this point I will consider giving you the time of day again.

Quote from: disputeone on February 14, 2017, 11:52:17 PM
For example, put a bowling ball on any structure you like. Weaken the structure until it collapses, does it collapse at g? Or does the structural resistance of the structure slow the fall speed as the balls potential energy is taken crushing the structure underneath it.

I dare you to answer that truthfully.

Quote from: disputeone on February 15, 2017, 12:35:52 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 12:21:46 AM

Quote from: disputeone on February 14, 2017, 11:52:17 PM
For example, put a bowling ball on any structure you like. Weaken the structure until it collapses, does it collapse at g? Or does the structural resistance of the structure slow the fall speed as the balls potential energy is taken crushing the structure underneath it.

I dare you to answer that truthfully.

It falls at 1G  I was sure you already knew that any unsupported mass will fall at 1G

You are exactly right in saying, any unsupported mass will fall at exactly 1G, however, there's this thing called Terminal velocity (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Terminal+velocity) which means anything moving through a medium will eventually be slowed down by the medium.

So things don't fall at exactly 1G in our reality, air resistance, amongst other things (hardened structural steel and reinforced concrete under compression), will slow down the fall speed of any object.

Another experiment you could do is to try and shoot a cannon ball through a piece of say 10mm thick aluminum.

Would the cannon ball, given as much velocity as you like, eventually have enough energy to pass through the 10mm thick ally without expending any of its potential energy?

The answer is no because every action has an equal and opposite reaction, but I would like you to do your own tests.

You are digging a massive hole with me and BHS is the one with the PhD  ;D ;D

I see why you were scared to debate him.

Quote from: disputeone on February 14, 2017, 11:52:17 PM
For example, put a bowling ball on any structure you like. Weaken the structure until it collapses, does it collapse at g? Or does the structural resistance of the structure slow the fall speed as the balls potential energy is taken crushing the structure underneath it.

I dare you to answer that truthfully.

I am being condescending now, I admit it, you lost your chance on page two tbh.

Quote from: disputeone on February 15, 2017, 01:44:38 AM
It's just not critical to the demolition hypothesis when we can measure free fall.

It's been, I think thoroughly proven, that a building will not fall at free fall under it's own weight, plus a plane impact and full fuel load. At the very least there have been some very good arguments put forward without the aid of youtube videos.

The fact that you just keep dodging this is concerning.

Quote from: disputeone on February 15, 2017, 02:42:39 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 02:32:00 AM
My response was to post a simulation done by Perdue that refuted your assertion that the aircraft couldn't penetrate the structure.   Now you say I never answered?

Was not an answer, you just said, this is the official story. That video was not peer reviewed it doesn't give us access to their numbers.

I did actually send an email asking for the numbers they used, I don't think they will reply, you said I should earlier in the thread.

Quote from: hoppy on February 15, 2017, 04:13:57 AM
Rayzor, you really suck dude. Bhs and d1 are beating the fuck out you. I don't even know why they keep responding to you. They have offered plenty if evidence and you keep offering strawmen. You believe the governments stupid report, either for pay or due to brainwashing. You really suck.

*In honor of one of the greatest shitposters of our time, even if we hate each other ;D.

Edit.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 01:34:32 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 01:17:30 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 01:02:58 AM
What laws of physics do you consider were broken.

Quote from: disputeone on February 15, 2017, 02:52:54 AM
The fact remains those planes violated the laws of physics penetrating and then exiting the building, the wings cut through hardened structural steel, you are kidding right?

The fuel then violated the laws of thermodynamics for its burn temperature and duration, you demonstrated this quite well with photos of three day old glowing red steel. You are kidding right?

The building then violated the laws of physics again when it fell at gravitational acceleration on its own footprint, actually, have a one in one billion chance, it happened three times, one building wasn't even hit by a plane. You are kidding right?

If anything I am giving you an option of engaging a "weaker target", ironically, I have been destroying your "arguments" from page one.

Please explain, using your own words and math, how did building 7 fall at gravitational acceleration. Given the OS.

Shillary Clinton.

1. No the planes didn't violate the laws of physics penetrating the building.   You need to study impact physics a bit more.
2. The temperatures got to well over the point where steel is weakened and aluminium melts.  Plenty of evidence to support that fact.
3. Actually WTC 1 and 2 fell at slower than free fall rate.  You can clearly see debris falling faster than the building itself. 
4. WTC7 is the subject of a longer discussion,  but all the evidence points to fire being the primary cause.   There's contradictory evidence of the collapse time,  look for one that shows the penthouse collapsing 6 seconds before the main collapse,  suggesting the collapse was well under way much earlier than some video footage shows.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 16, 2017, 01:38:27 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 01:02:58 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 16, 2017, 12:53:38 AM

So this is reality to you? (Mind you this is of no consequence to me, I have zero problem with two 767s hitting these towers, they would have never fell, and if they did, not like this. I don't care if two planes hit each one....Ask the designer of the buildings...He would agree with me "poking a hole in a screen" "lots of death and fire, but they wouldn't fall")

This isn't reality to me...Do you know how many plane wrecks through history we have on video? Between war and all other avenues, commercial etc. How many we have studied the after math on even if we didn't witness it? 100s of thousands....This doesn't even include test footage of controlled tests..

So you are telling me that the planes can break the laws of physics and our reality twice that day....3 towers can defy our reality and physics that day?? Must be a magic day...

I suggest the more logical call...The towers were brought down by something other than stated...The video evidence has been altered in attempt to tell a story.

Which option makes more sense to you?

You offer only invalid choices,  either the laws of physics were broken or the towers were brought down by something else,   so again a choice between two incorrect answers. 

There's a name for that debating tactic, and I thought you were smarter than that.

So,  let's go back a step.
What laws of physics do you consider were broken,  you need  evidence and proof if you want to support that conjecture.
If you can prove the the laws of physics were broken, then you can ask the second question,  but not before, and not as an alternative.

That is the only two options.....There are no others..Either reality was violated and we accept the story (this doesn't even include 1000s of other issues) or it was a lie.

As much as you would like to fight it...There is no other available options...So you choose to side with an impossibility?


But just to play your uneducated game...

Let's assume I entertain the model your video shows (which I don't)...

So the plane is allowed to enter without restriction...Pass through the outside vertical exoskeleton and horizontal exoskeleton to the core.

Ok, those few floors are compromised on the 91-93 floors...That would not cause a collapse.

But let's say it did in that area.

It would collapse on itself at the path of least resistance...However, there is not enough damaged and removed material.

So you would have a situation such as this..

(http://i63.tinypic.com/11iohnq.jpg)

However, even if by magic it started a free fall collapse at that 90th floor, it would not make it past the 44th floor because of the doubled core stacking (this building did not have CG sway compensation like newer buildings so CG directional load was set up like older scrappers, more like a sea bowie), the lower 40 was built like a tank compared to the upper sections...Multiples of the mass of the upper decks.

However, if we keep using magic....Let's say it collapsed this area too....We would have this...

(http://i66.tinypic.com/35lf8s0.jpg)

Just multiped by a factor 3.8

And not at a free fall...

Would have taken anywhere from minutes to hours..

Stress junctions, their cert load in the 60s was anywhere from 5 times to 100times less than what it could take before complete failure...Not to mention, since the CG was controlled in a more simple "old school" design (as stated, like a sea bowie), the more mass you keep removing from the upper area, the more robust the bottom becomes as well as the CG continues to get lower.

If you had a 40 story WTC center with the same structural design, you would never knock that damn building over, you would have to dismantle that thing  piece by piece.

Unless we are using magic again.


If you just tell me you are a huge Harry Potter fan...I will leave you alone rayzor.... Seriously
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 01:39:45 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 01:33:41 AM
Quote from: hoppy on February 15, 2017, 04:13:57 AM
Rayzor, you really suck dude. Bhs and d1 are beating the fuck out you. I don't even know why they keep responding to you. They have offered plenty if evidence and you keep offering strawmen. You believe the governments stupid report, either for pay or due to brainwashing. You really suck.

I love Hoppy,  he's one of the few flat earthers that always has something important to add to any discussion.   

Leave my mate Hoppy alone.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 01:48:29 AM
That's the best he's got Bhs.

Maybe we should leave him alone.

I love Rayzor he's one of the few guys that always has something important to add to any discussion.

Leave my mate Rayzor alone.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 01:51:26 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 16, 2017, 01:38:27 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 01:02:58 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 16, 2017, 12:53:38 AM

So this is reality to you? (Mind you this is of no consequence to me, I have zero problem with two 767s hitting these towers, they would have never fell, and if they did, not like this. I don't care if two planes hit each one....Ask the designer of the buildings...He would agree with me "poking a hole in a screen" "lots of death and fire, but they wouldn't fall")

This isn't reality to me...Do you know how many plane wrecks through history we have on video? Between war and all other avenues, commercial etc. How many we have studied the after math on even if we didn't witness it? 100s of thousands....This doesn't even include test footage of controlled tests..

So you are telling me that the planes can break the laws of physics and our reality twice that day....3 towers can defy our reality and physics that day?? Must be a magic day...

I suggest the more logical call...The towers were brought down by something other than stated...The video evidence has been altered in attempt to tell a story.

Which option makes more sense to you?

You offer only invalid choices,  either the laws of physics were broken or the towers were brought down by something else,   so again a choice between two incorrect answers. 

There's a name for that debating tactic, and I thought you were smarter than that.

So,  let's go back a step.
What laws of physics do you consider were broken,  you need  evidence and proof if you want to support that conjecture.
If you can prove the the laws of physics were broken, then you can ask the second question,  but not before, and not as an alternative.

That is the only two options.....There are no others..Either reality was violated and we accept the story (this doesn't even include 1000s of other issues) or it was a lie.

As much as you would like to fight it...There is no other available options...So you choose to side with an impossibility?


But just to play your uneducated game...

Let's assume I entertain the model your video shows (which I don't)...

So the plane is allowed to enter without restriction...Pass through the outside vertical exoskeleton and horizontal exoskeleton to the core.

Ok, those few floors are compromised on the 91-93 floors...That would not cause a collapse.

But let's say it did in that area.

It would collapse on itself at the path of least resistance...However, there is not enough damaged and removed material.

So you would have a situation such as this..

(http://i63.tinypic.com/11iohnq.jpg)

However, even if by magic it started a free fall collapse at that 90th floor, it would not make it past the 44th floor because of the doubled core stacking (this building did not have CG sway compensation like newer buildings so CG directional load was set up like older scrappers, more like a sea bowie), the lower 40 was built like a tank compared to the upper sections...Multiples of the mass of the upper decks.

However, if we keep using magic....Let's say it collapsed this area too....We would have this...

(http://i66.tinypic.com/35lf8s0.jpg)

Just multiped by a factor 3.8

And not at a free fall...

Would have taken anywhere from minutes to hours..

Stress junctions, their cert load in the 60s was anywhere from 5 times to 100times less than what it could take before complete failure...Not to mention, since the CG was controlled in a more simple "old school" design (as stated, like a sea bowie), the more mass you keep removing from the upper area, the more robust the bottom becomes as well as the CG continues to get lower.

If you had a 40 story WTC center with the same structural design, you would never knock that damn building over, you would have to dismantle that thing  piece by piece.

Unless we are using magic again.


If you just tell me you are a huge Harry Potter fan...I will leave you alone rayzor.... Seriously

Actually you made several glaring errors in your analysis of the collapse.   Firstly  WTC 1 and 2 did not fall at free fall rates.  If you assume that then your analysis is going to be flawed.

As the floors collapsed the mass increases and thus momentum increases as it falls not decreases as you seem to be implying, 
 
The initial collapse started on the floors the planes hit, and when those floors collapsed the entire mass of the floors above that is collapsing onto the lower floors.



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 01:52:01 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 01:48:29 AM
That's the best he's got Bhs.

Maybe we should leave him alone.

I love Rayzor he's one of the few guys that always has something important to add to any discussion.

Leave my mate Rayzor alone.

Thanks
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 01:54:40 AM
No worries man I'm honestly starting to feel a little bad.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 02:11:52 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 01:54:40 AM
No worries man I'm honestly starting to feel a little bad.

And so you should,  shame on you for supporting such a corrosive conspiracy.   Blatant lies like this can't be allowed to go unchallenged.

I feel sorry for BHS,  he seems to be well into the grip of the conspiracy mind set, to the extent that there may be no hope for him. 



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 16, 2017, 02:15:13 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 01:51:26 AM
Actually you made several glaring errors in your analysis of the collapse.   Firstly  WTC 1 and 2 did not fall at free fall rates.  If you assume that then your analysis is going to be flawed.

As the floors collapsed the mass increases and thus momentum increases as it falls not decreases as you seem to be implying, 
 
The initial collapse started on the floors the planes hit, and when those floors collapsed the entire mass of the floors above that is collapsing onto the lower floors.

The only "error" stated was an oversight...Which I will address now. Falling at speed of 8℅ +- of free fall speed is close enough for me to say "free fall"...I stated the time it should take for this to happen, even using magic to make it happen in the first place.

The rest I addressed in the post that obviously went over your head so please attempt to reread.


I am truly almost to the point of calling it, stating you simply are not qualified to discuss this on a serious level with me. It's not really an insult...As i wouldn't expect a teacher who works in liberal arts to hold a conversation about this with me in any form. We all have our areas of expertise, I am just very very very bored.

I want to debate with you, but I don't have the time and patience to teach you all the prerequisites required. We can discuss the wheel, but I don't have time to tell you how it's built.

Quote from: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 01:54:40 AM
No worries man I'm honestly starting to feel a little bad.

I am almost done myself...

Not for feeling bad, because I don't...People like him are a problem to others around him (on all issues and world view, not just this)

Just out of boredom....The only thing I give him is he hasn't ran off which most would have by now...Though just repeating nonsensical gibberish, mixed with word twisting and blatant lies is also not very impressive either...

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 02:16:54 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 02:11:52 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 01:54:40 AM
No worries man I'm honestly starting to feel a little bad.

And so you should,  shame on you for supporting such a corrosive conspiracy.   Blatant lies like this can't be allowed to go unchallenged.

I feel sorry for BHS,  he seems to be well into the grip of the conspiracy mind set, to the extent that there may be no hope for him. 

Fine, I'll say it, go on, call me crazy too.
It might distract the debate for a few posts.

You have some other motive than your personal desires for holding your ground on this issue.

All you have to say is the official story has a few holes in it, especially building 7, the fact it took seven years to release the model and sixteen years later have still not released the numbers for the collapse, is suspicious.

Then the bad men will stop I promise.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 02:21:49 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 16, 2017, 02:15:13 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 01:51:26 AM
Actually you made several glaring errors in your analysis of the collapse.   Firstly  WTC 1 and 2 did not fall at free fall rates.  If you assume that then your analysis is going to be flawed.

As the floors collapsed the mass increases and thus momentum increases as it falls not decreases as you seem to be implying, 
 
The initial collapse started on the floors the planes hit, and when those floors collapsed the entire mass of the floors above that is collapsing onto the lower floors.

The only "error" stated was an oversight...Which I will address now. Falling at speed of 8℅ +- of free fall speed is close enough for me to say "free fall"...I stated the time it should take for this to happen, even using magic to make it happen in the first place.

Schooled.

Quote
The rest I addressed in the post that obviously went over your head so please attempt to reread.

He has demonstrated multiple times on this thread that reading comprehension is not his strong suit...

I said it before...we all do the best with what we have.

Quote
I am truly almost to the point of calling it, stating you simply are not qualified to discuss this on a serious level with me. It's not really an insult...As i wouldn't expect a teacher who works in liberal arts to hold a conversation about this with me in any form. We all have our areas of expertise, I am just very very very bored.

I don't understand why he keeps getting up.

Quote
I want to debate with you, but I don't have the time and patience to teach you all the prerequisites required. We can discuss the wheel, but I don't have time to tell you how it's built.

Schooled.

Edit. I don't really feel bad.

I took Rayzors drink and laced it with known sedatives to give this motherf**ker a taste of his own medicine.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 02:29:10 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 16, 2017, 02:15:13 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 01:51:26 AM
Actually you made several glaring errors in your analysis of the collapse.   Firstly  WTC 1 and 2 did not fall at free fall rates.  If you assume that then your analysis is going to be flawed.

As the floors collapsed the mass increases and thus momentum increases as it falls not decreases as you seem to be implying, 
 
The initial collapse started on the floors the planes hit, and when those floors collapsed the entire mass of the floors above that is collapsing onto the lower floors.

The only "error" stated was an oversight...Which I will address now. Falling at speed of 8℅ +- of free fall speed is close enough for me to say "free fall"...I stated the time it should take for this to happen, even using magic to make it happen in the first place.

The rest I addressed in the post that obviously went over your head so please attempt to reread.


I am truly almost to the point of calling it, stating you simply are not qualified to discuss this on a serious level with me. It's not really an insult...As i wouldn't expect a teacher who works in liberal arts to hold a conversation about this with me in any form. We all have our areas of expertise, I am just very very very bored.

I want to debate with you, but I don't have the time and patience to teach you all the prerequisites required. We can discuss the wheel, but I don't have time to tell you how it's built.

Quote from: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 01:54:40 AM
No worries man I'm honestly starting to feel a little bad.

I am almost done myself...

Not for feeling bad, because I don't...People like him are a problem to others around him (on all issues and world view, not just this)

Just out of boredom....The only thing I give him is he hasn't ran off which most would have by now...Though just repeating nonsensical gibberish, mixed with word twisting and blatant lies is also not very impressive either...

There you go again making assumptions about what I do or don't know.  In the area of impact physics I can tell from your comments that your knowledge is somewhat deficient.

You lack of basic knowledge about the physics of building collapse is also apparent.  You got the collapse mechanism fully backwards.

Back to free fall,  when you look at the debris falling faster than the building what does that tell you?    BTW what is "8℅ +-"  are you trying to say free fall pus or minus,  that statement alone would get you a fail in my class.  You can't fall unassisted faster than free fall.  So let's give you a pass,  and assume that's not what you meant, so please clarify your statement.

Both WTC1 and WTC2 took approximately 16 seconds to collapse. 



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 02:32:43 AM


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 16, 2017, 02:44:09 AM
My +- was being sarcastic Actually...

Using rounded numbers....It would take me about 8 seconds to hit the ground if I had already achieved terminal velocity passing the tip of 1 or 2.

Using your number of 16 seconds (which it actually took a few seconds less)...Then we take that number, use it with terminal velocity, then extrapolate the acceleration time it takes to reach terminal velocity from a stand still and we come to an average amount of what....

Free fall...(possibly 8 percent slower)...

(http://i65.tinypic.com/25k0paq.jpg)

It's like shooting the dumbest, biggest fish in the smallest barrel.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 16, 2017, 02:47:01 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 02:16:54 AM

You have some other motive than your personal desires for holding your ground on this issue.


This is becoming the only option remaining.... Sadly....

I bet hoppy will come in later and explain the motive  :D
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 02:48:37 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 16, 2017, 02:44:09 AM
It's like shooting the dumbest, biggest fish in the smallest barrel.

(https://s24.postimg.org/ymlz86qnp/lolrayzor.jpg)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 02:50:43 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 16, 2017, 02:44:09 AM
My +- was being sarcastic Actually...

Using rounded numbers....It would take me about 8 seconds to hit the ground if I had already achieved terminal velocity passing the tip of 1 or 2.

Using your number of 16 seconds (which it actually took a few seconds less)...Then we take that number, use it with terminal velocity, then extrapolate the acceleration time it takes to reach terminal velocity from a stand still and we come to an average amount of what....

Free fall...(possibly 8 percent slower)...

(http://i65.tinypic.com/25k0paq.jpg)

It's like shooting the dumbest, biggest fish in the smallest barrel.

LOL  You reveal yourself as just another brain damaged meme poster.   

So in the distorted world of BHS maths,   twice the time of  free fall is 8% longer.   Are you sure you aren't shooting blanks from that little barrel of yours?

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 02:53:42 AM
F☆ck you Rayzor, if you want to call me or my mates brain damaged you can do it to my face thankyou very much.

You lost its over, call it quits son.

Watch the videos and tell me again Rayzor 16 seconds?

Maybe if you count until the dust settled.

Brainlet.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 16, 2017, 02:55:27 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 02:50:43 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 16, 2017, 02:44:09 AM
My +- was being sarcastic Actually...

Using rounded numbers....It would take me about 8 seconds to hit the ground if I had already achieved terminal velocity passing the tip of 1 or 2.

Using your number of 16 seconds (which it actually took a few seconds less)...Then we take that number, use it with terminal velocity, then extrapolate the acceleration time it takes to reach terminal velocity from a stand still and we come to an average amount of what....

Free fall...(possibly 8 percent slower)...

(http://i65.tinypic.com/25k0paq.jpg)

It's like shooting the dumbest, biggest fish in the smallest barrel.

LOL  You reveal yourself as just another brain damaged meme poster.   

So in the distorted world of BHS maths,   twice the time of  free fall is 8% longer.   Are you sure you aren't shooting blanks from that little barrel of yours?

Everyone read together now

Using your number of 16 seconds (which it actually took a few seconds less)...Then we take that number, use it with terminal velocity, then extrapolate the acceleration time it takes to reach terminal velocity from a stand still and we come to an average amount of what....

Free fall...


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 02:56:10 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 02:53:42 AM
F☆ck you Rayzor, if you want to call me or my mates brain damaged you can do it to my face thankyou very much.

You want to be called brain damaged?    That's a bit abnormal even for a 911 conspiracy looney like you.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 16, 2017, 02:57:06 AM
Forgot to include my 8 percent :D
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 02:59:26 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 02:56:10 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 02:53:42 AM
F☆ck you Rayzor, if you want to call me or my mates brain damaged you can do it to my face thankyou very much.

You want to be called brain damaged?    That's a bit abnormal even for a 911 conspiracy looney like you.

I'll buy you a beer while you do.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 03:00:50 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 16, 2017, 02:55:27 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 02:50:43 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 16, 2017, 02:44:09 AM
My +- was being sarcastic Actually...

Using rounded numbers....It would take me about 8 seconds to hit the ground if I had already achieved terminal velocity passing the tip of 1 or 2.

Using your number of 16 seconds (which it actually took a few seconds less)...Then we take that number, use it with terminal velocity, then extrapolate the acceleration time it takes to reach terminal velocity from a stand still and we come to an average amount of what....

Free fall...(possibly 8 percent slower)...

(http://i65.tinypic.com/25k0paq.jpg)

It's like shooting the dumbest, biggest fish in the smallest barrel.

LOL  You reveal yourself as just another brain damaged meme poster.   

So in the distorted world of BHS maths,   twice the time of  free fall is 8% longer.   Are you sure you aren't shooting blanks from that little barrel of yours?

Everyone read together now

Using your number of 16 seconds (which it actually took a few seconds less)...Then we take that number, use it with terminal velocity, then extrapolate the acceleration time it takes to reach terminal velocity from a stand still and we come to an average amount of what....

Free fall...

Destroyed so hard, full credit for determination.

Rayzor, don't get up, please.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 03:01:14 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 16, 2017, 02:55:27 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 02:50:43 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 16, 2017, 02:44:09 AM
My +- was being sarcastic Actually...

Using rounded numbers....It would take me about 8 seconds to hit the ground if I had already achieved terminal velocity passing the tip of 1 or 2.

Using your number of 16 seconds (which it actually took a few seconds less)...Then we take that number, use it with terminal velocity, then extrapolate the acceleration time it takes to reach terminal velocity from a stand still and we come to an average amount of what....

Free fall...(possibly 8 percent slower)...

(http://i65.tinypic.com/25k0paq.jpg)

It's like shooting the dumbest, biggest fish in the smallest barrel.

LOL  You reveal yourself as just another brain damaged meme poster.   

So in the distorted world of BHS maths,   twice the time of  free fall is 8% longer.   Are you sure you aren't shooting blanks from that little barrel of yours?

Everyone read together now

Using your number of 16 seconds (which it actually took a few seconds less)...Then we take that number, use it with terminal velocity, then extrapolate the acceleration time it takes to reach terminal velocity from a stand still and we come to an average amount of what....

Free fall...

You can have you own deranged opinions based on zero evidence,  but you aren't allowed to have your own number system.  Well actually you can,  but you need to define it beforehand. 

I was expecting you to challenge the 16 seconds.   But you disappointed me yet again.   I think video evidence shows 13-16 seconds, but I wouldn't argue if you claimed 10-11 seocnds,  just don't claim free-fall or in your case faster than free-fall. 

In any event the collapse time doesn't support the controlled demolition theory.

You may now revert to your natural mode of debate and post a few more teenage meme pictures,  I could use a laugh.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 16, 2017, 03:01:32 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 02:56:10 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 02:53:42 AM
F☆ck you Rayzor, if you want to call me or my mates brain damaged you can do it to my face thankyou very much.

You want to be called brain damaged?    That's a bit abnormal even for a 911 conspiracy looney like you.

Let's leave me and my credentials/experience etc out of the picture for a moment.

There are 1000s upon 1000s of people just like me, many even more intelligent and accomplished than I that think the same thing.

Call that Looney?

That is leaving out the millions of "regular folks" who feel the same way.

Also leaving people and leaders of other countries who roll their eyes that Americans even thought of accepting the official story. People of power in other countries have even publicly said it was all nonsense...

That's a bit further than a tin foil hat conspiracy don't you the Mr. Fish?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 03:03:29 AM
FASTER THAN FREEFALL!?!? MATE WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU!?!? DO YOU THINK THEY HAD ROCKETS ON THE ROOF!?!?

Edit, 10 deep breaths.

Please explain where / how either of us claimed "faster than freefall".
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 03:06:40 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 03:03:29 AM
FASTER THAN FREEFALL!?!? MATE WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU!?!? DO YOU THINK THEY HAD ROCKETS ON THE ROOF!?!?

Yep, surprised me too,  I thought BHS had a PhD,  but to be fair he later corrected it and said he was being sarcastic.  personally I think he was googling for meme pictures.  and was distracted.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 03:07:56 AM
You, good sir, are a scoundrel.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 16, 2017, 03:08:11 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 03:01:14 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 16, 2017, 02:55:27 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 02:50:43 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 16, 2017, 02:44:09 AM
My +- was being sarcastic Actually...

Using rounded numbers....It would take me about 8 seconds to hit the ground if I had already achieved terminal velocity passing the tip of 1 or 2.

Using your number of 16 seconds (which it actually took a few seconds less)...Then we take that number, use it with terminal velocity, then extrapolate the acceleration time it takes to reach terminal velocity from a stand still and we come to an average amount of what....

Free fall...(possibly 8 percent slower)...

(http://i65.tinypic.com/25k0paq.jpg)

It's like shooting the dumbest, biggest fish in the smallest barrel.

LOL  You reveal yourself as just another brain damaged meme poster.   

So in the distorted world of BHS maths,   twice the time of  free fall is 8% longer.   Are you sure you aren't shooting blanks from that little barrel of yours?

Everyone read together now

Using your number of 16 seconds (which it actually took a few seconds less)...Then we take that number, use it with terminal velocity, then extrapolate the acceleration time it takes to reach terminal velocity from a stand still and we come to an average amount of what....

Free fall...

You can have you own deranged opinions based on zero evidence,  but you aren't allowed to have your own number system.  Well actually you can,  but you need to define it beforehand. 

I was expecting you to challenge the 16 seconds.   But you disappointed me yet again.   I think video evidence shows 13-16 seconds, but I wouldn't argue if you claimed 10-11 seocnds,  just don't claim free-fall or in your case faster than free-fall. 

In any event the collapse time doesn't support the controlled demolition theory.

You may now revert to your natural mode of debate and post a few more teenage meme pictures,  I could use a laugh.

What the hell type answer is this?????

Let's examine my reply...Again...

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 16, 2017, 02:55:27 AM

Everyone read together now

Using your number of 16 seconds (which it actually took a few seconds less)...Then we take that number, use it with terminal velocity, then extrapolate the acceleration time it takes to reach terminal velocity from a stand still and we come to an average amount of what....

Free fall...

I did challenge your 16 seconds....I clearly said it was shorter..I was being fair by leaving it a bit open... It could be from 10-13 seconds..Tough to tell at the very end.

The rest of your response doesn't really argue anything?

So I am guessing that is your white flag?


Just say when and I will quit, I never kicked a man once he tapped out.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 16, 2017, 03:17:14 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 03:00:50 AM
Rayzor, don't get up, please.

Please listen
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 03:20:30 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 16, 2017, 03:08:11 AM
I did challenge your 16 seconds....I clearly said it was shorter..I was being fair by leaving it a bit open... It could be from 10-13 seconds..Tough to tell at the very end.

The rest of your response doesn't really argue anything?

So I am guessing that is your white flag?
Just say when and I will quit, I never kicked a man once he tapped out.

I can see you are emotionally wedded to your conspiracy theory,  since you appear to take criticism personally,  that tells me everything I need to know.  You will never change your mind,  when confronted with evidence that contradicts your entrenched world view you lash out.   I've got to say it's not a healthy state of mind you are in.  Keep telling yourself you are right and the rest of the world is wrong.   

And yes,  I'm going to call it quits,  there's just so much stupidity I can stomach,   you  are  the 911 version of sceptimatic.    And trust me that's no compliment.




Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 03:26:58 AM
I'll accept that, good day sir.

Quote from: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 03:20:30 AM
(https://s21.postimg.org/l2f6tw15j/2017_02_16_19_22_41_451259819.jpg)

ad hominem
ad ˈhɒmɪnɛm/
adverb & adjective

1.
(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
"an ad hominem response"

2.
relating to or associated with a particular person.
"the office was created ad hominem for Fenton"

straw man
noun
noun: strawman

1.
an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.
"her familiar procedure of creating a straw man by exaggerating their approach"

2.
a person regarded as having no substance or integrity.
"a photogenic straw man gets inserted into office and advisers dictate policy"

@ Bhs

(https://s3.postimg.org/73jty1e8z/images_25.jpg)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 03:31:04 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 03:20:30 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 16, 2017, 03:08:11 AM
I did challenge your 16 seconds....I clearly said it was shorter..I was being fair by leaving it a bit open... It could be from 10-13 seconds..Tough to tell at the very end.

The rest of your response doesn't really argue anything?

So I am guessing that is your white flag?
Just say when and I will quit, I never kicked a man once he tapped out.

I can see you are emotionally wedded to your conspiracy theory,  since you appear to take criticism personally,  that tells me everything I need to know.  You will never change your mind,  when confronted with evidence that contradicts your entrenched world view you lash out.   I've got to say it's not a healthy state of mind you are in.  Keep telling yourself you are right and the rest of the world is wrong.   

And yes,  I'm going to call it quits,  there's just so much stupidity I can stomach,   you  are  the 911 version of sceptimatic.    And trust me that's no compliment.

Also.

hypocrisy
hɪˈpɒkrɪsi/Submit
noun

the practice of claiming to have higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case.
"his target was the hypocrisy of suburban life"
synonyms:   sanctimoniousness, sanctimony, pietism, piousness, affected piety, affected superiority, false virtue, cant, humbug, pretence, posturing, speciousness, empty talk; More

irony1
ˈʌɪrəni/
noun

the expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect.
"‘Don't go overboard with the gratitude,’ he rejoined with heavy irony"
synonyms:   sarcasm, sardonicism, dryness, causticity, sharpness, acerbity, acid, bitterness, trenchancy, mordancy, cynicism; More

a state of affairs or an event that seems deliberately contrary to what one expects and is often wryly amusing as a result.
plural noun: ironies
"the irony is that I thought he could help me"
synonyms:   paradox, paradoxical nature, incongruity, incongruousness, peculiarity
"the irony of the situation hit her"

a literary technique, originally used in Greek tragedy, by which the full significance of a character's words or actions is clear to the audience or reader although unknown to the character.
noun: dramatic irony; plural noun: tragic irony

So thick you can cut it with a knife.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 03:32:29 AM
You feel good that you support an evil corrosive conspiracy theory.    Really?

I see you found your dictionary again.  Hang on to that,  there might be some big words coming along soon.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 16, 2017, 03:34:03 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 03:20:30 AM
I can see you are emotionally wedded to your conspiracy theory,  since you appear to take criticism personally,  that tells me everything I need to know.  You will never change your mind,  when confronted with evidence that contradicts your entrenched world view you lash out.   I've got to say it's not a healthy state of mind you are in.  Keep telling yourself you are right and the rest of the world is wrong.   

And yes,  I'm going to call it quits,  there's just so much stupidity I can stomach,   you  are  the 911 version of sceptimatic.    And trust me that's no compliment.

^^^
This ladies and gentlemen is what we call a mirroring deflection ladies and gentlemen...

I will ask what evidence you actually presenting besides stomping your feet and yelling so you can't hear me. If you were a child I would say it's time for a time out....AND NO DESSERT FOR YOU!!!

Also...You never addressed this one either...

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 16, 2017, 03:01:32 AM

Let's leave me and my credentials/experience etc out of the picture for a moment.

There are 1000s upon 1000s of people just like me, many even more intelligent and accomplished than I that think the same thing.

Call that Looney?

That is leaving out the millions of "regular folks" who feel the same way.

Also leaving people and leaders of other countries who roll their eyes that Americans even thought of accepting the official story. People of power in other countries have even publicly said it was all nonsense...

That's a bit further than a tin foil hat conspiracy don't you the Mr. Fish?

Though I wouldn't either if I were you..

Not a very proud way to bow out after getting demolished (ha ha no pun intended)..

Just for kicks...Since you love memes so much, just for you as you leave..

(http://i64.tinypic.com/34or6mq.jpg)

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 03:38:26 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 16, 2017, 03:34:03 AM
Not a very proud way to bow out after getting demolished (ha ha no pun intended)..

No I called it quits after your arse backwards description of the collapse,  I realised then and there, you were too far gone to be reached.

Not to mention your looney theory of no planes hitting WTC1 and WTC2,   That should have alerted me to the type of nutcase I was dealing with.

I seriously thought you were genuine before this thread,  glad to see the real you emerge from the debris.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 03:41:00 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 03:32:29 AM
You feel good that you support an evil corrosive conspiracy theory.    Really?

Do you? Tell me Rayzor, do you? After eight pages, tell me how you feel about this. I want to know.

"His hope was to remind the world that fairness, justice, and freedom are more than words, they are perspectives."
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 16, 2017, 03:43:08 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 13, 2017, 10:49:57 PM
You are going to end this a jibbering mess of failed insults and logic.

But you asked for it.

This prediction is Erie....

Perhaps I should get stock tips from dispute
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 03:44:32 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 03:38:26 AM
I seriously thought you were genuine before this thread,  glad to see the real you emerge from the debris.

I never paid attention to you, desu, your posts are usually stale and boring.

Now I know your true character, liked you better when I didn't care.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 03:45:03 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 03:41:00 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 03:32:29 AM
You feel good that you support an evil corrosive conspiracy theory.    Really?

Do you? Tell me Rayzor, do you? After eight pages, tell me how you feel about this. I want to know.

"His hope was to remind the world that fairness, justice, and freedom are more than words, they are perspectives."

I had hoped that the truth would emerge by presenting the evidence in an objective analytical manner,  maths, physics and science  doesn't lie. Still doesn't
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 03:46:34 AM
It did mate, it did.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 03:48:05 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 16, 2017, 03:43:08 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 13, 2017, 10:49:57 PM
You are going to end this a jibbering mess of failed insults and logic.

But you asked for it.

This prediction is Erie....

Perhaps I should get stock tips from dispute

Literature isn't your strong suit either Erie is a lake,  you might have meant eerie.  But his prediction was right,  just got the sides wrong. 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 03:51:19 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 03:48:05 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 16, 2017, 03:43:08 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 13, 2017, 10:49:57 PM
You are going to end this a jibbering mess of failed insults and logic.

But you asked for it.

This prediction is Erie....

Perhaps I should get stock tips from dispute

Literature isn't your strong suit either Erie is a lake,  you might have meant eerie.  But his prediction was right,  just got the sides wrong.

Is there no depth you won't sink to?

I'm predicting...no...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 03:52:23 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 13, 2017, 10:49:57 PM
Fall acceleration of building 7.

You are going to end this a jibbering mess of failed insults and logic.

But you asked for it.

Mods can we move to tech and alt please. ty.

Reply #1 ladies and gentleman.

Edit.

The logic we used on this entire thread is still applicable, all things considered, we were fair and reasonable and gave you every chace to post an argument with your own words.

...you posted a bunk computer model...

Also our insults have been on point, you are the one following the fruit loop.

I lost my cool when you tried to misrepresent our position as to arguing the buildings fell faster than free fall.

Apart from that I'm pretty happy, the memes were really getting to you by the end.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 03:54:04 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 03:51:19 AM

Is there no depth you won't sink to?

I'm predicting...no...

Another prediction,  actually I shouldn't make fun of BHS,  his phone keeps auto correcting his posts,  Erie, eerie also  he meant to say +- 8 % of free fall,  ... oh wait that's what he did say  LOL
 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 16, 2017, 03:56:16 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 03:38:26 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 16, 2017, 03:34:03 AM
Not a very proud way to bow out after getting demolished (ha ha no pun intended)..

No I called it quits after your arse backwards description of the collapse,  I realised then and there, you were too far gone to be reached.

Not to mention your looney theory of no planes hitting WTC1 and WTC2,   That should have alerted me to the type of nutcase I was dealing with.

I seriously thought you were genuine before this thread,  glad to see the real you emerge from the debris.

Lying as always....Going out true to form...

You truly are all of jacks desperation...It is a fowl odor.

I never said nothing hit the towers...I said there are issues with the video evidence, stated what 1000s of witnesses heard and saw..using just these alone, I said nothing would have had to hit tower 1...tower 2 was not hit by the commercial flight we were told, it was hit by something, but not that...Nor I have ever cared about my hypothetical opinions on this thread...you just keep going after them to avoid the hard facts I present..

How many times have I said I don't want to speak hypothetical, but just facts? You cannot even hold a candle with facts, so you must use other tactics.


And my "backwards" views of the towers is exactly how they were build..I explained how they would fall. You cannot handle that...So of course it is backwards to you.

UNT decided to issue a diploma to me telling me I could talk about this with authority, multiple companies have issued certs to me saying I can talk about this with authority, 1000s of customers through a decade pay me so I can do this stuff for them with an authority

What do you have?

You can't even form a coherent simple rebuttal besides "Nuh uh!!"

Smdh ::)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 03:59:39 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 16, 2017, 03:56:16 AM
You can't even form a coherent simple rebuttal besides "Nuh uh!!"

Smdh ::)

I think you are giving him entirely too much credit there.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 04:02:31 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 16, 2017, 03:56:16 AM
I never said nothing hit the towers...I said there are issues with the video evidence, stated what 1000s of witnesses heard and saw..using just these alone, I said nothing would have had to hit tower 1...tower 2 was not hit by the commercial flight we were told, it was hit by something, but not that...Nor I have ever cared about my hypothetical opinions on this thread...you just keep going after them to avoid the hard facts I present..

Correct you didn't  you said "no planes hit the towers",  and that's what I repeated.   You seem to be unable to read.  is that a problem with your phone still?  Or are you just lazy?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on February 16, 2017, 04:03:46 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 03:54:04 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 03:51:19 AM

Is there no depth you won't sink to?

I'm predicting...no...

Another prediction,  actually I shouldn't make fun of BHS,  his phone keeps auto correcting his posts,  Erie, eerie also  he meant to say +- 8 % of free fall,  ... oh wait that's what he did say  LOL

Hey numb nuts...

Has that rash cleared up yet?

Are you going to address this:

Quote from: totallackey on February 15, 2017, 08:21:55 AM

Quote from: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 05:33:44 AM
Who knows why they didn't  release some specific data,  certainly not me and definitely not you.

Why do you believe the NIST report but do not take at face value the stated reason they refuse to release the input/results data leading to the conclusions in the reports?

Patrick Gallagher stated the reason for not releasing the data as: "...might jeopardize public safety."

Why do you disagree with that written statement by Mr. Gallagher?

Why do you not question:

1. What public?

2. What safety?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 04:08:10 AM
Quote from: totallackey on February 16, 2017, 04:03:46 AM
Hey numb nuts...

Has that rash cleared up yet?

Are you going to address this:

 

Ha ha,,  man could I have fun with that..   but I'll show restraint and just say,  ask your girlfriend.

Quote from: totallackey on February 15, 2017, 08:21:55 AM

Quote from: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 05:33:44 AM
Who knows why they didn't  release some specific data,  certainly not me and definitely not you.

Why do you believe the NIST report but do not take at face value the stated reason they refuse to release the input/results data leading to the conclusions in the reports?

Patrick Gallagher stated the reason for not releasing the data as: "...might jeopardize public safety."

Why do you disagree with that written statement by Mr. Gallagher?

Why do you not question:

1. What public?

2. What safety?


I think I've said it clearly already,  I don't know why they didn't release some specific data, but that doesn't mean I'm going to leap up and down shouting conspiracy.  I'd need to borrow your tin foil hat for that.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 16, 2017, 04:14:10 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 04:02:31 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 16, 2017, 03:56:16 AM
I never said nothing hit the towers...I said there are issues with the video evidence, stated what 1000s of witnesses heard and saw..using just these alone, I said nothing would have had to hit tower 1...tower 2 was not hit by the commercial flight we were told, it was hit by something, but not that...Nor I have ever cared about my hypothetical opinions on this thread...you just keep going after them to avoid the hard facts I present..

Correct you didn't  you said "no planes hit the towers",  and that's what I repeated.   You seem to be unable to read.  is that a problem with your phone still?  Or are you just lazy?

I stated exactly what I present as an hypothesis and why...I would get way more in-depth if I didn't think it was a waste. I also continuously said let's not talk about that, because it doesn't matter..Let's just focus on the facts.

Yes I am lazy with my posts...I have already told you that...Not to mention..

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on June 23, 2016, 11:30:12 AM
Yep since I don't proof read my stuff, and that is your only argument EVER. I say good for you. My brain has always sucked at spelling, sorry, you can't have everything. Numbers, logic, problem solving skills ect is my strong suit. I knew when I was a kid I was going to have problems there. Parts of my brain is over develped other parts are a bit lacking (people skills sometimes, over thinking the smallest task, and a few other issues) Also being dyslexic has never helped matters.

Dug that up...Since typically spelling is an attack here from people towards me when they have lost a debate.

I have had to battle through a perplexity of mental issues to get where I am, and it was and still isn't an easy road. So if you want to make fun of me on misspellings, or the fact I use auto correct because I can't spell worth a fuck...fine by you..

Fortunately I am not debating about grammar or spelling, nor would I ever.

We are talking about 9/11 and it's impossibilities of the official story. The fact you had to go to spelling simply means you lost soldier.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 16, 2017, 04:18:09 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 04:08:10 AM
I'd need to borrow your tin foil hat for that.


Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 16, 2017, 03:01:32 AM
Let's leave me and my credentials/experience etc out of the picture for a moment.

There are 1000s upon 1000s of people just like me, many even more intelligent and accomplished than I that think the same thing.

Call that Looney?

That is leaving out the millions of "regular folks" who feel the same way.

Also leaving people and leaders of other countries who roll their eyes that Americans even thought of accepting the official story. People of power in other countries have even publicly said it was all nonsense...

That's a bit further than a tin foil hat conspiracy don't you the Mr. Fish?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 04:20:36 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 16, 2017, 04:14:10 AM
We are talking about 9/11 and it's impossibilities of the official story. The fact you had to go to spelling simply means you lost soldier.

If you had convinced me that you actually had a case,  then you could claim a victory of sorts,  but the further we went,  it became obvious that you were too far gone. 

There were plenty of opportunities where you could have presented a coherent argument,  and you might have had a convert.  The fact is you didn't

If you want to look in terms of winning and losing,  Everybody loses when conspiracy replaces science and truth.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 04:22:39 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 04:20:36 AM
If you want to look in terms of winning and losing,  Everybody loses when conspiracy replaces science and truth.

Agreed.

Edit.

If you want to continue this I would recommend doing it here (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69329.0).
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on February 16, 2017, 04:29:04 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 04:08:10 AM
Ha ha,,  man could I have fun with that..   but I'll show restraint and just say,  ask your girlfriend.

I asked her last night. She replied with this signal:
(http://media.gettyimages.com/photos/woman-teasing-man-with-small-penis-picture-id154958940)

Said she was not going to go any further.

Quote from: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 04:08:10 AM
I think I've said it clearly already,  I don't know why they didn't release some specific data, but that doesn't mean I'm going to leap up and down shouting conspiracy.  I'd need to borrow your tin foil hat for that.
Nice to know your reality includes a definition of clarity more fitting of
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/ic6N7gmKx6Q/maxresdefault.jpg)

Again, the NIST chair clearly states he did not release the inputs/results data in the interests of: "...public safety."

Why do you deny this if he clearly states this to be the reason for withholding the data?

I am 100 percent convinced it is because you know it to be an absolute bull shit reason.

The reason I am 100 percent convinced is simply because you are so full of bull shit yourself and that qualifies you as a bull shit expert.

You and sokarul.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 16, 2017, 04:42:27 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 04:20:36 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 16, 2017, 04:14:10 AM
We are talking about 9/11 and it's impossibilities of the official story. The fact you had to go to spelling simply means you lost soldier.

If you had convinced me that you actually had a case,  then you could claim a victory of sorts,  but the further we went,  it became obvious that you were too far gone. 

There were plenty of opportunities where you could have presented a coherent argument,  and you might have had a convert.  The fact is you didn't

If you want to look in terms of winning and losing,  Everybody loses when conspiracy replaces science and truth.

There is nothing more I can do for you...Anything I presented you either ignored, resorted to ad hominem responses, or simply said "Well the officials said so, I believe them"...A governments dream.

Everything i said was grounded in science, experience (between mine and other people's recordable experience) and logic. I stated things that were MY opinion very clearly, just because you kept asking for it..I didn't even want to talk about that. I stated that on page one...All you have used is diversion and confusion tactics...

This is literally 2 percent of what I know about this subject...I can't even get in the good stuff with you, because you can't even make it past the opening statement.


You wanna win me over....talk to me like someone intelligent I should give an ear to.

When you get this...

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 16, 2017, 01:38:27 AM
That is the only two options.....There are no others..Either reality was violated and we accept the story (this doesn't even include 1000s of other issues) or it was a lie.

As much as you would like to fight it...There is no other available options...So you choose to side with an impossibility?


But just to play your uneducated game...

Let's assume I entertain the model your video shows (which I don't)...

So the plane is allowed to enter without restriction...Pass through the outside vertical exoskeleton and horizontal exoskeleton to the core.

Ok, those few floors are compromised on the 91-93 floors...That would not cause a collapse.

But let's say it did in that area.

It would collapse on itself at the path of least resistance...However, there is not enough damaged and removed material.

So you would have a situation such as this..

(http://i63.tinypic.com/11iohnq.jpg)

However, even if by magic it started a free fall collapse at that 90th floor, it would not make it past the 44th floor because of the doubled core stacking (this building did not have CG sway compensation like newer buildings so CG directional load was set up like older scrappers, more like a sea bowie), the lower 40 was built like a tank compared to the upper sections...Multiples of the mass of the upper decks.

However, if we keep using magic....Let's say it collapsed this area too....We would have this...

(http://i66.tinypic.com/35lf8s0.jpg)

Just multiped by a factor 3.8

And not at a free fall...

Would have taken anywhere from minutes to hours..

Stress junctions, their cert load in the 60s was anywhere from 5 times to 100times less than what it could take before complete failure...Not to mention, since the CG was controlled in a more simple "old school" design (as stated, like a sea bowie), the more mass you keep removing from the upper area, the more robust the bottom becomes as well as the CG continues to get lower.

If you had a 40 story WTC center with the same structural design, you would never knock that damn building over, you would have to dismantle that thing  piece by piece.

Unless we are using magic again.


If you just tell me you are a huge Harry Potter fan...I will leave you alone rayzor.... Seriously

Refute it....Tell me why I am wrong...Give me specifics..

If you aren't qualified..Tell me, and leave the conversation...

This is nothing...Just chicken scratch for me...I can tell you the fucking metallurgical make up of every fucking piece of structural metal in that building and the supposed vessel that struck it...AND the concrete AND the enternal water content. I can support my position to the molecular level if you want to...Wanna talk design fine...I can tell you how many estimated fucking rivets, bolts, spacers etc etc etc...Wanna talk design theory, let's go...

I can defend my position from 1000 different angles...

But we haven't even walked past the door...

Your answer of "NIST says so" is unacceptable...especially when it goes against physics and reality...I need another...And I need a real one.

Either you can do this or you can't....

You have options...

Actually bring it for once...

Admit you are wrong...

Admit you are over your head and walk...

Or admit you just want to believe in magic...

I am tired of wasting my time.

Quote from: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 04:22:39 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 04:20:36 AM
If you want to look in terms of winning and losing,  Everybody loses when conspiracy replaces science and truth.

Agreed.

Edit.

If you want to continue this I would recommend doing it here (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69329.0).

Agreed...No one wins....The more people there like symptom, the easier it is for the true perpetrators to get away with it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 04:49:02 AM
Quote from: totallackey on February 16, 2017, 04:29:04 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 04:08:10 AM
Ha ha,,  man could I have fun with that..   but I'll show restraint and just say,  ask your girlfriend.

Quote from: totallackey on February 16, 2017, 04:29:04 AM
I asked her last night. She replied with this signal:
Said she was not going to go any further.

That's what she did when I asked her what was she used to.

Quote from: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 04:08:10 AM
I think I've said it clearly already,  I don't know why they didn't release some specific data, but that doesn't mean I'm going to leap up and down shouting conspiracy.  I'd need to borrow your tin foil hat for that.
Nice to know your reality includes a definition of clarity more fitting of
Again, the NIST chair clearly states he did not release the inputs/results data in the interests of: "...public safety."

Why do you deny this if he clearly states this to be the reason for withholding the data?

I am 100 percent convinced it is because you know it to be an absolute bull shit reason.

The reason I am 100 percent convinced is simply because you are so full of bull shit yourself and that qualifies you as a bull shit expert.

You and sokarul.

Coming from you I'll take that as a compliment.   At least sokarul is sane,  unlike the 911 conspiracy loonies.
 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 04:54:49 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 04:22:39 AM
If you want to continue this I would recommend doing it here (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69329.0).
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on February 16, 2017, 04:57:03 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 04:49:02 AM
Coming from you I'll take that as a compliment.   At least sokarul is sane,  unlike the 911 conspiracy loonies.
Your entire arguments here in a synopsis:

Q: "Why did WTC 1 fall?"
A (from Rayzor): "See the NIST report! Trust the NIST! All hail the NIST!"
Q: "Why did WTC 2 fall?"
A (from Rayzor): "See the NIST report! Trust the NIST! All hail the NIST!"
Q: Why did WTC 7 fall?
A (from Rayzor): "See the NIST report! Trust the NIST! All hail the NIST!"
Q: "Why did the NIST refuse to provide the inputs/results data in response to a FOIA request?"
A (from Rayzor): "I don't know, even though the reason is written in the letter signed by the NIST chair!"

Again, the NIST chair clearly states he did not release the inputs/results data in the interests of: "...public safety."

Why do you deny this if he clearly states this to be the reason for withholding the data?

I am 100 percent convinced it is because you know it to be an absolute bull shit reason.

The reason I am 100 percent convinced is simply because you are so full of bull shit yourself and that qualifies you as a bull shit expert.

You and sokarul.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 05:08:48 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 16, 2017, 04:42:27 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 04:20:36 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 16, 2017, 04:14:10 AM
We are talking about 9/11 and it's impossibilities of the official story. The fact you had to go to spelling simply means you lost soldier.

If you had convinced me that you actually had a case,  then you could claim a victory of sorts,  but the further we went,  it became obvious that you were too far gone. 

There were plenty of opportunities where you could have presented a coherent argument,  and you might have had a convert.  The fact is you didn't

If you want to look in terms of winning and losing,  Everybody loses when conspiracy replaces science and truth.

There is nothing more I can do for you...Anything I presented you either ignored, resorted to ad hominem responses, or simply said "Well the officials said so, I believe them"...A governments dream.

Everything i said was grounded in science, experience (between mine and other people's recordable experience) and logic. I stated things that were MY opinion very clearly, just because you kept asking for it..I didn't even want to talk about that. I stated that on page one...All you have used is diversion and confusion tactics...

This is literally 2 percent of what I know about this subject...I can't even get in the good stuff with you, because you can't even make it past the opening statement.


You wanna win me over....talk to me like someone intelligent I should give an ear to.

When you get this...

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 16, 2017, 01:38:27 AM
That is the only two options.....There are no others..Either reality was violated and we accept the story (this doesn't even include 1000s of other issues) or it was a lie.

As much as you would like to fight it...There is no other available options...So you choose to side with an impossibility?


But just to play your uneducated game...

Let's assume I entertain the model your video shows (which I don't)...

So the plane is allowed to enter without restriction...Pass through the outside vertical exoskeleton and horizontal exoskeleton to the core.

Ok, those few floors are compromised on the 91-93 floors...That would not cause a collapse.

But let's say it did in that area.

It would collapse on itself at the path of least resistance...However, there is not enough damaged and removed material.

So you would have a situation such as this..

(http://i63.tinypic.com/11iohnq.jpg)

However, even if by magic it started a free fall collapse at that 90th floor, it would not make it past the 44th floor because of the doubled core stacking (this building did not have CG sway compensation like newer buildings so CG directional load was set up like older scrappers, more like a sea bowie), the lower 40 was built like a tank compared to the upper sections...Multiples of the mass of the upper decks.

However, if we keep using magic....Let's say it collapsed this area too....We would have this...

(http://i66.tinypic.com/35lf8s0.jpg)

Just multiped by a factor 3.8

And not at a free fall...

Would have taken anywhere from minutes to hours..

Stress junctions, their cert load in the 60s was anywhere from 5 times to 100times less than what it could take before complete failure...Not to mention, since the CG was controlled in a more simple "old school" design (as stated, like a sea bowie), the more mass you keep removing from the upper area, the more robust the bottom becomes as well as the CG continues to get lower.

If you had a 40 story WTC center with the same structural design, you would never knock that damn building over, you would have to dismantle that thing  piece by piece.

Unless we are using magic again.


If you just tell me you are a huge Harry Potter fan...I will leave you alone rayzor.... Seriously

Refute it....Tell me why I am wrong...Give me specifics..

If you aren't qualified..Tell me, and leave the conversation...

This is nothing...Just chicken scratch for me...I can tell you the fucking metallurgical make up of every fucking piece of structural metal in that building and the supposed vessel that struck it...AND the concrete AND the enternal water content. I can support my position to the molecular level if you want to...Wanna talk design fine...I can tell you how many estimated fucking rivets, bolts, spacers etc etc etc...Wanna talk design theory, let's go...

I can defend my position from 1000 different angles...

But we haven't even walked past the door...

Your answer of "NIST says so" is unacceptable...especially when it goes against physics and reality...I need another...And I need a real one.

Either you can do this or you can't....

You have options...

Actually bring it for once...

Admit you are wrong...

Admit you are over your head and walk...

Or admit you just want to believe in magic...

I am tired of wasting my time.

Quote from: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 04:22:39 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 04:20:36 AM
If you want to look in terms of winning and losing,  Everybody loses when conspiracy replaces science and truth.

Agreed.

Edit.

If you want to continue this I would recommend doing it here (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69329.0).

Agreed...No one wins....The more people there like symptom, the easier it is for the true perpetrators to get away with it.

You had plenty of chances, and failed.   

Just for interest,  when I talked about the colour temperature of molten aluminium,  why did you leap in with crap about magnesium fires,  and igniting aluminium.  It was completely out of context with what I was saying.

I corrected you twice and ignored it after than,  but it did start a train of thought.  First some basic chemistry,  Aluminium is incredibly reactive stuff,  when exposed to air it instantly forms an oxide film and  the oxide film protects the underlying aluminium.  However molten aluminium is a different thing altogether,  if it comes in contact with water, it can strip the oxygen off the water molecule, and release hydrogen gas, which is highly explosive.  We know there was molten aluminium seen pouring from the building.  I wonder if any significant amount came into contact with water?

Maybe next time.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 05:15:33 AM
Rayzor, you justify this to yourself however you like, but it's over, you said it, if you want to have cheap shots after the fact,

Quote from: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 04:54:49 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 04:22:39 AM
If you want to continue this I would recommend doing it here (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69329.0).
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 05:18:22 AM
Quote from: totallackey on February 16, 2017, 04:57:03 AM
Your entire arguments here in a synopsis:

I see you've put your best work into this, so I feel obliged to respond

Q: "Why did WTC 1 fall?"
A (from Rayzor): "See the NIST report! Trust the NIST! All hail the NIST!"
A. It got hit by a 767  with a full fuel load. (that's a big aircraft in case you weren't sure)

Q: "Why did WTC 2 fall?"
A (from Rayzor): "See the NIST report! Trust the NIST! All hail the NIST!"
See WTC1,  But it was a different plane, same type however.

Q: Why did WTC 7 fall?
A (from Rayzor): "See the NIST report! Trust the NIST! All hail the NIST!"
It was a directed energy weapon from an alien spacecraft.  ( now you know the truth keep it quiet)

Q: "Why did the NIST refuse to provide the inputs/results data in response to a FOIA request?"
A (from Rayzor): "I don't know, even though the reason is written in the letter signed by the NIST chair!"
If you know better go for it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 05:23:55 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 05:15:33 AM
Rayzor, you justify this to yourself however you like, but it's over, you said it, if you want to have cheap shots after the fact,

Quote from: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 04:54:49 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 04:22:39 AM
If you want to continue this I would recommend doing it here (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69329.0).

Why stop,  I've walked away from debating loonies, now  I'm having fun skewering a few 911 truthers.   

Although totallackey isn't in Papa Legba's class,  he's a bit of a pushover.  Watch him come back at me with a clever meme picture...  dumb as fuck!

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 16, 2017, 05:26:54 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 05:08:48 AM
You had plenty of chances, and failed.   

Just for interest,  when I talked about the colour temperature of molten aluminium,  why did you leap in with crap about magnesium fires,  and igniting aluminium.  It was completely out of context with what I was saying.

I corrected you twice and ignored it after than,  but it did start a train of thought.  First some basic chemistry,  Aluminium is incredibly reactive stuff,  when exposed to air it instantly forms an oxide film and  the oxide film protects the underlying aluminium.  However molten aluminium is a different thing altogether,  if it comes in contact with water, it can strip the oxygen off the water molecule, and release hydrogen gas, which is highly explosive.  We know there was molten aluminium seen pouring from the building.  I wonder if any significant amount came into contact with water?

Maybe next time.

You gave me zero chances...But this is a good step here.

You said metal fire..Used the words burning...So yes, I came in with that. Burning and melting are two different things...One is physical, other chemical...Different temps required as well.

You are correct in what you said...Simple stuff, nothing secret about it.

There are schools of thought for the water issue...some reports said the sprinkler system had a "technical issue" others the system was turned off and other ideas. Simple fact, they didn't turn on for whatever reason..There was no pressure at all past the 60th which is where the main portioning and termination valves for the upper levels were.

Simple case, there was no pressure or running emergency what up stairs...We can confirm that with video footage. We can also see no ignition of any hydrogen gas from the footage. Also whatever liquid metal we saw up there wasn't from a fire, nor from the plane, if it could have been melted as such, there wouldn't not have been enough of it in one spot to continue a process like that to distribute that much material to be visible like that. Plus the tower was still at a level, and the floors it was coming out of was still at a level, makes no sense for it to just be "flowing out"...

Sure there could have been a trace amounts of condensation MAYBE if I believe the concrete got hot enough in a spot or two to boil the trapped water from processing out of it.

Nice theory though...Step in the right direction
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 05:30:19 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 05:23:55 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 05:15:33 AM
Rayzor, you justify this to yourself however you like, but it's over, you said it, if you want to have cheap shots after the fact,

Quote from: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 04:54:49 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 04:22:39 AM
If you want to continue this I would recommend doing it here (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69329.0).

Why stop,  I've walked away from debating loonies, now  I'm having fun skewering a few 911 truthers.   

Although totallackey isn't in Papa Legba's class,  he's a bit of a pushover.  Watch him come back at me with a clever meme picture...  dumb as fuck!


I made a thread for you in AR, keep the personal attacks out of the upper fora, please. This is embarrassing now. If you think you are "skewering" anyone here, you are delusional.

Quote from: disputeone on February 13, 2017, 10:49:57 PM
Fall acceleration of building 7.

You are going to end this a jibbering mess of failed insults and logic.

But you asked for it.

Mods can we move to tech and alt please. ty.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on February 16, 2017, 05:35:47 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 05:18:22 AM
I see you've put your best work into this, so I feel obliged to respond.
Q: "Why did the NIST refuse to provide the inputs/results data in response to a FOIA request?"
A (from Rayzor): "I don't know, even though the reason is written in the letter signed by the NIST chair!"
If you know better go for it.

I will take this evasion, mental reservation, and equivocation, on your part and chalk it up to the fact you know the reason provided by the NIST is bull shit.

Why you do not come right out and unequivocally state that in writing is a clear indication of your total lack of character and integrity.

I know I have written some pretty demeaning things here, directed at many different accounts.

Lately, I have really tried hard to not exhibit this type of behavior in the Upper Fora and left in Angry Ranting where it belongs.

So much for that, you spineless, mealy mouthed, mealy thinking, mealy fingered, fuck.

No picture, as I am attempting to be as clear as possible and do not wish my writing to be misconstrued.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 05:36:26 AM
Umm...  this isn't the upper fora,  we relocated to the basement ages ago, remember you asked for it to be moved.   You can go vent there if you like, 

I'm happy here having an intelligent discussion with totallackey. 

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 05:39:42 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 05:36:26 AM
Umm...  this isn't the upper fora,  we relocated to the basement ages ago, remember you asked for it to be moved.   You can go vent there if you like, 

I'm happy here having an intelligent discussion with totallackey.

It's still a forum that visitors can see your foul attitude and language.

I don't want you to try and shitpost this into oblivion.

Personal attacks are against the rules.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 05:40:26 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 16, 2017, 05:26:54 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 05:08:48 AM
You had plenty of chances, and failed.   

Just for interest,  when I talked about the colour temperature of molten aluminium,  why did you leap in with crap about magnesium fires,  and igniting aluminium.  It was completely out of context with what I was saying.

I corrected you twice and ignored it after than,  but it did start a train of thought.  First some basic chemistry,  Aluminium is incredibly reactive stuff,  when exposed to air it instantly forms an oxide film and  the oxide film protects the underlying aluminium.  However molten aluminium is a different thing altogether,  if it comes in contact with water, it can strip the oxygen off the water molecule, and release hydrogen gas, which is highly explosive.  We know there was molten aluminium seen pouring from the building.  I wonder if any significant amount came into contact with water?

Maybe next time.

You gave me zero chances...But this is a good step here.

You said metal fire..Used the words burning...So yes, I came in with that. Burning and melting are two different things...One is physical, other chemical...Different temps required as well.

You are correct in what you said...Simple stuff, nothing secret about it.

There are schools of thought for the water issue...some reports said the sprinkler system had a "technical issue" others the system was turned off and other ideas. Simple fact, they didn't turn on for whatever reason..There was no pressure at all past the 60th which is where the main portioning and termination valves for the upper levels were.

Simple case, there was no pressure or running emergency what up stairs...We can confirm that with video footage. We can also see no ignition of any hydrogen gas from the footage. Also whatever liquid metal we saw up there wasn't from a fire, nor from the plane, if it could have been melted as such, there wouldn't not have been enough of it in one spot to continue a process like that to distribute that much material to be visible like that. Plus the tower was still at a level, and the floors it was coming out of was still at a level, makes no sense for it to just be "flowing out"...

Sure there could have been a trace amounts of condensation MAYBE if I believe the concrete got hot enough in a spot or two to boil the trapped water from processing out of it.

Nice theory though...Step in the right direction

Actually I said
Quote from: Rayzor
No you can't say that for a fact without stating your reasons.   You might think you have,  but facts are stubborn things,  they need proof.

There were many sections of where the fire reached temperatures high enough to melt aluminium and weaken steel.  Reports of red molten metal flowing from the building are well known,  as I've already stated, my contention is that was not molten steel but rather molten aluminium, which doesn't start to glow red until you get up into the 800C or so,  molten aluminium is just silver colour. 


NIST concluded that the source of the molten material was aluminum alloys from the aircraft, since these are known to melt between 475 degrees Celsius and 640 degrees Celsius (depending on the particular alloy), well below the expected temperatures (about 1,000 degrees Celsius) in the vicinity of the fires.

I don't want this to degenerate to a who said what and when,  you can go back and read it yourself,  but nowhere did I mention magnesium fire, or metal fire or anything like that.  I just want to know why that came into your mind?

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 05:43:20 AM
I wouldn't entertain him man, he's just fishing for something he can try and use to "get" you.

We comprehensively destroyed him, he knows, that's why he wants to turn this thread into a joke, it isn't.

Keep the personal attacks and vitriol in AR, where they belong.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 05:45:11 AM
Quote from: totallackey on February 16, 2017, 05:35:47 AM
So much for that, totallackey is a spineless, mealy mouthed, mealy thinking, mealy fingered, fuck.

Agreed
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 05:49:45 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 05:43:20 AM
Keep the personal attacks and vitriol in AR, where they belong.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 16, 2017, 05:54:30 AM
Razor..Ok... I swear you said metal fire or burning somewhere..I just don't feel like reading through all the nonsense again to attempt to find it. So I take back about a mag fire (only mentioned mag because of that mixture of aluminum) or any other metal being burning.

I admit when I am wrong...I could be here on what you said, maybe I rushed through reading it and thought you did if you really didn't say anything about it. Plus it's small anyways, doesn't matter much.

Though, if you are saying what we saw was aluminum melting, that isn't possible. It was clearly red or amber color. Aluminum is silver/ almost white during the day time... I view it as white during the day, when I work with it, but I am also partially color blind...Could be more silver.

You seem to know this, yet you say we could have saw the plane melting?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 16, 2017, 06:02:30 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 05:43:20 AM
I wouldn't entertain him man, he's just fishing for something he can try and use to "get" you.

We comprehensively destroyed him, he knows, that's why he wants to turn this thread into a joke, it isn't.

Keep the personal attacks and vitriol in AR, where they belong.

I know....It seemed like he was trying to present a thought out theory.

Though incorrect, it was still something in the right direction of proper communication so I wanted to support that.

However, if he returns back, I will start the totallackey approach and write him off...Speaking of that..

Quote from: totallackey on February 16, 2017, 05:35:47 AM
Lately, I have really tried hard to not exhibit this type of behavior in the Upper Fora and left in Angry Ranting where it belongs.

I have noticed your calm demeanor...Well done..

Quote
So much for that, you spineless, mealy mouthed, mealy thinking, mealy fingered, fuck.
Whoops...Slipped up a bit ha ha ha..
Quote
No picture, as I am attempting to be as clear as possible and do not wish my writing to be misconstrued.
This, and really this whole posts his one of your most humourous post you have done lol.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 06:11:40 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 16, 2017, 05:54:30 AM
Razor..Ok... I swear you said metal fire or burning somewhere..I just don't feel like reading through all the nonsense again to attempt to find it. So I take back about a mag fire (only mentioned mag because of that mixture of aluminum) or any other metal being burning.

I admit when I am wrong...I could be here on what you said, maybe I rushed through reading it and thought you did if you really didn't say anything about it. Plus it's small anyways, doesn't matter much.

Though, if you are saying what we saw was aluminum melting, that isn't possible. It was clearly red or amber color. Aluminum is silver/ almost white during the day time... I view it as white during the day, when I work with it, but I am also partially color blind...Could be more silver.

You seem to know this, yet you say we could have saw the plane melting?

I think it's an important data point.   There are reports of red molten metal flowing out of the building,   so what was it?

Aluminium at melting point is silver,  god knows I've done enough Aluminium casting.   So why is it silver?  It just isn't hot enough,  if you continue heating up to say 800 C or 900 C,  it starts to glow red.  And follows the black body radiation curve more or less depending on emissivity. 

So yes,  it  could be Aluminium,  much more likely than steel.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: hoppy on February 16, 2017, 06:29:40 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 06:11:40 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 16, 2017, 05:54:30 AM
Razor..Ok... I swear you said metal fire or burning somewhere..I just don't feel like reading through all the nonsense again to attempt to find it. So I take back about a mag fire (only mentioned mag because of that mixture of aluminum) or any other metal being burning.

I admit when I am wrong...I could be here on what you said, maybe I rushed through reading it and thought you did if you really didn't say anything about it. Plus it's small anyways, doesn't matter much.

Though, if you are saying what we saw was aluminum melting, that isn't possible. It was clearly red or amber color. Aluminum is silver/ almost white during the day time... I view it as white during the day, when I work with it, but I am also partially color blind...Could be more silver.

You seem to know this, yet you say we could have saw the plane melting?

I think it's an important data point.   There are reports of red molten metal flowing out of the building,   so what was it?

Aluminium at melting point is silver,  god knows I've done enough Aluminium casting.   So why is it silver?  It just isn't hot enough,  if you continue heating up to say 800 C or 900 C,  it starts to glow red.  And follows the black body radiation curve more or less depending on emissivity. 

So yes,  it  could be Aluminium,  much more likely than steel.
Razor, just stop. Mods please lock this thread.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 16, 2017, 06:32:05 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 06:11:40 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 16, 2017, 05:54:30 AM
Razor..Ok... I swear you said metal fire or burning somewhere..I just don't feel like reading through all the nonsense again to attempt to find it. So I take back about a mag fire (only mentioned mag because of that mixture of aluminum) or any other metal being burning.

I admit when I am wrong...I could be here on what you said, maybe I rushed through reading it and thought you did if you really didn't say anything about it. Plus it's small anyways, doesn't matter much.

Though, if you are saying what we saw was aluminum melting, that isn't possible. It was clearly red or amber color. Aluminum is silver/ almost white during the day time... I view it as white during the day, when I work with it, but I am also partially color blind...Could be more silver.

You seem to know this, yet you say we could have saw the plane melting?

I think it's an important data point.   There are reports of red molten metal flowing out of the building,   so what was it?

Aluminium at melting point is silver,  god knows I've done enough Aluminium casting.   So why is it silver?  It just isn't hot enough,  if you continue heating up to say 800 C or 900 C,  it starts to glow red.  And follows the black body radiation curve more or less depending on emissivity. 

So yes,  it  could be Aluminium,  much more likely than steel.

Have you cast in direct sunlight before? Even at that temp you are not going to see a red color in direct sunlight... Especially 100s or thousands of feet away.

Especially once it broke off from the main heat source, and fell for about 10 feet or so, it would already start to harden and lose any glow it had. Watch in the vid...None of that is seen, stays bright amber.

Definitely steel or something else...

It is a very important data point...But only speculation can answer.

Remember how I said I would demo the towers to make it look like it did if my company was paid? You would see that from the thermite v cuts before I hit the c4 dislodging charges. It would ash like that. Thermite produces a ton of slag, very dirty.

Worse than a gas cutting torch...



A few angles of the flow, locations and color.

Watch the way it acts...You would expect to see a guy up there cutting away with a gas torch.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 06:44:59 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 16, 2017, 06:32:05 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 06:11:40 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 16, 2017, 05:54:30 AM
Razor..Ok... I swear you said metal fire or burning somewhere..I just don't feel like reading through all the nonsense again to attempt to find it. So I take back about a mag fire (only mentioned mag because of that mixture of aluminum) or any other metal being burning.

I admit when I am wrong...I could be here on what you said, maybe I rushed through reading it and thought you did if you really didn't say anything about it. Plus it's small anyways, doesn't matter much.

Though, if you are saying what we saw was aluminum melting, that isn't possible. It was clearly red or amber color. Aluminum is silver/ almost white during the day time... I view it as white during the day, when I work with it, but I am also partially color blind...Could be more silver.

You seem to know this, yet you say we could have saw the plane melting?

I think it's an important data point.   There are reports of red molten metal flowing out of the building,   so what was it?

Aluminium at melting point is silver,  god knows I've done enough Aluminium casting.   So why is it silver?  It just isn't hot enough,  if you continue heating up to say 800 C or 900 C,  it starts to glow red.  And follows the black body radiation curve more or less depending on emissivity. 

So yes,  it  could be Aluminium,  much more likely than steel.

Have you cast in direct sunlight before? Even at that temp you are not going to see a red color in direct sunlight... Especially 100s or thousands of feet away.

Especially once it broke off from the main heat source, and fell for about 10 feet or so, it would already start to harden and lose any glow it had. Watch in the vid...None of that is seen, stays bright amber.

Definitely steel or something else...

It is a very important data point...But only speculation can answer.

Remember how I said I would demo the towers to make it look like it did if my company was paid? You would see that from the thermite v cuts before I hit the c4 dislodging charges. It would ash like that. Thermite produces a ton of slag, very dirty.

Worse than a gas cutting torch...



A few angles of the flow, locations and color.

Watch the way it acts...You would expect to see a guy up there cutting away with a gas torch.

The colour of that metal gives you an indication of the temperature.

Whenever I've cast aluminium it's always at lower temperatures,  and so it's always silver colour whenever I've been casting.   I've never had  aluminium up to red heat temperatures,  But I  do run the furnace at 1200C every so often,  so I could put some in a crucible and see what colour it is at 1200, then watch the colour change as it cools.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 16, 2017, 07:02:48 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 06:44:59 AM
Whenever I've cast aluminium it's always at lower temperatures,  and so it's always silver colour whenever I've been casting.   I've never had  aluminium up to red heat temperatures,  But I  do run the furnace at 1200C every so often,  so I could put some in a crucible and see what colour it is at 1200, then watch the colour change as it cools.

You can if you want, I don't know how hot I have seen it, probably around 700 degrees or so, never had any need to go hotter...Most aluminum work we do is in building 2 which has a ton of natural light, I can never remember seeing it "glow red" in there..Just silver/white. Low light areas, or lack of natural light, I can see the redish glow.

I have never seen aluminum act like that though being broken off...Either by cutting or melting. I would put my left nut it's steel or "something else" we are seeing.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sceptimatic on February 16, 2017, 07:51:49 AM
A very good video to watch that should give plenty of food for thought for those who haven't seen it.

It's down to using basic common sense.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 08:05:05 AM
Quote from: sceptimatic on February 16, 2017, 07:51:49 AM
A very good video to watch that should give plenty of food for thought for those who haven't seen it.

It's down to using basic common sense.


Nope,  Debunked extensively here

https://kendoc911.wordpress.com/debunking-the-no-plane-theory/disinfo-aluminum-planes-cannot-penetrate-steel-buildings/

No laws of Physics were broken.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sceptimatic on February 16, 2017, 08:10:05 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 08:05:05 AM
Quote from: sceptimatic on February 16, 2017, 07:51:49 AM
A very good video to watch that should give plenty of food for thought for those who haven't seen it.

It's down to using basic common sense.


Nope,  Debunked extensively here

https://kendoc911.wordpress.com/debunking-the-no-plane-theory/disinfo-aluminum-planes-cannot-penetrate-steel-buildings/

No laws of Physics were broken.
No problem. In future, just understand that what I put out is not for you. I know what you are and you're a complete waste of time, Geoff.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 16, 2017, 08:35:27 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 08:05:05 AM
Quote from: sceptimatic on February 16, 2017, 07:51:49 AM
A very good video to watch that should give plenty of food for thought for those who haven't seen it.

It's down to using basic common sense.


Nope,  Debunked extensively here

https://kendoc911.wordpress.com/debunking-the-no-plane-theory/disinfo-aluminum-planes-cannot-penetrate-steel-buildings/

No laws of Physics were broken.

Are you kidding me....You can watch the first 10 minutes and say nothing is wrong? Did you not see how a 767 performances at low altitude (I already said this before, but the video showed one)...That is reality, and I promise you, that was prob only about 250mph..

As I said before, even if you could get them too 500 mph they would never hold together...This isn't opinion, this is absolute fact. Not to mention pull the turns and maneuvers they did at that speed..No...Then add people who couldn't handle a Cessna at 125...No..

You can really watch the videos frame by frame and say everything is the way they say it? There is nothing wrong with the story...Forget anything else...Just these small facts..

Watching the laws of physics broken on camera...And know the supposed aircraft couldn't even fly at that speed and altitude?

Watch the planes disappear into the building without leaving a single damn mark....A shred of debris....Nothing....Nadda....

Then suddenly...Boom... Explosion and afterwards it's an exact imprint...Wing tips and all.

Just these few things....How can you accept 100 percent vicious lies with a smile and say they are truth?


Either you must live in this reality for whatever reason, you are mentally incapacitated...Or I can't believe I am using this word, a really good to life actual shill.

I am just mystified
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 16, 2017, 08:44:47 AM
Quote from: sceptimatic on February 16, 2017, 07:51:49 AM

Thanks for the video scepti...Never seen that before.

I don't know anything about holographic technology...I am all mechanical, structural, some electrical stuff etc but nothing as advanced as holographic tech.... I have heard the theory and dismissed it, as I have stated here, I have always put money on a drone or missle....Just fixed to look as a plane on film.

However, seeing that Loch Ness hologram....That thing creeped me out. And I have known about the plane fly by caught on film for building two....Just never put more time into it. As I have shown here, I don't like putting time into something I can't prove hands on.

It sure makes me think though....Maybe the holographic tech isn't out of the picture after all, still a bit of a long shot though.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: markjo on February 16, 2017, 09:04:31 AM
To all those who don't think that an aluminum plane traveling at several hundred mph can penetrate a steel and concrete builging:
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/65/36/34/6536341071f2fef73598e637097663d7.jpg)
(https://dsx.weather.com//util/image/w/tornado-pampa-corn-stalk-16nov15-kersh.jpg?v=ap&w=980&h=551&api=7db9fe61-7414-47b5-9871-e17d87b8b6a0)
(http://www.strangebusiness.com/images/content/176028.jpg)
(http://mavdisk.mnsu.edu/larsop2/geog101/TStorms/record_album.jpg)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on February 16, 2017, 09:16:21 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 13, 2017, 10:36:59 PM
My starting position is that there is no conspiracy...

Your starting position loses the debate as even the OS states clearly there was a conspiracy. The OS states multiple persons conspired to bring down WTC 1 and 2, attack the Pentagon, and purportedly the White House.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on February 16, 2017, 09:27:55 AM
Quote from: markjo on February 16, 2017, 09:04:31 AM
To all those who don't think that an aluminum plane traveling at several hundred mph can penetrate a steel and concrete builging:
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/65/36/34/6536341071f2fef73598e637097663d7.jpg)
(https://dsx.weather.com//util/image/w/tornado-pampa-corn-stalk-16nov15-kersh.jpg?v=ap&w=980&h=551&api=7db9fe61-7414-47b5-9871-e17d87b8b6a0)
(http://www.strangebusiness.com/images/content/176028.jpg)
(http://mavdisk.mnsu.edu/larsop2/geog101/TStorms/record_album.jpg)

Why would you think a 4x6 piece of wood striking a brick and mortar building sheathed in aluminum siding is an accurate comparison?

Why would you think an LP 33 1/3 is also comparable?

I also have pictures of a plastic drinking straw driven into a tree.

I have seen Chris Ferguson throw a playing card and have it slice into a watermelon.

Apt comparisons?

Maybe for you Opus.

Not for rational people.

Your examples took place during extreme atmospheric conditions and are nowhere near relevant.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 16, 2017, 09:34:02 AM
Quote from: markjo on February 16, 2017, 09:04:31 AM
To all those who don't think that an aluminum plane traveling at several hundred mph can penetrate a steel and concrete builging:
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/65/36/34/6536341071f2fef73598e637097663d7.jpg)
(https://dsx.weather.com//util/image/w/tornado-pampa-corn-stalk-16nov15-kersh.jpg?v=ap&w=980&h=551&api=7db9fe61-7414-47b5-9871-e17d87b8b6a0)
(http://www.strangebusiness.com/images/content/176028.jpg)
(http://mavdisk.mnsu.edu/larsop2/geog101/TStorms/record_album.jpg)

So what is this proving? I live in tornado alley...I am fully aware of a tornado's power. . Hell one hit our property when I was a kid on the state line of OK/Kansas...Was finding our stuff for years after, once almost 5 miles away.

Plus the pictures you showed was horrible..The first one was above the bricks, just barely skimmed them, just had to go through thin tin I could fart through.

Second was thin tin, the last, tree was already split, just lucky shot with the record...The side walk was impressive, however, not super hard to puncture curb concrete like that, can also see how much of the tree material it took with it.

However...Any of these, if we had it on film, would clearly show the projectile entering, the wood shedding etc etc etc...Whatever would happen in reality.


The issue isn't not being able to penetrate...It's what we saw... I described what would truly happen (and this is evident in the empire accident for example), this is real and follows physics as well as reality.

Though what we saw in 2001 did not. The planes passed through the building without leaving a mark...Nothing on the building, no hole.. Nothing. No debris on the outside of the building or shedding... Nothing. Just slip...Like magic..

That isn't reality.

Then boom...An Explosion, smoke clears...What do we have? A perfect silhouette of plane...no...This isn't reality...

Never mind the planes themselves couldn't even get there...But that's another post.

Want reality...Check out the empire state building accident after math...

I would stay clear of the execution pit markjo.... I'm not heiwa and this isn't a fairy tale...

Plus, still haven't cleaned out all the Rayzor guts from the pit...Cleaning crew is slow.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on February 16, 2017, 09:34:48 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 14, 2017, 03:49:38 AM
In any case what do you think is going to happen when a fully loaded 767 which weighs 175,000 kg, such as  AA11 which was travelling at 470 mph when it hit the building,  and UA175 was travelling at 590 mph

Do you like making crap up?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on February 16, 2017, 09:49:17 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 14, 2017, 05:43:16 AM
Ok physics it is, let's start with the experimental evidence.

I've seen wood go clean through hi tensile steel,  your claim about the plane being unable to cause the observed damage is just not true.   There is ample evidence of buildings being completely flattened by 100 mph winds.

Type of buildings flattened by 100 mile an hour winds (and their builders):
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/a0/a9/cf/a0a9cf18b6f89e6de12ee8590b876e18.jpg)

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: markjo on February 16, 2017, 10:03:00 AM
Quote from: totallackey on February 16, 2017, 09:27:55 AM
Why would you think a 4x6 piece of wood striking a brick and mortar building sheathed in aluminum siding is an accurate comparison?

Why would you think an LP 33 1/3 is also comparable?

I also have pictures of a plastic drinking straw driven into a tree.

I have seen Chris Ferguson throw a playing card and have it slice into a watermelon.

Apt comparisons?

Maybe for you Opus.

Not for rational people.

Your examples took place during extreme atmospheric conditions and are nowhere near relevant.
If such small an innocuous objects can be given enough energy to damage much more robust structures, they why couldn't a 200,000 pound airplane traveling at several hundred mile per hour cause significant damage to a building?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 16, 2017, 10:13:39 AM
Quote from: markjo on February 16, 2017, 10:03:00 AM
Quote from: totallackey on February 16, 2017, 09:27:55 AM
Why would you think a 4x6 piece of wood striking a brick and mortar building sheathed in aluminum siding is an accurate comparison?

Why would you think an LP 33 1/3 is also comparable?

I also have pictures of a plastic drinking straw driven into a tree.

I have seen Chris Ferguson throw a playing card and have it slice into a watermelon.

Apt comparisons?

Maybe for you Opus.

Not for rational people.

Your examples took place during extreme atmospheric conditions and are nowhere near relevant.
If such small an innocuous objects can be given enough energy to damage much more robust structures, they why couldn't a 200,000 pound airplane traveling at several hundred mile per hour cause significant damage to a building?

Why would you even ask that question when this response to you is a few post above?

Clearly you are not asking a real question...

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 16, 2017, 09:34:02 AM
The issue isn't not being able to penetrate...It's what we saw... I described what would truly happen (and this is evident in the empire accident for example), this is real and follows physics as well as reality.

Though what we saw in 2001 did not. The planes passed through the building without leaving a mark...Nothing on the building, no hole.. Nothing. No debris on the outside of the building or shedding... Nothing. Just slip...Like magic..

That isn't reality.

Then boom...An Explosion, smoke clears...What do we have? A perfect silhouette of plane...no...This isn't reality...

Never mind the planes themselves couldn't even get there...But that's another post.

Want reality...Check out the empire state building accident after math...

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on February 16, 2017, 10:36:39 AM
Quote from: markjo on February 16, 2017, 10:03:00 AM
Quote from: totallackey on February 16, 2017, 09:27:55 AM
Why would you think a 4x6 piece of wood striking a brick and mortar building sheathed in aluminum siding is an accurate comparison?

Why would you think an LP 33 1/3 is also comparable?

I also have pictures of a plastic drinking straw driven into a tree.

I have seen Chris Ferguson throw a playing card and have it slice into a watermelon.

Apt comparisons?

Maybe for you Opus.

Not for rational people.

Your examples took place during extreme atmospheric conditions and are nowhere near relevant.
If such small an innocuous objects can be given enough energy to damage much more robust structures, they why couldn't a 200,000 pound airplane traveling at several hundred mile per hour cause significant damage to a building?

Who wrote it couldn't?

I am sure it would.

I am also sure the architects and builders of WTC 1 and 2 stated the buildings could survive the impact of a jet plane without being destroyed.

I am also sure your pretty pictures are useless as tits on a penguin.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: markjo on February 16, 2017, 01:04:02 PM
Quote from: totallackey on February 16, 2017, 10:36:39 AM
I am also sure the architects and builders of WTC 1 and 2 stated the buildings could survive the impact of a jet plane without being destroyed.
Actually, the buildings did survive the impacts.  It was the resulting fires that did the buildings in.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 01:55:06 PM
Markjo, to be fair you are quite late getting here.

To come here after 10 pages to make a strawman is beneath you. I usually find your posts well thought out.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 16, 2017, 10:13:39 AM
Quote from: markjo on February 16, 2017, 10:03:00 AM
Quote from: totallackey on February 16, 2017, 09:27:55 AM
Why would you think a 4x6 piece of wood striking a brick and mortar building sheathed in aluminum siding is an accurate comparison?

Why would you think an LP 33 1/3 is also comparable?

I also have pictures of a plastic drinking straw driven into a tree.

I have seen Chris Ferguson throw a playing card and have it slice into a watermelon.

Apt comparisons?

Maybe for you Opus.

Not for rational people.

Your examples took place during extreme atmospheric conditions and are nowhere near relevant.
If such small an innocuous objects can be given enough energy to damage much more robust structures, they why couldn't a 200,000 pound airplane traveling at several hundred mile per hour cause significant damage to a building?

Why would you even ask that question when this response to you is a few post above?

Clearly you are not asking a real question...

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 16, 2017, 09:34:02 AM
The issue isn't not being able to penetrate...It's what we saw... I described what would truly happen (and this is evident in the empire accident for example), this is real and follows physics as well as reality.

Though what we saw in 2001 did not. The planes passed through the building without leaving a mark...Nothing on the building, no hole.. Nothing. No debris on the outside of the building or shedding... Nothing. Just slip...Like magic..

That isn't reality.

Then boom...An Explosion, smoke clears...What do we have? A perfect silhouette of plane...no...This isn't reality...

Never mind the planes themselves couldn't even get there...But that's another post.

Want reality...Check out the empire state building accident after math...


No one has argued that the planes wouldn't have caused "significant damage."
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 16, 2017, 03:31:05 PM
Quote from: markjo on February 16, 2017, 01:04:02 PM
Quote from: totallackey on February 16, 2017, 10:36:39 AM
I am also sure the architects and builders of WTC 1 and 2 stated the buildings could survive the impact of a jet plane without being destroyed.
Actually, the buildings did survive the impacts.  It was the resulting fires that did the buildings in.

It's like a time warp to the beginning of the thread...With an argument equally as horrible.

You usually have much better than this markjo..Are you just bored saying things?

One more time....

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 16, 2017, 09:34:02 AM

I would stay clear of the execution pit markjo.... I'm not heiwa and this isn't a fairy tale...

Plus, still haven't cleaned out all the Rayzor guts from the pit...Cleaning crew is slow.

In Texas, you only have to say you feel threatened 3 times or get out of my house three times before you can legally shoot them...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 03:39:52 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 16, 2017, 03:31:05 PM
I would stay clear of the execution pit markjo.... I'm not heiwa and this isn't a fairy tale...

Plus, still haven't cleaned out all the Rayzor guts from the pit...Cleaning crew is slow.

In Texas, you only have to say you feel threatened 3 times or get out of my house three times before you can legally shoot them...

You should take over Trump's press conferences.   You'd fit right in.   Alternative facts seem to be your specialty,  well next to alternative physics that is.

Let's see what the 911 truthers think about the No Plane Theorists

"There is an old 9/11 theory that came out years ago that claims the media faked the planes hitting the Towers and that digital manipulation/Holograms/CGI was used in every single video/photo there is. Crazy? I know. The Truth Movement often labels this theory as the “No Plane Theory (NPT)”. These “No-Planers” claim that CGI and/or holograms were used and that there were no planes at all that hit the Towers.

One of the first documentaries to promote the “No Plane Theory” is called “September Clues” and it was created by Simon Shack. Simon is not alone on his crazy beliefs. Other so called 9/11 “Truthers” that promote the No Plane Theory (NPT) are James Fetzer, Morgan Reynolds, Killtown, Ace Baker and many of their “useful idiots” on social media. The “No Plane Theory” is an old disinformation theory that has been used by “agents” in order to discredit the 9/11 Truth Movement. Anyone that believes in such nonsense is not for the 9/11 Truth Movement.
"

So even the most delusional conspiracy nutters think that "no planers" like you, are so far off the planet, that you are giving the tin foil hat brigade a bad name.

Says it all really.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 03:47:25 PM
I agree, purposely trying to shift the focus of the debate from the physics of the impact, crash, subsequent fires and demolitions / collapse to "holographic planes" reeks of controlled opposition and shillary.

You should be ashamed of yourself.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 04:00:14 PM
Quote from: disputeone pageone on February 14, 2017, 03:14:54 AM
Dude strawman.

You asked for the strongest proof, we both said the buildings wouldn't have fallen like they did by natural causes.

Now you wanna talk about holographic planes?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 04:11:24 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 04:00:14 PM
Quote from: disputeone pageone on February 14, 2017, 03:14:54 AM
Dude strawman.

You asked for the strongest proof, we both said the buildings wouldn't have fallen like they did by natural causes.

Now you wanna talk about holographic planes?

You should go back and get out your dictionary and look up strawman again, and try to read and understand what it actually means.

I know you have a short attention span,  and can't think logically,  but luckily I'm here to help you.   It was actually sceptimatic's video that introduced holographic planes into the discussion.

Don't tell me you didn't watch it?

BHS commented that he thought holographic planes was a plausible theory,   but my impression is that he still thinks the places were cgi or something equally stupid.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 04:16:03 PM
Purposefully misrepresenting an opponent's argument in debate to attack a weaker point than the point that was originally put forward.

Making those who aren't paying attention think for a second or two you are actually debating.

Quote from: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 04:00:14 PM
Quote from: disputeone pageone on February 14, 2017, 03:14:54 AM
Dude strawman.

You asked for the strongest proof, we both said the buildings wouldn't have fallen like they did by natural causes.

Now you wanna talk about holographic planes?

Use the AR thread if you have nothing to contribute.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on February 16, 2017, 04:19:22 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 04:11:24 PM
BHS commented that he thought holographic planes was a plausible theory,   but my impression is that he still thinks the places were cgi or something equally stupid.

Please post a quote where that comment was made.

While you are at it, pony up with the reason why you reject the reason provided by the NIST chair in his response to the FOIA request for the inputs/results data utilized for the modeling.

Further, please explain how you can trumpet science on the one hand and so thoroughly reject the scientific method on the other?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 04:23:51 PM
Quote from: totallackey on February 16, 2017, 04:19:22 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 04:11:24 PM
BHS commented that he thought holographic planes was a plausible theory,   but my impression is that he still thinks the places were cgi or something equally stupid.

Please post a quote where that comment was made.

The post I referred to is this one.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 16, 2017, 08:44:47 AM
Quote from: sceptimatic on February 16, 2017, 07:51:49 AM

Thanks for the video scepti...Never seen that before.

I don't know anything about holographic technology...I am all mechanical, structural, some electrical stuff etc but nothing as advanced as holographic tech.... I have heard the theory and dismissed it, as I have stated here, I have always put money on a drone or missle....Just fixed to look as a plane on film.

However, seeing that Loch Ness hologram....That thing creeped me out. And I have known about the plane fly by caught on film for building two....Just never put more time into it. As I have shown here, I don't like putting time into something I can't prove hands on.

It sure makes me think though....Maybe the holographic tech isn't out of the picture after all, still a bit of a long shot though.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 04:26:39 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 04:16:03 PM
Purposefully misrepresenting an opponent's argument in debate to attack a weaker point than the point that was originally put forward.

Making those who aren't paying attention think for a second or two you are actually debating.

Quote from: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 04:00:14 PM
Quote from: disputeone pageone on February 14, 2017, 03:14:54 AM
Dude strawman.

You asked for the strongest proof, we both said the buildings wouldn't have fallen like they did by natural causes.

Now you wanna talk about holographic planes?

Use the AR thread if you have nothing to contribute.

Ok, I'm calling you out on that,  show me where I have purposely misrepresented  your or BHS's arguments,   If you can I'll happily apologise,  can't say fairer than that.  If you can't then I expect the same courtesy from you.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on February 16, 2017, 04:28:13 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 04:23:51 PM
The post I referred to is this one.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 16, 2017, 08:44:47 AM
Quote from: sceptimatic on February 16, 2017, 07:51:49 AM

Thanks for the video scepti...Never seen that before.

I don't know anything about holographic technology...I am all mechanical, structural, some electrical stuff etc but nothing as advanced as holographic tech.... I have heard the theory and dismissed it, as I have stated here, I have always put money on a drone or missle....Just fixed to look as a plane on film.

However, seeing that Loch Ness hologram....That thing creeped me out. And I have known about the plane fly by caught on film for building two....Just never put more time into it. As I have shown here, I don't like putting time into something I can't prove hands on.

It sure makes me think though....Maybe the holographic tech isn't out of the picture after all, still a bit of a long shot though.

Please address the rest of my post.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 04:28:44 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 14, 2017, 03:35:57 AM
So far we have at least two very strong clear points.

1. The buildings shouldn't have fallen like they did given the circumstances we were told.

2. The planes shouldn't have cut through the buildings like they did given that they were supposedly perfectly intact before impact.

Pick one.

Quote from: disputeone on February 14, 2017, 03:02:52 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 14, 2017, 02:47:44 AM

Why would you assume that they were drones packed with explosives?  The evidence is clear that it was American Airlines Flight 11,   and United Airlines 175  both Boston to LA flights with large fuel loads.

Cause thermodynamics, mostly.

We can get into it, but I would really like to see you try to address at least one of BHS' points.

I also have no doubt that those planes looked the part but again... this is speculation, I am looking forward to starting the debate.

Edit @ BHS That's a really good point illustrated by an official photo.

I will give the no planes idea a lot more thought.

apologize.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on February 16, 2017, 04:30:31 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 04:26:39 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 04:16:03 PM
Purposefully misrepresenting an opponent's argument in debate to attack a weaker point than the point that was originally put forward.

Making those who aren't paying attention think for a second or two you are actually debating.

Quote from: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 04:00:14 PM
Quote from: disputeone pageone on February 14, 2017, 03:14:54 AM
Dude strawman.

You asked for the strongest proof, we both said the buildings wouldn't have fallen like they did by natural causes.

Now you wanna talk about holographic planes?

Use the AR thread if you have nothing to contribute.

Ok, I'm calling you out on that,  show me where I have purposely misrepresented  your or BHS's arguments,   If you can I'll happily apologise,  can't say fairer than that.  If you can't then I expect the same courtesy from you.

For one, BHS posted pictures and video of the planes "melting," into the WTC 1 and 2.

For that, he was accused of making a claim that planes did not strike the buildings, by you.

How's that for starters.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 04:31:21 PM
Quote from: totallackey on February 16, 2017, 04:30:31 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 04:26:39 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 04:16:03 PM
Purposefully misrepresenting an opponent's argument in debate to attack a weaker point than the point that was originally put forward.

Making those who aren't paying attention think for a second or two you are actually debating.

Quote from: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 04:00:14 PM
Quote from: disputeone pageone on February 14, 2017, 03:14:54 AM
Dude strawman.

You asked for the strongest proof, we both said the buildings wouldn't have fallen like they did by natural causes.

Now you wanna talk about holographic planes?

Use the AR thread if you have nothing to contribute.

Ok, I'm calling you out on that,  show me where I have purposely misrepresented  your or BHS's arguments,   If you can I'll happily apologise,  can't say fairer than that.  If you can't then I expect the same courtesy from you.

For one, BHS posted pictures and video of the planes "melting," into the WTC 1 and 2.

For that, he was accused of making a claim that planes did not strike the buildings, by you.

How's that for starters.

Sounds like a textbook strawman to me mate.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 04:31:50 PM
Quote from: totallackey on February 16, 2017, 04:19:22 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 04:11:24 PM
BHS commented that he thought holographic planes was a plausible theory,   but my impression is that he still thinks the places were cgi or something equally stupid.

Please post a quote where that comment was made.

While you are at it, pony up with the reason why you reject the reason provided by the NIST chair in his response to the FOIA request for the inputs/results data utilized for the modeling.

Further, please explain how you can trumpet science on the one hand and so thoroughly reject the scientific method on the other?

I've repeatedly said I don't know why they don't release specific data, it's political, and that's not a matter in which I have any expertise,  want to talk physics,  fine I'm there. 

I'll say it again, from my point of view, I see no valid reason why the data could not be released.     

I did speculate that they might not want conspiracy nutters second guessing their model choices,  but that's just pure speculation,  I'm not going to run around in my tin foil hat shouting conspiracy based on pure speculation.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 04:34:39 PM
Quote from: totallackey on February 16, 2017, 04:30:31 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 04:26:39 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 04:16:03 PM
Purposefully misrepresenting an opponent's argument in debate to attack a weaker point than the point that was originally put forward.

Making those who aren't paying attention think for a second or two you are actually debating.

Quote from: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 04:00:14 PM
Quote from: disputeone pageone on February 14, 2017, 03:14:54 AM
Dude strawman.

You asked for the strongest proof, we both said the buildings wouldn't have fallen like they did by natural causes.

Now you wanna talk about holographic planes?

Use the AR thread if you have nothing to contribute.

Ok, I'm calling you out on that,  show me where I have purposely misrepresented  your or BHS's arguments,   If you can I'll happily apologise,  can't say fairer than that.  If you can't then I expect the same courtesy from you.

For one, BHS posted pictures and video of the planes "melting," into the WTC 1 and 2.

For that, he was accused of making a claim that planes did not strike the buildings, by you.

How's that for starters.

No, you are dead  wrong,  I asked him repeatedly if he was really saying that no planes struck the buildings,  and he confirmed it several times that was exactly what he meant.
I can go back and quote exactly what was said, but you can do that just as easily yourself.

I'll accept that apology whenever you are ready.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 04:34:53 PM
The truth will come out in the end, Rayzor, you shouldn't fear the truth, truth is beauty, beauty is truth. The last five pages reek of damage control.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 04:44:03 PM
Quote from: disputeone
apologize.

Really,  you did actually say you thought the planes were packed with explosives.   So that's not misrepresentation.

Quote from: disputeone on February 14, 2017, 02:27:27 AM
Personally I believe aircraft did hit the buildings, I think they were drone driven and packed with explosives to give us a Hollywood plane crash. I think the witnesses were correct in saying planes hit the buildings.

I'll accept you apology whenever you are ready.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 04:46:03 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 04:34:53 PM
The truth will come out in the end, Rayzor, you shouldn't fear the truth, truth is beauty, beauty is truth. The last five pages reek of damage control.

I agree,  if you stopped blathering long enough to think logically,  you'd realize that  falsely shouting "strawman"  every five minutes is just  weakening your contributions to the discussion.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 04:46:50 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 04:31:21 PM
Quote from: totallackey on February 16, 2017, 04:30:31 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 04:26:39 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 04:16:03 PM
Purposefully misrepresenting an opponent's argument in debate to attack a weaker point than the point that was originally put forward.

Making those who aren't paying attention think for a second or two you are actually debating.

Quote from: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 04:00:14 PM
Quote from: disputeone pageone on February 14, 2017, 03:14:54 AM
Dude strawman.

You asked for the strongest proof, we both said the buildings wouldn't have fallen like they did by natural causes.

Now you wanna talk about holographic planes?

Use the AR thread if you have nothing to contribute.

Ok, I'm calling you out on that,  show me where I have purposely misrepresented  your or BHS's arguments,   If you can I'll happily apologise,  can't say fairer than that.  If you can't then I expect the same courtesy from you.

For one, BHS posted pictures and video of the planes "melting," into the WTC 1 and 2.

For that, he was accused of making a claim that planes did not strike the buildings, by you.

How's that for starters.

Sounds like a textbook strawman to me mate.

Use the AR thread.

Warning for low content post.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 04:49:03 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 04:46:50 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 04:31:21 PM
Quote from: totallackey on February 16, 2017, 04:30:31 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 04:26:39 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 04:16:03 PM
Purposefully misrepresenting an opponent's argument in debate to attack a weaker point than the point that was originally put forward.

Making those who aren't paying attention think for a second or two you are actually debating.

Quote from: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 04:00:14 PM
Quote from: disputeone pageone on February 14, 2017, 03:14:54 AM
Dude strawman.

You asked for the strongest proof, we both said the buildings wouldn't have fallen like they did by natural causes.

Now you wanna talk about holographic planes?

Use the AR thread if you have nothing to contribute.

Ok, I'm calling you out on that,  show me where I have purposely misrepresented  your or BHS's arguments,   If you can I'll happily apologise,  can't say fairer than that.  If you can't then I expect the same courtesy from you.

For one, BHS posted pictures and video of the planes "melting," into the WTC 1 and 2.

For that, he was accused of making a claim that planes did not strike the buildings, by you.

How's that for starters.

Sounds like a textbook strawman to me mate.

Use the AR thread.

Warning for low content post.

You are calling out totallackey for low content?   Are you sure you aren't misreading what was said.   He raised a valid point,  admittedly he was wrong about what BHS was saying, but that doesn't qualify as low content.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 16, 2017, 04:51:52 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 03:47:25 PM
I agree, purposely trying to shift the focus of the debate from the physics of the impact, crash, subsequent fires and demolitions / collapse to "holographic planes" reeks of controlled opposition and shillary.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Sadly this is becoming more and more obvious...There is something up with this "guy"....


Rayzor....Who fucking cares what I muse about thinking out loud. I have my thoughts..But I clearly state they are just that....MY THOUGHTS...I have continued to state I don't want to talk about them because I can't prove them without a shadow of doubt.

As for the hollow gram stuff...Read what I wrote..I simply said I am at least putting it on the table again...But I know nothing about it, the capabilities etc... It's something I am not going to waste much time in, but it is a thought exercise. My long-standing THEORY has not changed that I already stated.

However, as I keep saying, these are just educated musings of mine...I don't want to discuss them because they are irrelevant to the collapse. YOU are the one that keeps going to them, because you cannot provide and answer for any fact I present.

Well unless it says "Nuh uh", "la la la", "you're crazy", "you're stupid","the official story says so" the list goes on...

However, these dont count...Sorry.


Since you are OK with a plane melting into a building without forming a hole or debris, then apparently you know something I don't know, or any other researcher from Tesla to Einstein knew.

Please tell me...I will pay you for the answer because I could use it. Obviously my 7.5 years of schooling, plus years of outside certs from manufacturers, a decade old company built by people thinking I knew what I was talking about (private individuals and public companies such Lockheed or AAC), enough so that I could retire today at almost 33....So please tell me for not only have I failed the people that trust me, the college that taught me, and myself. I could become richer by a magnitude of 100s if I knew...

So please Rayzor....Teach me...I am listening...No bullshit or anything else... Straight up teach me...I am all ears
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 04:52:22 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 14, 2017, 02:27:27 AM
Personally I believe aircraft did hit the buildings, I think they were drone driven and packed with explosives to give us a Hollywood plane crash. I think the witnesses were correct in saying planes hit the buildings.

But this is just my personal speculation, please, let's talk about the physics of the total progressive collapse hypothesis, BHS has presented some compelling points, why not pick one and try to debunk it.


Edit.

It is a weak strawman to try to shift the debate to speculation if there were actually planes or not. I would agree with you that the evidence of planes crashing into the buildings far outweighs any other evidence I have seen, CGI wings etc.

So dishonest, Rayzor Ni Chan.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 16, 2017, 04:56:53 PM
7 post in between while I sent that...All about my theory...

Anyone want to quote on page one where I said i don't want to talk about my theories or anyone else...Just the known facts or shall I.

Rayzor shut the hell up about my theories...They don't matter...You...Only you...are the one who keeps bringing them up as a diversion tactic....

Now teach me...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 04:59:09 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 13, 2017, 11:27:21 PM
My starting position, is just the mechanics alone make it a conspiracy...Let alone all the back end issues of the who, what, why, how etc..

The official story is impossible in the real world...Just once, but 3 times (which one building not even being stuck) is something not even Harry's wand could do. Though " vaporized" is their abracadabra, it doesn't mean it's true. Does the magician truly cut the woman in half?

The catalyst, metallurgical values, rigidity, CG, total material recovered, time lapse, and a 1000 other things are impossible just with the buildings fall alone.

Then comes all the others keys such as back ground, finances, filmography and all the other what not to add more to the lie.

There is literally nothing that is not a lie in the official report except 3 buildings fell....But even that is a lie, because they left out building 7 conveniently.

There is a few opening arguments...The subject is huge though so you have to narrow down some areas sugar tits.

First page sweetie  :-* :-*.

Edit.

Read again.

straw man
noun
noun: strawman

1.
an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.
"her familiar procedure of creating a straw man by exaggerating their approach"

2.
a person regarded as having no substance or integrity.
"a photogenic straw man gets inserted into office and advisers dictate policy"
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 05:01:23 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 16, 2017, 04:51:52 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 03:47:25 PM
I agree, purposely trying to shift the focus of the debate from the physics of the impact, crash, subsequent fires and demolitions / collapse to "holographic planes" reeks of controlled opposition and shillary.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

Sadly this is becoming more and more obvious...There is something up with this "guy"....


Rayzor....Who fucking cares what I muse about thinking out loud. I have my thoughts..But I clearly state they are just that....MY THOUGHTS...I have continued to state I don't want to talk about them because I can't prove them without a shadow of doubt.

As for the hollow gram stuff...Read what I wrote..I simply said I am at least putting it on the table again...But I know nothing about it, the capabilities etc... It's something I am not going to waste much time in, but it is a thought exercise. My long-standing THEORY has not changed that I already stated.

However, as I keep saying, these are just educated musings of mine...I don't want to discuss them because they are irrelevant to the collapse. YOU are the one that keeps going to them, because you cannot provide and answer for any fact I present.

Well unless it says "Nuh uh", "la la la", "you're crazy", "you're stupid","the official story says so" the list goes on...

However, these dont count...Sorry.


Since you are OK with a plane melting into a building without forming a hole or debris, then apparently you know something I don't know, or any other researcher from Tesla to Einstein knew.

Please tell me...I will pay you for the answer because I could use it. Obviously my 7.5 years of schooling, plus years of outside certs from manufacturers, a decade old company built by people thinking I knew what I was talking about (private individuals and public companies such Lockheed or AAC), enough so that I could retire today at almost 33....So please tell me for not only have I failed the people that trust me, the college that taught me, and myself. I could become richer by a magnitude of 100s if I knew...

So please Rayzor....Teach me...I am listening...No bullshit or anything else... Straight up teach me...I am all ears

Ok,   let's start with the evidence,   but based past discussions with you,  but first I want to know what evidence you will accept, 

Do you accept the video evidence of the impact taken by 90 or so independant  people taken  from different locations?   

Do you accept the video evidence of the immediate aftermath of the impact? 

Do you accept the video evidence of the collapse?

If none of the above,  then we can't use any stills taken from video images either.

So,  what about eye witness accounts,  are there any eye witness accounts that you accept? 

What simulations and or FEA modelling do you accept? 


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 16, 2017, 05:08:33 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 05:01:23 PM
Ok,   let's start with the evidence,   but based past discussions with you,  but first I want to know what evidence you will accept, 

Do you accept the video evidence of the impact taken by 90 or so independant  people taken  from different locations?   

Do you accept the video evidence of the immediate aftermath of the impact? 

Do you accept the video evidence of the collapse?

If none of the above,  then we can't use any stills taken from video images either.

So,  what about eye witness accounts,  are there any eye witness accounts that you accept? 

What simulations and or FEA modelling do you accept?

All video evidence I have provided is from the official archives...The problems I have stated comes directly from these videos you speak about, not my own.

Almost none say they say a commercial airliner strick the building, many say they saw nothing, some say missle, some a small plane etc etc etc...So again...

I have already stated what I think about the impact...


Now quit stalling...Answer the question I directly asked you...And have asked you since page one..

Answer the question rayzor
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 05:09:38 PM
He is truly a broken man, he will continue lashing out at whoever comes near, like an wild animal licking its wounds.

Pathetic.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 16, 2017, 05:08:33 PM
Now quit stalling...Answer the question I directly asked you...And have asked you since page one..

Answer the question rayzor
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 16, 2017, 05:20:55 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 05:09:38 PM
He is truly a broken man, he will continue lashing out at whoever comes near, like an wild animal licking its wounds.

Pathetic.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 16, 2017, 05:08:33 PM
Now quit stalling...Answer the question I directly asked you...And have asked you since page one..

Answer the question rayzor

I am thinking I might not get an answer.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 05:22:00 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 16, 2017, 05:08:33 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 05:01:23 PM
Ok,   let's start with the evidence,   but based past discussions with you,  but first I want to know what evidence you will accept, 

Do you accept the video evidence of the impact taken by 90 or so independant  people taken  from different locations?   

Do you accept the video evidence of the immediate aftermath of the impact? 

Do you accept the video evidence of the collapse?

If none of the above,  then we can't use any stills taken from video images either.

So,  what about eye witness accounts,  are there any eye witness accounts that you accept? 

What simulations and or FEA modelling do you accept?

All video evidence I have provided is from the official archives...The problems I have stated comes directly from these videos you speak about, not my own.

Almost none say they say a commercial airliner strick the building, many say they saw nothing, some say missle, some a small plane etc etc etc...So again...

I have already stated what I think about the impact...


Now quit stalling...Answer the question I directly asked you...And have asked you since page one..

Answer the question rayzor

Already answered several times,  you can't ask a question that invites a choice between two incorrect/impossible alternatives.     

I'm staggered that you raised it again.  I thought you were smarter than that.

Now just so that I am 100% clear on what you are implying by asking that question.

You are implying that no planes hit either WTC1 or WTC2,  is that what you believe? 

I have to be certain,  I wouldn't want disputeone to jump up and down shouting strawman and accuse me of misrepresenting your arguments.

Please state as clearly as possible,   do you or do you not believe that planes struck WTC1 and WTC2?

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 05:28:51 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 16, 2017, 05:08:33 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 05:01:23 PM
Ok,   let's start with the evidence,   but based past discussions with you,  but first I want to know what evidence you will accept, 

Do you accept the video evidence of the impact taken by 90 or so independant  people taken  from different locations?   

Do you accept the video evidence of the immediate aftermath of the impact? 

Do you accept the video evidence of the collapse?

If none of the above,  then we can't use any stills taken from video images either.

So,  what about eye witness accounts,  are there any eye witness accounts that you accept? 

What simulations and or FEA modelling do you accept?

All video evidence I have provided is from the official archives...The problems I have stated comes directly from these videos you speak about, not my own.

Almost none say they say a commercial airliner strick the building, many say they saw nothing, some say missle, some a small plane etc etc etc...So again...

I have already stated what I think about the impact...


Now quit stalling...Answer the question I directly asked you...And have asked you since page one..

Answer the question rayzor

So,  you didn't actually answer my question,  what evidence will you accept?    If it's not on the list feel free to add to it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 05:33:15 PM
Leave it. It's over.

If anyone wants to know what happened in this thread it is all here.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.0

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 16, 2017, 05:33:35 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 05:22:00 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 16, 2017, 05:08:33 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 05:01:23 PM
Ok,   let's start with the evidence,   but based past discussions with you,  but first I want to know what evidence you will accept, 

Do you accept the video evidence of the impact taken by 90 or so independant  people taken  from different locations?   

Do you accept the video evidence of the immediate aftermath of the impact? 

Do you accept the video evidence of the collapse?

If none of the above,  then we can't use any stills taken from video images either.

So,  what about eye witness accounts,  are there any eye witness accounts that you accept? 

What simulations and or FEA modelling do you accept?

All video evidence I have provided is from the official archives...The problems I have stated comes directly from these videos you speak about, not my own.

Almost none say they say a commercial airliner strick the building, many say they saw nothing, some say missle, some a small plane etc etc etc...So again...

I have already stated what I think about the impact...


Now quit stalling...Answer the question I directly asked you...And have asked you since page one..

Answer the question rayzor

Already answered several times,  you can't ask a question that invites a choice between two incorrect/impossible alternatives.     

I'm staggered that you raised it again.  I thought you were smarter than that.

Now just so that I am 100% clear on what you are implying by asking that question.

You are implying that no planes hit either WTC1 or WTC2,  is that what you believe? 

I have to be certain,  I wouldn't want disputeone to jump up and down shouting strawman and accuse me of misrepresenting your arguments.

Please state as clearly as possible,   do you or do you not believe that planes struck WTC1 and WTC2?

No more diversion....

Answer the question...

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 16, 2017, 04:51:52 PM
Since you are OK with a plane melting into a building without forming a hole or debris, then apparently you know something I don't know, or any other researcher from Tesla to Einstein knew.

Please tell me...I will pay you for the answer because I could use it. Obviously my 7.5 years of schooling, plus years of outside certs from manufacturers, a decade old company built by people thinking I knew what I was talking about (private individuals and public companies such Lockheed or AAC), enough so that I could retire today at almost 33....So please tell me for not only have I failed the people that trust me, the college that taught me, and myself. I could become richer by a magnitude of 100s if I knew...

So please Rayzor....Teach me...I am listening...No bullshit or anything else... Straight up teach me...I am all ears

That is all I want from you....

ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 05:43:01 PM
From several pages back.  FYI  My answer to your question hasn't changed.

Quote from: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 11:45:15 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 15, 2017, 09:10:55 PM

You still have never answered my question form page number one.... How does a plane pass through a building without leaving a mark?

This isn't "BHS" saying ANYTHING....Just a simple question about the video evidence.

For once....In this entire freaking thread....Answer one damn question with a direct answer rayzor.....

How does a plane pass through a building without leaving a mark or even a single shred of debris?

Actually I did,  the fact that you didn't understand the answer is not my problem.

First,  the question implies something that isn't factual. 
 
Second. by the way you ask the question you are calling for speculation on something which impossible.

Third,  this is your theory not mine,  you want to claim that no planes hit the WTC1 and 2,  and all the video including real time tv was faked,  go ahead and give it your best shot.   

But I have to say the evidence against your theory is overwhelming.

I'm sure you have a reason for chasing this line of thought,  so over to you!

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 05:46:52 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 16, 2017, 05:33:35 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 05:22:00 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 16, 2017, 05:08:33 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 05:01:23 PM
Ok,   let's start with the evidence,   but based past discussions with you,  but first I want to know what evidence you will accept, 

Do you accept the video evidence of the impact taken by 90 or so independant  people taken  from different locations?   

Do you accept the video evidence of the immediate aftermath of the impact? 

Do you accept the video evidence of the collapse?

If none of the above,  then we can't use any stills taken from video images either.

So,  what about eye witness accounts,  are there any eye witness accounts that you accept? 

What simulations and or FEA modelling do you accept?

All video evidence I have provided is from the official archives...The problems I have stated comes directly from these videos you speak about, not my own.

Almost none say they say a commercial airliner strick the building, many say they saw nothing, some say missle, some a small plane etc etc etc...So again...

I have already stated what I think about the impact...


Now quit stalling...Answer the question I directly asked you...And have asked you since page one..

Answer the question rayzor

Already answered several times,  you can't ask a question that invites a choice between two incorrect/impossible alternatives.     

I'm staggered that you raised it again.  I thought you were smarter than that.

Now just so that I am 100% clear on what you are implying by asking that question.

You are implying that no planes hit either WTC1 or WTC2,  is that what you believe? 

I have to be certain,  I wouldn't want disputeone to jump up and down shouting strawman and accuse me of misrepresenting your arguments.

Please state as clearly as possible,   do you or do you not believe that planes struck WTC1 and WTC2?

No more diversion....

Answer the question...

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 16, 2017, 04:51:52 PM
Since you are OK with a plane melting into a building without forming a hole or debris, then apparently you know something I don't know, or any other researcher from Tesla to Einstein knew.

Please tell me...I will pay you for the answer because I could use it. Obviously my 7.5 years of schooling, plus years of outside certs from manufacturers, a decade old company built by people thinking I knew what I was talking about (private individuals and public companies such Lockheed or AAC), enough so that I could retire today at almost 33....So please tell me for not only have I failed the people that trust me, the college that taught me, and myself. I could become richer by a magnitude of 100s if I knew...

So please Rayzor....Teach me...I am listening...No bullshit or anything else... Straight up teach me...I am all ears

That is all I want from you....

ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION

I did many times,  now could you answer my question,  do you or do you not believe no planes struck WTC1 and WTC2?

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 05:54:46 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 05:33:15 PM
Leave it. It's over.

If anyone wants to know what happened in this thread it is all here.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.0


Nope,  It's just beginning,  after all we have only debunked 2% of what BHS believes.  His figure not mine.

Incidentally,  why would you bother posting a link to the same thread  you just posted in,  that's somewhat redundant.    Also I've seen you do it before,  so now I'm curious as to what you think that achieves.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 05:54:56 PM
Your better than dancing for him Bhs, everyone can see it.

He is scared people will read the thread.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 05:59:23 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 05:54:56 PM
Your better than dancing for him Bhs, everyone can see it.

He is scared people will read the thread.

Stop looking for examples of misrepresentation.  We just found one.  ROTFL

Anyway,  cool your jets for a while,  I've got projects calling.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 06:05:22 PM
Please explain, in your own words, how I used "misrepresentation" there.

It would be the only honest answer you have tried to give.

Except, "Nuh uh, muh, muh, holographic planes."

It's all here, https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.0

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 16, 2017, 06:41:51 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 05:54:46 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 05:33:15 PM
Leave it. It's over.

If anyone wants to know what happened in this thread it is all here.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.0


Nope,  It's just beginning,  after all we have only debunked 2% of what BHS believes.  His figure not mine.

Incidentally,  why would you bother posting a link to the same thread  you just posted in,  that's somewhat redundant.    Also I've seen you do it before,  so now I'm curious as to what you think that achieves.

Pathetic as always...You haven't countered one single thing I have said with ANYTHING. You must be a liberal with your vision of "winning"... Did you play for the teams where "no one kept score and everyone is a winner?"...

By the way......Who is this "WE"???
Sounds suspicious...

Anyways.....Answer my question....Don't care what was said...New slate..

How did the planes pass through without leaving a mark? This is easily seen on their video evidence. How is the laws of physics broken?

I want to pass through a wall without harming me or the wall....No hole, nothing...

Tell me how...I will pay you heiwa's prize of 1 MILLION DOLLARS...No joke... Actual offer, small price to pay for that secret. My company will become the next Weaponry superpower provider with that tech.

Now tell me....In your own words.

If you continue to refuse, I will join everyone else in calling you what you are. So please answer...I want just one actual answer out of these 11 pages....

No diversion, no talking about my musings, no talking about my spelling, no ad hominems.......

Rayzor ...Answer the question.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: hoppy on February 16, 2017, 09:23:04 PM
Rayzor you are pathetic. I'll say it for you. No planes hit the towers, it was cgi effects. In one of the videos the planes' nosecone crashes all the way through the building and comes out the other side. It was the operators making a mistake with doing cgi, live on the air. How can a fiberglass nosecone crash through aluminum and steel and come out intact.
 If it was just rayzor on here I would even waste my time typing. I am really posting for the benefit of others. Rayzor will never believe, he either can't or is paid not to. Pitiful.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 09:29:17 PM
Quote from: hoppy on February 16, 2017, 09:23:04 PM
How can a fiberglass nosecone crash through aluminum and steel and come out intact.

Destroyed by hoppy.

R.I.P Rayzor.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 09:41:56 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 16, 2017, 06:41:51 PM

How did the planes pass through without leaving a mark? This is easily seen on their video evidence. How is the laws of physics broken?

I want to pass through a wall without harming me or the wall....No hole, nothing...

Tell me how...I will pay you heiwa's prize of 1 MILLION DOLLARS...No joke... Actual offer, small price to pay for that secret. My company will become the next Weaponry superpower provider with that tech.

Now tell me....In your own words.

If you continue to refuse, I will join everyone else in calling you what you are. So please answer...I want just one actual answer out of these 11 pages....

No diversion, no talking about my musings, no talking about my spelling, no ad hominems.......

Rayzor ...Answer the question.

The answer to your question is that it's  impossible for a plane to fly through a building without leaving a mark.

I'm surprised you weren't aware of that,  what with your decade worth of unpublished research on this very topic.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 09:47:54 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 09:41:56 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 16, 2017, 06:41:51 PM

How did the planes pass through without leaving a mark? This is easily seen on their video evidence. How is the laws of physics broken?

I want to pass through a wall without harming me or the wall....No hole, nothing...

Tell me how...I will pay you heiwa's prize of 1 MILLION DOLLARS...No joke... Actual offer, small price to pay for that secret. My company will become the next Weaponry superpower provider with that tech.

Now tell me....In your own words.

If you continue to refuse, I will join everyone else in calling you what you are. So please answer...I want just one actual answer out of these 11 pages....

No diversion, no talking about my musings, no talking about my spelling, no ad hominems.......

Rayzor ...Answer the question.

The answer to your question is that it's  impossible for a plane to fly through a building without leaving a mark.

I'm surprised you weren't aware of that,  what with your decade worth of unpublished research on this very topic.

We are getting somewhere, very good, it is impossible for a plane to fly through a building without leaving a mark.

Now, how do you explain the official pictures and videos showing exactly this?

Take your time.

Vitriol aside we're making progress.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 09:48:18 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 06:05:22 PM
It's all here, https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.0

So,  why do you keep posting links to the very thread you are posting in,  are you aware that it makes you look retarded.    Oh wait.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 09:50:25 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 09:47:54 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 09:41:56 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 16, 2017, 06:41:51 PM

How did the planes pass through without leaving a mark? This is easily seen on their video evidence. How is the laws of physics broken?

I want to pass through a wall without harming me or the wall....No hole, nothing...

Tell me how...I will pay you heiwa's prize of 1 MILLION DOLLARS...No joke... Actual offer, small price to pay for that secret. My company will become the next Weaponry superpower provider with that tech.

Now tell me....In your own words.

If you continue to refuse, I will join everyone else in calling you what you are. So please answer...I want just one actual answer out of these 11 pages....

No diversion, no talking about my musings, no talking about my spelling, no ad hominems.......

Rayzor ...Answer the question.

The answer to your question is that it's  impossible for a plane to fly through a building without leaving a mark.

I'm surprised you weren't aware of that,  what with your decade worth of unpublished research on this very topic.

We are getting somewhere, very good, it is impossible for a plane to fly through a building without leaving a mark.

Now, how do you explain the official pictures and videos showing exactly this?

Take your time.

Vitriol aside we're making progress.

Oh, so now you're a no planer as well,  why do you keep changing sides?

There are no official pictures and videos that show a plane passing through the building and not leaving a mark.  We already established that earlier.  Try to keep up please.


You are aware that the rest of the 911 truther movement wishes the "no plane theorists" would go away because they make the genuine tin foil hat brigade look bad?




Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 16, 2017, 09:52:54 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 09:41:56 PM
The answer to your question is that it's  impossible for a plane to fly through a building without leaving a mark.

I'm surprised you weren't aware of that,  what with your decade worth of unpublished research on this very topic.

This is your answer?? Marvelous...

So now we have a problem...That is what we saw on their video evidence...

So you are saying your men has presented an impossibility in your words...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 09:53:43 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 16, 2017, 12:27:21 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 11:45:15 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 15, 2017, 09:10:55 PM

You still have never answered my question form page number one.... How does a plane pass through a building without leaving a mark?

This isn't "BHS" saying ANYTHING....Just a simple question about the video evidence.

For once....In this entire freaking thread....Answer one damn question with a direct answer rayzor.....

How does a plane pass through a building without leaving a mark or even a single shred of debris?

Actually I did,  the fact that you didn't understand the answer is not my problem.

First,  the question implies something that isn't factual. 
 
Second. by the way you ask the question you are calling for speculation on something which impossible.

Third,  this is your theory not mine,  you want to claim that no planes hit the WTC1 and 2,  and all the video including real time tv was faked,  go ahead and give it your best shot.   

But I have to say the evidence against your theory is overwhelming.

I'm sure you have a reason for chasing this line of thought,  so over to you!

No no no rayzor...No twista word here...I am gonna get an answer from you before the end of this thread...Just one..

You didn't answer my question before fyi...You just said "looks real to me" then showed a video of the "first plane" (by the way, if you want to believe some guy was recording city employees doing remedial tasks first thing in the morning, then suddenly, perfectly aligned with the WTC he focuses right on the towers...Waits...Then Boom the plane hits...I have some beach property in Oklahoma for you...Prime view) Also, fyi, that was not the sound of fan jet engines (experience, not google)...Not to mention, the mystery engines were decelerating...And that alone is impossible from the pitch and trim of the visual we saw. Just to begin with, the engines would almost need to be 100 percent to just have a chance of keeping that boat stable in the air at that altitude and supposed speed (which isn't possible anyways).. Actually..I am digressing, just this video alone I could run on for pages about.

Back to the point

Describe how this is possible.

(http://i66.tinypic.com/2uo2y5g.jpg)

Or this

(http://i64.tinypic.com/2ivoa6e.jpg)

Or this



I will stop there for a second.

Matter doesn't pass through matter without disturbing itself. If you can tell me how this happens you could be a very rich man.

So...Again...Rayzor...How does 175,000 kg pass through the WTC without a trace?

Back to cluesforum, Rayzor, I evoke thee under thine stars, I banish you to the depths of cluesforum.

Begone.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 16, 2017, 10:04:51 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 09:53:43 PM
Back to cluesforum, Rayzor, I evoke thee under thine stars, I banish you to the depths of cluesforum.

Begone.

Not that I am complaining...Just curious .... what is clues forum....is it full of nonsensical idiots and blowhards...Maybe even shills?

And really....Just look at the still shots of the planes passing inside the building, even the wing of one preemptively vanished...So dumb. Independence day had much more convincing scenes.

All done with planes that couldn't even do the job...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 10:10:57 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 09:53:43 PM
[Describe how this is possible.

(http://i66.tinypic.com/2uo2y5g.jpg)

Where are the next few frames,  you need to look at those and see if there is  still no mark,  that video frame is part way through the impact into the building,  from that angle the plane obscures the impact area.

(http://i64.tinypic.com/2ivoa6e.jpg)

Same again  part way through the impact,  and in any case you can actually see the impact on the external aluminium cladding and window frames,  where the left hand wing has already sliced into the structure.
Seeing the whole sequence would make it much clearer.



Even on this low resolution video you can see the outline of the impact clearly on the building.   But there are better resolution pictures than this.

So where is the video showing a plane passing through the building without leaving a mark?   I'd like to see it.



Quote from: BHS

Matter doesn't pass through matter without disturbing itself. If you can tell me how this happens you could be a very rich man.

Actually I can,  how good is your quantum mechanics?   

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 10:16:31 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 16, 2017, 10:04:51 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 09:53:43 PM
Back to cluesforum, Rayzor, I evoke thee under thine stars, I banish you to the depths of cluesforum.

Begone.

Not that I am complaining...Just curious .... what is clues forum....is it full of nonsensical idiots and blowhards...Maybe even shills?


I have the same question,  what is cluesforum?  got a link?   There are so many 911 truther forums and sites, it's hard to know which ones are serious.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 16, 2017, 10:22:22 PM
I don't care to go off on hypothetical math, no distractions about quantum mechanics.

There is no impact area anywhere on those pictures...And the plane wing is just "gone"...No where to be found.




Here is the video scepti posted...In the first few minutes you will see both videos in slow motion to see every frame.

(Videos where those freeze frames came from)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 10:25:31 PM
It's controlled opposition, Rayzor, imo, like what you have been trying to do here, you say for example.

Quote from: any reasonable person
The fall acceleration of building 7, in particular, doesn't quite fit the data we were given, the fact it took seven years to release the model and sixteen years later haven't released the collapse data because of "public safety" is concerning.

Then you get a lot of.

Quote from: Rayzor
HOLOGRAPHIC PLANES HURR DURR

Stop shitting up this thread.

Sorry Bhs I am throwing him a rope.

Carry on digging Rayzor, go, my son.

Quantum Physics does not apply to 9/11, you disingenuous ____.

If a particles wave length is longer than the material it is passing through, then there is the possibility of it passing through without "touching it" due to the uncertainty principal and the wave function of the particle.

I like QM, first correct thing you have said. However it is irrelevant.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 10:29:38 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 16, 2017, 10:22:22 PM
I don't care to go off on hypothetical math, no distractions about quantum mechanics.

There is no impact area anywhere on those pictures...And the plane wing is just "gone"...No where to be found.




Here is the video scepti posted...In the first few minutes you will see both videos in slow motion to see every frame.

(Videos where those freeze frames came from)

Ok,  I watched the first few minutes,  I'll watch the rest later,  I saw nothing that would support the proposition that the planes weren't real,  certainly didn't see a plane pass through the building without leaving a mark.

Where is the video showing a plane passing through the building without leaving a mark, that you claimed exists?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 10:33:57 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 10:25:31 PM
It's controlled opposition, Rayzor, imo, like what you have been trying to do here, you say for example.

So you think I'm controlled opposition?   Really?   I suspect you don't know what the phrase means.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 10:35:12 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 10:25:31 PM

Quote from: Rayzor
HOLOGRAPHIC PLANES HURR DURR

Reported for false editing.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 16, 2017, 10:35:57 PM


Skip to middle....Do you know how many decibels a 60,000 lbf turbo fan engine makes at full bore? Sure you don't...But it is multiples of loud as fuck...Loud enough to make you sick without ear protection, even hundreds of feet away (have seen it)...

Did you hear anything?? I didn't...

Skip to half in video
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 10:44:19 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 16, 2017, 10:35:57 PM


Skip to middle....Do you know how many decibels a 60,000 lbf turbo fan engine makes at full bore? Sure you don't...But it is multiples of loud as fuck...Loud enough to make you sick without ear protection, even hundreds of feet away (have seen it)...

Did you hear anything?? I didn't...

Skip to half in video

Eight blocks away,  probably filmed from inside a room,  you don't hear any noise from impact either,  and that's heard clearly in other video's   so what's your point?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 10:54:14 PM
Rayzor your position is untenable, this is why no one will help you support it.

You are the one who sounds like a "conspiracy theorist".

Toodle-pip.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 16, 2017, 11:01:16 PM
Again... Decibels....Even if it was from inside you would have heard the plane loud and clear at 8 blocks as you state...not to mention, that building where the video was shot would have been in the supposed flight path....You would have heard it for some time. Again, your ignorance on any of the technical aspects shines.

So you accept planes that could never even complete this flight can melt uniformly inside the building's without leaving a mark correct?

Fine...Let's take your fairy tale...So where the planes it....The first was where it was 60 feet to the central core, the second 35 feet to the central core. One plane was going considerably faster than the other. Yet the video of both show the exact same entry angle, effect and speed.

This is OK to you?

The second plane hit where it is 35 feet to the central core....The plane is 159 feet long...So there would be over a 100 feet left before it hit the core...Yet we saw no slowing of speed, buckling or fricion. Not even a mark...

This is OK with you?

(I am ignoring these planes could not even exist here...But we will leave that alone for the moment)

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 16, 2017, 11:09:17 PM
Quote from: hoppy on February 16, 2017, 09:23:04 PM
How can a fiberglass nosecone crash through aluminum and steel and come out intact.

Don't forget hoppy...It didn't just pass through the outside vertical steel exoskeleton with reinforced concrete both sides, the inside horizontal steel exoskeleton with reinforced concrete of multiple floors both sides, all the steel horizontal supports with reinforced concrete both sides, it passed through multiple inches think steel beams on both sides in the central core.

Not only that...These beams where under compression of the building, so that increases the difficulty to penetrate by multitudes...In karate, when you are holding a board for someone to break it, watch how their arms fly out when it's broken. It's a little easier to break...Simple physics..

Now multiply that by 1000s of times...


Long story short...That is some magic fucking fiberglass.


I am sure Rayzor is OK with this too....They said so...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 11:15:51 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 16, 2017, 11:09:17 PM
Quote from: hoppy on February 16, 2017, 09:23:04 PM
How can a fiberglass nosecone crash through aluminum and steel and come out intact.

Don't forget hoppy...It didn't just pass through the outside vertical steel exoskeleton with reinforced concrete both sides, the inside horizontal steel exoskeleton with reinforced concrete of multiple floors both sides, all the steel horizontal supports with reinforced concrete both sides, it passed through multiple inches think steel beams on both sides in the central core.

Not only that...These beams where under compression of the building, so that increases the difficulty to penetrate by multitudes.

I am sure Rayzor is OK with this too....They said so...

I brought this up also.

Hey Rayzor, channel 10 said the sky is red, no, no need to look up. You heard it on channel 10. Now, go forth, my son, spread the word of the red sky to those dastardly "conspiracy theorists."

Remember, whatever you do, don't look up, trusssssssst iiiinnnnnn mmmeeeeeeee.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: onebigmonkey on February 16, 2017, 11:40:25 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 10:16:31 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 16, 2017, 10:04:51 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 09:53:43 PM
Back to cluesforum, Rayzor, I evoke thee under thine stars, I banish you to the depths of cluesforum.

Begone.

Not that I am complaining...Just curious .... what is clues forum....is it full of nonsensical idiots and blowhards...Maybe even shills?


I have the same question,  what is cluesforum?  got a link?   There are so many 911 truther forums and sites, it's hard to know which ones are serious.

One of the biggest circle jerks on the internet.  A bunch of smug know-it-alls who think the entire world is run for their benefit and whose only sustained argument in support of any of their deluded fantasies is an eye-rolling 'yeah right' to things they think have been faked (ie everything) and who routinely display a total ignorance of the subjects on which they pronounce their tinfoil covered slack-jawed drooling that passes as wisdom.

You pretty much have to write an essay to join, any deviation from the party line is dealt with by a pack of rabid halfwits with the most active banhammer around. The most active posters are widely regarded as alts of the forum owner.

They are retards of the lowest order.

http://cluesforum.info/
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 11:47:48 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 16, 2017, 11:01:16 PM
Again... Decibels....Even if it was from inside you would have heard the plane loud and clear at 8 blocks as you state...not to mention, that building where the video was shot would have been in the supposed flight path....You would have heard it for some time. Again, your ignorance on any of the technical aspects shines.

So you accept planes that could never even complete this flight can melt uniformly inside the building's without leaving a mark correct?

Fine...Let's take your fairy tale...So where the planes it....The first was where it was 60 feet to the central core, the second 35 feet to the central core. One plane was going considerably faster than the other. Yet the video of both show the exact same entry angle, effect and speed.

This is OK to you?

The second plane hit where it is 35 feet to the central core....The plane is 159 feet long...So there would be over a 100 feet left before it hit the core...Yet we saw no slowing of speed, buckling or fricion. Not even a mark...

This is OK with you?

(I am ignoring these planes could not even exist here...But we will leave that alone for the moment)

You are missing all the important points,  we can cover those later.

 But  I'm still waiting for the promised video of a plane flying though a building without leaving a mark.   You claimed it exists.  I'm keen to see it.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 11:55:37 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 11:15:51 PM

I brought this up also.

Hey Rayzor, channel 10 said the sky is red, no, no need to look up. You heard it on channel 10. Now, go forth, my son, spread the word of the red sky to those dastardly "conspiracy theorists."

Remember, whatever you do, don't look up, trusssssssst iiiinnnnnn mmmeeeeeeee.

Snap out of it,  you are a jibbering mess.   Take a few deep breaths and try to relax. 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 16, 2017, 11:56:24 PM
Quote from: onebigmonkey on February 16, 2017, 11:40:25 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 10:16:31 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 16, 2017, 10:04:51 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 09:53:43 PM
Back to cluesforum, Rayzor, I evoke thee under thine stars, I banish you to the depths of cluesforum.

Begone.

Not that I am complaining...Just curious .... what is clues forum....is it full of nonsensical idiots and blowhards...Maybe even shills?


I have the same question,  what is cluesforum?  got a link?   There are so many 911 truther forums and sites, it's hard to know which ones are serious.

One of the biggest circle jerks on the internet.  A bunch of smug know-it-alls who think the entire world is run for their benefit and whose only sustained argument in support of any of their deluded fantasies is an eye-rolling 'yeah right' to things they think have been faked (ie everything) and who routinely display a total ignorance of the subjects on which they pronounce their tinfoil covered slack-jawed drooling that passes as wisdom.

You pretty much have to write an essay to join, any deviation from the party line is dealt with by a pack of rabid halfwits with the most active banhammer around. The most active posters are widely regarded as alts of the forum owner.

They are retards of the lowest order.

http://cluesforum.info/

Wow ....Sounds like a retarded group think echo chamber. 

What is their group consensus on 9/11?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 12:06:22 AM
Quote from: onebigmonkey on February 16, 2017, 11:40:25 PM

One of the biggest circle jerks on the internet.  A bunch of smug know-it-alls who think the entire world is run for their benefit and whose only sustained argument in support of any of their deluded fantasies is an eye-rolling 'yeah right' to things they think have been faked (ie everything) and who routinely display a total ignorance of the subjects on which they pronounce their tinfoil covered slack-jawed drooling that passes as wisdom.

You pretty much have to write an essay to join, any deviation from the party line is dealt with by a pack of rabid halfwits with the most active banhammer around. The most active posters are widely regarded as alts of the forum owner.

They are retards of the lowest order.

http://cluesforum.info/

I had a look,   shuddered at some things being quoted as gospel,  and  walked away backwards, making the sign of the cross.   You called it.

It seems you get cudos in that culture to be the first to jump on a soapbox and shout "false flag"  no matter what the event happens to be.  Boston Marathon,  Sandy Hook,  all clever fakes according to these self proclaimed experts,  and on it goes.   

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 17, 2017, 12:14:01 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 11:47:48 PM
You are missing all the important points,  we can cover those later.

 But  I'm still waiting for the promised video of a plane flying though a building without leaving a mark.   You claimed it exists.  I'm keen to see it.

Lol....What points...Very straight forward what I said..

You can say you are right...Or I have no idea how to understand the information presented. Would prefer the former but either works.

This always happens when I present specifics...You fade off..

Did when I presented how and why the towers should have collapsed a certain way, even allowing for the magic needed to complete it.

Did when I presented specifics of how and why the plane would act a certain why in a Collision.

Did when I presented the how and why these planes could not even be where they were at that speed and trim.

And the list goes on...I could only imagine what would happen if I actually started to get deeply detailed.

The first 8-10 mins of scepti video has plenty of video and slows of the wreck, one it passes through, and there is a few frame delay before an explosion happens....Harry Potters world.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 12:22:54 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 17, 2017, 12:14:01 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 11:47:48 PM
You are missing all the important points,  we can cover those later.

 But  I'm still waiting for the promised video of a plane flying though a building without leaving a mark.   You claimed it exists.  I'm keen to see it.
The first 8-10 mins of scepti video has plenty of video and slows of the wreck, one it passes through, and there is a few frame delay before an explosion happens....Harry Potters world.

Ok,  no, I didn't see that,  so at what timestamp  in the scepti's video is the example you are referring to.

Also, since you earlier stated that this is the first time you've ever seen the video sceptimatic posted.  That means  there must be some other video you've seen prior to scepti's  what was the other video evidence?  The one where you spend days going frame by frame,   and it  convinced you that it showed the plane flying through the building without leaving a mark.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 17, 2017, 12:23:00 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 16, 2017, 11:56:24 PM
What is their group consensus on 9/11?

They don't consider evidence, argue from incredulity and confirmation bias.

Sounds familiar right?

Their "undebunkable sepclues" thread neglects to mention the physics defying fall acceleration of building 7, the fuel burn temperature and duration violating thermodynamics or the way the planes violated the laws of physics penetrating and exiting the building.

Nuff said.

They start right with holographic planes.
Like you did, Rayzor. I wonder why?

@Bhs that time Papa called me out for being a "shill" in this issue. This is why I don't like discussing if there were planes or drones or missiles.

Guys just grab that holographic plane shit and hold onto it like a drowning man grabbing his rescuer and drowning both of them together.

We don't need it.

To recap.

Physics violation, planes entering then exiting the building with the same nose cone shape. Bhs has extensively demonstrated that rock beats scissors, paper beats rock, and scissors beat paper. Hardened structural steel and reinforced concrete under compression  beats a mainly fibreglass nose cone.

Thermodynamics violation from the burn intensity and duration after the crashes. You yourself showed a three day old piece of glowing steel.

Physics violation when the buildings fell at free fall expecially building 7 at gravitational acceleration.

Rayzor, I would gladly die to have the truth on this issue come out, whatever it may be. I am sure it is obvious but this is something I feel very strongly about.

I have only argued with integrity and logic until you threw it out the window.

I don't know why you insist on holding an untenable position.

I gave you a way out just by saying what happened to building 7 was "suspicious" but you seem to think the official story is airtight, yet you have struggled defending it.

All I want from you is integrity, if you cannot do that, onebigmonkey supplied you a link where they will welcome you with open arms.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 12:31:56 AM
Quote from: onebigmonkey on February 16, 2017, 11:40:25 PM
One of the biggest circle jerks on the internet.  A bunch of smug know-it-alls who think the entire world is run for their benefit and whose only sustained argument in support of any of their deluded fantasies is an eye-rolling 'yeah right' to things they think have been faked (ie everything) and who routinely display a total ignorance of the subjects on which they pronounce their tinfoil covered slack-jawed drooling that passes as wisdom.

You pretty much have to write an essay to join, any deviation from the party line is dealt with by a pack of rabid halfwits with the most active banhammer around. The most active posters are widely regarded as alts of the forum owner.

They are retards of the lowest order.

http://cluesforum.info/

I think the conspiracy theory that I found the most disturbing was the vicsim theory.  No one died in the WTC attacks,  all the witnesses were actors, the tv networks were all in on it. 

They proudly claim,  that there has been no official denial of their claims,  a certain proof of the correctness of the theory.  I thought a few around here were a bit off the planet,  and flat earth theory was at the extreme end of the conspiracy spectrum,  but nope,  there are worse.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 17, 2017, 12:33:41 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 12:31:56 AM
Quote from: onebigmonkey on February 16, 2017, 11:40:25 PM
One of the biggest circle jerks on the internet.  A bunch of smug know-it-alls who think the entire world is run for their benefit and whose only sustained argument in support of any of their deluded fantasies is an eye-rolling 'yeah right' to things they think have been faked (ie everything) and who routinely display a total ignorance of the subjects on which they pronounce their tinfoil covered slack-jawed drooling that passes as wisdom.

You pretty much have to write an essay to join, any deviation from the party line is dealt with by a pack of rabid halfwits with the most active banhammer around. The most active posters are widely regarded as alts of the forum owner.

They are retards of the lowest order.

http://cluesforum.info/

I think the conspiracy theory that I found the most disturbing was the vicsim theory.  No one died in the WTC attacks,  all the witnesses were actors, the tv networks were all in on it. 

They proudly claim,  that there has been no official denial of their claims,  a certain proof of the correctness of the theory.  I thought a few around here were a bit off the planet,  and flat earth theory was at the extreme end of the conspiracy spectrum,  but nope,  there are worse.

Disgusting strawman.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 17, 2017, 12:35:38 AM
From page twelve, please address.

Quote from: disputeone on February 17, 2017, 12:23:00 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 16, 2017, 11:56:24 PM
What is their group consensus on 9/11?

They don't consider evidence, argue from incredulity and confirmation bias.

Sounds familiar right?

Their "undebunkable sepclues" thread neglects to mention the physics defying fall acceleration of building 7, the fuel burn temperature and duration violating thermodynamics or the way the planes violated the laws of physics penetrating and exiting the building.

Nuff said.

They start right with holographic planes.
Like you did, Rayzor. I wonder why?

@Bhs that time Papa called me out for being a "shill" in this issue. This is why I don't like discussing if there were planes or drones or missiles.

Guys just grab that holographic plane shit and hold onto it like a drowning man grabbing his rescuer and drowning both of them together.

We don't need it.

To recap.

Physics violation, planes entering then exiting the building with the same nose cone shape. Bhs has extensively demonstrated that rock beats scissors, paper beats rock, and scissors beat paper. Hardened structural steel and reinforced concrete under compression  beats a mainly fibreglass nose cone.

Thermodynamics violation from the burn intensity and duration after the crashes. You yourself showed a three day old piece of glowing steel.

Physics violation when the buildings fell at free fall expecially building 7 at gravitational acceleration.

Rayzor, I would gladly die to have the truth on this issue come out, whatever it may be. I am sure it is obvious but this is something I feel very strongly about.

I have only argued with integrity and logic until you threw it out the window.

I don't know why you insist on holding an untenable position.

I gave you a way out just by saying what happened to building 7 was "suspicious" but you seem to think the official story is airtight, yet you have struggled defending it.

All I want from you is integrity, if you cannot do that, onebigmonkey supplied you a link where they will welcome you with open arms.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 12:36:59 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 17, 2017, 12:23:00 AM

They start right with holographic planes.
Like you did, Rayzor. I wonder why?


Once again I call your bluff, show me where I "started right with holographic planes".

And that reminds me you still owe me an apology from the last time.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 17, 2017, 12:38:46 AM
First on-topic post.

Nuff said.

Please address the post above.

Quote from: Rayzor on February 13, 2017, 11:06:09 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 13, 2017, 10:59:41 PM
It doesn't have anything to do with a flat earth, general os the wrong place for it.

Tech and alt is a more suitable home, don't worry, I only know because I made the same mistake.

What if  911 was just a smokescreen to  hide the truth about the flat earth?   You never know what might be revealed.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 12:39:53 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 17, 2017, 12:33:41 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 12:31:56 AM
Quote from: onebigmonkey on February 16, 2017, 11:40:25 PM
One of the biggest circle jerks on the internet.  A bunch of smug know-it-alls who think the entire world is run for their benefit and whose only sustained argument in support of any of their deluded fantasies is an eye-rolling 'yeah right' to things they think have been faked (ie everything) and who routinely display a total ignorance of the subjects on which they pronounce their tinfoil covered slack-jawed drooling that passes as wisdom.

You pretty much have to write an essay to join, any deviation from the party line is dealt with by a pack of rabid halfwits with the most active banhammer around. The most active posters are widely regarded as alts of the forum owner.

They are retards of the lowest order.

http://cluesforum.info/

I think the conspiracy theory that I found the most disturbing was the vicsim theory.  No one died in the WTC attacks,  all the witnesses were actors, the tv networks were all in on it. 

They proudly claim,  that there has been no official denial of their claims,  a certain proof of the correctness of the theory.  I thought a few around here were a bit off the planet,  and flat earth theory was at the extreme end of the conspiracy spectrum,  but nope,  there are worse.

Disgusting strawman.

How is that a strawman?   You still don't actually know what a strawman argument is do you?    The only way that could possible be a strawman is if you were a vicsim theorist.

If you've nothiing to add to the debate,  butt out and stop interrupting.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 17, 2017, 12:43:13 AM
Rayzor your position is untenable, you have consistently refused to engage in debate and have been dishonest since your third post.

You disgust me.

I'm not sure if this is some ridiculous sense of "pride" or something more sinister. I will just assume that 100% of your self esteem comes from picking on flat earthers.

Sad.

The thread is right here if anyone wants to read it.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.0
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 12:43:59 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 17, 2017, 12:38:46 AM
First on-topic post.

Nuff said.

Please address the post above.

Quote from: Rayzor on February 13, 2017, 11:06:09 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 13, 2017, 10:59:41 PM
It doesn't have anything to do with a flat earth, general os the wrong place for it.

Tech and alt is a more suitable home, don't worry, I only know because I made the same mistake.

What if  911 was just a smokescreen to  hide the truth about the flat earth?   You never know what might be revealed.

If you've actually got a point,  you need to say it a bit more clearly.   I'm usually not too bad on gibberish,  but your dialect is a strange one.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 12:46:55 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 17, 2017, 12:43:13 AM
Rayzor your position is untenable, you have consistently refused to engage in debate and have been dishonest since your third post.

You disgust me.

I'm not sure if this is some ridiculous sense of "pride" or something more sinister. I will just assume that 100% of your self esteem comes from picking on flat earthers.

Sad.

The thread is right here if anyone wants to read it.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.0

When will you realise that I'll always try to respond in kind,  ask a polite intelligent question and you'll get answer in kind,  and no, reposting BHS doesn't count.

I now know why you link to the same thread as you posted in.  Took a while to realise how stupid you really were,  but now it's obvious.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 17, 2017, 12:49:17 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 12:43:59 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 17, 2017, 12:38:46 AM
First on-topic post.

Nuff said.

Please address the post above.

Quote from: Rayzor on February 13, 2017, 11:06:09 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 13, 2017, 10:59:41 PM
It doesn't have anything to do with a flat earth, general os the wrong place for it.

Tech and alt is a more suitable home, don't worry, I only know because I made the same mistake.

What if  911 was just a smokescreen to  hide the truth about the flat earth?   You never know what might be revealed.

If you've actually got a point,  you need to say it a bit more clearly.   I'm usually not too bad on gibberish,  but your dialect is a strange one.

Straight away, you refuse to debate technical issues, instead you attempt some sick play to equate 9/11 truthers with flat earthers.

Instead of making a point you try to debase the people debating you and try to shift the issue from physics violations in the official story to "hurr durr 9/11 truthers are flat earthers hurr durr."

You make me physically sick, I can't imagine how it must feel for you to look in the mirror.

Clear enough?

Cause you don't want people to read it, do you? That's the difference between us. I want the truth, you want to believe what you want to believe.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.0


Edit, No one is helping you debate because of your dishonesty and that you can't make a point without a youtube video.

I've met career criminals with 100× the integrity you have.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 12:56:32 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 17, 2017, 12:49:17 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 12:43:59 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 17, 2017, 12:38:46 AM
First on-topic post.

Nuff said.

Please address the post above.

Quote from: Rayzor on February 13, 2017, 11:06:09 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 13, 2017, 10:59:41 PM
It doesn't have anything to do with a flat earth, general os the wrong place for it.

Tech and alt is a more suitable home, don't worry, I only know because I made the same mistake.

What if  911 was just a smokescreen to  hide the truth about the flat earth?   You never know what might be revealed.

If you've actually got a point,  you need to say it a bit more clearly.   I'm usually not too bad on gibberish,  but your dialect is a strange one.

Straight away, you refuse to debate technical issues, instead you attempt some sick play to equate 9/11 truthers with flat earthers.

Instead of making a point you try to debase the people debating you and try to shift the issue from physics violations in the official story to "hurr durr 9/11 truthers are flat earthers hurr durr."

You make me physically sick, I can't imagine how it must feel for you to look in the mirror.

Clear enough?

Cause you don't want people to read it, do you? That's the difference between us. I want the truth, you want to believe what you want to believe.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.0

If you ever actually made a point I would take the time to address it, instead you are off in a little disconnected fantasy world. 

I asked you what was your point,  and asked for it to be stated more clearly,  since it wasn't obvious what you were saying.   

And this is your response, claiming I equate 911 truthers with flat earthers when I said no such thing.  It's a repeating theme with you,  not knowing what words mean, and lack of  ability to understand context and follow a train of thought.

Anything else I can help you with?

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 17, 2017, 12:58:47 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 12:22:54 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 17, 2017, 12:14:01 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 11:47:48 PM
You are missing all the important points,  we can cover those later.

 But  I'm still waiting for the promised video of a plane flying though a building without leaving a mark.   You claimed it exists.  I'm keen to see it.
The first 8-10 mins of scepti video has plenty of video and slows of the wreck, one it passes through, and there is a few frame delay before an explosion happens....Harry Potters world.

Ok,  no, I didn't see that,  so at what timestamp  in the scepti's video is the example you are referring to.

Also, since you earlier stated that this is the first time you've ever seen the video sceptimatic posted.  That means  there must be some other video you've seen prior to scepti's  what was the other video evidence?  The one where you spend days going frame by frame,   and it  convinced you that it showed the plane flying through the building without leaving a mark.

There is plenty of video I can post up...I am sure it is on YouTube as well, most video evidence is there now which is nice. A luxury I didn't have when this started. All my files are on different hard drives, I don't debate this on the internet, but in real life conferences....Well, not much anymore.

I have ran through them on high end videography equipment more times than I can count..The companies I worked with on that I am grateful to for their assistance and advice.

I can post some up if I think they will make a difference to you...Though I don't think it will.

Again...Still won't answer direct questions, I think I am giving up on you ..Sorry. Tired of wasting my time typing to explain something or present something and you will never address it directly.

Perhaps that site would be a good home for you...

Quote from: disputeone on February 17, 2017, 12:23:00 AM

They don't consider evidence, argue from incredulity and confirmation bias.

Sounds familiar right?

Yeah it does unfortunately...

Quote
Their "undebunkable sepclues" thread neglects to mention the physics defying fall acceleration of building 7, the fuel burn temperature and duration violating thermodynamics or the way the planes violated the laws of physics penetrating and exiting the building.

Nuff said.

Gotcha.... So just a heard of emu running in circles...

Quote
@Bhs that time Papa called me out for being a "shill" in this issue. This is why I don't like discussing if there were planes or drones or missiles.

Guys just grab that holographic plane shit and hold onto it like a drowning man grabbing his rescuer and drowning both of them together.

We don't need it.

Well to be fair I told him multiple times I didn't want to talk about that, but he kept pushing and asking. I like to think out loud and hear others thoughts..I should have not done so.

I have never debated this via internet, only in public form/events/lectures etc. It would either be extremely complex, or extremely simple and low brow..Depending on the audience expected. Though, in those settings I would never muse about anything, so I take the blame....I should not have.

Quote
Rayzor, I would gladly die to have the truth on this issue come out, whatever it may be. I am sure it is obvious but this is something I feel very strongly about.

100 percent agreed...Without a second thought. If I knew it would be released to the masses...Done.

I can't even begin to list the personal and sacrifice put towards that. There was even one point for months I used my entire business for this, took no projects in. Massive undertaking and expense. Plus weird shit started to happen at the end...Including an unexpected audit.... Coincidence?? A case could be made for either view.

Sucks...All for nothing so far...Sucks big time. Now so much time is passing new generations are coming in and no one gives a shit anymore. Just as they planned...This thing hits 20-25 years....We are finished.

Quote
I have only argued with integrity and logic until you threw it out the window.

I don't know why you insist on holding an untenable position.

I gave you a way out just by saying what happened to building 7 was "suspicious" but you seem to think the official story is airtight, yet you have struggled defending it.

All I want from you is integrity, if you cannot do that, onebigmonkey supplied you a link where they will welcome you with open arms.

Yeah...Perhaps he should go there. Sounds like a good home for him.


Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 16, 2017, 03:01:32 AM
Let's leave me and my credentials/experience etc out of the picture for a moment.

There are 1000s upon 1000s of people just like me, many even more intelligent and accomplished than I that think the same thing.

Call that Looney?

That is leaving out the millions of "regular folks" who feel the same way.

Also leaving people and leaders of other countries who roll their eyes that Americans even thought of accepting the official story. People of power in other countries have even publicly said it was all nonsense...

That's a bit further than a tin foil hat conspiracy don't you the Mr. Fish?

And of course out of all the posts he ignores is this one too.....

Smdh... ::)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 17, 2017, 01:01:44 AM
No one is helping you debate because of your dishonesty and that you can't make a point without a youtube video.

I've met career criminals with 100× the integrity you have.

It's clear throwing shit is all you can do, if people want information on 9/11 please read the thread with an open mind considering all evidence presented and all points made. Please make up your own mind.

I'm done here, the last 7 pages has been Rayzor in damage control, I'm done sorry this is upsetting me now.

I just can't belive how dishonest and immature he is being...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 17, 2017, 01:04:54 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 17, 2017, 01:01:44 AM
No one is helping you debate because of your dishonesty and that you can't make a point without a youtube video.

I've met career criminals with 100× the integrity you have.

It's clear throwing shit is all you can do, if people want information on 9/11 please read the thread with an open mind considering all evidence presented and all points made. Please make up your own mind.

I'm done here, the last 7 pages has been Rayzor in damage control, I'm done sorry this is upsetting me now.

I just can't belive how dishonest and immature he is being...

Man....I get it..Believe me...You should know i do.

Hell I lost a fucking car once to someone breaking out a window and setting it on fire at a conference over this.

He just isn't worth it..
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 01:08:36 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 17, 2017, 12:58:47 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 12:22:54 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 17, 2017, 12:14:01 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 11:47:48 PM
You are missing all the important points,  we can cover those later.

 But  I'm still waiting for the promised video of a plane flying though a building without leaving a mark.   You claimed it exists.  I'm keen to see it.
The first 8-10 mins of scepti video has plenty of video and slows of the wreck, one it passes through, and there is a few frame delay before an explosion happens....Harry Potters world.

Ok,  no, I didn't see that,  so at what timestamp  in the scepti's video is the example you are referring to.

Also, since you earlier stated that this is the first time you've ever seen the video sceptimatic posted.  That means  there must be some other video you've seen prior to scepti's  what was the other video evidence?  The one where you spend days going frame by frame,   and it  convinced you that it showed the plane flying through the building without leaving a mark.

There is plenty of video I can post up...I am sure it is on YouTube as well, most video evidence is there now which is nice. A luxury I didn't have when this started. All my files are on different hard drives, I don't debate this on the internet, but in real life conferences....Well, not much anymore.

I have ran through them on high end videography equipment more times than I can count..The companies I worked with on that I am grateful to for their assistance and advice.


One thing at a time,  you claimed you had video evidence of a plane passing through the building without leaving a mark,  and repeatedly badgered me for an answer as to how that could be so, and even after I pointed out the logical fallacy embodied in the question you persisted,  so I eventually told you what you wanted to hear and said it was impossible.

Now you tell me you can't show the evidence?    I only ask for you to tell me the timestamp in the video scepti posted which demonstrated your claim.

If you recant your claim, we can move on,  or if you can prove your claim we can progress in a different direction,  the onus is on you as to which direction we go from here.



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sceptimatic on February 17, 2017, 01:16:55 AM
2:17 seconds onwards should be enough to tell anyone that the planes are simply made for TV.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 01:17:04 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 17, 2017, 01:01:44 AM
No one is helping you debate because of your dishonesty and that you can't make a point without a youtube video.

I've met career criminals with 100× the integrity you have.

It's clear throwing shit is all you can do, if people want information on 9/11 please read the thread with an open mind considering all evidence presented and all points made. Please make up your own mind.

I'm done here, the last 7 pages has been Rayzor in damage control, I'm done sorry this is upsetting me now.

I just can't belive how dishonest and immature he is being...

I could ask you to show me where you think I've been dishonest.    But I know you can't
As far a honesty goes,  I could call you out on pretending to be a flat earther and then flip flopping,  or suddenly becoming a "no-planer"  half way through this thread.

So please go away and don't come back unless you have something of substance to contribute.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 17, 2017, 01:17:57 AM
Sorry...No more double talk with no direct answers...

I didn't say I can't, I said it isn't worth it on your case. I would have to upload to a video hosting, then link to here. If you were looking for truth I would. You won't even answer a single question from me with an actual response.

Either you are to dense, unwilling, or for a long shot paid not provide an answer.

You have been given 13 pages as a chance...That is enough.

You are a prime candidate for legba's sock-puppet comment.

And don't say...Show me blah blah...There was at least 30 times...And I am being very generous. Every person here has said the same thing...Answer a fucking question.

Toodle-pip

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 17, 2017, 01:16:55 AM
2:17 seconds onwards should be enough to tell anyone that the planes are simply made for TV.




Thanks scepti
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 17, 2017, 01:18:30 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 17, 2017, 12:58:47 AM
Well to be fair I told him multiple times I didn't want to talk about that, but he kept pushing and asking. I like to think out loud and hear others thoughts..I should have not done so.

I have never debated this via internet, only in public form/events/lectures etc. It would either be extremely complex, or extremely simple and low brow..Depending on the audience expected. Though, in those settings I would never muse about anything, so I take the blame....I should not have.

Not at all, I wasn't having a go.

The result of this debate is obvious. I think we can leave it here, no point continuing in this vein.

Remember how he said he had enough when you bumped it up to 2.1%, I'll find the quote if you like. Now he's back talking about holographic planes and that we are bad people cause other people died that day and we shouldn't question the official story.

In damage control, trying to steer the debate anywhere except the mechanics of the impact, loss of structural integrity due to heat and subsequent demolition / collapse.

I don't blame him.

I was agitated from Rayzors total lack of integrity and decency my post was probably more aggressive than I intended.

Quote
And don't say...Show me blah blah...There was at least 30 times...And I am being very generous. Every person here has said the same thing...Answer a fucking question.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 01:23:13 AM
Quote from: sceptimatic on February 17, 2017, 01:16:55 AM
2:17 seconds onwards should be enough to tell anyone that the planes are simply made for TV.

Thanks scepti,  that's the next topic as to the physics of the impact,  but we need to get past the claim about not leaving a mark first.

Just one comment however,  the woman who say the wing tips couldn't slice through steel beams obviously didn't know the outer sections you can see damaged by the wing tips is not actually steel but just light aluminium cladding, and window frames.

I'm still hoping BHS can find that video.



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 17, 2017, 01:24:58 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 17, 2017, 01:18:30 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 17, 2017, 12:58:47 AM
Well to be fair I told him multiple times I didn't want to talk about that, but he kept pushing and asking. I like to think out loud and hear others thoughts..I should have not done so.

I have never debated this via internet, only in public form/events/lectures etc. It would either be extremely complex, or extremely simple and low brow..Depending on the audience expected. Though, in those settings I would never muse about anything, so I take the blame....I should not have.

Not at all, I wasn't having a go.

The result of this debate is obvious. I think we can leave it here, no point continuing in this vein.

Remember how he said he had enough when you bumped it up to 2.1%, I'll find the quote if you like. Now he's back talking about holographic planes and that we are bad people cause other people died that day and we shouldn't question the official story.

In damage control, trying to steer the debate anywhere except the mechanics of the impact, loss of structural integrity due to heat and subsequent demolition / collapse.

I don't blame him.

I was agitated from Rayzors total lack of integrity and decency my post was probably more aggressive than I intended.

Oh I could give a fuck about him...It was your mental state I didn't want effected by him...Say whatever the hell you would like. It is obvious what he is unfortunately...I have no sympathy.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 17, 2017, 01:30:31 AM
Thanks mate.

The thread is right here, for anyone who wants to read and consider. We have fought bravely but unfortunately Rayzor.

Rayzor feels no guilt, Rayzor feels no shame, Rayzor has no integrity and he will not stop shitposting, ever, until we stop posting and he claims victory.

Another free prediction.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 01:34:53 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 17, 2017, 01:24:58 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 17, 2017, 01:18:30 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 17, 2017, 12:58:47 AM
Well to be fair I told him multiple times I didn't want to talk about that, but he kept pushing and asking. I like to think out loud and hear others thoughts..I should have not done so.

I have never debated this via internet, only in public form/events/lectures etc. It would either be extremely complex, or extremely simple and low brow..Depending on the audience expected. Though, in those settings I would never muse about anything, so I take the blame....I should not have.

Not at all, I wasn't having a go.

The result of this debate is obvious. I think we can leave it here, no point continuing in this vein.

Remember how he said he had enough when you bumped it up to 2.1%, I'll find the quote if you like. Now he's back talking about holographic planes and that we are bad people cause other people died that day and we shouldn't question the official story.

In damage control, trying to steer the debate anywhere except the mechanics of the impact, loss of structural integrity due to heat and subsequent demolition / collapse.

I don't blame him.

I was agitated from Rayzors total lack of integrity and decency my post was probably more aggressive than I intended.

Oh I could give a fuck about him...It was your mental state I didn't want effected by him...Say whatever the hell you would like. It is obvious what he is unfortunately...I have no sympathy.

If you don't want to support your claim that a plane can fly through a building and not leave a mark,  that's fine by me,  I said it was impossible all along,  so I can't blame you  for backing down.  If you'll retract that statement we can move on to discuss impact physics. 

No plane no impact.   Doesn't get any simpler.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 17, 2017, 01:39:41 AM
Retracted.

How do you think the fibreglass nose cone of the plane stayed perfectly intact during the penetration of the building, through the lift shafts and central supports then exited with the nose cone the exact same shape?

Don't post that model, use words, logic and maths.

One more chance.

Edit, video for reference.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 17, 2017, 01:40:30 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 01:34:53 AM
If you don't want to support your claim that a plane can fly through a building and not leave a mark,  that's fine by me,  I said it was impossible all along,  so I can't blame you  for backing down.  If you'll retract that statement we can move on to discuss impact physics. 

No plane no impact.   Doesn't get any simpler.

Again... Evasion. Everyone has seen the garbage can you are. You want to change that or get into "impact physics", I already have plenty of unanswered questions you can answer.

Want to continue a conversation as well as show you aren't a dumpster of the lowest sort....Answer some of my direct questions...They are present perfectly preserved and unanswered in this thread.

Do a couple...Great let's talk...More diversion...

Then..

Fuck off

Your choice
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 17, 2017, 01:43:41 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 17, 2017, 01:40:30 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 01:34:53 AM
If you don't want to support your claim that a plane can fly through a building and not leave a mark,  that's fine by me,  I said it was impossible all along,  so I can't blame you  for backing down.  If you'll retract that statement we can move on to discuss impact physics. 

No plane no impact.   Doesn't get any simpler.

Again... Evasion. Everyone has seen the garbage can you are. You want to change that or get into "impact physics", I already have plenty of unanswered questions you can answer.

Want to continue a conversation as well as show you aren't a dumpster of the lowest sort....Answer some of my direct questions...They are present perfectly preserved and unanswered in this thread.

Do a couple...Great let's talk...More diversion...

Then..

Fuck off

Your choice

Agreed, such a disgusting, foul attempt of twisting words to attack his debate partner instead of his position.

What, didn't you do this in high school / uni Rayzor?

I did.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 01:44:45 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 17, 2017, 01:30:31 AM
Thanks mate.

The thread is right here, for anyone who wants to read and consider. We have fought bravely but unfortunately Rayzor.

Rayzor feels no guilt, Rayzor feels no shame, Rayzor has no integrity and he will not stop shitposting, ever, until we stop posting and he claims victory.

Another free prediction.

Yes,  you really should re-read what's been said and by who,  you will be surprised.    The aim of this discussion was not victory  ( although it seems it was your aim)  but to discover something about the truth of 911,  please check what I called this thread when I started it.   It's called  "911 What is the truth?"

The entire discussion has been derailed by BHS and his pushing of his fringe "No Plane Theory"  which appears to be predicated on unsupported assumptions and wild extrapolations. 

We are unfortunately no closer to the truth.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 17, 2017, 01:50:53 AM
Goodbye Rayzor, I got some 23 yo qt to catch up with who wants me to take her for a ride on my bike to the pub. Better things to do.



I'll say it again.





Was it worth your soul?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 01:53:20 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 17, 2017, 01:40:30 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 01:34:53 AM
If you don't want to support your claim that a plane can fly through a building and not leave a mark,  that's fine by me,  I said it was impossible all along,  so I can't blame you  for backing down.  If you'll retract that statement we can move on to discuss impact physics. 

No plane no impact.   Doesn't get any simpler.

Again... Evasion. Everyone has seen the garbage can you are. You want to change that or get into "impact physics", I already have plenty of unanswered questions you can answer.

Want to continue a conversation as well as show you aren't a dumpster of the lowest sort....Answer some of my direct questions...They are present perfectly preserved and unanswered in this thread.

Do a couple...Great let's talk...More diversion...

Then..

Fuck off

Your choice

In case you hadn't figured it out yet,  I try to respond in kind,  if you want a slanging match,  I'll oblige,  If you want a civilized discussion,  you can stop the childish personal attacks.

I'll give you a pass this once.   You either have a case or you don't,  your case hinges on there being no planes hitting WTC1 and WTC2,  that question must be answered before you can talk about the impact. 

My asking you the question is not ipso facto evasion,  your refusal to answer is by definition evasion.  So try and get it right.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 01:54:00 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 17, 2017, 01:50:53 AM
Goodbye Rayzor, I got some 23 yo qt to catch up with who wants me to take her for a ride on my bike to the pub. Better things to do.



I'll say it again.





Was it worth your soul?

Good bye.   Don't forget your dictionary.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 17, 2017, 01:54:42 AM
You weasel.

Quote from: disputeone on February 17, 2017, 01:39:41 AM
Retracted.

How do you think the fibreglass nose cone of the plane stayed perfectly intact during the penetration of the building, through the lift shafts and central supports then exited with the nose cone the exact same shape?

Don't post that model, use words, logic and maths.

One more chance.

Edit, video for reference.



Alright gtg. Karma is real Rayzor.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 02:03:46 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 17, 2017, 01:54:42 AM
You weasel.

Quote from: disputeone on February 17, 2017, 01:39:41 AM
Retracted.

How do you think the fibreglass nose cone of the plane stayed perfectly intact during the penetration of the building, through the lift shafts and central supports then exited with the nose cone the exact same shape?

Don't post that model, use words, logic and maths.

One more chance.

Edit, video for reference.


Alright gtg. Karma is real Rayzor.

The logical fallacy embedded in that statement is so glaring I wouldn't have thought it needed saying,  but it seems it does,

How can there be a nose cone if there is no plane?    There's another related question,  How come the nose cone survived?  But that implies there is a plane to begin with.  Two sides of the same coin,

If you are a "No Planer"  you can't logically ask the question how did the nose cone survive.   You could however ask was it the nose cone off something else? 

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 17, 2017, 02:04:42 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 01:44:45 AM

The entire discussion has been derailed by BHS and his pushing of his fringe "No Plane Theory"  which appears to be predicated on unsupported assumptions and wild extrapolations. 

I am putting this on hold for a minute...

Quote from: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 01:53:20 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 17, 2017, 01:40:30 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 01:34:53 AM
If you don't want to support your claim that a plane can fly through a building and not leave a mark,  that's fine by me,  I said it was impossible all along,  so I can't blame you  for backing down.  If you'll retract that statement we can move on to discuss impact physics. 

No plane no impact.   Doesn't get any simpler.

Again... Evasion. Everyone has seen the garbage can you are. You want to change that or get into "impact physics", I already have plenty of unanswered questions you can answer.

Want to continue a conversation as well as show you aren't a dumpster of the lowest sort....Answer some of my direct questions...They are present perfectly preserved and unanswered in this thread.

Do a couple...Great let's talk...More diversion...

Then..

Fuck off

Your choice

In case you hadn't figured it out yet,  I try to respond in kind,  if you want a slanging match,  I'll oblige,  If you want a civilized discussion,  you can stop the childish personal attacks.

I'll give you a pass this once.   You either have a case or you don't,  your case hinges on there being no planes hitting WTC1 and WTC2,  that question must be answered before you can talk about the impact. 

My asking you the question is not ipso facto evasion,  your refusal to answer is by definition evasion.  So try and get it right.


Again....A lie from rayzor...You can't stop can you...I have allowed for your plane theory, and still explained the impossibility. I could care less if there were planes or not. I can destroy this a 100 different ways even allowing for parts of the official story to be true..No matter for me...

Here is just a brief example you never addressed.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 16, 2017, 01:38:27 AM
That is the only two options.....There are no others..Either reality was violated and we accept the story (this doesn't even include 1000s of other issues) or it was a lie.

As much as you would like to fight it...There is no other available options...So you choose to side with an impossibility?


But just to play your uneducated game...

Let's assume I entertain the model your video shows (which I don't)...

So the plane is allowed to enter without restriction...Pass through the outside vertical exoskeleton and horizontal exoskeleton to the core.

Ok, those few floors are compromised on the 91-93 floors...That would not cause a collapse.

But let's say it did in that area.

It would collapse on itself at the path of least resistance...However, there is not enough damaged and removed material.

So you would have a situation such as this..

(http://i63.tinypic.com/11iohnq.jpg)

However, even if by magic it started a free fall collapse at that 90th floor, it would not make it past the 44th floor because of the doubled core stacking (this building did not have CG sway compensation like newer buildings so CG directional load was set up like older scrappers, more like a sea bowie), the lower 40 was built like a tank compared to the upper sections...Multiples of the mass of the upper decks.

However, if we keep using magic....Let's say it collapsed this area too....We would have this...

(http://i66.tinypic.com/35lf8s0.jpg)

Just multiped by a factor 3.8

And not at a free fall...

Would have taken anywhere from minutes to hours..

Stress junctions, their cert load in the 60s was anywhere from 5 times to 100times less than what it could take before complete failure...Not to mention, since the CG was controlled in a more simple "old school" design (as stated, like a sea bowie), the more mass you keep removing from the upper area, the more robust the bottom becomes as well as the CG continues to get lower.

If you had a 40 story WTC center with the same structural design, you would never knock that damn building over, you would have to dismantle that thing  piece by piece.

Unless we are using magic again.


If you just tell me you are a huge Harry Potter fan...I will leave you alone rayzor.... Seriously

Answers....Last chance.. direct answers in your own words...

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 17, 2017, 02:07:20 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 02:03:46 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 17, 2017, 01:54:42 AM
You weasel.

Quote from: disputeone on February 17, 2017, 01:39:41 AM
Retracted.

How do you think the fibreglass nose cone of the plane stayed perfectly intact during the penetration of the building, through the lift shafts and central supports then exited with the nose cone the exact same shape?

Don't post that model, use words, logic and maths.

One more chance.

Edit, video for reference.


Alright gtg. Karma is real Rayzor.

The logical fallacy embedded in that statement is so glaring I wouldn't have thought it needed saying,  but it seems it does,

How can there be a nose cone if there is no plane?    There's another related question,  How come the nose cone survived?  But that implies there is a plane to begin with.  Two sides of the same coin,

If you are a "No Planer"  you can't logically ask the question how did the nose cone survive.   You could however ask was it the nose cone off something else?

I'm risking not getting laid for this.

Let's say I believe the official story and am just curious, how do you think the fibreglass nose cone of the plane stayed perfectly intact during the penetration of the building, through the lift shafts and central supports then exited with the nose cone the exact same shape?

Answer the question.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 02:13:05 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 17, 2017, 02:04:42 AM



But just to play your uneducated game...

Let's assume I entertain the model your video shows (which I don't)...

So the plane is allowed to enter without restriction...Pass through the outside vertical exoskeleton and horizontal exoskeleton to the core.

Ok, those few floors are compromised on the 91-93 floors...That would not cause a collapse.

But let's say it did in that area.

It would collapse on itself at the path of least resistance...However, there is not enough damaged and removed material.

So you would have a situation such as this..

(http://i63.tinypic.com/11iohnq.jpg)

However, even if by magic it started a free fall collapse at that 90th floor, it would not make it past the 44th floor because of the doubled core stacking (this building did not have CG sway compensation like newer buildings so CG directional load was set up like older scrappers, more like a sea bowie), the lower 40 was built like a tank compared to the upper sections...Multiples of the mass of the upper decks.

However, if we keep using magic....Let's say it collapsed this area too....We would have this...

(http://i66.tinypic.com/35lf8s0.jpg)

Just multiped by a factor 3.8

And not at a free fall...

Would have taken anywhere from minutes to hours..

Stress junctions, their cert load in the 60s was anywhere from 5 times to 100times less than what it could take before complete failure...Not to mention, since the CG was controlled in a more simple "old school" design (as stated, like a sea bowie), the more mass you keep removing from the upper area, the more robust the bottom becomes as well as the CG continues to get lower.

If you had a 40 story WTC center with the same structural design, you would never knock that damn building over, you would have to dismantle that thing  piece by piece.

Unless we are using magic again.


If you just tell me you are a huge Harry Potter fan...I will leave you alone rayzor.... Seriously

Answers....Last chance.. direct answers in your own words...

I did actually answer that, and pointed out that you got the collapse backwards,  at some point part way up the building several floors collapsed,  and the potential energy and momentum of the floors above the collapse point exceed the support of the floors below, as they collapse their momentum and potential energy of those floors is added to to total loading,  so the loading gets progressively greater as the collapse continues.

Your contention that as the collapse progressed mass was  removed from the upper area, making the bottom more robust is the reverse of what actually happened.

Harry Potter comments about magic wands didn't help your case either.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 02:17:12 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 17, 2017, 02:07:20 AM
I'm risking not getting laid for this.

In that case I'll answer you tomorrow.  You'll be in a better mood.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 17, 2017, 02:24:31 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 17, 2017, 02:07:20 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 02:03:46 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 17, 2017, 01:54:42 AM
You weasel.

Quote from: disputeone on February 17, 2017, 01:39:41 AM
Retracted.

How do you think the fibreglass nose cone of the plane stayed perfectly intact during the penetration of the building, through the lift shafts and central supports then exited with the nose cone the exact same shape?

Don't post that model, use words, logic and maths.

One more chance.

Edit, video for reference.


Alright gtg. Karma is real Rayzor.

The logical fallacy embedded in that statement is so glaring I wouldn't have thought it needed saying,  but it seems it does,

How can there be a nose cone if there is no plane?    There's another related question,  How come the nose cone survived?  But that implies there is a plane to begin with.  Two sides of the same coin,

If you are a "No Planer"  you can't logically ask the question how did the nose cone survive.   You could however ask was it the nose cone off something else?

I'm risking not getting laid for this.

Let's say I believe the official story and am just curious, how do you think the fibreglass nose cone of the plane stayed perfectly intact during the penetration of the building, through the lift shafts and central supports then exited with the nose cone the exact same shape?

Answer the question.

(https://s11.postimg.org/3nkra5vcj/images_48.jpg)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 17, 2017, 02:46:30 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 02:13:05 AM
I did actually answer that, and pointed out that you got the collapse backwards,  at some point part way up the building several floors collapsed,  and the potential energy and momentum of the floors above the collapse point exceed the support of the floors below, as they collapse their momentum and potential energy of those floors is added to to total loading,  so the loading gets progressively greater as the collapse continues.

Your contention that as the collapse progressed mass was  removed from the upper area, making the bottom more robust is the reverse of what actually happened.

Harry Potter comments about magic wands didn't help your case either.

No...Reread what I wrote. I was stating what would happen in the real world if structural integrity was compromised. Read it again, I even put cool little pictures up.

Falling in the path of the most resistance is only in fairy tales. There is a reason people are paid millions of dollars to demo a scrapper..If it wasnt complex, it wouldn't almost be rocket science. We could just put charges on one floor and watch it fall.

So again...Reread that post...I was explaining reality in structural dynamics...I was not condoning what we saw on TV as accurate of a plane wreck.

I was explaining what you would see in a plane wreck...Understand?


And here is a bit of reality for you...



This is the real world.

Maybe a background in this is needed to understand?? I don't know.. maybe what is easy for me is hard for you? I am lost...

So will you please explain why we saw the laws of physics broken???
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 02:47:12 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 17, 2017, 02:24:31 AM
(https://s11.postimg.org/3nkra5vcj/images_48.jpg)

WIlliam of Ockam  ( Occam if you prefer)  my patron saint.   

The nose cone didn't survive,  what ever it is on the video doesn't actually look like the fibreglass nose cone.  Might be just debris cloud.  There's no conclusive evidence supporting the contention that the nose cone survived to exit the opposite side.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 17, 2017, 03:00:47 AM
No evidence, except thousands of official videos and photos. Something the same dimensions following the same path as the nose cone appeared right where you would expect it to appear if the wtc buildings were made of styrofoam.

Alright, that was actually the most honest answer you have given.

I just saw this on the news looks so real, now bow down with me as we pray to the NIST.



All hail the mighty NIST, decider of our laws of physics. Give us this lie, our daily lie, and forgive us our shillary, lead us not into truth but comfort.

Anist.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 17, 2017, 02:46:30 AM
So will you please explain why we saw the laws of physics broken???

14 pages later, it's clear he doesn't have a year 9 level of physics understanding. That or he is scared to say too much.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 03:07:30 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 17, 2017, 02:46:30 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 02:13:05 AM
I did actually answer that, and pointed out that you got the collapse backwards,  at some point part way up the building several floors collapsed,  and the potential energy and momentum of the floors above the collapse point exceed the support of the floors below, as they collapse their momentum and potential energy of those floors is added to to total loading,  so the loading gets progressively greater as the collapse continues.

Your contention that as the collapse progressed mass was  removed from the upper area, making the bottom more robust is the reverse of what actually happened.

Harry Potter comments about magic wands didn't help your case either.

No...Reread what I wrote. I was stating what would happen in the real world if structural integrity was compromised. Read it again, I even put cool little pictures up.

Falling in the path of the most resistance is only in fairy tales. There is a reason people are paid millions of dollars to demo a scrapper..If it wasnt complex, it wouldn't almost be rocket science. We could just put charges on one floor and watch it fall.

So again...Reread that post...I was explaining reality in structural dynamics...I was not condoning what we saw on TV as accurate of a plane wreck.

I was explaining what you would see in a plane wreck...Understand?


And here is a bit of reality for you...


This is the real world.

Maybe a background in this is needed to understand?? I don't know.. maybe what is easy for me is hard for you? I am lost...

So will you please explain why we saw the laws of physics broken???

You are trying to beg the question again.    The laws of physics are never broken,  our understanding might be broken,  or our data might be incomplete,  but physics is physics.

Lots of people have done extensive FEA analysis of the collapse,  I would only be repeating what they have already published,  You probably already know what they say,  so, if you know better then stop beating around the bush and explain how your analysis stacks up to others.  Where it's different, and why.





Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sceptimatic on February 17, 2017, 03:16:19 AM
CGI or a real plane?
It really doesn't require much thought to at least know there's something seriously wrong with this footage.
The trouble is, when we're schooled with unrealistic movie images, constantly to warp our logical senses, then you could almost agree that some....I say, some, gullible people could easily believe that planes can fly through big steel and concrete buildings  and blend right in...but are they so gullible as to not question the nose coming out the other side of a building like this?

Someone who apparently appears intelligent enough and also logical enough, as in, Rayzor, sees nothing amiss.
The reason he sees nothing amiss can be for only three reasons.

1. He's so naive and gullible that official lines are all he can accept and any evidence to the contrary of official lines is deemed inadmissible to his mind.

2. He's simply following official lines and arguing for those as nothing more than a time filling attempted debunking experiment to gain strong reaction and frustration from anyone who sees clear evidence of shenanigans that absolutely beg questions.

3. He's simply paid to move through forums of interest in order to discourage people from questioning anything that goes against mainstream officialdom.

I can rule number 1 out.
As for the the other two...take your pick.


In the meantime, have a look at this video for those that do have a questioning mind.
They showed all this stuff on the news so it's not rigged up by outsiders. This is what we were shown on that very day. I saw much of this stuff myself.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 03:20:44 AM
On the topic of were the planes real or not,  the question why was no aircraft wreckage ever found?

The answer is it was. 

Part of fuselage from UA175 found under WTC5
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-JQ-TdRhtCBU/VQmQHmybgpI/AAAAAAAAAVs/5ShQ6vaXUwc/s1600/3.jpg)

Landing gear found on the corner of West and Rector streets.
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-o-Oo8Pj7sAE/VQmTQVElFPI/AAAAAAAAAWY/BuGgN8C1b4g/s1600/7-69_landing-gear-tire_west-rector-s.jpg)

Piece of AA11 fuselage found near West and Cedar
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-S3vN74OwryI/VQmS-Z7iCGI/AAAAAAAAAWE/vzfWlUqM39E/s1600/plane%2Bwindow.jpg)

There are other bits and pieces.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 03:23:15 AM
Quote from: sceptimatic on February 17, 2017, 03:16:19 AM
CGI or a real plane?
It really doesn't require much thought to at least know there's something seriously wrong with this footage.
The trouble is, when we're schooled with unrealistic movie images, constantly to warp our logical senses, then you could almost agree that some....I say, some, gullible people could easily believe that planes can fly through big steel and concrete buildings  and blend right in...but are they so gullible as to not question the nose coming out the other side of a building like this?

Someone who apparently appears intelligent enough and also logical enough, as in, Rayzor, sees nothing amiss.
The reason he sees nothing amiss can be for only three reasons.

1. He's so naive and gullible that official lines are all he can accept and any evidence to the contrary of official lines is deemed inadmissible to his mind.

2. He's simply following official lines and arguing for those as nothing more than a time filling attempted debunking experiment to gain strong reaction and frustration from anyone who sees clear evidence of shenanigans that absolutely beg questions.

3. He's simply paid to move through forums of interest in order to discourage people from questioning anything that goes against mainstream officialdom.

I can rule number 1 out.
As for the the other two...take your pick.


In the meantime, have a look at this video for those that do have a questioning mind.
They showed all this stuff on the news so it's not rigged up by outsiders. This is what we were shown on that very day. I saw much of this stuff myself.


Or option 4 he's looked at all the evidence and made up his own mind.

The nose out fallacy becomes obvious when you see it from multiple angles,   it's a debris cloud.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 17, 2017, 03:29:07 AM
Quote from: sceptimatic on February 17, 2017, 03:16:19 AM
CGI or a real plane?
It really doesn't require much thought to at least know there's something seriously wrong with this footage.
The trouble is, when we're schooled with unrealistic movie images, constantly to warp our logical senses, then you could almost agree that some....I say, some, gullible people could easily believe that planes can fly through big steel and concrete buildings  and blend right in...but are they so gullible as to not question the nose coming out the other side of a building like this?

Someone who apparently appears intelligent enough and also logical enough, as in, Rayzor, sees nothing amiss.
The reason he sees nothing amiss can be for only three reasons.

1. He's so naive and gullible that official lines are all he can accept and any evidence to the contrary of official lines is deemed inadmissible to his mind.

2. He's simply following official lines and arguing for those as nothing more than a time filling attempted debunking experiment to gain strong reaction and frustration from anyone who sees clear evidence of shenanigans that absolutely beg questions.

3. He's simply paid to move through forums of interest in order to discourage people from questioning anything that goes against mainstream officialdom.

I can rule number 1 out.
As for the the other two...take your pick.


In the meantime, have a look at this video for those that do have a questioning mind.
They showed all this stuff on the news so it's not rigged up by outsiders. This is what we were shown on that very day. I saw much of this stuff myself.



Thanks scepti.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 17, 2017, 03:30:34 AM
Quote from: sceptimatic on February 17, 2017, 03:16:19 AM
CGI or a real plane?
It really doesn't require much thought to at least know there's something seriously wrong with this footage.
The trouble is, when we're schooled with unrealistic movie images, constantly to warp our logical senses, then you could almost agree that some....I say, some, gullible people could easily believe that planes can fly through big steel and concrete buildings  and blend right in...but are they so gullible as to not question the nose coming out the other side of a building like this?

Someone who apparently appears intelligent enough and also logical enough, as in, Rayzor, sees nothing amiss.
The reason he sees nothing amiss can be for only three reasons.

1. He's so naive and gullible that official lines are all he can accept and any evidence to the contrary of official lines is deemed inadmissible to his mind.

2. He's simply following official lines and arguing for those as nothing more than a time filling attempted debunking experiment to gain strong reaction and frustration from anyone who sees clear evidence of shenanigans that absolutely beg questions.

3. He's simply paid to move through forums of interest in order to discourage people from questioning anything that goes against mainstream officialdom.

I can rule number 1 out.
As for the the other two...take your pick.


In the meantime, have a look at this video for those that do have a questioning mind.
They showed all this stuff on the news so it's not rigged up by outsiders. This is what we were shown on that very day. I saw much of this stuff myself.

Holly crap scepti...You know YouTube so much better than I...do you know how hard info was to get when before YouTube, then before it got big, that was when most of my research was going on..

That video was redonkulous...Let's leave out the fact we saw the plane go through it...That nonsensical bullshit.

Let's look at the ominous nature of the camera, right before it happens, move and zoom to the exact spot. Then when it doesn't look right, blank and return...I am a big motivation person, same way with the only video of the other "plane"....Why did the guy decide to focus on the exact point of impact.. as judge Judy says..If it doesn't make sense it isn't true.

What the fuck is wrong with people that fight for this?



Whenever you feel like sharing please don't hesitate, you know where to find this stuff.


Edit.....You really are ignorant on physics aren't you rayzor...When does a cloud debris every have perfect formed lines and size in a situation like that...It was clearly the nose of something that wasn't the plane stated or a CGI fuck up...

Shit with your mentally it could have been king Kong....
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sceptimatic on February 17, 2017, 03:31:48 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 03:20:44 AM
On the topic of were the planes real or not,  the question why was no aircraft wreckage ever found?

The answer is it was. 

Part of fuselage from UA175 found under WTC5
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-JQ-TdRhtCBU/VQmQHmybgpI/AAAAAAAAAVs/5ShQ6vaXUwc/s1600/3.jpg)

Landing gear found on the corner of West and Rector streets.
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-o-Oo8Pj7sAE/VQmTQVElFPI/AAAAAAAAAWY/BuGgN8C1b4g/s1600/7-69_landing-gear-tire_west-rector-s.jpg)

Piece of AA11 fuselage found near West and Cedar
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-S3vN74OwryI/VQmS-Z7iCGI/AAAAAAAAAWE/vzfWlUqM39E/s1600/plane%2Bwindow.jpg)

There are other bits and pieces.
Does anyone seriously think a wheel and strut like this could fall from nearly 1000 feet onto the pavement and not smash it to all hell or at least gouge it out?

It's all about common sense. Just basic common sense.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 17, 2017, 03:38:23 AM
Quote from: sceptimatic on February 17, 2017, 03:31:48 AM
Does anyone seriously think a wheel and strut like this could fall from nearly 1000 feet onto the pavement and not smash it to all hell or at least gouge it out?

It's all about common sense. Just basic common sense.

Well said...The problem is, they can't decide between vaporization or not.

Also, rayzor, since he is completely inept he has no idea how heave that landing gear really is.... It would not be just simply "laying there", you have have absolutely seen HOW it got there, where it came from, and where it stopped.

These people.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 17, 2017, 03:41:49 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 03:07:30 AM
You are trying to beg the question again.    The laws of physics are never broken,  our understanding might be broken,  or our data might be incomplete,  but physics is physics.

Lots of people have done extensive FEA analysis of the collapse,  I would only be repeating what they have already published,  You probably already know what they say,  so, if you know better then stop beating around the bush and explain how your analysis stacks up to others.  Where it's different, and why.

What we saw on video was the laws of physics broken if we accept their story...What do you not get about that?

I have enough info in that post...Please reread and rebuttal it.

If you cannot easily rebuttal very simple facts of structural design then I am not going to waste time expanding..

Rebuttal or tap out
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 03:41:58 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 17, 2017, 03:30:34 AM
Edit.....You really are ignorant on physics aren't you rayzor...When does a cloud debris every have perfect formed lines and size in a situation like that...It was clearly the nose of something that wasn't the plane stated or a CGI fuck up...

Shit with your mentally it could have been king Kong....

(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-ipjBOOtuvuQ/U4e-e10f1tI/AAAAAAAAAGc/Jf8mttOVN1A/s1600/DualNoseOut02.gif)

I'll give you yet another pass on the insults.   In the interests of fostering an intelligent discussion of the facts,  keep it up and I'll respond in kind.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 03:45:40 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 17, 2017, 03:41:49 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 03:07:30 AM
You are trying to beg the question again.    The laws of physics are never broken,  our understanding might be broken,  or our data might be incomplete,  but physics is physics.

Lots of people have done extensive FEA analysis of the collapse,  I would only be repeating what they have already published,  You probably already know what they say,  so, if you know better then stop beating around the bush and explain how your analysis stacks up to others.  Where it's different, and why.

What we saw on video was the laws of physics broken if we accept their story...What do you not get about that?

I have enough info in that post...Please reread and rebuttal it.

If you cannot easily rebuttal very simple facts of structural design then I am not going to waste time expanding..

Rebuttal or tap out

No you don't have sufficient information in that post.  And I've already explained you got the collapse mechanism backwards.  If you don't want to explain your theory, I can't force you,  but your reluctance to elaborate makes me wonder.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 17, 2017, 03:47:20 AM
Quote from: sceptimatic on February 17, 2017, 03:31:48 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 03:20:44 AM
On the topic of were the planes real or not,  the question why was no aircraft wreckage ever found?

The answer is it was. 

Part of fuselage from UA175 found under WTC5
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-JQ-TdRhtCBU/VQmQHmybgpI/AAAAAAAAAVs/5ShQ6vaXUwc/s1600/3.jpg)

Landing gear found on the corner of West and Rector streets.
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-o-Oo8Pj7sAE/VQmTQVElFPI/AAAAAAAAAWY/BuGgN8C1b4g/s1600/7-69_landing-gear-tire_west-rector-s.jpg)

Piece of AA11 fuselage found near West and Cedar
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-S3vN74OwryI/VQmS-Z7iCGI/AAAAAAAAAWE/vzfWlUqM39E/s1600/plane%2Bwindow.jpg)

There are other bits and pieces.
Does anyone seriously think a wheel and strut like this could fall from nearly 1000 feet onto the pavement and not smash it to all hell or at least gouge it out?

It's all about common sense. Just basic common sense.
Possibly if it hit the rubber and bounced, otherwise it's quite doubtful.

I am a fan of the buildings being prepped for impact with the aircraft being drone piloted and filled with explosives, this makes logical sense to me after we accept the controlled demolition.

Regardless the no planes theory is in no way critical to the controlled demolition hypothesis. Imo Rayzor is getting what he wants by pushing the no-planes theory which is mostly speculation mixed with the physical impossibility of what we saw and what we were told happened.

Over the controlled demolition which is demonstatable fact, NIST's models don't work, it's not a matter of opinon that the model looks nothing like reality, not releasing their data, to me, after watching that video, feels like being slapped in the face after being robbed.

Allow for a controlled demolition you can make a computer model which looks exactly like how building 7 fell.

Coincidence or Ockhams Razor?

Edit, typing too fast.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 03:51:33 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 17, 2017, 03:38:23 AM
Quote from: sceptimatic on February 17, 2017, 03:31:48 AM
Does anyone seriously think a wheel and strut like this could fall from nearly 1000 feet onto the pavement and not smash it to all hell or at least gouge it out?

It's all about common sense. Just basic common sense.

Well said...The problem is, they can't decide between vaporization or not.

Also, rayzor, since he is completely inept he has no idea how heave that landing gear really is.... It would not be just simply "laying there", you have have absolutely seen HOW it got there, where it came from, and where it stopped.

These people.

Seems to be a lot of debris from something that didn't exist.

(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-JC3qXVqTcYo/VQ0BjHmhCzI/AAAAAAAAAZM/TgNDk7_thJc/s1600/wtc_then_now_engine.jpg)
(https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-h81COqbMFRk/VQ0BemAfj4I/AAAAAAAAAYE/bAAm-MhVuZ4/s1600/jettire2blocksaway.jpg)
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-oCh4rH_2VlU/V2XPFM8mm7I/AAAAAAAAAqE/rXikplDjQh0aRtVCZPAZWaIXDg7qeW9TwCKgB/s640/Roll_13_05.jpg)
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-k6pVDBlB524/VQ0BcJxhNgI/AAAAAAAAAXc/SVjsGCZUW_c/s640/Roll_3_13.jpg)
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-6IviafUBBTE/V2XRZmU9SaI/AAAAAAAAAtM/h5WTaSdW8scbdI_ArkeErfd9qt5u23JSgCKgB/s640/Roll_3_09.jpg)
(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wj4gdnX47sU/VQ0BgZmsmcI/AAAAAAAAAYk/fphesIdGt_0/s640/plane%2Bseat%2Bcushion.jpg)



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 17, 2017, 03:54:34 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 03:45:40 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 17, 2017, 03:41:49 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 03:07:30 AM
You are trying to beg the question again.    The laws of physics are never broken,  our understanding might be broken,  or our data might be incomplete,  but physics is physics.

Lots of people have done extensive FEA analysis of the collapse,  I would only be repeating what they have already published,  You probably already know what they say,  so, if you know better then stop beating around the bush and explain how your analysis stacks up to others.  Where it's different, and why.

What we saw on video was the laws of physics broken if we accept their story...What do you not get about that?

I have enough info in that post...Please reread and rebuttal it.

If you cannot easily rebuttal very simple facts of structural design then I am not going to waste time expanding..

Rebuttal or tap out

No you don't have sufficient information in that post.  And I've already explained you got the collapse mechanism backwards.  If you don't want to explain your theory, I can't force you,  but your reluctance to elaborate makes me wonder.

I had plenty...If you had even basic knowledge of structural design you would realize I provided plenty to counter. I said this is what should have happened with a structural compromised section, not what we saw. I said this accepting an impossible task of those planes making it there like that anyways. (FYI nothing is backwards in from what I said...Just backwards in the official story)

So you can rebuttal the simple things I told you about structural design of the buildings and the theory...You can also rebuttal the fact I said those planes could not have made it there as well. I have stated a multitude of reasons why in many posts...Any first rate person in aviation will say the same..Even sceptis video showed that with the calls to people, and video of one at high speeds low altitude, can't even keep control.

I even posted a fun video to show how robust buildings are..And they weren't even built as solid as the WTC....You have multiple visuals of entire sections of buildings falling hundreds of feet at almost free fall then boom, slams into the ground, yet remains perfectly intact....We have buildings rolling down a hill perfectly in tact...Etc etc...As I said you don't have the prerequisites to understand this.

In your world we can put one bomb on a floor and get a perfect demo every time...

So rebuttal please...No more nonsense...Last chance.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 03:55:09 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 17, 2017, 03:47:20 AM
Regardless the no planes theory is in no way critical to the controlled demolition hypothesis. Imo Rayzor is getting what he wants by pushing the no-planes theory which is mostly speculation mixed with the physical

If you think I'm pushing the no-planes theory you really need help with reading.  I'm the only one here who is arguing against the "No Planes"  theory. 

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 17, 2017, 03:59:21 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 17, 2017, 03:47:20 AM
Possibly if it hit the rubber and bounced, otherwise it's quite doubtful.

Lol...I have dealt with those tires, it's about as heavy as your motorcycle.

About 300 pounds just for the tire. Does not include the rim and mechanics...That is probably about as heavy as a small car
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 04:01:13 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 17, 2017, 03:54:34 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 03:45:40 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 17, 2017, 03:41:49 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 03:07:30 AM
You are trying to beg the question again.    The laws of physics are never broken,  our understanding might be broken,  or our data might be incomplete,  but physics is physics.

Lots of people have done extensive FEA analysis of the collapse,  I would only be repeating what they have already published,  You probably already know what they say,  so, if you know better then stop beating around the bush and explain how your analysis stacks up to others.  Where it's different, and why.

What we saw on video was the laws of physics broken if we accept their story...What do you not get about that?

I have enough info in that post...Please reread and rebuttal it.

If you cannot easily rebuttal very simple facts of structural design then I am not going to waste time expanding..

Rebuttal or tap out

No you don't have sufficient information in that post.  And I've already explained you got the collapse mechanism backwards.  If you don't want to explain your theory, I can't force you,  but your reluctance to elaborate makes me wonder.

I had plenty...If you had even basic knowledge of structural design you would realize I provided plenty to counter. I said this is what should have happened with a structural compromised section, not what we saw. I said this accepting an impossible task of those planes making it there like that anyways. (FYI nothing is backwards in from what I said...Just backwards in the official story)

So you can rebuttal the simple things I told you about structural design of the buildings and the theory...You can also rebuttal the fact I said those planes could not have made it there as well. I have stated a multitude of reasons why in many posts...Any first rate person in aviation will say the same..Even sceptis video showed that with the calls to people, and video of one at high speeds low altitude, can't even keep control.

I even posted a fun video to show how robust buildings are..And they weren't even built as solid as the WTC....You have multiple visuals of entire sections of buildings falling hundreds of feet at almost free fall then boom, slams into the ground, yet remains perfectly intact....We have buildings rolling down a hill perfectly in tact...Etc etc...As I said you don't have the prerequisites to understand this.

In your world we can put one bomb on a floor and get a perfect demo every time...

So rebuttal please...No more nonsense...Last chance.

I have no direct rebuttal,  only the extensive analysis done by others,  do I agree with the official NIST line,  I have no evidence to suggest their analysis was wrong.  And conversely I have no detail on your analysis,  you have only presented irrelevant demolition videos,  some graphics of a completely different structure,  in short there is nothing of direct relevance to either WTC1 or WTC2 in your post. 

So unless you have something else to add,  I'm going to reject your hypothesis that the video footage violated the laws of physics. 

I'll resist linking to the detailed structural collapse reports.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 04:05:18 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 17, 2017, 03:59:21 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 17, 2017, 03:47:20 AM
Possibly if it hit the rubber and bounced, otherwise it's quite doubtful.

Lol...I have dealt with those tires, it's about as heavy as your motorcycle.

About 300 pounds just for the tire. Does not include the rim and mechanics...That is probably about as heavy as a small car

(https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-k6pVDBlB524/VQ0BcJxhNgI/AAAAAAAAAXc/SVjsGCZUW_c/s640/Roll_3_13.jpg)

The caption on that image says it a wheel from AA11 embedded in a column panel.   

So how did the wheel get embedded in the aluminium cladding panel?   
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 17, 2017, 04:05:38 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 17, 2017, 03:59:21 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 17, 2017, 03:47:20 AM
Possibly if it hit the rubber and bounced, otherwise it's quite doubtful.

Lol...I have dealt with those tires, it's about as heavy as your motorcycle.

About 300 pounds just for the tire. Does not include the rim and mechanics...That is probably about as heavy as a small car

Touchè fair point, I was factoring the amount of rubber on the object being so large it could flex and compress a lot, the tyre does seem to have a tear. You are right, however, 500lbs hitting the ground at close to terminal velocity would make a mess.

I can admit when I'm wrong, people actually respect you for it, I've learned, Rayzor...

Anywhoo.

dispute's patented 9/11 shill test.

Rayzor. Yes or No answers.

Does this,



Look like this?



Just to confirm, you are saying there is absolutely nothing suspicious about these items and we shouldn't question NIST?

(https://s17.postimg.org/hbtd20vpr/Screenshot_20170215_205717.png)



Your answer can be;
Yes Yes
Yes No
No Yes
No No

My answers are No No, anyone else wants to take the test feel free.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 17, 2017, 04:07:10 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 04:01:13 AM
I have no direct rebuttal,  only the extensive analysis done by others,  do I agree with the official NIST line,  I have no evidence to suggest their analysis was wrong.  And conversely I have no detail on your analysis,  you have only presented irrelevant demolition videos,  some graphics of a completely different structure,  in short there is nothing of direct relevance to either WTC1 or WTC2 in you post. 

So unless you have something else to add,  I'm going to reject your hypothesis that the video footage violated the laws of physics. 

I'll resist linking to the detailed structural collapse reports.

Well I be fucked...An Answer...Thanks rayzor...Props for saying you don't know.

It's OK if this stuff is out of your wheelhouse. Our conversation is now complete, not an insult...The prerequisites required comes at almost 2 decades of work. Takes time.

I wouldn't want to cram how to do surgery
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 17, 2017, 04:16:45 AM
(https://s16.postimg.org/5okl3spf9/images_45.jpg)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 17, 2017, 04:17:02 AM
I will say this rayzor...If you are truly interested in the truth, please hear this.

Remember when I said the why and who has what to gain means a lot.... I have nothing to gain telling you this, no money, no respect, no nothing....What you are believing is impossible in the real world.

Take it from someone with a PhD in mechanical engineering, and 10 years in the business not to mention almost 20 extra certs...My track record and business has afforded me a luxurious life and given me the option to retire now if I wanted...I have also proven everything I have said about myself here with hard evidence in my earlier days...

My whole point...Is I am allowed to talk about this as an authority.

Hell, two certs, we could start demoing buildings if I wanted to go into that. I shadowed a team my last year of college for 2 weeks as well...

If you want to debate and you get stuck don't do this...


Quote from: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 01:44:45 AM

The entire discussion has been derailed by BHS and his pushing of his fringe "No Plane Theory"  which appears to be predicated on unsupported assumptions and wild extrapolations. 

This was a lie and you know it...You were the one that kept talking about it..Everyone can agree with that...I kept say I don't want to and it doesn't change anything...Just my musings..




Long story short...If I was going to believe someone and didn't know about the subject...taking two people of equal qualifications..Would I believe someone who has nothing to gain from my decision...Or someone that did?

I think that option is easy to choose.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 04:17:16 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 17, 2017, 04:07:10 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 04:01:13 AM
I have no direct rebuttal,  only the extensive analysis done by others,  do I agree with the official NIST line,  I have no evidence to suggest their analysis was wrong.  And conversely I have no detail on your analysis,  you have only presented irrelevant demolition videos,  some graphics of a completely different structure,  in short there is nothing of direct relevance to either WTC1 or WTC2 in you post. 

So unless you have something else to add,  I'm going to reject your hypothesis that the video footage violated the laws of physics. 

I'll resist linking to the detailed structural collapse reports.

Well I be fucked...An Answer...Thanks rayzor...Props for saying you don't know.

It's OK if this stuff is out of your wheelhouse. Our conversation is now complete, not an insult...The prerequisites required comes at almost 2 decades of work. Takes time.

I wouldn't want to cram how to do surgery

So your exit argument is that I need 20 years of work to understand your analysis,   I can understand the NIST analysis but not yours  LOL.

I'm suspicious of your motivation in jumping ship,  especially now that you "No Plane" theory looks like it completely debunked.   

I'd still like to see your video of a plane entering the building without leaving a mark,  but we both know why you haven't shown it.

Good luck with all that.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 17, 2017, 04:19:42 AM
He was trying to the right thing by you because he is a good person.

Not that you would understand something like that.

Take my test, I dare you.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 17, 2017, 04:20:27 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 04:17:16 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 17, 2017, 04:07:10 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 04:01:13 AM
I have no direct rebuttal,  only the extensive analysis done by others,  do I agree with the official NIST line,  I have no evidence to suggest their analysis was wrong.  And conversely I have no detail on your analysis,  you have only presented irrelevant demolition videos,  some graphics of a completely different structure,  in short there is nothing of direct relevance to either WTC1 or WTC2 in you post. 

So unless you have something else to add,  I'm going to reject your hypothesis that the video footage violated the laws of physics. 

I'll resist linking to the detailed structural collapse reports.

Well I be fucked...An Answer...Thanks rayzor...Props for saying you don't know.

It's OK if this stuff is out of your wheelhouse. Our conversation is now complete, not an insult...The prerequisites required comes at almost 2 decades of work. Takes time.

I wouldn't want to cram how to do surgery

So your exit argument is that I need 20 years of work to understand your analysis,   I can understand the NIST analysis but not yours  LOL.

I'm suspicious of your motivation in jumping ship,  especially now that you "No Plane" theory looks like it completely debunked.   

I'd still like to see your video of a plane entering the building without leaving a mark,  but we both know why you haven't shown it.

Good luck with all that.

No no no....Go out with dignity like you were rayzor...Also please read my last post.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 04:23:45 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 17, 2017, 04:17:02 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 01:44:45 AM

The entire discussion has been derailed by BHS and his pushing of his fringe "No Plane Theory"  which appears to be predicated on unsupported assumptions and wild extrapolations. 

This was a lie and you know it...You were the one that kept talking about it..Everyone can agree with that...I kept say I don't want to and it doesn't change anything...Just my musings..

So it wasn't you who kept aggressively asking over and over again " How can a plane fly through a building and not leave a mark"   

No the truth is you kept relentlessly pushing the "No Plane Theory"   And in the end you came up short. 

No hard feelings. 

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 17, 2017, 04:24:40 AM
Sure ok.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 04:28:00 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 17, 2017, 04:24:40 AM
Sure ok.

I'm guessing you didn't get to the pub.  :)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 17, 2017, 04:35:50 AM
Honestly this is more important to me.

We have a thread for personal attacks, I suggest you use it.

Plus it's only 8:30 on a friday night and I'm feeling really good, believe it or not I am also well liked irl.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 17, 2017, 04:38:59 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 04:23:45 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 17, 2017, 04:17:02 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 01:44:45 AM

The entire discussion has been derailed by BHS and his pushing of his fringe "No Plane Theory"  which appears to be predicated on unsupported assumptions and wild extrapolations. 

This was a lie and you know it...You were the one that kept talking about it..Everyone can agree with that...I kept say I don't want to and it doesn't change anything...Just my musings..

So it wasn't you who kept aggressively asking over and over again " How can a plane fly through a building and not leave a mark"   

No the truth is you kept relentlessly pushing the "No Plane Theory"   And in the end you came up short. 

No hard feelings.

That was a simple question...

How can this happen?? I never forced any theory..You asked me what I thought...A stated some ideas I had.

Simple as that.

I wish I could pass my knowledge on to you of what I know about structural design. That video of failed demos should show you how tough those buildings really are...They are SO over built. Actually failure compacity versus their cert load is ridiculous, that is why building don't fall...

Just seeing them roll down a hill intact, or falling 100s of feet and slamming on the ground at almost free fall speed and staying perfectly in tact should tell you something.

Why do you think a demo is so expense and complex?? Why do you think there is a literal celebration if it goes right...One charge is timed wrong or misplaced could equal a complete failure, or damage buildings around it.

If my company were to demo just one of those towers, it would be about a 5-10 million dollar job and 3 months to do it using about 200 people.

Whoever did the three, I give them this...They were a fucking genius...Very well managed.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 17, 2017, 04:41:23 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 17, 2017, 04:35:50 AM
Honestly this is more important to me.

We have a thread for personal attacks, I suggest you use it.

Plus it's only 8:30 on a friday night and I'm feeling really good, believe it or not I am also well liked irl.

I rejected sleep because of this..I get it, I have to go to the shop in about 30 mins lol.

At least you got to see the final ending.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 04:43:13 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 17, 2017, 04:35:50 AM
Honestly this is more important to me.

We have a thread for personal attacks, I suggest you use it.

Plus it's only 8:30 on a friday night and I'm feeling really good, believe it or not I am also well liked irl.

Ok,  so you are in WA,  In VIC  it's gone 11:30   BTW,  that wasn't actually a personal attack,  you just took it that way. 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 17, 2017, 04:44:46 AM
I would love to talk in detail about some of the finer points here sometime. Obviously would have to be at my level but I'm a fast learner.

This thread speaks for itself.

Hahaha get some sleep you deserve it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 17, 2017, 04:46:13 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 04:43:13 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 17, 2017, 04:35:50 AM
Honestly this is more important to me.

We have a thread for personal attacks, I suggest you use it.

Plus it's only 8:30 on a friday night and I'm feeling really good, believe it or not I am also well liked irl.

Ok,  so you are in WA,  In VIC  it's gone 11:30   BTW,  that wasn't actually a personal attack,  you just took it that way.

Perth.

It was off topic and low content with the intention to offend, haven't you got tired of me pulling you up on dishonesty yet? Because I sure have.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 17, 2017, 04:49:40 AM
648 am here lol.....
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 04:51:46 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 17, 2017, 04:46:13 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 04:43:13 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 17, 2017, 04:35:50 AM
Honestly this is more important to me.

We have a thread for personal attacks, I suggest you use it.

Plus it's only 8:30 on a friday night and I'm feeling really good, believe it or not I am also well liked irl.

Ok,  so you are in WA,  In VIC  it's gone 11:30   BTW,  that wasn't actually a personal attack,  you just took it that way.

Perth.

It was off topic and low content with the intention to offend, haven't you got tired of me pulling you up on dishonesty yet? Because I sure have.

You are too sensitive,  I'm not psychic enough to know you are on WA time,  over here it's way too late to go to the pub.   Have fun.  :) 

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on February 17, 2017, 06:46:46 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 04:17:16 AM
"...I can understand the NIST analysis..."

No.

Nobody can understand the NIST analysis of WTC1, WTC2, or WTC7.

The inputs/results data has not nor will it be released.

Without that data, no understanding can be achieved.

Quit your lying already.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: markjo on February 17, 2017, 07:13:11 AM
Quote from: hoppy on February 16, 2017, 09:23:04 PM
How can a fiberglass nosecone crash through aluminum and steel and come out intact.
Just out of curiosity, was that "in tact" fiberglass nose cone ever recovered?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: deadsirius on February 17, 2017, 08:08:19 AM
Rayzor--I just wanted to jump in and applaud your patience here.  This all got real embarrassing back on page 1.  Not so much the conspiracy theories (though those too)...but the roughly 14 pages of these guys unilaterally declaring you "destroyed" and the argument "over".  Then starting a whole OTHER thread to do the same thing.

I read it all--must be some latent masochism, I dunno.  Keep up the good fight...or don't, this looks like it's going to be a never-ending shitshow.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 17, 2017, 08:30:10 AM
Please address any of the points raised in the thread deadsirius.

Markjo I am willing to bet that they never recovered the nosecone. I could tell you why.

This was a fantastic thread.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 17, 2017, 09:28:26 AM
Quote from: deadsirius on February 17, 2017, 08:08:19 AM
Rayzor--I just wanted to jump in and applaud your patience here.  This all got real embarrassing back on page 1.  Not so much the conspiracy theories (though those too)...but the roughly 14 pages of these guys unilaterally declaring you "destroyed" and the argument "over".  Then starting a whole OTHER thread to do the same thing.

I read it all--must be some latent masochism, I dunno.  Keep up the good fight...or don't, this looks like it's going to be a never-ending shitshow.

If he didn't use lying, word twisting while never answering a question...It wouldn't have been nasty...But we are trying to put that behind us.


You are a hardcore atheist if I remember right...So you are not allowed to believe in the official story either since magic isn't allowed in your existence.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on February 17, 2017, 09:32:13 AM
Quote from: deadsirius on February 17, 2017, 08:08:19 AM
Rayzor--I just wanted to jump in and applaud your patience here.  This all got real embarrassing back on page 1.  Not so much the conspiracy theories (though those too)...but the roughly 14 pages of these guys unilaterally declaring you "destroyed" and the argument "over".  Then starting a whole OTHER thread to do the same thing.

I read it all--must be some latent masochism, I dunno.

An honest critic would publicly and readily apply accurate adjectives such as duplicitous, evasion, equivocation, mental reservation, and outright asshattery, rather than masochism.

You are correct.

You do not know.

Or you are just as duplicitous, and engaged in just as much evasion, mental reservation, equivocation, and asshattery as your pal.
 
Quote from: deadsirius on February 17, 2017, 08:08:19 AM
Keep up the good fight...or don't, this looks like it's going to be a never-ending shitshow.

It might be if you maintain any presence here.

Otherwise, it will be just fine.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: deadsirius on February 17, 2017, 11:51:11 AM
I don't claim to be an expert in all of the subject matter at hand.  But I am comfortable believing the majority of people who are experts who conclude that 9/11 was exactly what we're told.

Is it possible I'm wrong?  Sure.  I just needed to say since no one else was doing so, that speaking as a third-party spectator of this whole argument, you should know how much like the flat-earth partisans you sound throughout here.  It may be helpful to keep that in mind while making your points.

I don't have anything personal against either of you (babyhighspeed and DisputeOne, in case that's not clear)--outside of this I find you to be interesting and entertaining commenters...I even agree with your politics to a degree you might find surprising.  I just feel like, again speaking from the outside--I don't know Rayzor any more than I know you--this thread has not been nearly as one-sided as you think.

Now, totallackey--since I know you want to, I'm preemptively giving you permission to do your thing and selectively quote my post while bolding the statements that make me look bad out of context.  In fact, I'll do it for you and save you the time:

Quote from: deadsirius

I don't claim to be an expert in all of the subject matter at hand.  But I am comfortable believing the majority of people who are experts who conclude that 9/11 was exactly what we're told.

Is it possible I'm wrong?  Sure.  I just needed to say since no one else was doing so, that speaking as a third-party spectator of this whole argument, you should know how much like the flat-earth partisans you sound throughout here.  It may be helpful to keep that in mind while making your points.

I don't have anything personal against either of you (babyhighspeed and DisputeOne, in case that's not clear)--outside of this I find you to be interesting and entertaining commenters...I even agree with your politics to a degree you might find surprising.  I just feel like, again speaking from the outside--I don't know Rayzor any more than I know you--this thread has not been nearly as one-sided as you think.


Am I doing it right?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 02:29:45 PM
Quote from: deadsirius on February 17, 2017, 08:08:19 AM
Rayzor--I just wanted to jump in and applaud your patience here.  This all got real embarrassing back on page 1.  Not so much the conspiracy theories (though those too)...but the roughly 14 pages of these guys unilaterally declaring you "destroyed" and the argument "over".  Then starting a whole OTHER thread to do the same thing.

I read it all--must be some latent masochism, I dunno.  Keep up the good fight...or don't, this looks like it's going to be a never-ending shitshow.

Thanks, and although we didn't uncover anything much new about 911,   we did in fact discover quite a lot about the psychology of 911 conspiracy theorists.  Some weird shit logic going on in there.
So as a brief glimpse into some 911 conspiracy thinking,  the parallels with flat earth conspiracy are startling,  maybe it's something that's common to all conspiracies.  Interesting to find out one day.

Just to set the record straight,  I don't have as much patience as you give me credit for,  I must have deleted twice as much as actually ended up getting posted,   I adopted a reply in kind policy somewhere during  that process.  :)
   
Is it over,  I doubt it,  but any thread where sceptimatic comes across as one of the most logical and relevant contributors has got to be worth re-reading. 

Thanks to those who sent PM's  I apologise to those who sent me links to rebuttal videos for not linking them in the thread,  I appreciate the thought. 

Anyone interested in the aircraft impact of the building,  I recommend that you read the following reports.

https://www.nist.gov/publications/baseline-structural-performance-and-aircraft-impact-damage-analysis-world-trade-1?pub_id=101012
https://www.nist.gov/publications/reference-structural-models-and-baseline-performance-analysis-world-trade-center-0?pub_id=101013
https://www.nist.gov/publications/analysis-aircraft-impacts-world-trade-center-towers-chapters-1-8-federal-building-and-0?pub_id=101428
https://www.nist.gov/publications/analysis-aircraft-impacts-world-trade-center-towers-chapters-9-11-federal-building-and?pub_id=101015
https://www.nist.gov/publications/analysis-aircraft-impacts-world-trade-center-towers-appendixes-federal-building-and?pub_id=909015

All the reports are linked from this page.
https://www.nist.gov/engineering-laboratory/final-reports-nist-world-trade-center-disaster-investigation


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 02:38:46 PM
Quote from: markjo on February 17, 2017, 07:13:11 AM
Quote from: hoppy on February 16, 2017, 09:23:04 PM
How can a fiberglass nosecone crash through aluminum and steel and come out intact.
Just out of curiosity, was that "in tact" fiberglass nose cone ever recovered?

No, as far as I know nothing was ever found.

The consensus is that it was a debris cloud,  the "Nose Out"  theory as it's become famously known  has been debunked so many times it's always a chuckle when someone throws it into the mix,  I like the fact that it was Hoppy who kicked it onto center stage,  and then sceptimatic backed him up with the obligatory you tube conspiracy video.   Classic stuff. 

The only surprise in that whole sequence of events is that our self proclaimed 911 expert in BHS seemed unaware of the extensive background to the "Nose Out" theory.  If he was he hadn't seen the video.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Heiwa on February 17, 2017, 02:46:44 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 02:29:45 PM
Quote from: deadsirius on February 17, 2017, 08:08:19 AM
Rayzor--I just wanted to jump in and applaud your patience here.  This all got real embarrassing back on page 1.  Not so much the conspiracy theories (though those too)...but the roughly 14 pages of these guys unilaterally declaring you "destroyed" and the argument "over".  Then starting a whole OTHER thread to do the same thing.

I read it all--must be some latent masochism, I dunno.  Keep up the good fight...or don't, this looks like it's going to be a never-ending shitshow.

Thanks, and although we didn't uncover anything much new about 911,   we did in fact discover quite a lot about the psychology of 911 conspiracy theorists.  Some weird shit logic going on in there.
So as a brief glimpse into some 911 conspiracy thinking,  the parallels with flat earth conspiracy are startling,  maybe it's something that's common to all conspiracies.  Interesting to find out one day.

Just to set the record straight,  I don't have as much patience as you give me credit for,  I must have deleted twice as much as actually ended up getting posted,   I adopted a reply in kind policy somewhere during the that process.  :)
   
Is it over,  I doubt it,  but any thread where sceptimatic comes across as one of the most logical and relevant contributors has got to be worth re-reading. 

Thanks to those who sent PM's  I apologise to those who sent me links to rebuttal videos for not linking them in the thread,  I appreciate the thought. 

Anyone interested in the aircraft impact of the building,  I recommend that you read the following reports.

https://www.nist.gov/publications/baseline-structural-performance-and-aircraft-impact-damage-analysis-world-trade-1?pub_id=101012
https://www.nist.gov/publications/reference-structural-models-and-baseline-performance-analysis-world-trade-center-0?pub_id=101013
https://www.nist.gov/publications/analysis-aircraft-impacts-world-trade-center-towers-chapters-1-8-federal-building-and-0?pub_id=101428
https://www.nist.gov/publications/analysis-aircraft-impacts-world-trade-center-towers-chapters-9-11-federal-building-and?pub_id=101015
https://www.nist.gov/publications/analysis-aircraft-impacts-world-trade-center-towers-appendixes-federal-building-and?pub_id=909015

All the reports are linked from this page.
https://www.nist.gov/engineering-laboratory/final-reports-nist-world-trade-center-disaster-investigation
Anyone interested in dynamic structural damage analysis of a small, weak top part progressively crushing the strong, intact bottom part of same structure by gravity from top down, I recommend to read the following reports:
http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm
http://heiwaco.com/tower.htm
http://heiwaco.com/nist.htm 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 02:53:37 PM
Quote from: Heiwa on February 17, 2017, 02:46:44 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 02:29:45 PM
Quote from: deadsirius on February 17, 2017, 08:08:19 AM
Rayzor--I just wanted to jump in and applaud your patience here.  This all got real embarrassing back on page 1.  Not so much the conspiracy theories (though those too)...but the roughly 14 pages of these guys unilaterally declaring you "destroyed" and the argument "over".  Then starting a whole OTHER thread to do the same thing.

I read it all--must be some latent masochism, I dunno.  Keep up the good fight...or don't, this looks like it's going to be a never-ending shitshow.

Thanks, and although we didn't uncover anything much new about 911,   we did in fact discover quite a lot about the psychology of 911 conspiracy theorists.  Some weird shit logic going on in there.
So as a brief glimpse into some 911 conspiracy thinking,  the parallels with flat earth conspiracy are startling,  maybe it's something that's common to all conspiracies.  Interesting to find out one day.

Just to set the record straight,  I don't have as much patience as you give me credit for,  I must have deleted twice as much as actually ended up getting posted,   I adopted a reply in kind policy somewhere during the that process.  :)
   
Is it over,  I doubt it,  but any thread where sceptimatic comes across as one of the most logical and relevant contributors has got to be worth re-reading. 

Thanks to those who sent PM's  I apologise to those who sent me links to rebuttal videos for not linking them in the thread,  I appreciate the thought. 

Anyone interested in the aircraft impact of the building,  I recommend that you read the following reports.

https://www.nist.gov/publications/baseline-structural-performance-and-aircraft-impact-damage-analysis-world-trade-1?pub_id=101012
https://www.nist.gov/publications/reference-structural-models-and-baseline-performance-analysis-world-trade-center-0?pub_id=101013
https://www.nist.gov/publications/analysis-aircraft-impacts-world-trade-center-towers-chapters-1-8-federal-building-and-0?pub_id=101428
https://www.nist.gov/publications/analysis-aircraft-impacts-world-trade-center-towers-chapters-9-11-federal-building-and?pub_id=101015
https://www.nist.gov/publications/analysis-aircraft-impacts-world-trade-center-towers-appendixes-federal-building-and?pub_id=909015

All the reports are linked from this page.
https://www.nist.gov/engineering-laboratory/final-reports-nist-world-trade-center-disaster-investigation
Anyone interested in dynamic structural damage analysis of a small, weak top part progressively crushing the strong, intact bottom part of same structure by gravity from top down, I recommend to read the following reports:
http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm
http://heiwaco.com/tower.htm
http://heiwaco.com/nist.htm

(http://heiwaco.com/censored.JPG)

I see you got the top award. 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 17, 2017, 03:10:44 PM
For shame, Rayzor.

Heiwa, just don't.

Sirius if that's what you want to believe then fine, no problem. If you want to debate address a point.

Edit, reading the thread.
I did start off with a slightly aggressive tone, you guys have to understand earlier in the day Rayzor said this about scepti.

Quote from: Rayzor on February 13, 2017, 07:33:44 PM
Welcome to the party,   I'm about to spit-roast a flat earther,   after I gut and skin him of course.   Would you like a beer?

Which I did treat him with the respect that he treats flat earthers. I freely admit it.

"If you want the true measure of a man look not at how he treats his equals and superiors, look at how he treats his slaves."
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Heiwa on February 17, 2017, 03:45:50 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 02:53:37 PM
Quote from: Heiwa on February 17, 2017, 02:46:44 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 02:29:45 PM
Quote from: deadsirius on February 17, 2017, 08:08:19 AM
Rayzor--I just wanted to jump in and applaud your patience here.  This all got real embarrassing back on page 1.  Not so much the conspiracy theories (though those too)...but the roughly 14 pages of these guys unilaterally declaring you "destroyed" and the argument "over".  Then starting a whole OTHER thread to do the same thing.

I read it all--must be some latent masochism, I dunno.  Keep up the good fight...or don't, this looks like it's going to be a never-ending shitshow.

Thanks, and although we didn't uncover anything much new about 911,   we did in fact discover quite a lot about the psychology of 911 conspiracy theorists.  Some weird shit logic going on in there.
So as a brief glimpse into some 911 conspiracy thinking,  the parallels with flat earth conspiracy are startling,  maybe it's something that's common to all conspiracies.  Interesting to find out one day.

Just to set the record straight,  I don't have as much patience as you give me credit for,  I must have deleted twice as much as actually ended up getting posted,   I adopted a reply in kind policy somewhere during the that process.  :)
   
Is it over,  I doubt it,  but any thread where sceptimatic comes across as one of the most logical and relevant contributors has got to be worth re-reading. 

Thanks to those who sent PM's  I apologise to those who sent me links to rebuttal videos for not linking them in the thread,  I appreciate the thought. 

Anyone interested in the aircraft impact of the building,  I recommend that you read the following reports.

https://www.nist.gov/publications/baseline-structural-performance-and-aircraft-impact-damage-analysis-world-trade-1?pub_id=101012
https://www.nist.gov/publications/reference-structural-models-and-baseline-performance-analysis-world-trade-center-0?pub_id=101013
https://www.nist.gov/publications/analysis-aircraft-impacts-world-trade-center-towers-chapters-1-8-federal-building-and-0?pub_id=101428
https://www.nist.gov/publications/analysis-aircraft-impacts-world-trade-center-towers-chapters-9-11-federal-building-and?pub_id=101015
https://www.nist.gov/publications/analysis-aircraft-impacts-world-trade-center-towers-appendixes-federal-building-and?pub_id=909015

All the reports are linked from this page.
https://www.nist.gov/engineering-laboratory/final-reports-nist-world-trade-center-disaster-investigation
Anyone interested in dynamic structural damage analysis of a small, weak top part progressively crushing the strong, intact bottom part of same structure by gravity from top down, I recommend to read the following reports:
http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm
http://heiwaco.com/tower.htm
http://heiwaco.com/nist.htm

(http://heiwaco.com/censored.JPG)

I see you got the top award.

Yes, but EMI (Ms. Jenny Edelstein) paid back all my costs and outlays and actually appologized. I think my paper is pretty good ... like all scientific papers I write.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: hoppy on February 17, 2017, 03:59:54 PM
As was obvious in this thread from the first couple of pages. This thread is not actually about 911, the thread is about truthers. Razor and his employer are doing a pychological exam.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 17, 2017, 05:46:26 PM
I see you are back again rayzor...Even after admitting you had nothing and admitted defeat. This is disappointing.

This is an attack on "conspiracy theorist"...Not the evidence. That is clear. The disliking of people who disagree with "the man"..

Which I can't completely blame you for that. There has been a long standing campaign against people who critical think and see past the smoke. Turning people who think for themselves into martyrs through disinformation and paying attention only to the "nuts"...Some people are just nuts, others are placed there to be nuts. Then when someone has solid facts to question a story by "the man"...They are instantly labeled a conspiracy theorist..A nut..And promoted by mainstream to ignore. This is why I shame nuts just as bad as mainstream, because of the damage they cause...

However...In this instance, reality, evidence and science shows the mainstream is the "nut" or "fairy tale"...Thus why there isn't just a few people yelling about it...There are real people, very smart people who disagree, and state it publicly.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 16, 2017, 03:01:32 AM
Let's leave me and my credentials/experience etc out of the picture for a moment.

There are 1000s upon 1000s of people just like me, many even more intelligent and accomplished than I that think the same thing.

Call that Looney?

That is leaving out the millions of "regular folks" who feel the same way.

Also leaving people and leaders of other countries who roll their eyes that Americans even thought of accepting the official story. People of power in other countries have even publicly said it was all nonsense...

That's a bit further than a tin foil hat conspiracy don't you the Mr. Fish?

There is a reason rayzor will never respond to this....

Even the regular people in America....Over 60 percent of them say they have a problem with the official story and want a new private, not government funded investigation. Over 80 percent of the victims family feel the same as well.


If y'all want to have this belief...Fine...But admit that it's a belief based on zero evidence, and I will accept that.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 05:47:24 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 17, 2017, 03:10:44 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 13, 2017, 07:33:44 PM
Welcome to the party,   I'm about to spit-roast a flat earther,   after I gut and skin him of course.   Would you like a beer?

You never asked which flat earther I was referring to.   I have to add that it wasn't you. 

I didn't want to divert the discussion back to WTC7,  while we were still trying to focus on WTC1 and WTC2, 

So,  here is the WTC7 collapse video.  Casting significant doubt on the controlled demolition theory



It also show the penthouse collapse,  occurring long before the main roof line starts collapsing.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 06:09:52 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 17, 2017, 05:46:26 PM
I see you are back again rayzor...Even after admitting you had nothing and admitted defeat. This is disappointing.

This is an attack on "conspiracy theorist"...Not the evidence. That is clear. The disliking of people who disagree with "the man"..

Which I can't completely blame you for that. There has been a long standing campaign against people who critical think and see past the smoke. Turning people who think for themselves into martyrs through disinformation and paying attention only to the "nuts"...Some people are just nuts, others are placed there to be nuts. Then when someone has solid facts to question a story by "the man"...They are instantly labeled a conspiracy theorist..A nut..And promoted by mainstream to ignore. This is why I shame nuts just as bad as mainstream, because of the damage they cause...

However...In this instance, reality, evidence and science shows the mainstream is the "nut" or "fairy tale"...Thus why there isn't just a few people yelling about it...There are real people, very smart people who disagree, and state it publicly.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 16, 2017, 03:01:32 AM
Let's leave me and my credentials/experience etc out of the picture for a moment.

There are 1000s upon 1000s of people just like me, many even more intelligent and accomplished than I that think the same thing.

Call that Looney?

That is leaving out the millions of "regular folks" who feel the same way.

Also leaving people and leaders of other countries who roll their eyes that Americans even thought of accepting the official story. People of power in other countries have even publicly said it was all nonsense...

That's a bit further than a tin foil hat conspiracy don't you the Mr. Fish?

There is a reason rayzor will never respond to this....

Even the regular people in America....Over 60 percent of them say they have a problem with the official story and want a new private, not government funded investigation. Over 80 percent of the victims family feel the same as well.


If y'all want to have this belief...Fine...But admit that it's a belief based on zero evidence, and I will accept that.

You are confused,  the discussion was actually about the evidence,   the fact that there are parallels between the way flat earthers think and the way 911 conspiracy theorists think is interesting,  but doesn't alter what the discussion was about. 

I'll only ask you a couple more questions.

1.  Do you honestly have video evidence of a plane passing through either WTC1 or WTC2 and not leaving a mark?

2.  Do you have any physical evidence of demolition charges being used?    Please don't talk about structural collapse unless you are prepared to share your analysis.

Just curious,  what was it I'm supposed to never respond to?


Edit:  Just an interesting data point on public opinion,   31% of people polled in  Jordan,  and 43% of people polled in Egypt believe Israel was behind the 911 attacks.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: hoppy on February 17, 2017, 06:49:21 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 06:09:52 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 17, 2017, 05:46:26 PM
I see you are back again rayzor...Even after admitting you had nothing and admitted defeat. This is disappointing.

This is an attack on "conspiracy theorist"...Not the evidence. That is clear. The disliking of people who disagree with "the man"..

Which I can't completely blame you for that. There has been a long standing campaign against people who critical think and see past the smoke. Turning people who think for themselves into martyrs through disinformation and paying attention only to the "nuts"...Some people are just nuts, others are placed there to be nuts. Then when someone has solid facts to question a story by "the man"...They are instantly labeled a conspiracy theorist..A nut..And promoted by mainstream to ignore. This is why I shame nuts just as bad as mainstream, because of the damage they cause...

However...In this instance, reality, evidence and science shows the mainstream is the "nut" or "fairy tale"...Thus why there isn't just a few people yelling about it...There are real people, very smart people who disagree, and state it publicly.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 16, 2017, 03:01:32 AM
Let's leave me and my credentials/experience etc out of the picture for a moment.

There are 1000s upon 1000s of people just like me, many even more intelligent and accomplished than I that think the same thing.

Call that Looney?

That is leaving out the millions of "regular folks" who feel the same way.

Also leaving people and leaders of other countries who roll their eyes that Americans even thought of accepting the official story. People of power in other countries have even publicly said it was all nonsense...

That's a bit further than a tin foil hat conspiracy don't you the Mr. Fish?

There is a reason rayzor will never respond to this....

Even the regular people in America....Over 60 percent of them say they have a problem with the official story and want a new private, not government funded investigation. Over 80 percent of the victims family feel the same as well.


If y'all want to have this belief...Fine...But admit that it's a belief based on zero evidence, and I will accept that.

You are confused,  the discussion was actually about the evidence,   the fact that there are parallels between the way flat earthers think and the way 911 conspiracy theorists think is interesting,  but doesn't alter what the discussion was about. 

I'll only ask you a couple more questions.

1.  Do you honestly have video evidence of a plane passing through either WTC1 or WTC2 and not leaving a mark?

2.  Do you have any physical evidence of demolition charges being used?    Please don't talk about structural collapse unless you are prepared to share your analysis.

Just curious,  what was it I'm supposed to never respond to?


Edit:  Just an interesting data point on public opinion,   31% of people polled in  Jordan,  and 43% of people polled in Egypt believe Israel was behind the 911 attacks.
BOORRRRING
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 17, 2017, 07:03:24 PM
Look at you go, trying to pretend I'm a flat earther.

I've stated my position multiple times.

@hoppy boring and pathetic.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 17, 2017, 07:11:38 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 05:47:24 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 17, 2017, 03:10:44 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 13, 2017, 07:33:44 PM
Welcome to the party,   I'm about to spit-roast a flat earther,   after I gut and skin him of course.   Would you like a beer?

You never asked which flat earther I was referring to.   I have to add that it wasn't you. 

I didn't want to divert the discussion back to WTC7,  while we were still trying to focus on WTC1 and WTC2, 

So,  here is the WTC7 collapse video.  Casting significant doubt on the controlled demolition theory



It also show the penthouse collapse,  occurring long before the main roof line starts collapsing.

Just the load certs vs critical failure ratio alone makes this impossible....I can name 100s of other issues on top of that. But that's enough for the moment.

Also, a model that defies physics...pass. It doesn't surprise me you accept it, but no...On top of the obvious, they have refuse and said they will never release the inputs...

I could create a model that shows rainbows destroyed the buildings ...Doesn't mean it's true.

Look....You have already proven you have no knowledge or prerequisites on the matter. So of course you are easy to fool...

Just like someone can fake play an instrument or lip sync. Could fool the general masses...But a musician will spot it right away.

I and 1000s upon 1000s like me who do this for a living just roll our eyes....This was a lip sync, and not even a good one. And just like an artist would do, they are saying "I wasn't lip syncing"



^^
Reality (watch tower at 50 seconds) though there are other towers too.

Quote from: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 06:09:52 PM
You are confused,  the discussion was actually about the evidence,   the fact that there are parallels between the way flat earthers think and the way 911 conspiracy theorists think is interesting,  but doesn't alter what the discussion was about. 

I'll only ask you a couple more questions.

1.  Do you honestly have video evidence of a plane passing through either WTC1 or WTC2 and not leaving a mark?

2.  Do you have any physical evidence of demolition charges being used?    Please don't talk about structural collapse unless you are prepared to share your analysis.

Just curious,  what was it I'm supposed to never respond to?


Edit:  Just an interesting data point on public opinion,   31% of people polled in  Jordan,  and 43% of people polled in Egypt believe Israel was behind the 911 attacks.

As always, you do not address what I said in the post. I took it before, now I am saying fuck off...Address what I said.

Everytime you do this I will say fuck off fyi.

So either address it or fuck off
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 17, 2017, 07:17:26 PM
Reality....
Watch the tower at 2:39.....This destroys the official story right there without having to know a single thing of structural design.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 07:22:03 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 17, 2017, 07:11:38 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 05:47:24 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 17, 2017, 03:10:44 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 13, 2017, 07:33:44 PM
Welcome to the party,   I'm about to spit-roast a flat earther,   after I gut and skin him of course.   Would you like a beer?

You never asked which flat earther I was referring to.   I have to add that it wasn't you. 

I didn't want to divert the discussion back to WTC7,  while we were still trying to focus on WTC1 and WTC2, 

So,  here is the WTC7 collapse video.  Casting significant doubt on the controlled demolition theory



It also show the penthouse collapse,  occurring long before the main roof line starts collapsing.

Just the load certs vs critical failure ratio alone makes this impossible....I can name 100s of other issues on top of that. But that's enough for the moment.

Also, a model that defies physics...pass. It doesn't surprise me you accept it, but no...On top of the obvious, they have refuse and said they will never release the inputs...

I could create a model that shows rainbows destroyed the buildings ...Doesn't mean it's true.

Look....You have already proven you have no knowledge or prerequisites on the matter. So of course you are easy to fool...

Just like someone can fake play an instrument or lip sync. Could fool the general masses...But a musician will spot it right away.

I and 1000s upon 1000s like me who do this for a living just roll our eyes....This was a lip sync, and not even a good one. And just like an artist would do, they are saying "I wasn't lip syncing"



^^
Reality (watch tower at 50 seconds) though there are other towers too.

Quote from: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 06:09:52 PM
You are confused,  the discussion was actually about the evidence,   the fact that there are parallels between the way flat earthers think and the way 911 conspiracy theorists think is interesting,  but doesn't alter what the discussion was about. 

I'll only ask you a couple more questions.

1.  Do you honestly have video evidence of a plane passing through either WTC1 or WTC2 and not leaving a mark?

2.  Do you have any physical evidence of demolition charges being used?    Please don't talk about structural collapse unless you are prepared to share your analysis.

Just curious,  what was it I'm supposed to never respond to?


Edit:  Just an interesting data point on public opinion,   31% of people polled in  Jordan,  and 43% of people polled in Egypt believe Israel was behind the 911 attacks.

As always, you do not address what I said in the post. I took it before, now I am saying fuck off...Address what I said.

Everytime you do this I will say fuck off fyi.

So either address it or fuck off

I have no idea what it was you wanted me to respond to,  as usual,  your train of thought is rambling and incoherent.   Be clearer and more succinct I will address any issue you like.

As far as I'm concerned the 911 conspiracy part of the discussion is done and dusted,  you don't want to discuss it, and I'm fine with that.  I know what you will say already.

Just tie up the loose ends, about the video you claim to have.  And then we are done,   I'll drop the request for details of the evidence for explosives you claimed.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 07:24:07 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 17, 2017, 07:17:26 PM
Reality....
Watch the tower at 2:39.....This destroys the official story right there without having to know a single thing of structural design.

Only in your mind.  Look at it objectively and you'll see it has no relevance to  WTC  Not sure why you bothered to post it?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 17, 2017, 07:29:24 PM
And you address none of what I say out of either post.. .

Fuck off
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 07:33:48 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 17, 2017, 07:29:24 PM
And you address none of what I say out of either post.. .

Fuck off

I see nothing that requires a response,  all I see is your usual disconnected rambling,   I've asked twice now for you to clarify what it was you were asking. 

Your lack of response to my repeated requests for the video evidence you claim to have of a plane passing through the building without leaving a mark is suspicious.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 17, 2017, 07:34:13 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 13, 2017, 10:49:57 PM
Fall acceleration of building 7.

You are going to end this a jibbering mess of failed insults and logic.

But you asked for it.

Mods can we move to tech and alt please. ty.

Quote from: disputeone on February 17, 2017, 01:30:31 AM
Thanks mate.

The thread is right here, for anyone who wants to read and consider. We have fought bravely but unfortunately Rayzor.

Rayzor feels no guilt, Rayzor feels no shame, Rayzor has no integrity and he will not stop shitposting, ever, until we stop posting and he claims victory.

Another free prediction.

Just saying, for $100 an hour I do divinations  :P
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 07:59:36 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 17, 2017, 07:29:24 PM
And you address none of what I say out of either post.. .

Fuck off

The only thing you appear to be saying it that there are lot of  people don't believe the official  version of events,   that's just an argumentum ad populum,  which I'm sure you know is fallacious reasoning.

Can't see anything else that requires a response.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 17, 2017, 08:00:23 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 07:33:48 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 17, 2017, 07:29:24 PM
And you address none of what I say out of either post.. .

Fuck off

I see nothing that requires a response,  all I see is your usual disconnected rambling,   I've asked twice now for you to clarify what it was you were asking. 

Your lack of response to my repeated requests for the video evidence you claim to have of a plane passing through the building without leaving a mark is suspicious.

::) Clap trap

Respond to what I said about building 7 couple posts ago.

It's called answer for question...

Notice...You tell me something...I say no, it cannot happen that way, and then I explain why...

Not say a bunch of nonsensical jibberish...Lie....Twist...Etc etc.

It's a very simple process if you actually have a case.

Try it instead of being a troll
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 08:22:17 PM
Ok,  you want a response to what you said about WTC7 collapse video I posted.   I didn't think you wanted to explain your reasoning on any of the structural collapse models.

What I see clearly from that video supports the NIST model of collapse very closely, 

Quote
Just the load certs vs critical failure ratio alone makes this impossible....I can name 100s of other issues on top of that. But that's enough for the moment.
Not according to the NIST WTC7 report I read.   But if I  follow that path it leads to stalemate again,  since I  would need a decade worth of study to understand your structural model.


Quote
Also, a model that defies physics...pass. It doesn't surprise me you accept it, but no...On top of the obvious, they have refuse and said they will never release the inputs...
You'll have to back that up with facts,  but I know you won't.   You haven't ever backed up anything you've said so far,  so why start now.


Quote
I could create a model that shows rainbows destroyed the buildings ...Doesn't mean it's true.
No you couldn't


Quote
Look....You have already proven you have no knowledge or prerequisites on the matter. So of course you are easy to fool...
Yep, I already got that from your arrogant attitude.  You are still making assumptions about what I do or don't know. 


Quote
Just like someone can fake play an instrument or lip sync. Could fool the general masses...But a musician will spot it right away.
I and 1000s upon 1000s like me who do this for a living just roll our eyes....This was a lip sync, and not even a good one. And just like an artist would do, they are saying "I wasn't lip syncing"

False appeal to authority,  but irrelevant anyway.  This is not music.

Are we done?   
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 17, 2017, 08:27:05 PM
We're done here.

(https://s2.postimg.org/5z3et5q21/baneposting.jpg)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 17, 2017, 08:32:32 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 13, 2017, 10:36:59 PM
Quote
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on Today at 07:27:01 AM
So by this I assume he is an official story guy? If that is the case you can't expect too much from him ;D....Also, he should never give any crap about their views or believing in fairy tales.

I'll  take that challenge.   What real evidence is there for a conspiracy about 911?   Innuendo and speculation don't count as evidence.

So over to Babyhighspeed for the fairy tales.   :)

16 pages of evidence later.

Quote from: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 12:36:59 AM
holographic planes.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 17, 2017, 08:57:13 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 17, 2017, 08:32:32 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 13, 2017, 10:36:59 PM
Quote
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on Today at 07:27:01 AM
So by this I assume he is an official story guy? If that is the case you can't expect too much from him ;D....Also, he should never give any crap about their views or believing in fairy tales.

I'll  take that challenge.   What real evidence is there for a conspiracy about 911?   Innuendo and speculation don't count as evidence.

So over to Babyhighspeed for the fairy tales.   :)

16 pages of evidence later.

Quote from: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 12:36:59 AM
holographic planes.

Lol.... I think he is interested in them, but doesn't know how to say it. Like chuck Norris...He may be kicking your ass, but he might be just trying to say he likes your hat. We all have commutation issues.

Quote from: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 08:22:17 PM
Ok,  you want a response to what you said about WTC7 collapse video I posted.   I didn't think you wanted to explain your reasoning on any of the structural collapse models.

What I see clearly from that video supports the NIST model of collapse very closely, 

Quote
Just the load certs vs critical failure ratio alone makes this impossible....I can name 100s of other issues on top of that. But that's enough for the moment.
Not according to the NIST WTC7 report I read.   But if I  follow that path it leads to stalemate again,  since I  would need a decade worth of study to understand your structural model.


Quote
Also, a model that defies physics...pass. It doesn't surprise me you accept it, but no...On top of the obvious, they have refuse and said they will never release the inputs...
You'll have to back that up with facts,  but I know you won't.   You haven't ever backed up anything you've said so far,  so why start now.


Quote
I could create a model that shows rainbows destroyed the buildings ...Doesn't mean it's true.
No you couldn't


Quote
Look....You have already proven you have no knowledge or prerequisites on the matter. So of course you are easy to fool...
Yep, I already got that from your arrogant attitude.  You are still making assumptions about what I do or don't know. 


Quote
Just like someone can fake play an instrument or lip sync. Could fool the general masses...But a musician will spot it right away.
I and 1000s upon 1000s like me who do this for a living just roll our eyes....This was a lip sync, and not even a good one. And just like an artist would do, they are saying "I wasn't lip syncing"

False appeal to authority,  but irrelevant anyway.  This is not music.

Are we done?   


No, almost 2 decades to get the prerequisites I have. My model is simple...It's called reality based in all things we know of structural dynamics and physics. Read some educational books and you will learn.

Also..I made no assumption of what you know, I actually was excited in hopes of a real discussion because of what you supposedly knew. You proved it with not being able to retort to even the smallest thing. Your actions proved your lack of knowledge, not my assumptions.

(No, as hominems, twisting, lying or ignoring doesn't count....Neither does NIST said so)

Yeah...I am a bit arrogant with people like you just because I don't like people like you. Others, even with different opinions I am very humble and open with them. Also my natural personality is humble, when you come from the bottom you don't forget it.

Though, it doesn't change the truth in it, despite the Arrogant nature.

Anyways....


Troll confirmed.... Pathetic as always. You have never let me down there, least you are good at something.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 09:14:57 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 17, 2017, 08:57:13 PM
No, almost 2 decades to get the prerequisites I have. My model is simple...It's called reality based in all things we know of structural dynamics and physics. Read some educational books and you will learn.

Also..I made no assumption of what you know, I actually was excited in hopes of a real discussion because of what you supposedly knew. You proved it with not being able to retort to even the smallest thing. Your actions proved your lack of knowledge, not my assumptions.

(No, as hominems, twisting, lying or ignoring doesn't count....Neither does NIST said so)

Yeah...I am a bit arrogant with people like you just because I don't like people like you. Others, even with different opinions I am very humble and open with them. Also my natural personality is humble, when you come from the bottom you don't forget it.

Though, it doesn't change the truth in it, despite the Arrogant nature.

Anyways....


Troll confirmed.... Pathetic as always. You have never let me down there, least you are good at something.

So,  I can only debate you if I don't refer to NIST,    that's almost the exact parallel for flat earthers when they say you can't use pictures from space to prove the earth is a globe.

You are obviously lying through your teeth about having a video of a plane passing through the building without leaving a mark. 

The lack of knowledge you have displayed about basic 911 facts tells me,  either you haven't done as much research as you claim, or it's been 10 years since you last looked at the evidence.

You are an lying arrogant blowhard and I'm finished with you,  so please go away and don't come back.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 17, 2017, 09:40:09 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 09:14:57 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 17, 2017, 08:57:13 PM
No, almost 2 decades to get the prerequisites I have. My model is simple...It's called reality based in all things we know of structural dynamics and physics. Read some educational books and you will learn.

Also..I made no assumption of what you know, I actually was excited in hopes of a real discussion because of what you supposedly knew. You proved it with not being able to retort to even the smallest thing. Your actions proved your lack of knowledge, not my assumptions.

(No, as hominems, twisting, lying or ignoring doesn't count....Neither does NIST said so)

Yeah...I am a bit arrogant with people like you just because I don't like people like you. Others, even with different opinions I am very humble and open with them. Also my natural personality is humble, when you come from the bottom you don't forget it.

Though, it doesn't change the truth in it, despite the Arrogant nature.

Anyways....


Troll confirmed.... Pathetic as always. You have never let me down there, least you are good at something.

So,  I can only debate you if I don't refer to NIST,    that's almost the exact parallel for flat earthers when they say you can't use pictures from space to prove the earth is a globe.

You are obviously lying through your teeth about having a video of a plane passing through the building without leaving a mark. 

The lack of knowledge you have displayed about basic 911 facts tells me,  either you haven't done as much research as you claim, or it's been 10 years since you last looked at the evidence.

You are an lying arrogant blowhard and I'm finished with you,  so please go away and don't come back.

You never even looked at scepti video, there was passing there too. If you actually discuss with me things then I will take the time to get the hardrives out of storage and upload. I bet it is already on YouTube somewhere as well. I have nothing secret in video evidence, all publicly released. It was much harder to compile before video sharing such as YouTube.

(FYI I only semi retired from the 9/11 stuff close to 4 years ago, I will always come out of it if I see a purpose)

I never said don't use NIST ..You can use them all you wish. But when I explain the areas there is a violation, you can't just blindly say well they said so. If it doesn't make sense it isn't true, very simple analogy...And almost always true.

It's not my fault you can't use your own words...No different than following a cult.


Obviously I struck a nerve hence your fit...That's fine. If you would like to try and file a retort i am listening. ...Wanna keep yelling, good for you, doesn't make you look any better.

As for being a blow hard...If someone like you calls me a blow hard.. that means I am doing my job well.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 18, 2017, 12:16:28 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 17, 2017, 09:40:09 PM

You never even looked at scepti video, there was passing there too. If you actually discuss with me things then I will take the time to get the hardrives out of storage and upload. I bet it is already on YouTube somewhere as well. I have nothing secret in video evidence, all publicly released. It was much harder to compile before video sharing such as YouTube.

(FYI I only semi retired from the 9/11 stuff close to 4 years ago, I will always come out of it if I see a purpose)

I never said don't use NIST ..You can use them all you wish. But when I explain the areas there is a violation, you can't just blindly say well they said so. If it doesn't make sense it isn't true, very simple analogy...And almost always true.

It's not my fault you can't use your own words...No different than following a cult.


Obviously I struck a nerve hence your fit...That's fine. If you would like to try and file a retort i am listening. ...Wanna keep yelling, good for you, doesn't make you look any better.

As for being a blow hard...If someone like you calls me a blow hard.. that means I am doing my job well.

Yeah,  thanks for that but no thanks,  I've heard more than enough,   I'll pass.   You are actually  more than 4 years out of touch with 911.

The topic is open for anyone who thinks that 911 was an inside job,   excepting "Quadruple No Planers"  They are too far gone for sensible discussion.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 12:26:24 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 17, 2017, 04:05:38 AM

Anywhoo.

dispute's patented 9/11 shill test.

Rayzor. Yes or No answers.

Does this,



Look like this?



Just to confirm, you are saying there is absolutely nothing suspicious about these items and we shouldn't question NIST?

(https://s17.postimg.org/hbtd20vpr/Screenshot_20170215_205717.png)



Your answer can be;
Yes Yes
Yes No
No Yes
No No

My answers are No No, anyone else wants to take the test feel free.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 18, 2017, 12:44:00 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 12:26:24 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 17, 2017, 04:05:38 AM

Anywhoo.

dispute's patented 9/11 shill test.

Rayzor. Yes or No answers.

Does this,



Look like this?



Just to confirm, you are saying there is absolutely nothing suspicious about these items and we shouldn't question NIST?

(https://s17.postimg.org/hbtd20vpr/Screenshot_20170215_205717.png)



Your answer can be;
Yes Yes
Yes No
No Yes
No No

My answers are No No, anyone else wants to take the test feel free.

I'd say No to the first,  that's a no brainer,   the second, is misleading.  The fire dept knew hours beforehand that WTC7 was going to collapse.  The BBC report timing is a furphy,
The fire dept suspected at 2:00 in the afternoon that WTC7 was going to collapse, they say the walls on the south west corner around the 13th floor were bulging dangerously,  that's a whole 3 hours before it collapsed.

So for the second I'll say no there was nothing misleading.  But you imply that we shouldn't question NIST,  that's wrong,  you  should question everything.

That makes it No, No





Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 12:44:52 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 18, 2017, 12:44:00 AM
That makes it No, No

All I ever wanted mate.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 18, 2017, 12:49:52 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 12:44:52 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 18, 2017, 12:44:00 AM
That makes it No, No

All I ever wanted mate.

Here's a better NIST analysis of WTC7 collapse,  the Fire Dept comments I referred to are at 1:33,  They were also worried about the Marriot collapsing.



I'm still suspicious as to why they won't release the WTC7 model data.  But not enough to think it's a conspiracy.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 12:51:10 AM
I can respect that, thanks for being honest.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 18, 2017, 12:52:33 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 18, 2017, 12:16:28 AM
Yeah,  thanks for that but no thanks,  I've heard more than enough,   I'll pass.   You are actually  more than 4 years out of touch with 911.

The topic is open for anyone who thinks that 911 was an inside job,   excepting "Quadruple No Planers"  They are too far gone for sensible discussion.

You can't even answer a single question...You know not a single detail. You can parrot a conclusion of an impossible report. Yet you cannot extrapolate a single detail of it, so can only accept it's conclusions...It's sad really.

The outcome of all this is your answers...ad hominems, twists, lies, and being a brainless sock puppet.

Out of date to what? You wouldn't even know...We didn't even get past a few details of structural design, and a few details of the planes. That has changed for decades...Nothing new. We could just not go any further because you could not even form a reply.

I really did hit a nerve with you didn't I...Everyone fails, it's how you handle it ,not the failure itself.

Now quit acting like a troll if you are who you say you are.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 12:56:29 AM
Well, there is that too. ;D

I can put it behind me I guess.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 18, 2017, 01:06:38 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 18, 2017, 12:52:33 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 18, 2017, 12:16:28 AM
Yeah,  thanks for that but no thanks,  I've heard more than enough,   I'll pass.   You are actually  more than 4 years out of touch with 911.

The topic is open for anyone who thinks that 911 was an inside job,   excepting "Quadruple No Planers"  They are too far gone for sensible discussion.

You can't even answer a single question...You know not a single detail. You can parrot a conclusion of an impossible report. Yet you cannot extrapolate a single detail of it, so can only accept it's conclusions...It's sad really.

The outcome of all this is your answers...ad hominems, twists, lies, and being a brainless sock puppet.

Out of date to what? You wouldn't even know...We didn't even get past a few details of structural design, and a few details of the planes. That has changed for decades...Nothing new. We could just not go any further because you could not even form a reply.

I really did hit a nerve with you didn't I...Everyone fails, it's how you handle it ,not the failure itself.

Now quit acting like a troll if you are who you say you are.

There you go again making assumptions yet again,  I think i've answered every question that you've asked,  but I can't be sure,  sometimes your questions are heavily buried in rambling descriptions of how much you know and how much research you've personally done on 911 conspiracies.   I already called BS on your supposed years of research,  too many dumb errors of fact. 

I'm beginning to be suspicious of your claimed qualifications,  the ability to construct logical argument seems to be a skill you lack,  but is something a PhD thesis requires, along with a degree of rigour in the underlying assumptions,  your contributions here show a lack of logical structure,  and a lack of the degree of rigour that basic research requires.

If there's a question I've missed,  please try to state it clearly and logically as you can.  I'll try to answer if I know or offer an opinion, otherwise I'll just say I don't know.

You do realize that as the person putting forward the conspiracy concepts,  it's your place to support your hypothesis not mine. 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 18, 2017, 01:08:13 AM
BHS, would you like to tell me your model of how the collapse went? I'm too lazy to look through the whole thread.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 18, 2017, 01:09:28 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 12:56:29 AM
Well, there is that too. ;D

I can put it behind me I guess.

Yeah...I guess so. You can deal with him...He is in your country anyways, not mine lol.

I could build him a replica of a tower to demonstrate my point wouldn't matter. NIST would still be right..Even though they will never release their inputs lol. So the model is dead until they do, which they won't, signed on paper.

Some people need to cling on to that, rather it be from ignorance of fear.

Although he obviously knows nothing from his parroted responses, I think it is more than that, more the fear...Maybe needs to stay in the herd...Hell I dunno...

It's not my problem anymore...He must have his bubble, who am I to mess with that. Long as he is happy.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 18, 2017, 01:11:38 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on February 18, 2017, 01:08:13 AM
BHS, would you like to tell me your model of how the collapse went? I'm too lazy to look through the whole thread.

I'll save you the trouble of reading the whole thread,  he never said, and when pressed on the issue,  he declined to elaborate claiming that 20 years of experience was required to understand it.

Maybe you'll have better luck than I did.  I'll watch with interest.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 01:13:45 AM
This.

Mr Evar read the thread.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 18, 2017, 01:16:50 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 18, 2017, 01:06:38 AM
There you go again making assumptions yet again,  I think i've answered every question that you've asked,  but I can't be sure,  sometimes your questions are heavily buried in rambling descriptions of how much you know and how much research you've personally done on 911 conspiracies.   I already called BS on your supposed years of research,  too many dumb errors of fact. 

I'm beginning to be suspicious of your claimed qualifications,  the ability to construct logical argument seems to be a skill you lack,  but is something a PhD thesis requires, along with a degree of rigour in the underlying assumptions,  your contributions here show a lack of logical structure,  and a lack of the degree of rigour that basic research requires.

If there's a question I've missed,  please try to state it clearly and logically as you can.  I'll try to answer if I know or offer an opinion, otherwise I'll just say I don't know.

You do realize that as the person putting forward the conspiracy concepts,  it's your place to support your hypothesis not mine.

I have stated many dead factors open for a rebuttal...

As a matter of fact...You see that quote on my sig from you?? That was your response when I made you after 13 pages of bullshit...Made you answer one question directly...

You have never had an argument....And if you think your attempted deflection of trying to discredit me as a person will work, you are just as desperate as I knew you were.

Look through my posts older posts last year, you will see plenty of proof of anything I said.

I even offered you here to prove anything you wanted...The truth is easy.

Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it's not true.

I already said stay in your bubble...Believe what you want. As for who had a case and who didn't, anyone who wants to read the thread will see the answer. That is the best thing about a forum
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 18, 2017, 01:23:32 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on February 18, 2017, 01:08:13 AM
BHS, would you like to tell me your model of how the collapse went? I'm too lazy to look through the whole thread.

Number one... Rayzor is a liar, I attempted to explain things to him all the time..

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 16, 2017, 01:38:27 AM
That is the only two options.....There are no others..Either reality was violated and we accept the story (this doesn't even include 1000s of other issues) or it was a lie.

As much as you would like to fight it...There is no other available options...So you choose to side with an impossibility?


But just to play your uneducated game...

Let's assume I entertain the model your video shows (which I don't)...

So the plane is allowed to enter without restriction...Pass through the outside vertical exoskeleton and horizontal exoskeleton to the core.

Ok, those few floors are compromised on the 91-93 floors...That would not cause a collapse.

But let's say it did in that area.

It would collapse on itself at the path of least resistance...However, there is not enough damaged and removed material.

So you would have a situation such as this..

(http://i63.tinypic.com/11iohnq.jpg)

However, even if by magic it started a free fall collapse at that 90th floor, it would not make it past the 44th floor because of the doubled core stacking (this building did not have CG sway compensation like newer buildings so CG directional load was set up like older scrappers, more like a sea bowie), the lower 40 was built like a tank compared to the upper sections...Multiples of the mass of the upper decks.

However, if we keep using magic....Let's say it collapsed this area too....We would have this...

(http://i66.tinypic.com/35lf8s0.jpg)

Just multiped by a factor 3.8

And not at a free fall...

Would have taken anywhere from minutes to hours..

Stress junctions, their cert load in the 60s was anywhere from 5 times to 100times less than what it could take before complete failure...Not to mention, since the CG was controlled in a more simple "old school" design (as stated, like a sea bowie), the more mass you keep removing from the upper area, the more robust the bottom becomes as well as the CG continues to get lower.

If you had a 40 story WTC center with the same structural design, you would never knock that damn building over, you would have to dismantle that thing  piece by piece.

Unless we are using magic again.


If you just tell me you are a huge Harry Potter fan...I will leave you alone rayzor.... Seriously

Just this, because it was the first I found... He couldn't even answer something this simple..

Then finally I made him answer, and he admitted he had none.


As to the answer to your question, I will speak no more about theories because of rayzor. The only thing I will speak about is facts. Such as why the 9/11 commission report or NIST is no plausible in real life.

Want to speak about what really brought the towers down, sorry, not now, for rayzor ruined that ship for a while. Only 100 percent facts and reality...No theories, at least from me.

If you would like to discuss that, I will be happy to
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 18, 2017, 01:32:54 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 18, 2017, 01:16:50 AM
As a matter of fact...You see that quote on my sig from you?? That was your response when I made you after 13 pages of bullshit...Made you answer one question directly...

LOL,   you didn't understand what I said,  not totally surprised,  I sort of suspected it at the time.

Now read the rest of it  to see what I actually said, and put your drink down and brain into gear and try to understand what I actually said about your explanation of structural collapse.

Quote from: Rayzor
I have no direct rebuttal,  only the extensive analysis done by others,  do I agree with the official NIST line,  I have no evidence to suggest their analysis was wrong.  And conversely I have no detail on your analysis,  you have only presented irrelevant demolition videos,  some graphics of a completely different structure,  in short there is nothing of direct relevance to either WTC1 or WTC2 in you post. 

So unless you have something else to add,  I'm going to reject your hypothesis that the video footage violated the laws of physics. 

I'll resist linking to the detailed structural collapse reports.

Funny thing is you are still posting the same irrelevant shit. 

Thanks for putting it in your signature,  that's classic.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 01:40:17 AM
It's not irrelevant, it never has been.

You believe the NIST report, that's fine.

We have done our own research and came to our own conclusions, this is also fine.

Each side had presented their arguments, we are just running in circles now.

Like I said in the previous thread, at this point we have to agree to disagree Rayzor.

Nothing is being gained now.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 18, 2017, 01:40:33 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 18, 2017, 01:16:50 AM
You have never had an argument....And if you think your attempted deflection of trying to discredit me as a person will work, you are just as desperate as I knew you were.

Umm,  you seem to be failing to realise,  that's it's your theory under discussion not mine,  It's not my conspiracy it's yours.   It's your argument to make not mine.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Heiwa on February 18, 2017, 01:41:27 AM
Topic is XXX What is the truth?

Answer is of course that truth is what the government says and what is taught at universities. With Mr. Trump in the White House, the truth may be something else tomorrow.

An early example is the atomic bombs 1945. The truth then was that they worked and are marvellous and this is also taught at universities today.

Another example is human space travel 1961 onwards. The truth is that it is possible, it has been done safely and we should all happily pay for people being in space today. It is also taught at universities.

The 911 truth is that 19 Arabs were convinced to carry out the hijackings + destructions and that some obscure Saudi planned it all. This Saudi has later been murdered by Obama, so the case is closed. No need to discuss it, even if it also taught at universities. 

The latest truth is that our universe is full of Black Holes that frequently collide since billion years and produce waves in space time, which were discovered by some Americans last year.  It will soon be taught at universities. I describe at my website.

The truth about a flat Earth is still not established, as Mr. Trump has not made up his mind yet.  But he has almost four years time to do so.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 01:42:44 AM
Heiwa. Don't you fucking dare mate.

Not a request.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 18, 2017, 01:52:19 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 01:40:17 AM
Nothing is being gained now.

Agreed... If someone would like to and has the ability to debate my rejection of the official story I would be very glad to do so....Otherwise it's dead.


Quote from: Rayzor on February 18, 2017, 01:40:33 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 18, 2017, 01:16:50 AM
You have never had an argument....And if you think your attempted deflection of trying to discredit me as a person will work, you are just as desperate as I knew you were.

Umm,  you seem to be failing to realise,  that's it's your theory under discussion not mine,  It's not my conspiracy it's yours.   It's your argument to make not mine.

I have tried...You only focused on non sense or twisted things.

If you have questions to why I say something is not possible (as I said no more theory talk) then ask. I will answer, I would expect the same from you.

This is the way I speak in business or debates, not chit chat...Simple question and answer directly.

If this cannot be done then we are done.


Heiwa.....Don't bring that nuclear shit in here, you got your own threat with that. I know you are lonely because this thread has stopped traffic in yours, but just relax ....It will be OK.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 18, 2017, 01:53:55 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 18, 2017, 01:23:32 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 16, 2017, 01:38:27 AM
That is the only two options.....There are no others..Either reality was violated and we accept the story (this doesn't even include 1000s of other issues) or it was a lie.

As much as you would like to fight it...There is no other available options...So you choose to side with an impossibility?


But just to play your uneducated game...

Let's assume I entertain the model your video shows (which I don't)...

So the plane is allowed to enter without restriction...Pass through the outside vertical exoskeleton and horizontal exoskeleton to the core.

Ok, those few floors are compromised on the 91-93 floors...That would not cause a collapse.

But let's say it did in that area.

It would collapse on itself at the path of least resistance...However, there is not enough damaged and removed material.

So you would have a situation such as this..

(http://i63.tinypic.com/11iohnq.jpg)

However, even if by magic it started a free fall collapse at that 90th floor, it would not make it past the 44th floor because of the doubled core stacking (this building did not have CG sway compensation like newer buildings so CG directional load was set up like older scrappers, more like a sea bowie), the lower 40 was built like a tank compared to the upper sections...Multiples of the mass of the upper decks.

However, if we keep using magic....Let's say it collapsed this area too....We would have this...

(http://i66.tinypic.com/35lf8s0.jpg)

Just multiped by a factor 3.8

And not at a free fall...

Would have taken anywhere from minutes to hours..

Stress junctions, their cert load in the 60s was anywhere from 5 times to 100times less than what it could take before complete failure...Not to mention, since the CG was controlled in a more simple "old school" design (as stated, like a sea bowie), the more mass you keep removing from the upper area, the more robust the bottom becomes as well as the CG continues to get lower.

If you had a 40 story WTC center with the same structural design, you would never knock that damn building over, you would have to dismantle that thing  piece by piece.

Unless we are using magic again.


If you just tell me you are a huge Harry Potter fan...I will leave you alone rayzor.... Seriously

Just this, because it was the first I found... He couldn't even answer something this simple..

Then finally I made him answer, and he admitted he had none.


As to the answer to your question, I will speak no more about theories because of rayzor. The only thing I will speak about is facts. Such as why the 9/11 commission report or NIST is no plausible in real life.

Want to speak about what really brought the towers down, sorry, not now, for rayzor ruined that ship for a while. Only 100 percent facts and reality...No theories, at least from me.

If you would like to discuss that, I will be happy to
I don't quite understand the context of that quote. But anyways, no one here can provide facts about the collapse itself, unless anyone here have either a scale-model of the collapse or extensive footage. Facts are that the twin towers collapsed, and I think thanks to the footage of the collapse, including lots of witnesses, facts are also that planes did collide with the twin towers. The rest is speculation or hypothesis, and whichever hypothesises within a margin of error agrees perfectly with footage, witnesses and other related issues would be theories of the collapse.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 02:11:20 AM
Your opinion is welcome Master Evar, however you haven't added to the thread.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 18, 2017, 02:25:16 AM
Sorry, Master_evarthat was just the first one I pulled...It would have been better if seen in the context of the conversation.

I agree...The towers did collapse, that is a fact (unless you entertain the theory they have always been holgrams lol)... We need not hypothesize what brought them down, all I want to do is show the official story is fabricated. As for witnesses, there were more that said something other than seeing a commercial plane than ones who did, those were just stricken from the commission report, fortunately we still have their testimonials for the record.

I believe the footage we saw intensifies the fact the official story is fabricated. Not to mention all the evidence aside from just the collapse (such as finding the passports when titanium was being "vaporized", the other incidents in the other locations, etc etc etc)

We have the exact blue prints of the towers, that isn't a mystery. Exact blue prints of the planes, no mystery, we have physics and centuries of structural engineering research and design. All of these things tell us of the "miracles" we witnessed that day, not just 1, but three hours apart. We have all we need to determine what we saw doesn't not add up with the official story.

Everything else I don't care about...When we have an obvious fabrication from the government, then that tells us there is a reason they lied. Governments don't lie for fun...There is always a motive.



This isn't some dumb theory we are talking about...We are talking about an event that changed history, removed freedoms, put a nation in severe debt, destroyed other nations, and was the catalyst to millions of people to lose their life. I would not hesitate to give my life to the cause if it was going to make a difference.

So I apologize if I get rowdy at times in this, but it is a big deal...Quite possibly the biggest deal that might happen in my life time. And it just makes me almost vomit when I hear people blindly accept this. I can tell you 100 percent the official story is a lie from experience, not Google. So imagine knowing this for a fact, knowing what it caused, trying to do something about it, but so far failing. Many like myself are just as depressed about it, yet, we don't talk much about it currently because of the sore spot it is.

It's not directly at the person individually, it is more at the situation...As I said, this is a big deal, not just 3 buildings being demoed.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 18, 2017, 02:30:11 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on February 18, 2017, 01:53:55 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 18, 2017, 01:23:32 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 16, 2017, 01:38:27 AM
That is the only two options.....There are no others..Either reality was violated and we accept the story (this doesn't even include 1000s of other issues) or it was a lie.

As much as you would like to fight it...There is no other available options...So you choose to side with an impossibility?


But just to play your uneducated game...

Let's assume I entertain the model your video shows (which I don't)...

So the plane is allowed to enter without restriction...Pass through the outside vertical exoskeleton and horizontal exoskeleton to the core.

Ok, those few floors are compromised on the 91-93 floors...That would not cause a collapse.

But let's say it did in that area.

It would collapse on itself at the path of least resistance...However, there is not enough damaged and removed material.

So you would have a situation such as this..

(http://i63.tinypic.com/11iohnq.jpg)

However, even if by magic it started a free fall collapse at that 90th floor, it would not make it past the 44th floor because of the doubled core stacking (this building did not have CG sway compensation like newer buildings so CG directional load was set up like older scrappers, more like a sea bowie), the lower 40 was built like a tank compared to the upper sections...Multiples of the mass of the upper decks.

However, if we keep using magic....Let's say it collapsed this area too....We would have this...

(http://i66.tinypic.com/35lf8s0.jpg)

Just multiped by a factor 3.8

And not at a free fall...

Would have taken anywhere from minutes to hours..

Stress junctions, their cert load in the 60s was anywhere from 5 times to 100times less than what it could take before complete failure...Not to mention, since the CG was controlled in a more simple "old school" design (as stated, like a sea bowie), the more mass you keep removing from the upper area, the more robust the bottom becomes as well as the CG continues to get lower.

If you had a 40 story WTC center with the same structural design, you would never knock that damn building over, you would have to dismantle that thing  piece by piece.

Unless we are using magic again.


If you just tell me you are a huge Harry Potter fan...I will leave you alone rayzor.... Seriously

Just this, because it was the first I found... He couldn't even answer something this simple..

Then finally I made him answer, and he admitted he had none.


As to the answer to your question, I will speak no more about theories because of rayzor. The only thing I will speak about is facts. Such as why the 9/11 commission report or NIST is no plausible in real life.

Want to speak about what really brought the towers down, sorry, not now, for rayzor ruined that ship for a while. Only 100 percent facts and reality...No theories, at least from me.

If you would like to discuss that, I will be happy to
I don't quite understand the context of that quote. But anyways, no one here can provide facts about the collapse itself, unless anyone here have either a scale-model of the collapse or extensive footage. Facts are that the twin towers collapsed, and I think thanks to the footage of the collapse, including lots of witnesses, facts are also that planes did collide with the twin towers. The rest is speculation or hypothesis, and whichever hypothesises within a margin of error agrees perfectly with footage, witnesses and other related issues would be theories of the collapse.

I didn't understand it at first either,  he seems to be saying the buildings didn't collapse,  but in his own confused way he is trying to say that something else was required for the buildings to collase the way we see on the video.   Once you agree to this he will probably  wheel in his demolition theory as the only alternative.

I know his logic is unconventional,  and somewhat convoluted,  but that's the way he thinks. 



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 18, 2017, 02:36:49 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 18, 2017, 02:30:11 AM

I didn't understand it at first either,  he seems to be saying the buildings didn't collapse,  but in his own confused way he is trying to say that something else was required for the buildings to collase the way we see on the video.   Once you agree to this he will probably  wheel in his demolition theory as the only alternative.

I know his logic is unconventional,  and somewhat convoluted,  but that's the way he thinks. 


You are a twisted liar...

You know clearly when I originally posted that I was explaining a few reasons why a plane would not being down the towers as we saw.

I used some examples of the designs on the tower and other info to explain they would not have fallen like that with that structural damage. Nor would it achieve free fall into its own foot print, etc etc.

You know what I was saying.

You see, master evar stated an opinion different than mine...Yet with respect, no lies, no twisting ....What did he get from me?

The same respect.....

That is the difference between a troll and an actual conversation...

Sorry dispute...I can't be nice to him, he is demented..I tried
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 18, 2017, 03:05:46 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 02:11:20 AM
Your opinion is welcome Master Evar, however you haven't added to the thread.
I added my opinion. BHS claimed that he was omnly going to discuss facts, not theories (or hypothesis, I guess). I explained what the facts were (in the scientific sense) and that any explanation for how the collapse escalated is either an hypothesis or theory. Essentially declaring that if BHS was only going to discuss facts, there wouldn't be anything more to discuss really. That's the thing with facts: You shouldn't have to discuss them.

And there's not going to be much of a discussion if BHS won't explicitly declare his standpoint. By asking for BHS's standpoint I was hoping to open up some opportunity for discussion, but his response only serves to close those opportunities. Is it me who's not adding to the discussion, or is it the one who declares that they will not discuss the things arguable, but only the things which aren't really arguable?

Sorry BHS, but I don't think that there's anything to discuss fact-wise. It's not a fact that planes can't bring skyscrapers down by crashing into them, and using evidence to prove that there is fabrication is... hypothesising. Blueprints and physics isn't enough, because some of them are/contains approximations and nothing is perfectly accurate. A collision is an extremely complicated system to perform calculations in, which means we have to either recreate them in reality, in dumbed down simulations or dumb them down extremely to calculate them for hand. The two latter comes with potentially too much generalisation, or completely missing out on very specific physical phenomena (that we may not even know of). So as long as we don't recreate the collision in reality, everything we do to find out how things escalated will have a margin of error that means we aren't perfectly accurately representing reality. Thus we are only dealing with hypothesis and theories, not facts or truths, when discussing the collision and the following collapse.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Heiwa on February 18, 2017, 03:47:26 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 01:42:44 AM
Heiwa. Don't you fucking dare mate.

Not a request.

Too late.

The show must go on.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 03:51:31 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on February 18, 2017, 03:05:46 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 02:11:20 AM
Your opinion is welcome Master Evar, however you haven't added to the thread.
I added my opinion. BHS claimed that he was omnly going to discuss facts, not theories (or hypothesis, I guess). I explained what the facts were (in the scientific sense) and that any explanation for how the collapse escalated is either an hypothesis or theory. Essentially declaring that if BHS was only going to discuss facts, there wouldn't be anything more to discuss really. That's the thing with facts: You shouldn't have to discuss them.

And there's not going to be much of a discussion if BHS won't explicitly declare his standpoint. By asking for BHS's standpoint I was hoping to open up some opportunity for discussion, but his response only serves to close those opportunities. Is it me who's not adding to the discussion, or is it the one who declares that they will not discuss the things arguable, but only the things which aren't really arguable?

Sorry BHS, but I don't think that there's anything to discuss fact-wise. It's not a fact that planes can't bring skyscrapers down by crashing into them, and using evidence to prove that there is fabrication is... hypothesising. Blueprints and physics isn't enough, because some of them are/contains approximations and nothing is perfectly accurate. A collision is an extremely complicated system to perform calculations in, which means we have to either recreate them in reality, in dumbed down simulations or dumb them down extremely to calculate them for hand. The two latter comes with potentially too much generalisation, or completely missing out on very specific physical phenomena (that we may not even know of). So as long as we don't recreate the collision in reality, everything we do to find out how things escalated will have a margin of error that means we aren't perfectly accurately representing reality. Thus we are only dealing with hypothesis and theories, not facts or truths, when discussing the collision and the following collapse.

Not bad, I strongly believe that the measurement of free-fall is direct evidence of controlled demolition, I offered multiple experiments to test this hypothesis and logical examples.

Not even counting what Bhs contributed.

Do you believe the official story explains the free-fall of building 7 adequately?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Heiwa on February 18, 2017, 03:52:00 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 18, 2017, 01:52:19 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 01:40:17 AM
Nothing is being gained now.

Agreed... If someone would like to and has the ability to debate my rejection of the official story I would be very glad to do so....Otherwise it's dead.


Quote from: Rayzor on February 18, 2017, 01:40:33 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 18, 2017, 01:16:50 AM
You have never had an argument....And if you think your attempted deflection of trying to discredit me as a person will work, you are just as desperate as I knew you were.

Umm,  you seem to be failing to realise,  that's it's your theory under discussion not mine,  It's not my conspiracy it's yours.   It's your argument to make not mine.

I have tried...You only focused on non sense or twisted things.

If you have questions to why I say something is not possible (as I said no more theory talk) then ask. I will answer, I would expect the same from you.

This is the way I speak in business or debates, not chit chat...Simple question and answer directly.

If this cannot be done then we are done.


Heiwa.....Don't bring that nuclear shit in here, you got your own threat with that. I know you are lonely because this thread has stopped traffic in yours, but just relax ....It will be OK.

Just laugh about it.

Donald will sort it out.

Asteroid collisions will wipe us out. Soon.

Visit my website and I tell you more.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 04:02:26 AM
Heiwa this is our thread, you have contributed nothing, please do not spam links to your site here.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 18, 2017, 04:30:14 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 03:51:31 AM
Not bad, I strongly believe that the measurement of free-fall is direct evidence of controlled demolition, I offered multiple experiments to test this hypothesis and logical examples.

Not even counting what Bhs contributed.

Do you believe the official story explains the free-fall of building 7 adequately?
I do believe in the official story given. Since there are no recordings or witness of the sounds close to that which demolition charges generates during the incident, I am very skeptical that it was a controlled demolition.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on February 18, 2017, 04:41:21 AM
Quote from: deadsirius on February 17, 2017, 11:51:11 AM
I don't claim to be an expert in all of the subject matter at hand.  But I am comfortable believing the majority of people who are experts who conclude that 9/11 was exactly what we're told.

Is it possible I'm wrong?  Sure.  I just needed to say since no one else was doing so, that speaking as a third-party spectator of this whole argument, you should know how much like the flat-earth partisans you sound throughout here.  It may be helpful to keep that in mind while making your points.

I don't have anything personal against either of you (babyhighspeed and DisputeOne, in case that's not clear)--outside of this I find you to be interesting and entertaining commenters...I even agree with your politics to a degree you might find surprising.  I just feel like, again speaking from the outside--I don't know Rayzor any more than I know you--this thread has not been nearly as one-sided as you think.

Now, totallackey--since I know you want to, I'm preemptively giving you permission to do your thing and selectively quote my post while bolding the statements that make me look bad out of context.  In fact, I'll do it for you and save you the time:

Quote from: deadsirius

I don't claim to be an expert in all of the subject matter at hand.  But I am comfortable believing the majority of people who are experts who conclude that 9/11 was exactly what we're told.

Is it possible I'm wrong?  Sure.  I just needed to say since no one else was doing so, that speaking as a third-party spectator of this whole argument, you should know how much like the flat-earth partisans you sound throughout here.  It may be helpful to keep that in mind while making your points.

I don't have anything personal against either of you (babyhighspeed and DisputeOne, in case that's not clear)--outside of this I find you to be interesting and entertaining commenters...I even agree with your politics to a degree you might find surprising.  I just feel like, again speaking from the outside--I don't know Rayzor any more than I know you--this thread has not been nearly as one-sided as you think.


Am I doing it right?

I will leave everything as is.

You can believe what you want.

Why you think people who provided the OS are experts I have no clue.

I cannot make any claim as to your methods of drawing conclusions, but seems to me someone who is interested in the scientific method would, by default, REJECT the reports issued by the NIST because they are not subject to being repeated and falsified.

So, care to explain your cherry picking?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on February 18, 2017, 04:44:11 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 02:29:45 PM
Quote from: deadsirius on February 17, 2017, 08:08:19 AM
Rayzor--I just wanted to jump in and applaud your patience here.  This all got real embarrassing back on page 1.  Not so much the conspiracy theories (though those too)...but the roughly 14 pages of these guys unilaterally declaring you "destroyed" and the argument "over".  Then starting a whole OTHER thread to do the same thing.

I read it all--must be some latent masochism, I dunno.  Keep up the good fight...or don't, this looks like it's going to be a never-ending shitshow.

Thanks, and although we didn't uncover anything much new about 911,   we did in fact discover quite a lot about the psychology of 911 conspiracy theorists.  Some weird shit logic going on in there.
So as a brief glimpse into some 911 conspiracy thinking,  the parallels with flat earth conspiracy are startling,  maybe it's something that's common to all conspiracies.  Interesting to find out one day.

Just to set the record straight,  I don't have as much patience as you give me credit for,  I must have deleted twice as much as actually ended up getting posted,   I adopted a reply in kind policy somewhere during  that process.  :)
   
Is it over,  I doubt it,  but any thread where sceptimatic comes across as one of the most logical and relevant contributors has got to be worth re-reading. 

Thanks to those who sent PM's  I apologise to those who sent me links to rebuttal videos for not linking them in the thread,  I appreciate the thought. 

Anyone interested in the aircraft impact of the building,  I recommend that you read the following reports.

https://www.nist.gov/publications/baseline-structural-performance-and-aircraft-impact-damage-analysis-world-trade-1?pub_id=101012
https://www.nist.gov/publications/reference-structural-models-and-baseline-performance-analysis-world-trade-center-0?pub_id=101013
https://www.nist.gov/publications/analysis-aircraft-impacts-world-trade-center-towers-chapters-1-8-federal-building-and-0?pub_id=101428
https://www.nist.gov/publications/analysis-aircraft-impacts-world-trade-center-towers-chapters-9-11-federal-building-and?pub_id=101015
https://www.nist.gov/publications/analysis-aircraft-impacts-world-trade-center-towers-appendixes-federal-building-and?pub_id=909015

All the reports are linked from this page.
https://www.nist.gov/engineering-laboratory/final-reports-nist-world-trade-center-disaster-investigation

Yeah, by all means read the reports.

Just do not ask for the data inputs/results so you can test whether the modeling is accurate, repeatable, and falsifiable.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rama Set on February 18, 2017, 04:58:15 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 03:51:31 AM
Not bad, I strongly believe that the measurement of free-fall is direct evidence of controlled demolition, I offered multiple experiments to test this hypothesis and logical examples.

Not even counting what Bhs contributed.

Do you believe the official story explains the free-fall of building 7 adequately?

Sorry to butt in, but I have seen multiple analyses of WTC 1, 2 and 7's collapse which showed that the collapse of the building was not at free-fall speed.  For example, in the WTC 7 collapse, you can see the utility penthouse collapse a couple of seconds before the outer structure collapse, indicating to me, that the interior could have begun collapsing several seconds before the exterior did.  There are similar indications in the WTC 1 & 2 collapses (maybe only 2, I don't recall, it has been some time).

I don't see how anyone can assert this is a controlled demolition when the collapses completely lack the deafening sound of the explosive charges.  Could you explain your position on this to me?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on February 18, 2017, 04:59:20 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 04:31:50 PM
Quote from: totallackey on February 16, 2017, 04:19:22 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 04:11:24 PM
BHS commented that he thought holographic planes was a plausible theory,   but my impression is that he still thinks the places were cgi or something equally stupid.

Please post a quote where that comment was made.

While you are at it, pony up with the reason why you reject the reason provided by the NIST chair in his response to the FOIA request for the inputs/results data utilized for the modeling.

Further, please explain how you can trumpet science on the one hand and so thoroughly reject the scientific method on the other?

I've repeatedly said I don't know why they don't release specific data, it's political, and that's not a matter in which I have any expertise,  want to talk physics,  fine I'm there. 

I'll say it again, from my point of view, I see no valid reason why the data could not be released.     

I did speculate that they might not want conspiracy nutters second guessing their model choices,  but that's just pure speculation,  I'm not going to run around in my tin foil hat shouting conspiracy based on pure speculation.

The NIST did not release the inputs/results data utilized in their testing out of concerns for "...public safety."

You admit here you reject that reason and substitute your own.

Either way, you demonstrate quite clearly you reject the scientific method of inquiry.

That's cool.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 04:59:46 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on February 18, 2017, 04:30:14 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 03:51:31 AM
Not bad, I strongly believe that the measurement of free-fall is direct evidence of controlled demolition, I offered multiple experiments to test this hypothesis and logical examples.

Not even counting what Bhs contributed.

Do you believe the official story explains the free-fall of building 7 adequately?
I do believe in the official story given. Since there are no recordings or witness of the sounds close to that which demolition charges generates during the incident, I am very skeptical that it was a controlled demolition.

I respect that, no problem thanks for the honest reply.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 05:05:38 AM
Quote from: Rama Set on February 18, 2017, 04:58:15 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 03:51:31 AM
Not bad, I strongly believe that the measurement of free-fall is direct evidence of controlled demolition, I offered multiple experiments to test this hypothesis and logical examples.

Not even counting what Bhs contributed.

Do you believe the official story explains the free-fall of building 7 adequately?

Sorry to butt in, but I have seen multiple analyses of WTC 1, 2 and 7's collapse which showed that the collapse of the building was not at free-fall speed.  For example, in the WTC 7 collapse, you can see the utility penthouse collapse a couple of seconds before the outer structure collapse, indicating to me, that the interior could have begun collapsing several seconds before the exterior did.  There are similar indications in the WTC 1 & 2 collapses (maybe only 2, I don't recall, it has been some time).

I don't see how anyone can assert this is a controlled demolition when the collapses completely lack the deafening sound of the explosive charges.  Could you explain your position on this to me?

We can measure free fall  (gravitational acceleration) on building 7 for 2.25 seconds. As you say the models do not show this free fall, which I find very concerning.

The collapse of the utility penthouse seconds before the free fall is indicative of a demolition, cutting the central supports as pictures have demonstrated a perfect 45° cut of the central support.

As for the sound of the explosions, it is not necessary for the demolition hypothesis with prior noise proofing and clever engineering.

This is my position, I don't expect to change anyones mind but this is what I believe and why I believe it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on February 18, 2017, 05:16:22 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 17, 2017, 09:14:57 PM

So,  I can only debate you if I don't refer to NIST...

BY ALL MEANS REFER TO THE NIST AS MUCH AS YOU LIKE!!!

Everyone here is absolutely overjoyed you are rejecting the scientific method in your arguments, since the fact is they have not released the inputs/results data utilized in the modeling.

I think it is hilarious.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rama Set on February 18, 2017, 05:21:15 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 05:05:38 AM
Quote from: Rama Set on February 18, 2017, 04:58:15 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 03:51:31 AM
Not bad, I strongly believe that the measurement of free-fall is direct evidence of controlled demolition, I offered multiple experiments to test this hypothesis and logical examples.

Not even counting what Bhs contributed.

Do you believe the official story explains the free-fall of building 7 adequately?

Sorry to butt in, but I have seen multiple analyses of WTC 1, 2 and 7's collapse which showed that the collapse of the building was not at free-fall speed.  For example, in the WTC 7 collapse, you can see the utility penthouse collapse a couple of seconds before the outer structure collapse, indicating to me, that the interior could have begun collapsing several seconds before the exterior did.  There are similar indications in the WTC 1 & 2 collapses (maybe only 2, I don't recall, it has been some time).

I don't see how anyone can assert this is a controlled demolition when the collapses completely lack the deafening sound of the explosive charges.  Could you explain your position on this to me?

We can measure free fall  (gravitational acceleration) on building 7 for 2.25 seconds. As you say the models do not show this free fall, which I find very concerning.

The collapse of the utility penthouse seconds before the free fall is indicative of a demolition, cutting the central supports as pictures have demonstrated a perfect 45° cut of the central support.

What I am saying, and NIST apparently as well, I'm not familiar with their report, is that you are not timing the collapse from its beginning.

Quote
As for the sound of the explosions, it is not necessary for the demolition hypothesis with prior noise proofing and clever engineering.

It isn't necessary but it requires a bunch of mental gymnastics.

Quote
This is my position, I don't expect to change anyones mind but this is what I believe and why I believe it.

That's fine, but you should recognize that your position is just as divorced from reality as those that you accuse of following NIST.

From my perspective this is what I know (or don't) about 911:

-Planes definitely hit the WTC and collapse followed an hour or so after.

-It doesn't appear, to my eye, that they collapsed at free fall speed, but I am open to video evidence showing otherwise.

-Controlled demolitions look, sound and occur much differently than the collapse of the WTC buildings


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on February 18, 2017, 05:27:57 AM
Quote from: Rama Set on February 18, 2017, 04:58:15 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 03:51:31 AM
Not bad, I strongly believe that the measurement of free-fall is direct evidence of controlled demolition, I offered multiple experiments to test this hypothesis and logical examples.

Not even counting what Bhs contributed.

Do you believe the official story explains the free-fall of building 7 adequately?

Sorry to butt in, but I have seen multiple analyses of WTC 1, 2 and 7's collapse which showed that the collapse of the building was not at free-fall speed.  For example, in the WTC 7 collapse, you can see the utility penthouse collapse a couple of seconds before the outer structure collapse, indicating to me, that the interior could have begun collapsing several seconds before the exterior did.  There are similar indications in the WTC 1 & 2 collapses (maybe only 2, I don't recall, it has been some time).

I don't see how anyone can assert this is a controlled demolition when the collapses completely lack the deafening sound of the explosive charges.  Could you explain your position on this to me?

1) There are reports of numerous explosions.

B) I know what a controlled demolition looks like, having witnessed many of them.

III) It is expected the interiors of buildings undergoing demolition will be taken out firts and the fact is that is what we saw on 9/11.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 05:28:23 AM
Quote from: NIST
In a video, it appears that WTC 7 is descending in free fall, something that would not occur in the structural collapse that you describe. How can you ignore basic laws of physics?
In the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf), NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions. During the public comment period on the draft report, NIST was asked to confirm this time difference and define the reasons for it in greater detail.
To further clarify the descent of the north face, NIST recorded the downward displacement of a point near the center of the roofline from first movement until the north face was no longer visible in the video. Numerical analyses were conducted to calculate the velocity and acceleration of the roofline point from the time-dependent displacement data. The instant at which vertical motion of the roofline first occurred was determined by tracking the numerical value of the brightness of a pixel (a single element in the video image) at the roofline. This pixel became brighter as the roofline began to descend because the color of the pixel started to change from that of the building façade to the lighter color of the sky.
The approach taken by NIST is summarized in Section 3.6 of the final summary report, NCSTAR 1A (released Nov. 20, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf) and detailed in Section 12.5.3 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9 (available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-9%20Vol%202.pdf).
The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:
Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity

This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.

I don't think my views are that detached from reality.

My tone with Rayzor was due to his dishonesty.



I have been explicitly clear that I believe the official story doesn't address the 2.25 second free-fall, I have posted multiple experiments and logical points to explain this.

The only possible explanation for a collapse of gravitational acceleration is controlled demolition.

This is my position.

Edit, sauce.

https://www.nist.gov/pba/questions-and-answers-about-nist-wtc-7-investigation
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on February 18, 2017, 06:04:19 AM
Quote from: Rama Set on February 18, 2017, 05:21:15 AM
-Controlled demolitions look, sound and occur much differently than the collapse of the WTC buildings

Oh really?

Please post evidence that controlled demolitions look and occur differently from the demolitions of WTC 1, 2, and 7.

I would really like to see that.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sceptimatic on February 18, 2017, 06:14:24 AM
Let's get real and let's all look at it from a realistic point of view, regardless of who may know a certain story.

So here's the script.
We were told that fully fuelled passenger planes hit two towers.
We were shown something hitting one tower, which we were told by mainstream news, plus two film makers (Naudet brothers) who happened to be filming a day in the life of NY firefighters.

The second tower was shown to us as being hit by some kind of jet.
Basically this is what we have to go on, because this is what we were shown.

We then listen to witnesses who are so varied in what they heard, seen and knew for sure/or didn't...that we once again have to take in what the mainstream reports deduced from it.

Ok, so let's play it as real as we can and try and figure out what went on, against what we were told went on.

We know that the towers stayed intact and basically true to sight. (level)
We also know that the towers were burning black smoke, which indicates oxygen starved and not fierce.
We only know this because we have to follow what was shown to us on TV.

We also know that a firefighter radioed that there were only two ISOLATED pockets of fire and he/they should be able to knock it down with ONE hose..

We only know all of this because this is what mainstream reports played out to us.

By watching videos of the towers being built, many of us know that they had  FORTY SEVEN (47) central steel support columns.
We also know that there were WELDED and BOLTED floor trusses attached from these columns to the outer frame, (box section steel).

We also know that the entire floors were covered in metal sheets and then concrete.
The lifts were incorporated inside the central core columns.

Ok so let's apply some real definitive logic and common sense to what we can take from this as a basic truth or so close to it as to garner little to no argument against it by GENUINE people.

Note the word GENUINE.

Ok, we were told that the floor trusses weakened due to the plane knocking off the asbestos fire resistant material.
Let's say it all fell off on every floor, all around. I'm trying to be as fair as possible.

Ok so the floor trusses and the steel floor plates all warp ALL around the building and all give way, snapping all the bolts and welds.
Apparently this caused a pancake collapse, somehow.

Now let's think about the warping trusses.
They fall onto the next trusses but first must hit concrete floor and steel under plate, then transfer that entire floor onto the next, snapping all of the bolts and welds in that floor.

. Ok, so we have a few floors pancaking, but now we have a bigger resistance of floors that are not warped and are at premium strength from that point downwards.
We have to accept that the outer frame of box section just sheared off as this pancake is in motion.

Ok, fair enough, let's go with it.
Let's forget why the concrete just turns to dust, as well.

So what is left?
The 47 central steel core columns that were holding the trusses, because there is no way in hell that trusses can snap away from these columns and take down the columns with them.
There was no weight on the columns to crush them down.

But let's throw all that out of the window and accept that the entire building pancaked and pulverised as we were shown, all caused by pockets of fire and apparent steel slicing by plane wings and engines.

This still leaves a building to fall against it's own resistance of floors and actual core columns, plus floor pans and concrete.
This means a building over 1000 feet tall just collapses floor by floor as if the floors were made of polystyrene, because going by the mainstream filming we were all shown, we know that the towers fell in about 15 seconds...and I'm being very generous.

No matter which way you want to view it...one thing you can't dismiss and that is, you know for a fact that you could not have a building fall against the resistance that would give out and see it fall to the floor in 15 seconds or less.

UNLESS.......

Unless the towers had floors already weakened to take the drop, then detonated in order to make a close to free fall destruction.

I don't even want to look on that as me being a conspiracy theorist. I look on that as wondering what could cause that effect, considering what we were told begs massive questioning overall but at the very least, given as much lee-way to the official explanation, we will know that a free fall collapse cannot happen.

The only  way that I can see a free fall collapse happening is if it was controlled by certain strategically placed  explosives and shape cutting charges .


The leaning top of one tower that we were shown on TV and in pictures would never be able to crush the floors below. It would have toppled off but weirdly fall back as the tower below disintegrated.
This would be impossible unless it was a controlled weakening and demolition of the rest of the tower.

As for WTC 7... this requires absolutely no thought as to what happened to that, once you understand the other towers.
TV once again shows a classic controlled demolition.

There's a reason why demolition companies are so expert at what they do. It's because they understand the structural integrity of buildings and can take them down in many ways, depending on the surrounding areas.


On this day we have to look at the amount of coincidences that go so far beyond actually being accepted as the word COINCIDENCE for the way everything happened.
It borders on the ridiculous.

3 towers collapse into their own basements due to fire on the very same day. It's a coincidence.
WTC7: a fireman tells filming person to watch out as the building will be coming down. It's just a coincidence.
Larry Silverstein tells the fire commander that maybe the smartest thing to do is "pull it" when referring to WTC7 and he said "so they made that decision to PULL. Later told to us as him saying pull the firemen out of the building.  Just a coincidence it fell on it's own.

I could go on and on with so called coincidences. Probably over 50 that very day, but that's basically all they were according to those that stick to mainstream explanations.
It's up to people to ask themselves whether they want to genuinely question or think on these so called coincidences or just accept what's said even if they know there's massive discrepancies involved.

All of the so called excuses made that day is akin to a person being brought in for questioning about robbing banks and using all kinds of alibi's and coincidences to show his innocence, even though he has a striped burglar shirt on, wearing a lone ranger style burglar mask and carrying  a sawn off shotgun, with " this is a stick up, hand over the loot" written on his palm, then telling the police he was rehearsing for a play his friend was making.
You know the rest.

There's just a few things to think about out of so many. It's all about 4 things from this point on, in answering and admitting that you are:

1: Accepting of the official story no matter how many weird coincidences and almost impossible feats performed. You weren't there and you trust official sources no matter what, in total naivety and gullibility.

2:Accepting of the official story no matter how many weird coincidences and almost impossible feats performed. You weren't there and you trust official sources no matter what, by basically refusing to get into arguments with those you consider conspiracy loons, even though they have a legitimate cause to do so.

3: You are paid to sell the official story and will say and do anything required to ensure it stays as the official story says.

4: You know it begs questions in so much and you simply cannot accept the official story with so much that does not even begin to add up.


All I can say is, whichever way you choose to go; as long as you are genuine in your choice, with no agenda; then I say fair enough.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 18, 2017, 06:54:50 AM
Quote
No matter which way you want to view it...one thing you can't dismiss and that is, you know for a fact that you could not have a building fall against the resistance that would give out and see it fall to the floor in 15 seconds or less.

You can't have a building fall against something that is going to give out?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Heiwa on February 18, 2017, 07:14:35 AM
Quote from: sceptimatic on February 18, 2017, 06:14:24 AM
Let's get real and let's all look at it from a realistic point of view, regardless of who may know a certain story.

So here's the script.
We were told that fully fuelled passenger planes hit two towers.
We were shown something hitting one tower, which we were told by mainstream news, plus two film makers (Naudet brothers) who happened to be filming a day in the life of NY firefighters.

The second tower was shown to us as being hit by some kind of jet.
Basically this is what we have to go on, because this is what we were shown.

We then listen to witnesses who are so varied in what they heard, seen and knew for sure/or didn't...that we once again have to take in what the mainstream reports deduced from it.

Ok, so let's play it as real as we can and try and figure out what went on, against what we were told went on.

We know that the towers stayed intact and basically true to sight. (level)
We also know that the towers were burning black smoke, which indicates oxygen starved and not fierce.
We only know this because we have to follow what was shown to us on TV.

We also know that a firefighter radioed that there were only two ISOLATED pockets of fire and he/they should be able to knock it down with ONE hose..

We only know all of this because this is what mainstream reports played out to us.

By watching videos of the towers being built, many of us know that they had  FORTY SEVEN (47) central steel support columns.
We also know that there were WELDED and BOLTED floor trusses attached from these columns to the outer frame, (box section steel).

We also know that the entire floors were covered in metal sheets and then concrete.
The lifts were incorporated inside the central core columns.

Ok so let's apply some real definitive logic and common sense to what we can take from this as a basic truth or so close to it as to garner little to no argument against it by GENUINE people.

Note the word GENUINE.

Ok, we were told that the floor trusses weakened due to the plane knocking off the asbestos fire resistant material.
Let's say it all fell off on every floor, all around. I'm trying to be as fair as possible.

Ok so the floor trusses and the steel floor plates all warp ALL around the building and all give way, snapping all the bolts and welds.
Apparently this caused a pancake collapse, somehow.

Now let's think about the warping trusses.
They fall onto the next trusses but first must hit concrete floor and steel under plate, then transfer that entire floor onto the next, snapping all of the bolts and welds in that floor.

. Ok, so we have a few floors pancaking, but now we have a bigger resistance of floors that are not warped and are at premium strength from that point downwards.
We have to accept that the outer frame of box section just sheared off as this pancake is in motion.

Ok, fair enough, let's go with it.
Let's forget why the concrete just turns to dust, as well.

So what is left?
The 47 central steel core columns that were holding the trusses, because there is no way in hell that trusses can snap away from these columns and take down the columns with them.
There was no weight on the columns to crush them down.

But let's throw all that out of the window and accept that the entire building pancaked and pulverised as we were shown, all caused by pockets of fire and apparent steel slicing by plane wings and engines.

This still leaves a building to fall against it's own resistance of floors and actual core columns, plus floor pans and concrete.
This means a building over 1000 feet tall just collapses floor by floor as if the floors were made of polystyrene, because going by the mainstream filming we were all shown, we know that the towers fell in about 15 seconds...and I'm being very generous.

No matter which way you want to view it...one thing you can't dismiss and that is, you know for a fact that you could not have a building fall against the resistance that would give out and see it fall to the floor in 15 seconds or less.

UNLESS.......

Unless the towers had floors already weakened to take the drop, then detonated in order to make a close to free fall destruction.

I don't even want to look on that as me being a conspiracy theorist. I look on that as wondering what could cause that effect, considering what we were told begs massive questioning overall but at the very least, given as much lee-way to the official explanation, we will know that a free fall collapse cannot happen.

The only  way that I can see a free fall collapse happening is if it was controlled by certain strategically placed  explosives and shape cutting charges .


The leaning top of one tower that we were shown on TV and in pictures would never be able to crush the floors below. It would have toppled off but weirdly fall back as the tower below disintegrated.
This would be impossible unless it was a controlled weakening and demolition of the rest of the tower.

As for WTC 7... this requires absolutely no thought as to what happened to that, once you understand the other towers.
TV once again shows a classic controlled demolition.

There's a reason why demolition companies are so expert at what they do. It's because they understand the structural integrity of buildings and can take them down in many ways, depending on the surrounding areas.


On this day we have to look at the amount of coincidences that go so far beyond actually being accepted as the word COINCIDENCE for the way everything happened.
It borders on the ridiculous.

3 towers collapse into their own basements due to fire on the very same day. It's a coincidence.
WTC7: a fireman tells filming person to watch out as the building will be coming down. It's just a coincidence.
Larry Silverstein tells the fire commander that maybe the smartest thing to do is "pull it" when referring to WTC7 and he said "so they made that decision to PULL. Later told to us as him saying pull the firemen out of the building.  Just a coincidence it fell on it's own.

I could go on and on with so called coincidences. Probably over 50 that very day, but that's basically all they were according to those that stick to mainstream explanations.
It's up to people to ask themselves whether they want to genuinely question or think on these so called coincidences or just accept what's said even if they know there's massive discrepancies involved.

All of the so called excuses made that day is akin to a person being brought in for questioning about robbing banks and using all kinds of alibi's and coincidences to show his innocence, even though he has a striped burglar shirt on, wearing a lone ranger style burglar mask and carrying  a sawn off shotgun, with " this is a stick up, hand over the loot" written on his palm, then telling the police he was rehearsing for a play his friend was making.
You know the rest.

There's just a few things to think about out of so many. It's all about 4 things from this point on, in answering and admitting that you are:

1: Accepting of the official story no matter how many weird coincidences and almost impossible feats performed. You weren't there and you trust official sources no matter what, in total naivety and gullibility.

2:Accepting of the official story no matter how many weird coincidences and almost impossible feats performed. You weren't there and you trust official sources no matter what, by basically refusing to get into arguments with those you consider conspiracy loons, even though they have a legitimate cause to do so.

3: You are paid to sell the official story and will say and do anything required to ensure it stays as the official story says.

4: You know it begs questions in so much and you simply cannot accept the official story with so much that does not even begin to add up.


All I can say is, whichever way you choose to go; as long as you are genuine in your choice, with no agenda; then I say fair enough.

Hm, not only two tall towers #1&2 and a small tower #7 beside were completely destroyed. Also all buildings around #3, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9 were flattened. Imagine doing all this by landing two planes in the tops of the towers. With plenty people watching and reporters doing live TV broadcasts with towers falling behind them. Amazing! Magic. It could only have been created at Hollywood. Years before hand. Bill and Hillary come to mind. What a couple.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: onebigmonkey on February 18, 2017, 07:59:05 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on February 18, 2017, 07:14:35 AM
Quote from: sceptimatic on February 18, 2017, 06:14:24 AM
Let's get real and let's all look at it from a realistic point of view, regardless of who may know a certain story.

So here's the script.
We were told that fully fuelled passenger planes hit two towers.
We were shown something hitting one tower, which we were told by mainstream news, plus two film makers (Naudet brothers) who happened to be filming a day in the life of NY firefighters.

The second tower was shown to us as being hit by some kind of jet.
Basically this is what we have to go on, because this is what we were shown.

We then listen to witnesses who are so varied in what they heard, seen and knew for sure/or didn't...that we once again have to take in what the mainstream reports deduced from it.

Ok, so let's play it as real as we can and try and figure out what went on, against what we were told went on.

We know that the towers stayed intact and basically true to sight. (level)
We also know that the towers were burning black smoke, which indicates oxygen starved and not fierce.
We only know this because we have to follow what was shown to us on TV.

We also know that a firefighter radioed that there were only two ISOLATED pockets of fire and he/they should be able to knock it down with ONE hose..

We only know all of this because this is what mainstream reports played out to us.

By watching videos of the towers being built, many of us know that they had  FORTY SEVEN (47) central steel support columns.
We also know that there were WELDED and BOLTED floor trusses attached from these columns to the outer frame, (box section steel).

We also know that the entire floors were covered in metal sheets and then concrete.
The lifts were incorporated inside the central core columns.

Ok so let's apply some real definitive logic and common sense to what we can take from this as a basic truth or so close to it as to garner little to no argument against it by GENUINE people.

Note the word GENUINE.

Ok, we were told that the floor trusses weakened due to the plane knocking off the asbestos fire resistant material.
Let's say it all fell off on every floor, all around. I'm trying to be as fair as possible.

Ok so the floor trusses and the steel floor plates all warp ALL around the building and all give way, snapping all the bolts and welds.
Apparently this caused a pancake collapse, somehow.

Now let's think about the warping trusses.
They fall onto the next trusses but first must hit concrete floor and steel under plate, then transfer that entire floor onto the next, snapping all of the bolts and welds in that floor.

. Ok, so we have a few floors pancaking, but now we have a bigger resistance of floors that are not warped and are at premium strength from that point downwards.
We have to accept that the outer frame of box section just sheared off as this pancake is in motion.

Ok, fair enough, let's go with it.
Let's forget why the concrete just turns to dust, as well.

So what is left?
The 47 central steel core columns that were holding the trusses, because there is no way in hell that trusses can snap away from these columns and take down the columns with them.
There was no weight on the columns to crush them down.

But let's throw all that out of the window and accept that the entire building pancaked and pulverised as we were shown, all caused by pockets of fire and apparent steel slicing by plane wings and engines.

This still leaves a building to fall against it's own resistance of floors and actual core columns, plus floor pans and concrete.
This means a building over 1000 feet tall just collapses floor by floor as if the floors were made of polystyrene, because going by the mainstream filming we were all shown, we know that the towers fell in about 15 seconds...and I'm being very generous.

No matter which way you want to view it...one thing you can't dismiss and that is, you know for a fact that you could not have a building fall against the resistance that would give out and see it fall to the floor in 15 seconds or less.

UNLESS.......

Unless the towers had floors already weakened to take the drop, then detonated in order to make a close to free fall destruction.

I don't even want to look on that as me being a conspiracy theorist. I look on that as wondering what could cause that effect, considering what we were told begs massive questioning overall but at the very least, given as much lee-way to the official explanation, we will know that a free fall collapse cannot happen.

The only  way that I can see a free fall collapse happening is if it was controlled by certain strategically placed  explosives and shape cutting charges .


The leaning top of one tower that we were shown on TV and in pictures would never be able to crush the floors below. It would have toppled off but weirdly fall back as the tower below disintegrated.
This would be impossible unless it was a controlled weakening and demolition of the rest of the tower.

As for WTC 7... this requires absolutely no thought as to what happened to that, once you understand the other towers.
TV once again shows a classic controlled demolition.

There's a reason why demolition companies are so expert at what they do. It's because they understand the structural integrity of buildings and can take them down in many ways, depending on the surrounding areas.


On this day we have to look at the amount of coincidences that go so far beyond actually being accepted as the word COINCIDENCE for the way everything happened.
It borders on the ridiculous.

3 towers collapse into their own basements due to fire on the very same day. It's a coincidence.
WTC7: a fireman tells filming person to watch out as the building will be coming down. It's just a coincidence.
Larry Silverstein tells the fire commander that maybe the smartest thing to do is "pull it" when referring to WTC7 and he said "so they made that decision to PULL. Later told to us as him saying pull the firemen out of the building.  Just a coincidence it fell on it's own.

I could go on and on with so called coincidences. Probably over 50 that very day, but that's basically all they were according to those that stick to mainstream explanations.
It's up to people to ask themselves whether they want to genuinely question or think on these so called coincidences or just accept what's said even if they know there's massive discrepancies involved.

All of the so called excuses made that day is akin to a person being brought in for questioning about robbing banks and using all kinds of alibi's and coincidences to show his innocence, even though he has a striped burglar shirt on, wearing a lone ranger style burglar mask and carrying  a sawn off shotgun, with " this is a stick up, hand over the loot" written on his palm, then telling the police he was rehearsing for a play his friend was making.
You know the rest.

There's just a few things to think about out of so many. It's all about 4 things from this point on, in answering and admitting that you are:

1: Accepting of the official story no matter how many weird coincidences and almost impossible feats performed. You weren't there and you trust official sources no matter what, in total naivety and gullibility.

2:Accepting of the official story no matter how many weird coincidences and almost impossible feats performed. You weren't there and you trust official sources no matter what, by basically refusing to get into arguments with those you consider conspiracy loons, even though they have a legitimate cause to do so.

3: You are paid to sell the official story and will say and do anything required to ensure it stays as the official story says.

4: You know it begs questions in so much and you simply cannot accept the official story with so much that does not even begin to add up.


All I can say is, whichever way you choose to go; as long as you are genuine in your choice, with no agenda; then I say fair enough.

Hm, not only two tall towers #1&2 and a small tower #7 beside were completely destroyed. Also all buildings around #3, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 9 were flattened. Imagine doing all this by landing two planes in the tops of the towers.

This is typical of the shit you come out with, and you are surprised when people don't believe a word you say. If you can't tell the difference between a plane slamming into the side of a building and 'landing on top of it', then I thank God that you don't design planes.

Quote
With plenty people watching and reporters doing live TV broadcasts with towers falling behind them. Amazing! Magic.

Yep. Plenty witnesses.

Quote
It could only have been created at Hollywood. Years before hand.

Yep, years before the technology existed to create a live TV event like this in front of thousands of eye-witnesses, you think somehow that's what happened.

Quote
Bill and Hillary come to mind. What a couple.

What a dick.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rama Set on February 18, 2017, 08:31:46 AM
Quote from: totallackey on February 18, 2017, 06:04:19 AM
Quote from: Rama Set on February 18, 2017, 05:21:15 AM
-Controlled demolitions look, sound and occur much differently than the collapse of the WTC buildings

Oh really?

Please post evidence that controlled demolitions look and occur differently from the demolitions of WTC 1, 2, and 7.

I would really like to see that.

Controlled demolitions fall in their footprint and the WTC collapses damaged building all around them, so there's the look that differs. Yes, they fell fairly cleanly down for structures of their size, but it was not indicative of a controlled demolition in that regard.

As for the sound, in a controlled demolition, there is a clear and sequence of explosions that can be heard at quite a distance away which is noticeably absent from the WTC collapses. 

Sound of a controlled demolition:



If you can come up with a working theory that explicitly explains these facts, then I would be interested.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: hoppy on February 18, 2017, 08:32:57 AM
Onebigmarkjo ::)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: onebigmonkey on February 18, 2017, 09:43:07 AM
Quote from: hoppy on February 18, 2017, 08:32:57 AM
Onebigmarkjo ::)

Onemassivedickhead.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Heiwa on February 18, 2017, 10:37:01 AM
Quote from: onebigmonkey on February 18, 2017, 07:59:05 AM

This is typical of the shit you come out with, and you are surprised when people don't believe a word you say. If you can't tell the difference between a plane slamming into the side of a building and 'landing on top of it', then I thank God that you don't design planes.

Hm, long before 911 we established at the IMO around 1990/2 that oil tankers involved in collisions at sea were mostly structurally damaged above water line, which led to acceptance of better collision protection of oil tankers than double hull, i.e. my famous Coulombi Egg tanker. USCG agreed, by law and conventions, to everything but when approval was finally granted 1997, USA announced that my design was not allowed in USA. USA (GWB/Condi) decided that probably by some secret executive order, bla, bla, bla.
So I know what happens when ships slam into the sides of laden oil tankers. In no case the striking ship disappears into the stricken tanker. In most cases it bounces or gets stuck in the side. As it didn't happen 911 I conclude any footage of the collisions are fake.
Donald Trump will maybe change the situation 2018 with some executive order. Trump is like dictator Khadaffi of Libya in the past surrounded by pretty women firing staff right and left, some even before they are appointed, deciding everything. What a joke. Maybe Donald in spite of this will clarify the truth of 911. We will see!
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on February 18, 2017, 10:52:51 AM
Quote from: Rama Set on February 18, 2017, 08:31:46 AM
Controlled demolitions fall in their footprint and the WTC collapses damaged building all around them, so there's the look that differs. Yes, they fell fairly cleanly down for structures of their size, but it was not indicative of a controlled demolition in that regard.

As for the sound, in a controlled demolition, there is a clear and sequence of explosions that can be heard at quite a distance away which is noticeably absent from the WTC collapses. 

Sound of a controlled demolition:



If you can come up with a working theory that explicitly explains these facts, then I would be interested.

There were plenty of reports from people on the scene, including firefighters, of explosions going off.

If you are claiming the towers and building 7 did not look like a controlled demolition to you, I cannot help you.

That is just denial.

As far as collateral damage, these were the tallest buildings to date ever brought down and the expectation is there would be collateral damage. Other controlled demolitions have areas cleared out and safeguards (windows boarded up, tall walls erected in the vicinity, etc.) in place to minimize the fallout.

You will definitely need to try again.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rama Set on February 18, 2017, 11:26:52 AM
Quote from: totallackey on February 18, 2017, 10:52:51 AM
There were plenty of reports from people on the scene, including firefighters, of explosions going off.

Listen to it yourself.  There are no sounds resembling what a real controlled demolition sounds like.

Quote
If you are claiming the towers and building 7 did not look like a controlled demolition to you, I cannot help you.

If you can't make your case, I guess not.

Quote
That is just denial.

No, it is me using the facts at my disposal and making my best judgement.

Quote
As far as collateral damage, these were the tallest buildings to date ever brought down and the expectation is there would be collateral damage. Other controlled demolitions have areas cleared out and safeguards (windows boarded up, tall walls erected in the vicinity, etc.) in place to minimize the fallout.

WTC 7 was not the tallest building in the world and caused significant damage to building across the street from it.  This is more than the dust and small debris.  30 West Broadway suffered significant damage from the collapse of WTC 7, far beyond what you would expect from a controlled demolition.

Quote
You will definitely need to try again.

Not for you.  You aren't bringing much to the conversation for me.  Get back to me when you figure out how they masked the sound of the demolition charges.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on February 18, 2017, 02:45:52 PM
Quote from: Rama Set on February 18, 2017, 11:26:52 AM

Listen to it yourself.  There are no sounds resembling what a real controlled demolition sounds like.

Yeah, there were.

Plenty of witnesses and even footage of squibs going off as the 1 and 2 came down.


Quote from: Rama Set on February 18, 2017, 11:26:52 AM
If you can't make your case, I guess not.

Not interested in making a case for you.

You remain convinced of your version and Hip fucking Hooray for you.

Quote from: Rama Set on February 18, 2017, 11:26:52 AM
No, it is me using the facts at my disposal and making my best judgement.

Your best judgment is being demonstrated as toeing the OS line.

And signing on to the NIST reports which are demonstrably proven to be non-scientific.

Quote from: Rama Set on February 18, 2017, 11:26:52 AM
WTC 7 was not the tallest building in the world and caused significant damage to building across the street from it.  This is more than the dust and small debris.  30 West Broadway suffered significant damage from the collapse of WTC 7, far beyond what you would expect from a controlled demolition.

Listen, I already wrote there were ZERO safeguards in place when these buildings went down.

Seems you are claiming other controlled demolitions take place without any safeguards to mitigate collateral damage and other buildings can remain unscathed.

Quote from: Rama Set on February 18, 2017, 11:26:52 AM
Not for you.  You aren't bringing much to the conversation for me.  Get back to me when you figure out how they masked the sound of the demolition charges.

Fine by me.

You act as if sounds cannot be muffled or silenced when they can.

Those buildings came down in the same form and fashion as any other controlled demolition I have ever witnessed.

I know what I saw.

I know what I believe.

And all the pompousness, megalomania, conceit, misplaced derisiveness, and utter asshattery, you can muster will not change my mind one bit.

To borrow from Poppa...

Toodle Pip...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 18, 2017, 02:52:10 PM
Oh man....Why does Rama set and master evar have to join in...They were people I actually liked....Sigh... :(

All I keep hearing is "I believe"...This isn't a Disney show, nor can we click our heals.

Let's stick in reality.....This is where I like to be...

So, planes hitting a building, this is why they wouldn't fall....Simple facts...No thrills...Simple structural engineering...

Please....Someone debunk these with facts, no one has yet...

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 16, 2017, 01:38:27 AM
Let's assume I entertain the model your video shows (which I don't)...

So the plane is allowed to enter without restriction...Pass through the outside vertical exoskeleton and horizontal exoskeleton to the core.

Ok, those few floors are compromised on the 91-93 floors...That would not cause a collapse.

But let's say it did in that area.

It would collapse on itself at the path of least resistance...However, there is not enough damaged and removed material.

So you would have a situation such as this..

(http://i63.tinypic.com/11iohnq.jpg)

However, even if by magic it started a free fall collapse at that 90th floor, it would not make it past the 44th floor because of the doubled core stacking (this building did not have CG sway compensation like newer buildings so CG directional load was set up like older scrappers, more like a sea bowie), the lower 40 was built like a tank compared to the upper sections...Multiples of the mass of the upper decks.

However, if we keep using magic....Let's say it collapsed this area too....We would have this...

(http://i66.tinypic.com/35lf8s0.jpg)

Just multiped by a factor 3.8

And not at a free fall...

Would have taken anywhere from minutes to hours..

Stress junctions, their cert load in the 60s was anywhere from 5 times to 100times less than what it could take before complete failure...Not to mention, since the CG was controlled in a more simple "old school" design (as stated, like a sea bowie), the more mass you keep removing from the upper area, the more robust the bottom becomes as well as the CG continues to get lower.

If you had a 40 story WTC center with the same structural design, you would never knock that damn building over, you would have to dismantle that thing  piece by piece.

Unless we are using magic again.


If someone can, I will present 5 more facts to be debunked....If y'all can't, then it's done..


This is how robust buildings are (this didn't fall fyi, not even a bit)
(http://i68.tinypic.com/297rtj.jpg)

This is how buildings fall when they aren't demoed
(http://i66.tinypic.com/2444rbb.jpg)


Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 17, 2017, 07:17:26 PM
Reality....
Watch the tower at 2:39.....This destroys the official story right there without having to know a single thing of structural design.



This here proves that a building close to free fall hits solid ground can land without damage...It doesn't even flinch. It doesn't vaporize itself

Please people...Open your minds. Who perpetrated this is using a combo of y'all's ignorance in structural design and dynamics and fear of marching against mainstream to control you.

But ignoring this...Please, someone debunk these facts with clear concise answers please
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 18, 2017, 02:55:57 PM
This corrosive and evil conspiracy theory  must not be allowed to go unchallenged.  As others have pointed out,  the consequences of that attack on western civilization are still being played out in Syria, Iraq and even places like France and Germany.  Osama Bin Laden wanted to start a global war.  The clash of cultures. Unless saner heads than MIller/Bannon/Trump prevail.  He might get it.  Let's hope not for all our sakes.

Let's start with the demolition theory.

1. There is no direct evidence of explosives or thermite or any other exotic mechanism having been involved with the collapse of the WTC buildings,  no chemical residue,  nothing.
2. If you were going to use explosives,  why would you place the charges so high up in the building?   Nobody in the demolition business does that.
3.  The collapse started from the area where the planes hit. 
4.  On WTC7 the fire department,  knew as early as 2 in the afternoon that WTC7 was likely to collapse due to the fires, it eventually did collapse around 5.  They measured the walls bulging. 

So why did WTC1 and WTC2 collapse,  if you read the NIST reports, and study their data,  the primary reason for the collapse was the fires which weakened the steel structure to the point that several floors in the middle of the building collapse,  that meant that the potential energy and momentum of all the floors above the collapse point was applied to the floors below, and as the floors below collapsed their weight and momentum added to the total,  so the loading increased as each floor collapsed.  You can see this progression in the video.   It doesn't look like demolition,  at least not the ones that BHS posted.

As for the free fall argument,  it doesn't stack up,  the debris was falling faster than the collapse,  that should tell you right away that the collapse wasn't free fall.

There is ample evidence that various US government intelligence agencies knew enough bit and pieces of the attack plan,  but,  due to lack of inter-agency cooperation failed to connect the dots.

Another area that intelligence agencies failed was the over-reliance on electronic survielance rather than personal contacts and boots on the ground intelligence gathering.  You could have probably unravelled the whole plot if the spooks weren't so busy relying on satellite eavesdropping.

Since I know totallackey is going to ask,  he seems fixated on it.   
Why didn't NIST release some specific model data,   The cited "Public Safety" as the reason,   That may or may not be the truth?   There is no way to tell what the motivation was.

I should add, they released pretty much everything, ( 10,000 pages ) certainly more than enough for their report to be questioned and falsified.   And there are plenty of parts of the report that are open to critisism,  there is room for conjecture about some of the details of the collapse,  but that's nit picking around the edges,  the central thrust of the report stands. 

Large commercial aircraft  hit the WTC,  the subsequent fires weakened the steel structure to the extent that a few floors in the middle of the structure collapsed, from then on the collapse was unstoppable. 

Let's hope the conspiracy theorists are eventually exposed for the lying cherry-picking pseudo scientifc frauds that they are.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on February 18, 2017, 03:04:34 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 18, 2017, 02:55:57 PM
This corrosive and evil conspiracy theory  must not be allowed to go unchallenged.  As others have pointed out,  the consequences of that attack on western civilization are still being played out in Syria, Iraq and even places like France and Germany.  Osama Bin Laden wanted to start a global war. 

What entity bankrolled Osama Bin Laden?

Quote from: Rayzor on February 18, 2017, 02:55:57 PM
I should add, they released pretty much everything, ( 10,000 pages ) certainly more than enough for their report to be questioned and falsified.

This must be the most idiotic thing ever written on these boards.

The NIST conclusions were based on modeling in a computer.

In other words, the NIST stated they could provide a computer model replicating the collapses of all three buildings according to planes, then fires, then collateral damage and fires.

Of course you can.

But does the INPUTS/RESULTS data being entered MATCH the parameters of PHYSICAL REALITY!?!?

If it does, fine.

Release the data and let models be repeated and subject to falsification.
Quote from: Rayzor on February 18, 2017, 02:55:57 PM
Let's hope the conspiracy theorists are eventually exposed for the lying cherry-picking pseudo scientifc(sic) frauds that they are.

Aside from forgetting the OS claims it was a conspiracy...

That would be the most apt description you could apply to yourself and I could not write it any better.

You are the one trumpeting the reports of the NIST when you know damn well the conclusions of those reports are not testable and thereby not subject to falsification; therefore, you are the one who can be labeled as pseudo-scientific in this arena.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 18, 2017, 03:06:46 PM
As for sound of the demos....There were 1000s of people including first responders that heard explosions....You can hear them on video evidence as well.

Here
One of the world's most expensive structural fuck ups (bedrock stacking fuck up)


This is an old school demo, using close to a 1000 charges. Dead silence, not a bustling city area, no windows nor sound deadening completely open. The demo is pretty quiet huh??

(Most demos they remove windows and sound deadening material fyi, it is never a fully intact building ::) )

Now, let's put charges that were designed to be quiet and fool people, in a fully intact building windows and all, in a bustling city with chaos panic sirens etc etc etc AND people still heard explosions lol.....

Let's not get distracted on the hypothetical, this is a typical tactic....Let's stay on known facts
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 18, 2017, 03:10:18 PM
Quote from: totallackey on February 18, 2017, 03:04:34 PM
You are the one trumpeting the reports of the NIST when you know damn well the conclusions of those reports are not testable and thereby not subject to falsification; therefore, you are the one who can be labeled as pseudo-scientific in this arena.

Not true,   plenty of their report is under active debate,  has been for years,  maybe you just aren't paying attention.   Maybe your understanding of how science works is flawed.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on February 18, 2017, 03:13:43 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 18, 2017, 03:10:18 PM
Not true,   plenty of their report is under active debate,  has been for years,  maybe you just aren't paying attention.   Maybe your understanding of how science works is flawed.

Maybe you will notice I have described the scientific method in exact detail.

Maybe you will notice all aspects of models including the inputs and results data must be subject to peer review in order to determine whether they can be repeated and/or falsified in order for actual debate to take place.

Actually, your disingenuous behavior here is beginning to make me sick.

I am trying very hard to avoid a bam hammer, but if you keep this lying _ _ _ _ _ _ _ shit up I think I may go for a perma ban.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 18, 2017, 03:16:00 PM


This looks nothing like any video that BHS has posted,   note the way the collapse progresses down the building, does't look anything like free fall demolition.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 18, 2017, 03:23:04 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 18, 2017, 02:55:57 PM
1. There is no direct evidence of explosives or thermite or any other exotic mechanism having been involved with the collapse of the WTC buildings,  no chemical residue,  nothing.
2. If you were going to use explosives,  why would you place the charges so high up in the building?   Nobody in the demolition business does that.
3.  The collapse started from the area where the planes hit. 
4.  On WTC7 the fire department,  knew as early as 2 in the afternoon that WTC7 was likely to collapse due to the fires, it eventually did collapse around 5.  They measured the walls bulging. 

Silence troll...You had your chance and failed...You choose to believe a fairy tale, and stick up for a model we know nothing about. Nor can you speak for yourself or form a single rebuttal except for NIST said it, so it's true.

Oh as for your list above...

1. There is nano thermite in the dust, simple fact. Peer reviewed... Mainstream explanation, from the compression of the towers coming down. This is irrelevant though to the fact the collapse as stated is impossible.

2.One, they weaken the upper areas in demos, two who said they had explosives up there, three in normal demos they aren't trying to make it look like something else.

3.This is dumb...If you are trying to make it look like something?

4. Why would they not?!? They didn't know, they were fucking scared, I would be to. They lost hundreds of men in something that shouldn't of happened... The should or should not would not happen, they were not engineers, they were firemen...Confused and scared... I am an engineer, but if I was in their shoes at that exact moment, I would be scared anything with any fire was going to collapse. "We didn't know what was going on, we just didn't want anymore loss of life, and we didn't know if anything else was going to collapse"...Exact words...They knew nothing, they were scared and rightfully so. Fortunally they haven't had a tower collapse before this or after this from fire (or anything ) in NYC..It's because of trolls like you these people will never find justice.

5. Dumb from too many levels to respond
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on February 18, 2017, 03:24:36 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 18, 2017, 03:16:00 PM


This looks nothing like any video that BHS has posted,   note the way the collapse progresses down the building, does't look anything like free fall demolition.

I say it looks exactly like a 1300 foot tall building coming down in a controlled demolition.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 18, 2017, 03:28:14 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 18, 2017, 03:16:00 PM


This looks nothing like any video that BHS has posted,   note the way the collapse progresses down the building, does't look anything like free fall demolition.

I have already explained the extra time in previous posts...We weren't starting at free fall, I am not retyping things I have already said to you....Will you please give it up, I want to hear what people who are not trolls have to say. You have proven you have nothing.

Thanks
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 18, 2017, 03:50:59 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 18, 2017, 03:28:14 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 18, 2017, 03:16:00 PM


This looks nothing like any video that BHS has posted,   note the way the collapse progresses down the building, does't look anything like free fall demolition.

I have already explained the extra time in previous posts...We weren't starting at free fall, I am not retyping things I have already said to you....Will you please give it up, I want to hear what people who are not trolls have to say. You have proven you have nothing.

Thanks

No problem,  I'm interested to see what others think of your incoherent ramblings as well.   
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 18, 2017, 03:59:46 PM
Wait....Hold on...I knew something looked funny...

I just watched that video you posted.... It's slowed down mother fucker!!!

I was watching the movement of the people at the bottom of the screen..And it was bugging me, I time lapsed it with other footage from a different angle...It's fucking slowed down.

Get out of here rayzor......I never really believed in Internet shills, but you are making me a believer.

You are disgusting
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 18, 2017, 04:04:04 PM
Now....Anyone care to address these... I would be happy to entertain them...

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 18, 2017, 02:52:10 PM
Oh man....Why does Rama set and master evar have to join in...They were people I actually liked....Sigh... :(

All I keep hearing is "I believe"...This isn't a Disney show, nor can we click our heals.

Let's stick in reality.....This is where I like to be...

So, planes hitting a building, this is why they wouldn't fall....Simple facts...No thrills...Simple structural engineering...

Please....Someone debunk these with facts, no one has yet...

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 16, 2017, 01:38:27 AM
Let's assume I entertain the model your video shows (which I don't)...

So the plane is allowed to enter without restriction...Pass through the outside vertical exoskeleton and horizontal exoskeleton to the core.

Ok, those few floors are compromised on the 91-93 floors...That would not cause a collapse.

But let's say it did in that area.

It would collapse on itself at the path of least resistance...However, there is not enough damaged and removed material.

So you would have a situation such as this..

(http://i63.tinypic.com/11iohnq.jpg)

However, even if by magic it started a free fall collapse at that 90th floor, it would not make it past the 44th floor because of the doubled core stacking (this building did not have CG sway compensation like newer buildings so CG directional load was set up like older scrappers, more like a sea bowie), the lower 40 was built like a tank compared to the upper sections...Multiples of the mass of the upper decks.

However, if we keep using magic....Let's say it collapsed this area too....We would have this...

(http://i66.tinypic.com/35lf8s0.jpg)

Just multiped by a factor 3.8

And not at a free fall...

Would have taken anywhere from minutes to hours..

Stress junctions, their cert load in the 60s was anywhere from 5 times to 100times less than what it could take before complete failure...Not to mention, since the CG was controlled in a more simple "old school" design (as stated, like a sea bowie), the more mass you keep removing from the upper area, the more robust the bottom becomes as well as the CG continues to get lower.

If you had a 40 story WTC center with the same structural design, you would never knock that damn building over, you would have to dismantle that thing  piece by piece.

Unless we are using magic again.


If someone can, I will present 5 more facts to be debunked....If y'all can't, then it's done..


This is how robust buildings are (this didn't fall fyi, not even a bit)
(http://i68.tinypic.com/297rtj.jpg)

This is how buildings fall when they aren't demoed
(http://i66.tinypic.com/2444rbb.jpg)


Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 17, 2017, 07:17:26 PM
Reality....
Watch the tower at 2:39.....This destroys the official story right there without having to know a single thing of structural design.



This here proves that a building close to free fall hits solid ground can land without damage...It doesn't even flinch. It doesn't vaporize itself

Please people...Open your minds. Who perpetrated this is using a combo of y'all's ignorance in structural design and dynamics and fear of marching against mainstream to control you.

But ignoring this...Please, someone debunk these facts with clear concise answers please

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 18, 2017, 03:06:46 PM
As for sound of the demos....There were 1000s of people including first responders that heard explosions....You can hear them on video evidence as well.

Here
One of the world's most expensive structural fuck ups (bedrock stacking fuck up)


This is an old school demo, using close to a 1000 charges. Dead silence, not a bustling city area, no windows nor sound deadening completely open. The demo is pretty quiet huh??

(Most demos they remove windows and sound deadening material fyi, it is never a fully intact building ::) )

Now, let's put charges that were designed to be quiet and fool people, in a fully intact building windows and all, in a bustling city with chaos panic sirens etc etc etc AND people still heard explosions lol.....

Let's not get distracted on the hypothetical, this is a typical tactic....Let's stay on known facts


Everyone is welcome except for confirmed trolls which only excludes rayzor so far.

Directly please, no circular talk or hypothetical. Thanks.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 18, 2017, 05:43:31 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 18, 2017, 03:59:46 PM
Wait....Hold on...I knew something looked funny...

I just watched that video you posted.... It's slowed down mother fucker!!!

I was watching the movement of the people at the bottom of the screen..And it was bugging me, I time lapsed it with other footage from a different angle...It's fucking slowed down.

Get out of here rayzor......I never really believed in Internet shills, but you are making me a believer.

You are disgusting

You want to double check that claim  before you make yourself look totally stupid.   I'll wait.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 18, 2017, 05:48:09 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 18, 2017, 04:04:04 PM
Now....Anyone care to address these... I would be happy to entertain them...

It's so distorted and confused I sincerely doubt anyone actually knows what you are trying to say,  I tried to unravel it several times,  you seem to be saying the building didn't collapse because a totally different building in different circumstances didn't collapse.    Got news for you BHS,  they did actually collapse,  check the video.

As for the demolition videos you keep posting,   what can I say, that's just brain damaged.  If you had a demolition video showing the progressive collapse like we saw on WTC1 and 2,  that might be relevant.



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 06:35:16 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 05:28:23 AM
Quote from: NIST
In a video, it appears that WTC 7 is descending in free fall, something that would not occur in the structural collapse that you describe. How can you ignore basic laws of physics?
In the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf), NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions. During the public comment period on the draft report, NIST was asked to confirm this time difference and define the reasons for it in greater detail.
To further clarify the descent of the north face, NIST recorded the downward displacement of a point near the center of the roofline from first movement until the north face was no longer visible in the video. Numerical analyses were conducted to calculate the velocity and acceleration of the roofline point from the time-dependent displacement data. The instant at which vertical motion of the roofline first occurred was determined by tracking the numerical value of the brightness of a pixel (a single element in the video image) at the roofline. This pixel became brighter as the roofline began to descend because the color of the pixel started to change from that of the building façade to the lighter color of the sky.
The approach taken by NIST is summarized in Section 3.6 of the final summary report, NCSTAR 1A (released Nov. 20, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf) and detailed in Section 12.5.3 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9 (available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-9%20Vol%202.pdf).
The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:
Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity

This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.

I don't think my views are that detached from reality.

My tone with Rayzor was due to his dishonesty.



I have been explicitly clear that I believe the official story doesn't address the 2.25 second free-fall, I have posted multiple experiments and logical points to explain this.

The only possible explanation for a collapse of gravitational acceleration is controlled demolition.

This is my position.

Edit, sauce.

https://www.nist.gov/pba/questions-and-answers-about-nist-wtc-7-investigation

Rama Set, what do you think of this?

Rayzor, use your words man.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 18, 2017, 07:15:03 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 18, 2017, 05:43:31 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 18, 2017, 03:59:46 PM
Wait....Hold on...I knew something looked funny...

I just watched that video you posted.... It's slowed down mother fucker!!!

I was watching the movement of the people at the bottom of the screen..And it was bugging me, I time lapsed it with other footage from a different angle...It's fucking slowed down.

Get out of here rayzor......I never really believed in Internet shills, but you are making me a believer.

You are disgusting

You want to double check that claim  before you make yourself look totally stupid.   I'll wait.

I did troll...Read the post again.
Quote from: Rayzor on February 18, 2017, 05:48:09 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 18, 2017, 04:04:04 PM
Now....Anyone care to address these... I would be happy to entertain them...

It's so distorted and confused I sincerely doubt anyone actually knows what you are trying to say,  I tried to unravel it several times,  you seem to be saying the building didn't collapse because a totally different building in different circumstances didn't collapse.    Got news for you BHS,  they did actually collapse,  check the video.

As for the demolition videos you keep posting,   what can I say, that's just brain damaged.  If you had a demolition video showing the progressive collapse like we saw on WTC1 and 2,  that might be relevant.

Usual twisted rayzor bullshit. I never said the buildings never collapsed, what the fuck are you talking about? I posted videos to show how structures absorb stress and impact in the real world for those that are not in that line of work.

The one I said specifically to look at was a still frames/reinforced concrete building of similar design of the trade center. The upper weaker area reached a high speed, then impacted a stationary object...It showed how these structures really react.


Just because you lack the needed mental abilities to debate me does not mean others don't. Now quit responding to me, let others try, they might have what it takes.


Though I will leave you with a few of these

 “I don’t believe for a minute we got everything right”, that the Commission was set up to fail, that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, and that the 9/11 debate should continue"

"White house obstructed our investigation"

Co chair of commission report Lee Hamilton

“There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn’t have access . . . .”

Commissioner Bob Kerry

“It is a national scandal”; “This investigation is now compromised”; and “One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up”.

Max cleland before he resigned from the commission...

This is from the report you idolize... I have plenty more quotes, but know it won't matter to someone like you. Just figured i would let those you idolize argue for me.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 18, 2017, 07:25:06 PM
 Ok,  BHS,  let's put the acrimony to one side for a minute.  We can get back to exchanging insults later.

 Let's try and focus on just one issue,

1.  What caused the collapse? 

You haven't yet said what your theory is.   
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 07:28:57 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 18, 2017, 07:25:06 PM
Ok,  BHS,  let's put the acrimony to one side for a minute.  We can get back to exchanging insults later.

 Let's try and focus on just one issue,

1.  What caused the collapse? 

You haven't yet said what your theory is.

Controlled demolition, caused the collapse of building 7 at gravitational acceleration for 2.25 seconds.

Hi Papa  :-* :-*
I had a feeling.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 18, 2017, 07:32:37 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 07:28:57 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 18, 2017, 07:25:06 PM
Ok,  BHS,  let's put the acrimony to one side for a minute.  We can get back to exchanging insults later.

 Let's try and focus on just one issue,

1.  What caused the collapse? 

You haven't yet said what your theory is.

Controlled demolition, caused the collapse of building 7 at gravitational acceleration for 2.25 seconds.

Hi Papa  :-* :-*
I had a feeling.

Don't fall for it dispute...This is all he has, he wants to get back to theory and away from facts.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 07:36:28 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 18, 2017, 07:32:37 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 07:28:57 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 18, 2017, 07:25:06 PM
Ok,  BHS,  let's put the acrimony to one side for a minute.  We can get back to exchanging insults later.

 Let's try and focus on just one issue,

1.  What caused the collapse? 

You haven't yet said what your theory is.

Controlled demolition, caused the collapse of building 7 at gravitational acceleration for 2.25 seconds.

Hi Papa  :-* :-*
I had a feeling.

Don't fall for it dispute...This is all he has, he wants to get back to theory and away from facts.

That's been obvious from page one ;D ;D ;D also I am learnding heapz from this thread.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 18, 2017, 07:38:23 PM
Now...Back to facts...No theories..

Let's discuss why the collapse could not happen as stated in the official report.

I would like these facts debunked please...

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 18, 2017, 02:52:10 PM
Oh man....Why does Rama set and master evar have to join in...They were people I actually liked....Sigh... :(

All I keep hearing is "I believe"...This isn't a Disney show, nor can we click our heals.

Let's stick in reality.....This is where I like to be...

So, planes hitting a building, this is why they wouldn't fall....Simple facts...No thrills...Simple structural engineering...

Please....Someone debunk these with facts, no one has yet...

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 16, 2017, 01:38:27 AM
Let's assume I entertain the model your video shows (which I don't)...

So the plane is allowed to enter without restriction...Pass through the outside vertical exoskeleton and horizontal exoskeleton to the core.

Ok, those few floors are compromised on the 91-93 floors...That would not cause a collapse.

But let's say it did in that area.

It would collapse on itself at the path of least resistance...However, there is not enough damaged and removed material.

So you would have a situation such as this..

(http://i63.tinypic.com/11iohnq.jpg)

However, even if by magic it started a free fall collapse at that 90th floor, it would not make it past the 44th floor because of the doubled core stacking (this building did not have CG sway compensation like newer buildings so CG directional load was set up like older scrappers, more like a sea bowie), the lower 40 was built like a tank compared to the upper sections...Multiples of the mass of the upper decks.

However, if we keep using magic....Let's say it collapsed this area too....We would have this...

(http://i66.tinypic.com/35lf8s0.jpg)

Just multiped by a factor 3.8

And not at a free fall...

Would have taken anywhere from minutes to hours..

Stress junctions, their cert load in the 60s was anywhere from 5 times to 100times less than what it could take before complete failure...Not to mention, since the CG was controlled in a more simple "old school" design (as stated, like a sea bowie), the more mass you keep removing from the upper area, the more robust the bottom becomes as well as the CG continues to get lower.

If you had a 40 story WTC center with the same structural design, you would never knock that damn building over, you would have to dismantle that thing  piece by piece.

Unless we are using magic again.


If someone can, I will present 5 more facts to be debunked....If y'all can't, then it's done..


This is how robust buildings are (this didn't fall fyi, not even a bit)
(http://i68.tinypic.com/297rtj.jpg)

This is how buildings fall when they aren't demoed
(http://i66.tinypic.com/2444rbb.jpg)


Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 17, 2017, 07:17:26 PM
Reality....
Watch the tower at 2:39.....This destroys the official story right there without having to know a single thing of structural design.



This here proves that a building close to free fall hits solid ground can land without damage...It doesn't even flinch. It doesn't vaporize itself

Please people...Open your minds. Who perpetrated this is using a combo of y'all's ignorance in structural design and dynamics and fear of marching against mainstream to control you.

But ignoring this...Please, someone debunk these facts with clear concise answers please

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 18, 2017, 03:06:46 PM
As for sound of the demos....There were 1000s of people including first responders that heard explosions....You can hear them on video evidence as well.

Here
One of the world's most expensive structural fuck ups (bedrock stacking fuck up)


This is an old school demo, using close to a 1000 charges. Dead silence, not a bustling city area, no windows nor sound deadening completely open. The demo is pretty quiet huh??

(Most demos they remove windows and sound deadening material fyi, it is never a fully intact building ::) )

Now, let's put charges that were designed to be quiet and fool people, in a fully intact building windows and all, in a bustling city with chaos panic sirens etc etc etc AND people still heard explosions lol.....

Let's not get distracted on the hypothetical, this is a typical tactic....Let's stay on known facts


I would also like talk about why inputs of the models used will never be released (they said it, not an assumption)...I can make models reflect anything, the beauty of not existing in reality.

Also why the people of the commission itself said the report was a conspiracy and a lie

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 18, 2017, 07:15:03 PM
Though I will leave you with a few of these

 “I don’t believe for a minute we got everything right”, that the Commission was set up to fail, that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, and that the 9/11 debate should continue"

"White house obstructed our investigation"

Co chair of commission report Lee Hamilton

“There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn’t have access . . . .”

Commissioner Bob Kerry

“It is a national scandal”; “This investigation is now compromised”; and “One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up”.

Max cleland before he resigned from the commission...

This is from the report you idolize... I have plenty more quotes, but know it won't matter to someone like you. Just figured i would let those you idolize argue for me.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 07:41:16 PM
(https://s10.postimg.org/jphgeu2h5/images_34.jpg)

Hey Papa Rayzor.

(https://s1.postimg.org/e9i11k60v/images_47.jpg)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 18, 2017, 07:49:21 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 18, 2017, 07:32:37 PM
Don't fall for it dispute...This is all he has, he wants to get back to theory and away from facts.

Wow, are you really  so far gone that,  in your  world,  asking  the question what caused the collapse of the WTC buildings is a trick question?


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 07:54:01 PM
Hi Papa.

Quote from: Rayzor on February 18, 2017, 07:49:21 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 18, 2017, 07:32:37 PM
Don't fall for it dispute...This is all he has, he wants to get back to theory and away from facts.

Wow, are you really  so far gone that,  in your  world,  asking  the question what caused the collapse of the WTC buildings is a trick question?

Quote from: Papa Legba on February 18, 2017, 12:11:42 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on January 18, 2017, 01:07:02 PM
the Newcastle was an employee's

So you allow your employees to drink at work & balance half-full beer bottles on their machinery?

Really?

Cool story sister...

Whatever; you are female & live in Italy; I have all the details.

You also run this mad disinfo-forum:

https://www.mgtowhq.com/

You are so far beyond mental that you have entered some kind of parallel universe of total disinfo-psychosis & I simply do not know how to interact with you any more...

Good thing all I have to do is point at you & laugh then, eh?

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 18, 2017, 07:56:40 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 18, 2017, 07:49:21 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 18, 2017, 07:32:37 PM
Don't fall for it dispute...This is all he has, he wants to get back to theory and away from facts.

Wow, are you really  so far gone that,  in your  world,  asking  the question what caused the collapse of the WTC buildings is a trick question?

Debunk what I said about the impossibility of planes being able to cause the collapse....There are only a few tid bits up top to debunk.

All forms of what really happened is only educated theory. Why the towers could not collapse as stated is facts, I want to stay with facts. That is all that is needed here...

Now quit stalling.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 18, 2017, 08:08:53 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 18, 2017, 07:15:03 PM

Though I will leave you with a few of these

 “I don’t believe for a minute we got everything right”, that the Commission was set up to fail, that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, and that the 9/11 debate should continue"

"White house obstructed our investigation"

Co chair of commission report Lee Hamilton

“There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn’t have access . . . .”

Commissioner Bob Kerry

“It is a national scandal”; “This investigation is now compromised”; and “One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up”.

Max cleland before he resigned from the commission...

This is from the report you idolize... I have plenty more quotes, but know it won't matter to someone like you. Just figured i would let those you idolize argue for me.

I think they were spot on with their comments about certain aspects of the 911 commission,  the Bush White House covered up  information that the CIA had and never acted on,  they  stonewalled the commission's access to restricted intelligence reports.

The fact that no-one connected the dots,  is a scandal of epic proportions,  the intelligence community failed.   The FBI refused to allow the commission access to key witnesses and on it goes.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 08:13:33 PM
Facts, address the physics.

Quote
Debunk what I said about the impossibility of planes being able to cause the collapse....There are only a few tid bits up top to debunk.

All forms of what really happened is only educated theory. Why the towers could not collapse as stated is facts, I want to stay with facts. That is all that is needed here...

Now quit stalling.

(https://s21.postimg.org/cze0uicnb/1485911163409.jpg)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 18, 2017, 08:36:41 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 18, 2017, 07:56:40 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 18, 2017, 07:49:21 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 18, 2017, 07:32:37 PM
Don't fall for it dispute...This is all he has, he wants to get back to theory and away from facts.

Wow, are you really  so far gone that,  in your  world,  asking  the question what caused the collapse of the WTC buildings is a trick question?

Debunk what I said about the impossibility of planes being able to cause the collapse....There are only a few tid bits up top to debunk.

All forms of what really happened is only educated theory. Why the towers could not collapse as stated is facts, I want to stay with facts. That is all that is needed here...

Now quit stalling.

The examples you cite as facts, while no doubt true,  bear no relevance to WTC1 and WTC2.   

Here are the real facts.

1. Both towers were hit by aircraft.    WTC1 was hit by a hijacked fully loaded 767 AA11.  WTC2 was hit by another hijacked 767 UA175.
2. Both impacts caused significant structural damage and started fires.
3. The collapse initiation point is both cases was the fire damaged area hit by the aircraft.
4. The type of collapse was progressive collapse. 
5. The collapse was slower than free fall. 

If you want to present your "alternative facts"   try to make it relevant to the topic under discussion.




Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 08:49:00 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 17, 2017, 01:30:31 AM
Thanks mate.

The thread is right here, for anyone who wants to read and consider. We have fought bravely but unfortunately Rayzor.

Rayzor feels no guilt, Rayzor feels no shame, Rayzor has no integrity and he will not stop shitposting, ever, until we stop posting and he claims victory.

Another free prediction.

Quote from: Rayzor on February 18, 2017, 08:36:41 PM
The examples you cite as facts, while no doubt true,  bear no relevance to WTC1 and WTC2.

Wait, what?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 18, 2017, 09:09:58 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 18, 2017, 08:36:41 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 18, 2017, 07:56:40 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 18, 2017, 07:49:21 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 18, 2017, 07:32:37 PM
Don't fall for it dispute...This is all he has, he wants to get back to theory and away from facts.

Wow, are you really  so far gone that,  in your  world,  asking  the question what caused the collapse of the WTC buildings is a trick question?

Debunk what I said about the impossibility of planes being able to cause the collapse....There are only a few tid bits up top to debunk.

All forms of what really happened is only educated theory. Why the towers could not collapse as stated is facts, I want to stay with facts. That is all that is needed here...

Now quit stalling.

The examples you cite as facts, while no doubt true,  bear no relevance to WTC1 and WTC2.   

Here are the real facts.

1. Both towers were hit by aircraft.    WTC1 was hit by a hijacked fully loaded 767 AA11.  WTC2 was hit by another hijacked 767 UA175.
2. Both impacts caused significant structural damage and started fires.
3. The collapse initiation point is both cases was the fire damaged area hit by the aircraft.
4. The type of collapse was progressive collapse. 
5. The collapse was slower than free fall. 

If you want to present your "alternative facts"   try to make it relevant to the topic under discussion.

Quote from: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 08:49:00 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 18, 2017, 08:36:41 PM
The examples you cite as facts, while no doubt true,  bear no relevance to WTC1 and WTC2.

Wait, what?

The facts I stated, which you except are true mean everything and surely do matter.

The facts I have already presented, and all the facts I have not presented yet show that the tower could not have had a progressive collapse the way the commission report says..Not to mention building 7 that was not struck.

So if there is an entire report that is a lie...What are they covering up...Who are the real perpetrators?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 18, 2017, 09:19:55 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 18, 2017, 09:09:58 PM

The facts I stated, which you except are true mean everything and surely do matter.

The facts I have already presented, and all the facts I have not presented yet show that the tower could not have had a progressive collapse the way the commission report says..Not to mention building 7 that was not struck.

So if there is an entire report that is a lie...What are they covering up...Who are the real perpetrators?

I'm sure you meant accept,  not except.

So what are the facts not yet presented which you claim prove the tower could not have had a progressive collapse?

If you want to claim the entire report is a lie,  you need evidence,  so far you've shown nothing.   I agree that there was probably a cover up about what the intelligence agencies actually knew beforehand,  but that can be treated as a separate issue.   We are discussing the causes and mechanism of the collapse,  this is engineering and physics,   not spooks and politics. 

Just a point of protocol  disputeone,  I have you on ignore,  could someone please quote him if he says anything of relevance.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: markjo on February 18, 2017, 09:27:40 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed
This is how robust buildings are (this didn't fall fyi, not even a bit)
(http://i68.tinypic.com/297rtj.jpg)
Umm...  You do realize that building was only about 1/3 as tall as the towers and had a reinforced concrete core, don't you?  Kinda apples and oranges.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 09:39:27 PM
Quote from: markjo on February 18, 2017, 09:27:40 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed
This is how robust buildings are (this didn't fall fyi, not even a bit)
(http://i68.tinypic.com/297rtj.jpg)
Umm...  You do realize that building was only about 1/3 as tall as the towers and had a reinforced concrete core, don't you?  Kinda apples and oranges.

Fair point markjo, That wasn't claimed as evidence, just comparison.

I have said it before, my issue is the 2.25 seconds of gravitational acceleration for building 7, I kept bringing it up to Rayzor and now he's ignored me.

Would you like to explain how you think building 7 fell at gravitational acceleration for 2.25 seconds given the official story?

My position is that the official position is untrue as any structure providing any mechanical resistance will not fall at gravitational acceleration as the towers energy is taken up by the mechanical resistance crushing the tower underneath it.

An easy experiment is to put a bowling ball on any structure you like, weaken the structure until the bowling ball crushes the tower, does the tower and bowling ball fall at free fall or is it more a matter of gravitational acceleration - structural resistance = fall acceleration?

My hypothesis is for a controlled demolition, where all the structural support was removed and all the towers potential energy was converted into acceleration by gravity. None of the towers potential energy was taken by the towers structural resistance.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 09:45:51 PM
Quote from: Intikam on February 18, 2017, 09:19:55 PM
Just a point of protocol  disputeone,  I have you on ignore,  could someone please quote him if he says anything of relevance.

Quote from: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 01:33:41 AM
Quote from: Intikam on February 16, 2017, 12:17:31 AM
So zero contribution to the discussion yet again from disputeone.   Try making a case for what you believe

Quote from: disputeone on February 14, 2017, 11:45:45 PM
Sigh, how does weakened steel lead to a collapse at gravitational acceleration?

Was the steel weakened by a factor of 100% to make it fall at gravitational acceleration? Or was it say X% weakend with the structure underneath it providing mechanical resistance during the collapse?

If the fires weakened the structure by a factor of 100% then fine, freefall is not only acceptable but logical.

If, however, the fires didn't take 100% of the structural strength of the tower, why didn't some of the towers potential energy get used to crush the structure as it was falling?

You haven't debunked this point, you get hysterical every time it's brought up.

And then have the gall to say that we are the ones being intellectually dishonest.

If you want to try to refute this point I will consider giving you the time of day again.

Quote from: disputeone on February 14, 2017, 11:52:17 PM
For example, put a bowling ball on any structure you like. Weaken the structure until it collapses, does it collapse at g? Or does the structural resistance of the structure slow the fall speed as the balls potential energy is taken crushing the structure underneath it.

I dare you to answer that truthfully.

Quote from: disputeone on February 15, 2017, 12:35:52 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 12:21:46 AM

Quote from: disputeone on February 14, 2017, 11:52:17 PM
For example, put a bowling ball on any structure you like. Weaken the structure until it collapses, does it collapse at g? Or does the structural resistance of the structure slow the fall speed as the balls potential energy is taken crushing the structure underneath it.

I dare you to answer that truthfully.

It falls at 1G  I was sure you already knew that any unsupported mass will fall at 1G

You are exactly right in saying, any unsupported mass will fall at exactly 1G, however, there's this thing called Terminal velocity (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Terminal+velocity) which means anything moving through a medium will eventually be slowed down by the medium.

So things don't fall at exactly 1G in our reality, air resistance, amongst other things (hardened structural steel and reinforced concrete under compression), will slow down the fall speed of any object.

Another experiment you could do is to try and shoot a cannon ball through a piece of say 10mm thick aluminum.

Would the cannon ball, given as much velocity as you like, eventually have enough energy to pass through the 10mm thick ally without expending any of its potential energy?

The answer is no because every action has an equal and opposite reaction, but I would like you to do your own tests.

You are digging a massive hole with me and BHS is the one with the PhD  ;D ;D

I see why you were scared to debate him.

Quote from: disputeone on February 14, 2017, 11:52:17 PM
For example, put a bowling ball on any structure you like. Weaken the structure until it collapses, does it collapse at g? Or does the structural resistance of the structure slow the fall speed as the balls potential energy is taken crushing the structure underneath it.

I dare you to answer that truthfully.

I am being condescending now, I admit it, you lost your chance on page two tbh.

Quote from: disputeone on February 15, 2017, 01:44:38 AM
It's just not critical to the demolition hypothesis when we can measure free fall.

It's been, I think thoroughly proven, that a building will not fall at free fall under it's own weight, plus a plane impact and full fuel load. At the very least there have been some very good arguments put forward without the aid of youtube videos.

The fact that you just keep dodging this is concerning.

Quote from: disputeone on February 15, 2017, 02:42:39 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 02:32:00 AM
My response was to post a simulation done by Perdue that refuted your assertion that the aircraft couldn't penetrate the structure.   Now you say I never answered?

Was not an answer, you just said, this is the official story. That video was not peer reviewed it doesn't give us access to their numbers.

I did actually send an email asking for the numbers they used, I don't think they will reply, you said I should earlier in the thread.

Quote from: hoppy on February 15, 2017, 04:13:57 AM
Rayzor, you really suck dude. Bhs and d1 are beating the fuck out you. I don't even know why they keep responding to you. They have offered plenty if evidence and you keep offering strawmen. You believe the governments stupid report, either for pay or due to brainwashing. You really suck.

*In honor of one of the greatest shitposters of our time, even if we hate each other ;D.

Edit.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Heiwa on February 18, 2017, 09:53:19 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 06:35:16 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 05:28:23 AM
Quote from: NIST
In a video, it appears that WTC 7 is descending in free fall, something that would not occur in the structural collapse that you describe. How can you ignore basic laws of physics?
In the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf), NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions. During the public comment period on the draft report, NIST was asked to confirm this time difference and define the reasons for it in greater detail.
To further clarify the descent of the north face, NIST recorded the downward displacement of a point near the center of the roofline from first movement until the north face was no longer visible in the video. Numerical analyses were conducted to calculate the velocity and acceleration of the roofline point from the time-dependent displacement data. The instant at which vertical motion of the roofline first occurred was determined by tracking the numerical value of the brightness of a pixel (a single element in the video image) at the roofline. This pixel became brighter as the roofline began to descend because the color of the pixel started to change from that of the building façade to the lighter color of the sky.
The approach taken by NIST is summarized in Section 3.6 of the final summary report, NCSTAR 1A (released Nov. 20, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf) and detailed in Section 12.5.3 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9 (available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-9%20Vol%202.pdf).
The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:
Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity

This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.

I don't think my views are that detached from reality.

My tone with Rayzor was due to his dishonesty.



I have been explicitly clear that I believe the official story doesn't address the 2.25 second free-fall, I have posted multiple experiments and logical points to explain this.

The only possible explanation for a collapse of gravitational acceleration is controlled demolition.

This is my position.

Edit, sauce.

https://www.nist.gov/pba/questions-and-answers-about-nist-wtc-7-investigation

Rama Set, what do you think of this?

Rayzor, use your words man.

My explanations why the NIST WTC7 report is false are at http://heiwaco.com/nist7.htm .

Fact remains that no structure or building can ever globally collapse due to local failure of one element - a pillar - or connection - beams/girders - inside the structure (e.g. due to thermal expansion/fire).

It is easy to show! Just remove the critical member or connection in any FEM/beam model of the structure! There is no collapse! Only adjacent structural members are higher stressed. Redundancy! Only terrorists think buildings collapse when one member fails.

There exists in structural damage analysis theory no phenomenon as 'classic progressive collapse'! It is just a stupid invention by non-regulatory, terrorist agency like NIST, as follows:

    "Progressive collapse is defined as the spread of local damage (? - failure!) from a single initiating event, from structural element to element, eventually resulting in the collapse (? - failure!) of an entire structure or a disproportionately large part of it. The failure of WTC7 was an example of a fire-induced progressive collapse."

It is supposed to have happened for the first and only time in History on 911. But it is just a Great Deception!

Hope you find my descriptions interesting!
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 09:55:56 PM
Thanks Heiwa, keep it on topic tho please? That post was good.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Heiwa on February 18, 2017, 10:04:17 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 09:55:56 PM
Thanks Heiwa, keep it on topic tho please? That post was good.

You have to read all of it including:

    The one major tenant of WTC 7 was Salomon Smith Barney (SSB), the company that occupied 37 of the 47 floors in WTC 7. A little discussed fact is that Rumsfeld was the chairman of the SSB advisory board and Dick Cheney was a board member as well. Rumsfeld had served as chairman of the SSB advisory board since its inception in 1999. According to the financial disclosures he made in his nomination process, during the same period Rumsfeld had also been a paid consultant to the Director of Central Intelligence, George Tenet. Rumsfeld and Cheney had to resign from their CIA and SSB positions in 2001 when they were confirmed as members of George W. Bush's cabinet.

Imagine that a US vice president and a US secretary of War had rented 75% of a building that suddenly just ... collapsed ... soon after they joined the government.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 10:11:08 PM
I have, belive it or not, studied your information on 9/11 extensively.

I think, myself and BHS could help you make a more factual and relevant page on it, however, I agree with you in this issue.

We are trying to keep the debate focussed on physics, engineering and logic, the incidences you talk about I believe are highly relevant, but not necessary to prove our main two points.

1. The planes could not have penetrated and passed through the buildings given the official story.

2. The buildings fall acceleration and pretty much plumb, neat collapse could not of been caused by an event as chaotic as a plane impact.

Entropy always increases, that is to say with time a system becomes less ordered and more chaotic.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 18, 2017, 10:12:06 PM
Quote from: markjo on February 18, 2017, 09:27:40 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed
This is how robust buildings are (this didn't fall fyi, not even a bit)
(http://i68.tinypic.com/297rtj.jpg)
Umm...  You do realize that building was only about 1/3 as tall as the towers and had a reinforced concrete core, don't you?  Kinda apples and oranges.

Well it does actually. As one of the reasons for WTC collapse listed from the commission was concrete releasing from boiling remaining water of the concrete.

(Edit... Height has no relevance, buildings are also built to scale. Base/thickness of material/how many etc etc etc etc...You wouldn't have that buildings base and the WTC upper section..THAT would equal a collapse without a fire or plane)

Just for you markjo

(http://i65.tinypic.com/16c6etj.jpg)

(http://i64.tinypic.com/mjtx55.jpg)

The last one burned for almost 48 hours fyi.


Though me posting up pictures is just for effect, I really dont need to...Since no steel framed high rise has ever collapsed from fire....Even the most recent 7 in the last 5 years that were all worse than building 7, 1 or 2.

I just post stuff for people who aren't well versed can see things in comparison for effect.

(Oh and almost all the buildings where fires or even plane impacts happened were repaired and still in use)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sokarul on February 18, 2017, 10:22:53 PM
How much chromium was in the steel of those buildings? 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 18, 2017, 10:29:38 PM
Quote from: sokarul on February 18, 2017, 10:22:53 PM
How much chromium was in the steel of those buildings?

Which ones?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 10:35:50 PM
Quote from: sokarul on February 18, 2017, 10:22:53 PM
How much chromium was in the steel of those buildings?

Sokarul, come on now.

I like you and markjo, it's clear you are both intelligent and critical, I don't disrespect you for a difference of opinion here. However you are very late and I think you need to address some previous points raised.

Quote from: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 10:11:08 PM
We are trying to keep the debate focussed on physics, engineering and logic, the incidences you talk about I believe are highly relevant, but not necessary to prove our main two points.

1. The planes could not have penetrated and passed through the buildings given the official story.

2. The buildings fall acceleration and pretty much plumb, neat collapse could not of been caused by an event as chaotic as a plane impact.

Entropy always increases, that is to say with time a system becomes less ordered and more chaotic.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Heiwa on February 18, 2017, 10:37:21 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 10:11:08 PM
I have, belive it or not, studied your information on 9/11 extensively.

I think, myself and BHS could help you make a more factual and relevant page on it, however, I agree with you in this issue.

We are trying to keep the debate focussed on physics, engineering and logic, the incidences you talk about I believe are highly relevant, but not necessary to prove our main two points.

1. The planes could not have penetrated and passed through the buildings given the official story.

2. The buildings fall acceleration and pretty much plumb, neat collapse could not of been caused by an event as chaotic as a plane impact.

Entropy always increases, that is to say with time a system becomes less ordered and more chaotic.

Thanks! Re the WTC1/2 collisions there should be:

1. Plenty noise >150 dB when the plane contacts the tower. No BANG heard/recorded on the videos.

2. Also there should be vertical deflection of the tower due to contact - the roof should displace a couple of meters sideways (the floor below less) - and it should swing forward/aft for while. No deflections seen on the videos.

3. Plenty debris due to contact should bounce back. No debris seen on any videos.

No, the planes just disappear silently into the towers and after a while there are FIREBALLS. They really look CGI to me. Actually, everything is CGI incl. the collapses. What a show.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sokarul on February 18, 2017, 10:38:32 PM
I was referring to your pictures. It doesn't matter though, The History Channel claimed in a show that if the steel contained more chromium it wouldn't have collapsed, but I'm not finding anything else that backs that claim up.

I also can't find any of the people who planted explosives in the buildings. Know any?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sokarul on February 18, 2017, 10:40:20 PM
And now Heiwa is back claiming not one single person saw anything that day and no one has ever noticed.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 10:41:11 PM
Quote from: sokarul on February 18, 2017, 10:40:20 PM
And now Heiwa is back claiming not one single person saw anything that day and no one has ever noticed.

Quote from: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 10:35:50 PM
Quote from: sokarul on February 18, 2017, 10:22:53 PM
How much chromium was in the steel of those buildings?

Sokarul, come on now.

I like you and markjo, it's clear you are both intelligent and critical, I don't disrespect you for a difference of opinion here. However you are very late and I think you need to address some previous points raised.

Quote from: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 10:11:08 PM
We are trying to keep the debate focussed on physics, engineering and logic, the incidences you talk about I believe are highly relevant, but not necessary to prove our main two points.

1. The planes could not have penetrated and passed through the buildings given the official story.

2. The buildings fall acceleration and pretty much plumb, neat collapse could not of been caused by an event as chaotic as a plane impact.

Entropy always increases, that is to say with time a system becomes less ordered and more chaotic.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sokarul on February 18, 2017, 10:51:31 PM
It was claimed the plane passed through the buildings?

http://www.debunking911.com/collapse.htm
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 10:57:44 PM
Yes, however, not by us.





Come on man.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 11:01:11 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 09:39:27 PM
Quote from: markjo on February 18, 2017, 09:27:40 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed
This is how robust buildings are (this didn't fall fyi, not even a bit)
(http://i68.tinypic.com/297rtj.jpg)
Umm...  You do realize that building was only about 1/3 as tall as the towers and had a reinforced concrete core, don't you?  Kinda apples and oranges.

Fair point markjo, That wasn't claimed as evidence, just comparison.

I have said it before, my issue is the 2.25 seconds of gravitational acceleration for building 7, I kept bringing it up to Rayzor and now he's ignored me.

Would you like to explain how you think building 7 fell at gravitational acceleration for 2.25 seconds given the official story?

My position is that the official position is untrue as any structure providing any mechanical resistance will not fall at gravitational acceleration as the towers energy is taken up by the mechanical resistance crushing the tower underneath it.

An easy experiment is to put a bowling ball on any structure you like, weaken the structure until the bowling ball crushes the tower, does the tower and bowling ball fall at free fall or is it more a matter of gravitational acceleration - structural resistance = fall acceleration?

My hypothesis is for a controlled demolition, where all the structural support was removed and all the towers potential energy was converted into acceleration by gravity. None of the towers potential energy was taken by the towers structural resistance.

Quote from: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 10:35:50 PM
Quote from: sokarul on February 18, 2017, 10:22:53 PM
How much chromium was in the steel of those buildings?

Sokarul, come on now.

I like you and markjo, it's clear you are both intelligent and critical, I don't disrespect you for a difference of opinion here. However you are very late and I think you need to address some previous points raised.

Quote from: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 10:11:08 PM
We are trying to keep the debate focussed on physics, engineering and logic, the incidences you talk about I believe are highly relevant, but not necessary to prove our main two points.

1. The planes could not have penetrated and passed through the buildings given the official story.

2. The buildings fall acceleration and pretty much plumb, neat collapse could not of been caused by an event as chaotic as a plane impact.

Entropy always increases, that is to say with time a system becomes less ordered and more chaotic.

If you think I haven't read everything on the official report at least twice you are being silly.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 18, 2017, 11:08:37 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 18, 2017, 10:29:38 PM
Quote from: sokarul on February 18, 2017, 10:22:53 PM
How much chromium was in the steel of those buildings?

Which ones?

So are you asking questions for no reason? Well to be honest with you, no one knows the actual number. The Japanese and British steel mills the beams came from lost all evidence. I do know the core was a form of ASTM A 36, trusses and other beams were a mix of ASTM A 36 and ASTM A 242.

Though how they were mixed original??? Question will be there.

I can say from my personal test of the material I was able to get, I only picked up trace amounts of Cr. The biggest anti corrosive I found was copper .16-.20.... Though in some pieces there was nickel present.

However, as I said, reverse analyzing steel is not always 100 percent.

Were you going somewhere with this?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Heiwa on February 18, 2017, 11:13:35 PM
Quote from: sokarul on February 18, 2017, 10:40:20 PM
And now Heiwa is back claiming not one single person saw anything that day and no one has ever noticed.

No, I just claim that weak tops of structures (with plenty members of all kind) do not crush strong bottoms of same structure keeping the top in place or that removing one member of a structure produces a progressive collapse of same structure, i.e. all members/connections suddenly fail.

To design a structure (ship, skyscraper) you have to do an intact structural analysis of all parts of the structure and establish the stresses and (elastic) deformations of the members, etc, etc. I have done 100's.

If a structure fails, you should also do a damage structural analysis to establish why a member failed and the path of consequent failures (if the latter occur). I have actually done a few to establish WHY damage occurred to a structure. Interesting stuff.

Structural intact and damage analysises are not any conspiracy. That's why NIST has not done any structural analysises at all. They just invented a fairy tale to keep GWB & Co. happy.

 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 18, 2017, 11:23:06 PM
Quote from: sokarul on February 18, 2017, 10:38:32 PM
I was referring to your pictures. It doesn't matter though, The History Channel claimed in a show that if the steel contained more chromium it wouldn't have collapsed, but I'm not finding anything else that backs that claim up.

I also can't find any of the people who planted explosives in the buildings. Know any?

I am sorry, I didn't see this.

Chromium is never used in high amounts in any structural steel, especially in a high rise. It can provide a bit more fire resistance and rigidity...But that is the issue... Rigidity, it is too much for a building that requires flex but not breaking. Too much CR...And you will start to have fractures or even failures  very quickly.

That is why any high rise in the structural steel uses mainly nickel, copper or a combo of both for the anti corrosive.

But for amounts Incase you didn't see this

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 18, 2017, 11:08:37 PM
Well to be honest with you, no one knows the actual number. The Japanese and British steel mills the beams came from lost all evidence. I do know the core was a form of ASTM A 36, trusses and other beams were a mix of ASTM A 36 and ASTM A 242.

Though how they were mixed original??? Question will be there.

I can say from my personal test of the material I was able to get, I only picked up trace amounts of Cr. The biggest anti corrosive I found was copper .16-.20.... Though in some pieces there was nickel present.

However, as I said, reverse analyzing steel is not always 100 percent.

I never want to be accused of ignoring questions...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 18, 2017, 11:38:32 PM
Quote from: Heiwa on February 18, 2017, 11:13:35 PM
Structural intact and damage analysises are not any conspiracy. That's why NIST has not done any structural analysises at all. They just invented a fairy tale

Heiwa and I don't see eye to eye on much, but this is 100 percent accurate.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 11:38:40 PM
We're actually really keen to have a real in depth honest debate, if people haven't noticed yet.

Edit.

Damnit I hate it when Heiwa speaks undeniable facts. Just kidding Heiwa you've raised some good points.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: onebigmonkey on February 19, 2017, 12:03:12 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on February 18, 2017, 11:13:35 PM

If a structure fails, you should also do a damage structural analysis to establish why a member failed and the path of consequent failures (if the latter occur). I have actually done a few to establish WHY damage occurred to a structure.

A big fuck off plane hit it at high speed. That's why.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 19, 2017, 12:11:00 AM
Onebigmonkey.

Quote from: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 11:01:11 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 09:39:27 PM
Quote from: markjo on February 18, 2017, 09:27:40 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed
This is how robust buildings are (this didn't fall fyi, not even a bit)
(http://i68.tinypic.com/297rtj.jpg)
Umm...  You do realize that building was only about 1/3 as tall as the towers and had a reinforced concrete core, don't you?  Kinda apples and oranges.

Fair point markjo, That wasn't claimed as evidence, just comparison.

I have said it before, my issue is the 2.25 seconds of gravitational acceleration for building 7, I kept bringing it up to Rayzor and now he's ignored me.

Would you like to explain how you think building 7 fell at gravitational acceleration for 2.25 seconds given the official story?

My position is that the official position is untrue as any structure providing any mechanical resistance will not fall at gravitational acceleration as the towers energy is taken up by the mechanical resistance crushing the tower underneath it.

An easy experiment is to put a bowling ball on any structure you like, weaken the structure until the bowling ball crushes the tower, does the tower and bowling ball fall at free fall or is it more a matter of gravitational acceleration - structural resistance = fall acceleration?

My hypothesis is for a controlled demolition, where all the structural support was removed and all the towers potential energy was converted into acceleration by gravity. None of the towers potential energy was taken by the towers structural resistance.

Quote from: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 10:35:50 PM
Quote from: sokarul on February 18, 2017, 10:22:53 PM
How much chromium was in the steel of those buildings?

Sokarul, come on now.

I like you and markjo, it's clear you are both intelligent and critical, I don't disrespect you for a difference of opinion here. However you are very late and I think you need to address some previous points raised.

Quote from: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 10:11:08 PM
We are trying to keep the debate focussed on physics, engineering and logic, the incidences you talk about I believe are highly relevant, but not necessary to prove our main two points.

1. The planes could not have penetrated and passed through the buildings given the official story.

2. The buildings fall acceleration and pretty much plumb, neat collapse could not of been caused by an event as chaotic as a plane impact.

Entropy always increases, that is to say with time a system becomes less ordered and more chaotic.

If you think I haven't read everything on the official report at least twice you are being silly.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 19, 2017, 12:23:54 AM
Quote from: onebigmonkey on February 19, 2017, 12:03:12 AM
A big fuck off plane hit it at high speed. That's why.

That's why they didn't follow protocol??

Why will no one debate me directly? Question/answer rebuttal/rebuttal...

Why has everyone focused on the most trivial things since page 1... I have been trying to shift focus to a full debate, doesn't seem it will happen.

I wonder why this is?

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 19, 2017, 12:28:29 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 19, 2017, 12:23:54 AM
Quote from: onebigmonkey on February 19, 2017, 12:03:12 AM
A big fuck off plane hit it at high speed. That's why.

That's why they didn't follow protocol??

Why will no one debate me directly? Question/answer rebuttal/rebuttal...

Why has everyone focused on the most trivial things since page 1... I have been trying to shift focus to a full debate, doesn't seem it will happen.

I wonder why this is?

Geez, I dunno man.

What do you guys think?

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 19, 2017, 12:57:10 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 19, 2017, 12:23:54 AM
Quote from: onebigmonkey on February 19, 2017, 12:03:12 AM
A big fuck off plane hit it at high speed. That's why.

That's why they didn't follow protocol??

Why will no one debate me directly? Question/answer rebuttal/rebuttal...

Why has everyone focused on the most trivial things since page 1... I have been trying to shift focus to a full debate, doesn't seem it will happen.

I wonder why this is?

Could it be because you think that  "Why did the towers collapse?"   Is a trick question.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 19, 2017, 01:00:21 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 18, 2017, 11:38:32 PM
Quote from: Heiwa on February 18, 2017, 11:13:35 PM
Structural intact and damage analysises are not any conspiracy. That's why NIST has not done any structural analysises at all. They just invented a fairy tale

Heiwa and I don't see eye to eye on much, but this is 100 percent accurate.

I had you both you and Heiwa pegged as belonging to that rare breed of 911 conspiracy theorists,  the "Quadruple No Planers"  Or have you changed your mind recently?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 19, 2017, 01:03:51 AM
Obvious shillary reeks of obvious shillary.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 19, 2017, 01:07:15 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 18, 2017, 11:38:32 PM
Quote from: Heiwa on February 18, 2017, 11:13:35 PM
Structural intact and damage analysises are not any conspiracy. That's why NIST has not done any structural analysises at all. They just invented a fairy tale

Heiwa and I don't see eye to eye on much, but this is 100 percent accurate.

100% wrong,  if you can't read, I'd excuse your ignorance,  but, since you seem to read a t least a little,  to tell a bald faced lie like that,  just makes you look like a conspiracy nutter.   

Oh wait,   you are.

I'd post a link to the NIST structural analysis,  but instead maybe I should post a link to Heiwa's web site?


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Twerp on February 19, 2017, 01:08:41 AM
Realistically no one is getting paid by anyone to post on this site.  The closest thing to that sort of thing is the occasional spammer. This site shuts those down pretty quick though.

It makes for good joke fodder though. And it's a great fallback retort when another poster isn't seeing things your way.

Edit: *shut's*  ::) ::) ::)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 19, 2017, 01:12:33 AM
Perhaps. I just don't understand why he hasn't addressed a point yet.

I would also point out the unlikelyhood of their being opinion control on the flat earth society. 4chan and Reddit however is perhaps a different story.

Also still waiting for anyone to take this on.

Quote from: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 11:01:11 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 09:39:27 PM
Quote from: markjo on February 18, 2017, 09:27:40 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed
This is how robust buildings are (this didn't fall fyi, not even a bit)
(http://i68.tinypic.com/297rtj.jpg)
Umm...  You do realize that building was only about 1/3 as tall as the towers and had a reinforced concrete core, don't you?  Kinda apples and oranges.

Fair point markjo, That wasn't claimed as evidence, just comparison.

I have said it before, my issue is the 2.25 seconds of gravitational acceleration for building 7, I kept bringing it up to Rayzor and now he's ignored me.

Would you like to explain how you think building 7 fell at gravitational acceleration for 2.25 seconds given the official story?

My position is that the official position is untrue as any structure providing any mechanical resistance will not fall at gravitational acceleration as the towers energy is taken up by the mechanical resistance crushing the tower underneath it.

An easy experiment is to put a bowling ball on any structure you like, weaken the structure until the bowling ball crushes the tower, does the tower and bowling ball fall at free fall or is it more a matter of gravitational acceleration - structural resistance = fall acceleration?

My hypothesis is for a controlled demolition, where all the structural support was removed and all the towers potential energy was converted into acceleration by gravity. None of the towers potential energy was taken by the towers structural resistance.

Quote from: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 10:35:50 PM
Quote from: sokarul on February 18, 2017, 10:22:53 PM
How much chromium was in the steel of those buildings?

Sokarul, come on now.

I like you and markjo, it's clear you are both intelligent and critical, I don't disrespect you for a difference of opinion here. However you are very late and I think you need to address some previous points raised.

Quote from: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 10:11:08 PM
We are trying to keep the debate focussed on physics, engineering and logic, the incidences you talk about I believe are highly relevant, but not necessary to prove our main two points.

1. The planes could not have penetrated and passed through the buildings given the official story.

2. The buildings fall acceleration and pretty much plumb, neat collapse could not of been caused by an event as chaotic as a plane impact.

Entropy always increases, that is to say with time a system becomes less ordered and more chaotic.

If you think I haven't read everything on the official report at least twice you are being silly.

I'm sorry if I'm being rude or unfair, however the people that know me would have noticed that I always lash out at people who I think are being dishonest.

Please ask Heiwa he will tell you directly.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 19, 2017, 01:13:38 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 19, 2017, 12:57:10 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 19, 2017, 12:23:54 AM
Quote from: onebigmonkey on February 19, 2017, 12:03:12 AM
A big fuck off plane hit it at high speed. That's why.

That's why they didn't follow protocol??

Why will no one debate me directly? Question/answer rebuttal/rebuttal...

Why has everyone focused on the most trivial things since page 1... I have been trying to shift focus to a full debate, doesn't seem it will happen.

I wonder why this is?

Could it be because you think that  "Why did the towers collapse?"   Is a trick question.



This is not for you troll...This is for anybody actually reading for information..I already stated to you rayzor why I don't want to state the why, and only the why not.

Any why, is educated theory....Yet, showing the official story is a fabrication with using facts that are not theories.

So by disproving the official story with facts that require no theoretical thinking, we know the true story has not been told. So the true motivation, cause of the collapse and perpetrators have not been discovered.

Just a bit of trolling by rayzor..No worries.

Quote from: Rayzor on February 19, 2017, 01:00:21 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 18, 2017, 11:38:32 PM
Quote from: Heiwa on February 18, 2017, 11:13:35 PM
Structural intact and damage analysises are not any conspiracy. That's why NIST has not done any structural analysises at all. They just invented a fairy tale

Heiwa and I don't see eye to eye on much, but this is 100 percent accurate.

I had you both you and Heiwa pegged as belonging to that rare breed of 911 conspiracy theorists,  the "Quadruple No Planers"  Or have you changed your mind recently?

Just a bit more of trolling by rayzor....Everyone stay calm...

This little bit here, rayzor is trying to inject everything heiwa believes into this tiny statement, when it is obvious I was only agreeing with what he said about their odd means of damage analysis. It was not standard protocol.


Quote from: disputeone on February 19, 2017, 01:03:51 AM
Obvious shillary reeks of obvious shillary.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 19, 2017, 01:15:53 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 19, 2017, 12:23:54 AM

Why will no one debate me directly? Question/answer rebuttal/rebuttal...

Why has everyone focused on the most trivial things since page 1... I have been trying to shift focus to a full debate, doesn't seem it will happen.

I wonder why this is?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 19, 2017, 01:16:27 AM
Boots is a good guy, I understand how it may appear that we are being dicks.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 19, 2017, 01:19:26 AM
Quote from: Boots on February 19, 2017, 01:08:41 AM
Realistically no one is getting paid by anyone to post on this site.  The closest thing to that sort of thing is the occasional spammer. This site shut's those down pretty quick though.

It makes for good joke fodder though. And it's a great fallback retort when another poster isn't seeing things your way.

Boots....I would have 100 percent agreed with you until a few days ago to be 100 percent honest. I would have said almost identical of what you just said actually.

Someone is converting me on this matter by actions though...May sound crazy, but I could present you with a strong case of circumstantial evidence. Could be wrong, but could also be right
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 19, 2017, 01:20:25 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 19, 2017, 01:13:38 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on February 18, 2017, 11:13:35 PM
Structural intact and damage analysises are not any conspiracy. That's why NIST has not done any structural analysises at all. They just invented a fairy tale

Heiwa and I don't see eye to eye on much, but this is 100 percent accurate.

Quote from: Rayzor
I had you both you and Heiwa pegged as belonging to that rare breed of 911 conspiracy theorists,  the "Quadruple No Planers"  Or have you changed your mind recently?

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 19, 2017, 01:13:38 AM
Just a bit more of trolling by rayzor....Everyone stay calm...
This little bit here, rayzor is trying to inject everything heiwa believes into this tiny statement, when it is obvious I was only agreeing with what he said about their odd means of damage analysis. It was not standard protocol.

Ok, Heiwa stated that  "NIST has not done any structural analysises at all."    and you agreed 100% 

I accept that you might not agree with their structural analysis,  although that's not entirely clear,  since you refuse to say,  but you can't just post lies saying they didn't do any analysis. 

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 19, 2017, 01:26:40 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 17, 2017, 01:30:31 AM
Rayzor feels no guilt, Rayzor feels no shame, Rayzor has no integrity and he will not stop shitposting, ever, until we stop posting and he claims victory.

Another free prediction.

I'm starting to think I willed this.

Edit.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 19, 2017, 01:15:53 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 19, 2017, 12:23:54 AM

Why will no one debate me directly? Question/answer rebuttal/rebuttal...

Why has everyone focused on the most trivial things since page 1... I have been trying to shift focus to a full debate, doesn't seem it will happen.

I wonder why this is?

This is just carnage.



Consider the steel tube, evidence.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 19, 2017, 01:33:52 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 16, 2017, 01:38:27 AM
Let's assume I entertain the model your video shows (which I don't)...

So the plane is allowed to enter without restriction...Pass through the outside vertical exoskeleton and horizontal exoskeleton to the core.

Ok, those few floors are compromised on the 91-93 floors...That would not cause a collapse.

But let's say it did in that area.

It would collapse on itself at the path of least resistance...However, there is not enough damaged and removed material.

So you would have a situation such as this..

(http://i63.tinypic.com/11iohnq.jpg)

However, even if by magic it started a free fall collapse at that 90th floor, it would not make it past the 44th floor because of the doubled core stacking (this building did not have CG sway compensation like newer buildings so CG directional load was set up like older scrappers, more like a sea bowie), the lower 40 was built like a tank compared to the upper sections...Multiples of the mass of the upper decks.

However, if we keep using magic....Let's say it collapsed this area too....We would have this...

(http://i66.tinypic.com/35lf8s0.jpg)

Just multiped by a factor 3.8

And not at a free fall...

Would have taken anywhere from minutes to hours..

Stress junctions, their cert load in the 60s was anywhere from 5 times to 100times less than what it could take before complete failure...Not to mention, since the CG was controlled in a more simple "old school" design (as stated, like a sea bowie), the more mass you keep removing from the upper area, the more robust the bottom becomes as well as the CG continues to get lower.

If you had a 40 story WTC center with the same structural design, you would never knock that damn building over, you would have to dismantle that thing  piece by piece.

Unless we are using magic again.

These aren't facts, unless you have recreated this in a scale model or done extensive calculations on it. If it is not too much problem, I'd like to see how you arrived at these conclusions. As far as I am concerned, this is just a hypothessis. But you didn't want to discuss hypothesis, did you?

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 16, 2017, 01:38:27 AM
This is how robust buildings are (this didn't fall fyi, not even a bit)
(http://i68.tinypic.com/297rtj.jpg)

This is how buildings fall when they aren't demoed
(http://i66.tinypic.com/2444rbb.jpg)
Neither of them were the twin towers, neither of them were under the same circumstances as the twin towers, that's facts. Implying that this is true for all buildings is your hypothesis, not a fact. Two pictures isn't enough evidence to even make it a theory.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 17, 2017, 07:17:26 PM
Reality....
Watch the tower at 2:39.....This destroys the official story right there without having to know a single thing of structural design.



This here proves that a building close to free fall hits solid ground can land without damage...It doesn't even flinch. It doesn't vaporize itself
Can, yes. But always? Should it have happened at WTC? Do you have facts about WTC and not facts about other stuff that we then have to interpret the results of to create a hypothetical model of how the WTC collapses happened? You sure you don't want to discuss hypothesis or theories?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 19, 2017, 01:36:10 AM
He has done computer models, that was stated on page one.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 19, 2017, 01:40:53 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 19, 2017, 01:20:25 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 19, 2017, 01:13:38 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on February 18, 2017, 11:13:35 PM
Structural intact and damage analysises are not any conspiracy. That's why NIST has not done any structural analysises at all. They just invented a fairy tale

Heiwa and I don't see eye to eye on much, but this is 100 percent accurate.

Quote from: Rayzor
I had you both you and Heiwa pegged as belonging to that rare breed of 911 conspiracy theorists,  the "Quadruple No Planers"  Or have you changed your mind recently?

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 19, 2017, 01:13:38 AM
Just a bit more of trolling by rayzor....Everyone stay calm...
This little bit here, rayzor is trying to inject everything heiwa believes into this tiny statement, when it is obvious I was only agreeing with what he said about their odd means of damage analysis. It was not standard protocol.

Ok, Heiwa stated that  "NIST has not done any structural analysises at all."    and you agreed 100% 

I accept that you might not agree with their structural analysis,  although that's not entirely clear,  since you refuse to say,  but you can't just post lies saying they didn't do any analysis.

Well, technically they did not do a structural analysis the way heiwa spoke of, or like they would have done in usual circumstance. This is not protocol in a situation like this. Especially in the largest attack against us since Pearl harbor.

Instead they lock the area down and ship everything over seas to be destroyed...All the evidence was gone before the "investigation" was started. They did an "analysis" with variables and inputs no one will ever know. They could have used inputs where the core was made of Play-Doh....We will never know. I bet Play-Doh would collapse progressively.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 19, 2017, 01:44:37 AM
Play dough wouldn't collapse at gravitational acceleration for 2.25 seconds even if a plane actually hit a scale play dough model of wtc7, no chance.

Edit would probably end up a big blob before you could build it anywhere near that size, but you get the point.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Heiwa on February 19, 2017, 01:46:12 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 19, 2017, 01:00:21 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 18, 2017, 11:38:32 PM
Quote from: Heiwa on February 18, 2017, 11:13:35 PM
Structural intact and damage analysises are not any conspiracy. That's why NIST has not done any structural analysises at all. They just invented a fairy tale

Heiwa and I don't see eye to eye on much, but this is 100 percent accurate.

I had you both you and Heiwa pegged as belonging to that rare breed of 911 conspiracy theorists,  the "Quadruple No Planers"  Or have you changed your mind recently?

I am a QNP! No planes. Why? You can land as many planes you like in weak tops of skyscrapers but the strong bottoms below will not be affected at all. I can prove it scientifically.

I have read the US report about the 19 hijackers and their bosses. It is a political fantasy story. See http://heiwaco.com/AB911story.htm

History is science and so far I haven't seen any scientific analysis of 911. So no truth is established.
It is the same with the legal aspects. Noone has been tried in a court about 911. There are some suspects in a US conzentration/torture camp on Cuba. Obama ordered the liquidation of OBL and dropped the body in the Indian Ocean.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 19, 2017, 01:46:35 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 19, 2017, 01:15:53 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 19, 2017, 12:23:54 AM

Why will no one debate me directly? Question/answer rebuttal/rebuttal...

Why has everyone focused on the most trivial things since page 1... I have been trying to shift focus to a full debate, doesn't seem it will happen.

I wonder why this is?

Why don't you ask everyone "How a plane can pass through a building without leaving a mark?"   Claiming that you have video evidence of this exact scenario,  but can't seem to find it?

Why don't you tell everyone about your 10 years worth of unpublished research on 911,  and your personal discovery of nano-thermite in the dust?   

You seem to be denying that you are a "Quadruple No Planer"  and I don't blame you,  that wing of the asylum is not a nice neighbourhood.

Here's what you said when banging  on about planes not leaving a mark

Quote from: Babyhighspeed
I have looked through all available public video evidence in high quality equipment for 100s of hours, and have never found one trace of a plane...Nothing on the ground???

Nothing in the building??

Where did it go?? Or was it that vaporized word?...That is NIST favorite word, the magic interchange right? Don't mind that has never happened ever in any plane crash...This was obviously a very magic day.

No planes at all eh?

You never saw the evidence of hundreds of pictures of aircraft debris?   Or was that faked as well?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 19, 2017, 01:48:43 AM
Disputeone, I don't think the free-fall says much. Most likely the building collapsed from the inside out, and the falling debris of the inside would land at the bottom and push out sideways, right into the support for the outer walls. As the support from the outer walls was crushed by the expanding pile of interior debris, and parts of the interior was dragging down the outer walls, they started collapsing down at near freefall. Not saying it's not what we wouldn't expect from a controlled demolition, but it doesn't rule out the official story.

If he has models, I'd like him to post them. I can't work with something someone else simply claims they have.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 19, 2017, 01:50:01 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 19, 2017, 01:36:10 AM
He has done computer models, that was stated on page one.

This is on page one master evar. I could not get a recreation as we saw...I could simulate a collapse...But not a total one, not one at close to free fall, and not one into its own foot print.

No one can simulate their own NIST, and no one has...Because they have officially written they will not release the inputs for their model. This is unheard-of in a situation like this.


Yes, as I have stated before, I use pictures to demonstrate things to help people that do not have experience in that field or can speak in technical terms. It helps the brain to understand a bit, I can compute things like this in my head and understand. Someone who has no experience will likely not be able to, so it helps.

I cannot show any instances like 9/11 visually because there is none before or after that because it defies all logic, physics, and structural design/theory known.

The only example we have is a model that no one but the creators know....And I am sorry, that is not good enough for me. I refuse to trade reality for a model unless they give me the inputs. They will not though because they cannot, that will end their game. If they release the inputs, and I can create the same model with one of my programs...Then I will convert to mainstream.

Until then...I choose reality, all know physics, and centuries of structural design.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 19, 2017, 01:54:48 AM
Rayzor.

You still don't seem to recognize when you are using strawmen.

Never assume malice when ignorance will suffice.

But I think you know the meaning of it now? Surely.

Quote from: Master_Evar on February 19, 2017, 01:48:43 AM
Disputeone, I don't think the free-fall says much. Most likely the building collapsed from the inside out, and the falling debris of the inside would land at the bottom and push out sideways, right into the support for the outer walls. As the support from the outer walls was crushed by the expanding pile of interior debris, and parts of the interior was dragging down the outer walls, they started collapsing down at near freefall. Not saying it's not what we wouldn't expect from a controlled demolition, but it doesn't rule out the official story.

If he has models, I'd like him to post them. I can't work with something someone else simply claims they have.

Maybe it doesn't rule out the official story, but it is very strong evidence against it. Once, but three times in one day is a mathematical impossibility.

You would have to wait longer than the entire age of the universe for anything so unlikely to happen.

Can you elaborate on your explanation of the free fall.

Specifically how the planes damaged the internal support enough to cause a collapse of the inside of the structure while leaving the outer frame unaffected. Factoring in the temperature and intensity that jet fuel can reach uncompressed in an open burn situation.

Edit. Leaving out building 7 for now.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 19, 2017, 01:58:16 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on February 19, 2017, 01:46:12 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 19, 2017, 01:00:21 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 18, 2017, 11:38:32 PM
Quote from: Heiwa on February 18, 2017, 11:13:35 PM
Structural intact and damage analysises are not any conspiracy. That's why NIST has not done any structural analysises at all. They just invented a fairy tale

Heiwa and I don't see eye to eye on much, but this is 100 percent accurate.

I had you both you and Heiwa pegged as belonging to that rare breed of 911 conspiracy theorists,  the "Quadruple No Planers"  Or have you changed your mind recently?

I am a QNP! No planes. Why? You can land as many planes you like in weak tops of skyscrapers but the strong bottoms below will not be affected at all. I can prove it scientifically.

I have read the US report about the 19 hijackers and their bosses. It is a political fantasy story. See http://heiwaco.com/AB911story.htm

History is science and so far I haven't seen any scientific analysis of 911. So no truth is established.
It is the same with the legal aspects. Noone has been tried in a court about 911. There are some suspects in a US conzentration/torture camp on Cuba. Obama ordered the liquidation of OBL and dropped the body in the Indian Ocean.

Heiwa,  I never thought to say this,  you might be a complete conspiracy nutter,  but at least you are up front about it. 

Did you know that Stephen Bannon is a 911 truther,  and that Donald Trump is a big fan of Alex Jones ( infowars)  famous for goblins and gay frogs, but also a 911 truther,  don't know about Jared Kushner or Stephen MIller,  but it would not surprise me if Trump orders a new investigation into 911.   However his target will be probably be the intelligence agencies who knew in advance but did nothing,  rather than the engineering aspects of the NIST resport.

Hang about for a while,  you might get called as an expert witness :)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 19, 2017, 01:58:37 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 19, 2017, 01:50:01 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 19, 2017, 01:36:10 AM
He has done computer models, that was stated on page one.

This is on page one master evar. I could not get a recreation as we saw...I could simulate a collapse...But not a total one, not one at close to free fall, and not one into its own foot print.

No one can simulate their own NIST, and no one has...Because they have officially written they will not release the inputs for their model. This is unheard-of in a situation like this.


Yes, as I have stated before, I use pictures to demonstrate things to help people that do not have experience in that field or can speak in technical terms. It helps the brain to understand a bit, I can compute things like this in my head and understand. Someone who has no experience will likely not be able to, so it helps.

I cannot show any instances like 9/11 visually because there is none before or after that because it defies all logic, physics, and structural design/theory known.

The only example we have is a model that no one but the creators know....And I am sorry, that is not good enough for me. I refuse to trade reality for a model unless they give me the inputs. They will not though because they cannot, that will end their game. If they release the inputs, and I can create the same model with one of my programs...Then I will convert to mainstream.

Until then...I choose reality, all know physics, and centuries of structural design.
Can you at least post whatever you managed to simulate? Because, as I said, it's hard to work with something that someone else only claims to have.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 19, 2017, 02:03:26 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 19, 2017, 01:58:16 AM
it would not surprise me if Trump orders a new investigation into 911.

(https://s27.postimg.org/zc274z0n7/downloadfile.jpg)

#pepethefrogofpeace

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 19, 2017, 02:11:27 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on February 19, 2017, 01:58:37 AM

Can you at least post whatever you managed to simulate? Because, as I said, it's hard to work with something that someone else only claims to have.

It is just files...You can't "post" it up unless you have the program. I could maybe record with my phone or something while playing.

Or if you have star-ccm+ or sim I could send you some files or inputs so you can recreate...I also think I still have the files for though not sure nastran...I did one on building 7 on star-cd in my last year of college but that is long gone.

The problem here is you are still taking my word master on the inputs...I would be no different than NIST....It is not a quick thing to create or check a model...Takes a long time.

You have to know the entire design,load stress ratio, metallurgical makeup, cert ratings, etc etc etc etc..I don't even know why I started listing things lol. Long story short, it isn't a quick thing.

If you want to get into it that deep, then we can...It's up to you.

We can also talk about whatever you want from structural dynamics on the buildings or planes to the back end of the story and anywhere in between.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 19, 2017, 02:22:38 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 19, 2017, 01:58:16 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on February 19, 2017, 01:46:12 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 19, 2017, 01:00:21 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 18, 2017, 11:38:32 PM
Quote from: Heiwa on February 18, 2017, 11:13:35 PM
Structural intact and damage analysises are not any conspiracy. That's why NIST has not done any structural analysises at all. They just invented a fairy tale

Heiwa and I don't see eye to eye on much, but this is 100 percent accurate.

I had you both you and Heiwa pegged as belonging to that rare breed of 911 conspiracy theorists,  the "Quadruple No Planers"  Or have you changed your mind recently?

I am a QNP! No planes. Why? You can land as many planes you like in weak tops of skyscrapers but the strong bottoms below will not be affected at all. I can prove it scientifically.

I have read the US report about the 19 hijackers and their bosses. It is a political fantasy story. See http://heiwaco.com/AB911story.htm

History is science and so far I haven't seen any scientific analysis of 911. So no truth is established.
It is the same with the legal aspects. Noone has been tried in a court about 911. There are some suspects in a US conzentration/torture camp on Cuba. Obama ordered the liquidation of OBL and dropped the body in the Indian Ocean.

Heiwa,  I never thought to say this,  you might be a complete conspiracy nutter,  but at least you are up front about it. 

Did you know that Stephen Bannon is a 911 truther,  and that Donald Trump is a big fan of Alex Jones ( infowars)  famous for goblins and gay frogs, but also a 911 truther,  don't know about Jared Kushner or Stephen MIller,  but it would not surprise me if Trump orders a new investigation into 911.   However his target will be probably be the intelligence agencies who knew in advance but did nothing,  rather than the engineering aspects of the NIST resport.

Hang about for a while,  you might get called as an expert witness :)

(https://s4.postimg.org/az89grqgd/1484789343707.jpg)

This isn't humorous to you as much as terrifying, is it.

Feels good man.

Sorry, but you deserve this, your attitude towards Bhs and everyone on this thread has been despicable.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Heiwa on February 19, 2017, 02:38:52 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 19, 2017, 01:58:16 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on February 19, 2017, 01:46:12 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 19, 2017, 01:00:21 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 18, 2017, 11:38:32 PM
Quote from: Heiwa on February 18, 2017, 11:13:35 PM
Structural intact and damage analysises are not any conspiracy. That's why NIST has not done any structural analysises at all. They just invented a fairy tale

Heiwa and I don't see eye to eye on much, but this is 100 percent accurate.

I had you both you and Heiwa pegged as belonging to that rare breed of 911 conspiracy theorists,  the "Quadruple No Planers"  Or have you changed your mind recently?

I am a QNP! No planes. Why? You can land as many planes you like in weak tops of skyscrapers but the strong bottoms below will not be affected at all. I can prove it scientifically.

I have read the US report about the 19 hijackers and their bosses. It is a political fantasy story. See http://heiwaco.com/AB911story.htm

History is science and so far I haven't seen any scientific analysis of 911. So no truth is established.
It is the same with the legal aspects. Noone has been tried in a court about 911. There are some suspects in a US conzentration/torture camp on Cuba. Obama ordered the liquidation of OBL and dropped the body in the Indian Ocean.

Heiwa,  I never thought to say this,  you might be a complete conspiracy nutter,  but at least you are up front about it. 

Did you know that Stephen Bannon is a 911 truther,  and that Donald Trump is a big fan of Alex Jones ( infowars)  famous for goblins and gay frogs, but also a 911 truther,  don't know about Jared Kushner or Stephen MIller,  but it would not surprise me if Trump orders a new investigation into 911.   However his target will be probably be the intelligence agencies who knew in advance but did nothing,  rather than the engineering aspects of the NIST resport.

Hang about for a while,  you might get called as an expert witness :)

I do not create conspiracies or conspiracy theories. I happened to get involved in this show back in 1994 when M/S Estonia sank and killed >850 persons. The ship had hardly touched the bottom of the ocean, when the Swedish primeminister Bildt announced that the bow visor of the superstructure had fallen off sinking the ship. I suggested that hull leakage was a possibility to investigate and was immediately proclaimed a conspiracy theory creator/nutter. You see, you cannot contradict top politicians of a ruling government. If you do, you too might end up at the bottom of the sea/river/lake. That's why Main Stream Media just publish what the government wants to hear. To keep their ears dry!
 
Now, 23 years later, people that were children losing parents and family 1994 and wondering what happened are visiting my web site http://heiwaco.com to find out what really happened and why the principle of Archimedes do not apply in Sweden. Don't blame me for it.

You see Bildt just falsified history for politica reasons 1994 and asked scientists and engineers to support him (against generous pay). The legal aspects were easily swept under the carpet - no evidence of anything except that all was perfect. The conspiracy works fine 2017. Media will not touch it.

Luckily I am just an outside (scientific) observer from far away distance.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on February 19, 2017, 02:43:12 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 18, 2017, 08:36:41 PM

The examples you cite as facts, while no doubt true,  bear no relevance to WTC1 and WTC2.   

Here are the real facts.

1. Both towers were hit by aircraft.    WTC1 was hit by a hijacked fully loaded 767 AA11.

Bull shit!
"The American Airlines Flight 11 aircraft was a Boeing 767-223ER delivered in 1987, registration number N334AA.[2] The capacity of the aircraft was 158 passengers, but the September 11 flight carried 81 passengers and 11 crew members. This was a light load at 58.2 percent capacity..." 

Quote from: Rayzor on February 18, 2017, 08:36:41 PM
If you want to present your "alternative facts"   try to make it relevant to the topic under discussion.

Not to mention the fact none of the planes would have been filled to capacity on jet fuel.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on February 19, 2017, 02:48:38 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 18, 2017, 09:19:55 PM
Just a point of protocol  disputeone,  I have you on ignore,  could someone please quote him if he says anything of relevance.
Quote from: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 08:49:00 PM
Rayzor, you can GFY.

I find that pretty relevant...

Not to mention I concur.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 19, 2017, 02:50:24 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 19, 2017, 01:54:48 AM
Maybe it doesn't rule out the official story, but it is very strong evidence against it. Once, but three times in one day is a mathematical impossibility.

You would have to wait longer than the entire age of the universe for anything so unlikely to happen.

Can you elaborate on your explanation of the free fall.

Specifically how the planes damaged the internal support enough to cause a collapse of the inside of the structure while leaving the outer frame unaffected. Factoring in the temperature and intensity that jet fuel can reach uncompressed in an open burn situation.

Edit. Leaving out building 7 for now.
I'm not even going to bother with numbers, because I'd probably be way off. First off, the jet fuel burned strongly for some minutes. This would allow more stuff to ignite, and it spread out over the floors which would have heated it up very quickly. Apparently some fire-proofing was knocked off, which would help heating up the supporting structure extremely quickly. The heating itself would weaken the metal, but it would also lead to heat expansion which would cause bulges in the supporting structure. It's possible that the outer support deformed a little, which in turn would mean that the compressing force of the floors above transfers into a force bending the and potentially trying to snap the supports. However, the central support exists for a reason. So after a few minutes, I expect that a lot of the bearing load would have been transferred over to the central support, which would also be really hot and heat expansion would at least cause miniature cracks in it. Any exposed metal could start rusting quite quickly due to the heat combined with a strong draft (No, I don't think the support rusted away noticeably enough). The planes would have also been shredded on impact, and the planes were made largely of aluminium. Aluminium is interesting - it burns very hot with rust, in which case it's called thermite. Molten aluminium also reacts violently with concrete, forming an explosion. Aluminium used in planes are alloys with higher strength but lower melting points - about 600 degrees celsius, enough to be molten by the jet fuel. This would further help weakening the central structure. After that, the building in general would be on fire, continuing to weaken the central structure. The outer structure would probably cool down, but remain deformed. As the central structure continued to weaken, the outer structure would be deformed ever so more due to a force which is slightly shifted from completely compressing, shifting the load back onto the central structure. Eventually the central structure would become too brittle, crack and collapse. Most of the weight of the tower would have been in the central structure, so after it started to collapse it might take a second or a few before the rest follows. This could create the kind of collapse that was witnessed.

Or maybe, the twin towers were actually weaker than official documents and schematics show? Just saying, some poor workmanship could explain a lot of the things brought up in this discussion :P
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 19, 2017, 03:00:50 AM
Not bad at all, best argument all thread.

I agree that it could possibly lead to a collapse, I'll play ball with the official story it's especically the near plumb fall and acceleration of all three buildings that concerns me. If building 7 hadn't of fell maybe I wouldn't have looked into it as deeply as I have and come to the conclusions I have.

Do you agree building 7's fall at gravitational acceleration is suspicious?

If you read my bowling ball experiment, do you disagree with me?

As I stated before the second law of thermodynamics pretty much precludes the possibility of a plumb collapse at close to or at free-fall.
(Without foul play)

This is completely leaving out the logical jumps you have to make for the hijackings, maneuvers of the plane, NORAD not shooting them down, the Pentagon "plane" crash, the invulnerable passports, the fact that the official story claims they used stolen credit cards and yet used the purchaseses to identify some of them.
Getting on the plane in the first place with box-cutters gas masks tape etc.

To me there is just too much that doesn't make sense, ironically occams razor dictates that controlled demolition and foul play are at fault.

I'm sure Bhs can get into the specifics of your post far better than I can.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 19, 2017, 03:03:30 AM
Quote from: totallackey on February 19, 2017, 02:43:12 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 18, 2017, 08:36:41 PM

The examples you cite as facts, while no doubt true,  bear no relevance to WTC1 and WTC2.   

Here are the real facts.

1. Both towers were hit by aircraft.    WTC1 was hit by a hijacked fully loaded 767 AA11.

Bull shit!
"The American Airlines Flight 11 aircraft was a Boeing 767-223ER delivered in 1987, registration number N334AA.[2] The capacity of the aircraft was 158 passengers, but the September 11 flight carried 81 passengers and 11 crew members. This was a light load at 58.2 percent capacity..." 

Quote from: Rayzor on February 18, 2017, 08:36:41 PM
If you want to present your "alternative facts"   try to make it relevant to the topic under discussion.

Not to mention the fact none of the planes would have been filled to capacity on jet fuel.

I'll accept that correction,  nice to see you being pedantic about facts.   just don't tell me that they didn't leave a mark or were magically vaporized.   

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 19, 2017, 03:13:02 AM
I guess this post is an answer to my reply to you as well master evar...Just a couple things

If you read through the thread master you will see where I debunk the jet fuel melting metal theory...If there were another fuel that would fair well in a non compressed and open environment I would have a different song to sing.

There are many different numbers and things to debunk, but you would want to have to talk numbers and many other things. If you don't want to talk numbers then I guess we have nothing to talk about.

This bugs me though...I don't like people blindly accepting things....If it isn't in your specialty no problem. But tell me this...

If you had two people of equal credentials telling you something...One had something to gain for themselves the other actually had something to lose by telling you something...Who would you listen to?

This is also the only " conspiracy theory" that I know of that has 1000s upon 1000s of PhDs and professionals in the exact industry calling bullshit...not to mention 1000s of pilots saying bullshit on just the flight dynamics alone...People in power etc etc etc...Then you have millions upon millions of the American population (over 50 percent according to the polls) that question it. Then throw in all the people of other counties, also don't forget the actual leaders of other counties that flat I say "we know it's bullshit"


This isn't your standard tin foil hat stuff


*Edit* This thread was a reply to master evar reply to dispute one about not wanting to talk about numbers. There were a few replies in the middle.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 19, 2017, 03:58:18 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 13, 2017, 10:36:59 PM
Quote
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on Today at 07:27:01 AM
So by this I assume he is an official story guy? If that is the case you can't expect too much from him ;D....Also, he should never give any crap about their views or believing in fairy tales.

I'll  take that challenge.   What real evidence is there for a conspiracy about 911?   Innuendo and speculation don't count as evidence.

My starting position is that there is no conspiracy,  I remember watching the coverage on TV,  and my first comment, even before the towers collapsed was Osama Bin Laden is behind this,  I've not seen anything since that would change my mind. 

So over to Babyhighspeed for the fairy tales.   :)

I have to put it forward, if nothing else we have conclusively proven these are not fairy tales and that

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 19, 2017, 03:13:02 AM
This isn't your standard tin foil hat stuff
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 19, 2017, 04:08:47 AM
I posted it before but here is NIST's lead investigator explaining why free fall of building 7 is impossible given the official story.




Here it is in my own words.

Quote from: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 11:01:11 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 09:39:27 PM
Quote from: markjo on February 18, 2017, 09:27:40 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed
This is how robust buildings are (this didn't fall fyi, not even a bit)
(http://i68.tinypic.com/297rtj.jpg)
Umm...  You do realize that building was only about 1/3 as tall as the towers and had a reinforced concrete core, don't you?  Kinda apples and oranges.

Fair point markjo, That wasn't claimed as evidence, just comparison.

I have said it before, my issue is the 2.25 seconds of gravitational acceleration for building 7, I kept bringing it up to Rayzor and now he's ignored me.

Would you like to explain how you think building 7 fell at gravitational acceleration for 2.25 seconds given the official story?

My position is that the official position is untrue as any structure providing any mechanical resistance will not fall at gravitational acceleration as the towers energy is taken up by the mechanical resistance crushing the tower underneath it.

An easy experiment is to put a bowling ball on any structure you like, weaken the structure until the bowling ball crushes the tower, does the tower and bowling ball fall at free fall or is it more a matter of gravitational acceleration - structural resistance = fall acceleration?

My hypothesis is for a controlled demolition, where all the structural support was removed and all the towers potential energy was converted into acceleration by gravity. None of the towers potential energy was taken by the towers structural resistance.

Quote from: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 10:35:50 PM
Quote from: sokarul on February 18, 2017, 10:22:53 PM
How much chromium was in the steel of those buildings?

Sokarul, come on now.

I like you and markjo, it's clear you are both intelligent and critical, I don't disrespect you for a difference of opinion here. However you are very late and I think you need to address some previous points raised.

Quote from: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 10:11:08 PM
We are trying to keep the debate focussed on physics, engineering and logic, the incidences you talk about I believe are highly relevant, but not necessary to prove our main two points.

1. The planes could not have penetrated and passed through the buildings given the official story.

2. The buildings fall acceleration and pretty much plumb, neat collapse could not of been caused by an event as chaotic as a plane impact.

Entropy always increases, that is to say with time a system becomes less ordered and more chaotic.

If you think I haven't read everything on the official report at least twice you are being silly.

Edit, real life example.

Quote from: disputeone on February 13, 2017, 11:55:17 PM
I work with tall buildings, I have seen them being built and I understand the loads and stresses on them, In fact there was a roof of a hospital that collapsed recently while it was being built as the tradesman forgot to install drains. The rain water built up on the roof until it collapsed. The funny thing about a progressive collapse, is that it's progressive, that is not instantaneous.

Individual structural components failed which led to the failure of other structural components and the buildings roof progressively collapsed, not neat and instantaneous like the 9/11 effectTM would predict.

I was not attempting an argument from authority far from it, I think this issue takes an open mind receptive to the truth and not blinded by what we want to believe.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 19, 2017, 04:20:42 AM
Quote from: Mark Bingham flight 93
Hello mom, this is Mark Bingham
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 19, 2017, 04:32:41 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 19, 2017, 03:13:02 AM
If you read through the thread master you will see where I debunk the jet fuel melting metal theory...If there were another fuel that would fair well in a non compressed and open environment I would have a different song to sing.

Your argument was based on open burn temperature of Jet Fuel, which I disputed.  You didn't seem to know anything about the volatility of Jet fuel either until I corrected you. In any event  there was other material burning as well, sufficient to get temperatures up to 1000C,  as far as melting aluminium,  hell, you can melt aluminium with just burning paper.   Jet fuel started the fire.  and ensured it spread quickly.  From there on there was plenty to burn.   

Once again, you distort the facts. 

You mentioned your collapse model,  did you also model the aircraft impact and the effect that the fires would have on the inputs to the structural model?

It seems to me that without both of those inputs your structural model would be useless.  And as we know, you deny there were any planes,  you also deny the fires were hot enough to affect the structural steel.

So you were forced to conclude controlled demolition is the only choice,  without exploring if your assumptions might in fact be wrong.






Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 19, 2017, 04:38:48 AM
Still worth 100× what NIST's models are worth imo.

You're an idiot if you think he didn't input the data from the OS, that's why he stated he couldn't get NIST's models results.

If you let us make our own model of a controlled demolition I guarantee it will work with reality.

Cease and desist your shillary at once, I see right through you.

(https://s32.postimg.org/tbx3dqbut/20170219_115658.jpg)

Begone.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 19, 2017, 04:42:33 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 19, 2017, 04:20:42 AM
Quote from: Mark Bingham flight 93
Hello mom, this is Mark Bingham

According to his mother, that's exactly what he said. 

"
Hoglan: I was staying with my brother Vaughan on the morning of September 11th, and, uh, the phone rang.

Bingham (reconstruction): Mom... Mom, this is Mark Bingham.

Hoglan: Once in a while he would say that. He would call up, and he was, he was a young businessman, and used to, used to introduce himself on phone as Mark Bingham, and he was trying to be, uh, strong, and level-headed, and, and strictly business. "Mom, this is Mark Bingham"

"
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 19, 2017, 04:51:29 AM
And it doesn't strike you as at all suspicious that he wouldn't say "hey Mum it's me?

In that situation thinking it might be the last time they spoke?

I will debate you on speculation if you are still scared to debate facts.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 19, 2017, 05:07:37 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 19, 2017, 03:13:02 AM
If you read through the thread master you will see where I debunk the jet fuel melting metal theory...If there were another fuel that would fair well in a non compressed and open environment I would have a different song to sing.
For some reason I have a suspicion that you did not read my post properly. I never talked about the steel reinforcements melting- I only claimed that the aluminium alloy used in planes, that have a lower melting point than pure aluminium, could have melted. And liquid metal, probably aluminium, was apparently witnessed to be dripping down the south tower.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 19, 2017, 03:13:02 AM
There are many different numbers and things to debunk, but you would want to have to talk numbers and many other things. If you don't want to talk numbers then I guess we have nothing to talk about.
I didn't want to use numbers in my argument, because it would have been a lot of work and none of us knows exactly how the weight was distributed, or how hot it was, and how the damage would escalate. Basically, I don't have the numbers to discuss. I'd have to make lots of guesses, but I figured I'd probably be way off making those guesses. You're free to use numbers though. And I did end up usign the number for melting aluminium, as I didn't have to guess that and it demonstrates how easily it would have melted.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 19, 2017, 03:13:02 AM
This bugs me though...I don't like people blindly accepting things....If it isn't in your specialty no problem. But tell me this...

If you had two people of equal credentials telling you something...One had something to gain for themselves the other actually had something to lose by telling you something...Who would you listen to?

This is also the only " conspiracy theory" that I know of that has 1000s upon 1000s of PhDs and professionals in the exact industry calling bullshit...not to mention 1000s of pilots saying bullshit on just the flight dynamics alone...People in power etc etc etc...Then you have millions upon millions of the American population (over 50 percent according to the polls) that question it. Then throw in all the people of other counties, also don't forget the actual leaders of other counties that flat I say "we know it's bullshit"
The biggest reason for me to believe one over the other - reasons. I assume you think that the government might be behind it, or some part of the government (back then, that is). Why would they do this? What was the motive? I don't buy that it was to have a reason to start a war or deploy troops somewhere. And the facts point towards the reason of the collapse being the planes - the collapse happened where the planes crashed, after the planes crashed. I don't see anything that defies physics. Something that defies human expectations? Sure, but nothing physics-breaking.

Quote from: disputeone on February 19, 2017, 03:00:50 AM
I agree that it could possibly lead to a collapse, I'll play ball with the official story it's especically the near plumb fall and acceleration of all three buildings that concerns me. If building 7 hadn't of fell maybe I wouldn't have looked into it as deeply as I have and come to the conclusions I have.

Do you agree building 7's fall at gravitational acceleration is suspicious?
I'll agree that it is evidence in favor of controlled demolition, but I don't think it's suspicious enough to be major evidence against structural failure due to damage.

Quote from: disputeone on February 19, 2017, 03:00:50 AM
If you read my bowling ball experiment, do you disagree with me?

As I stated before the second law of thermodynamics pretty much precludes the possibility of a plumb collapse at close to or at free-fall.
(Without foul play)
I haven't read that experiment, could you repost or tell me where it is? And I don't know what a "plumb collapse" is, I guess it has something to do with the experiment?

Quote from: disputeone on February 19, 2017, 03:00:50 AM
This is completely leaving out the logical jumps you have to make for the hijackings, maneuvers of the plane, NORAD not shooting them down, the Pentagon "plane" crash, the invulnerable passports, the fact that the official story claims they used stolen credit cards and yet used the purchaseses to identify some of them.
Getting on the plane in the first place with box-cutters gas masks tape etc.

To me there is just too much that doesn't make sense, ironically occams razor dictates that controlled demolition and foul play are at fault.

I'm sure Bhs can get into the specifics of your post far better than I can.
Logical jumps according to one story, misunderstandings according to the other. I haven't read into the hijackings very much, but I doubt I'll find something completely physics or logic defying if I look into it. Some spooky coincidences or hints? Possibly. I might look into it later.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 19, 2017, 05:10:32 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 19, 2017, 04:38:48 AM
Still worth 100× what NIST's models are worth imo.

You're an idiot if you think he didn't input the data from the OS, that's why he stated he couldn't get NIST's models results.

If you let us make our own model of a controlled demolition I guarantee it will work with reality.

Cease and desist your shillary at once, I see right through you.

(https://s32.postimg.org/tbx3dqbut/20170219_115658.jpg)

Begone.

That picture gives me the creeps....

Quote from: Rayzor on February 19, 2017, 04:32:41 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 19, 2017, 03:13:02 AM
If you read through the thread master you will see where I debunk the jet fuel melting metal theory...If there were another fuel that would fair well in a non compressed and open environment I would have a different song to sing.

Your argument was based on open burn temperature of Jet Fuel, which I disputed.  You didn't seem to know anything about the volatility of Jet fuel either until I corrected you. In any event  there was other material burning as well, sufficient to get temperatures up to 1000C,  as far as melting aluminium,  hell, you can melt aluminium with just burning paper.   Jet fuel started the fire.  and ensured it spread quickly.  From there on there was plenty to burn.   

Once again, you distort the facts. 

You mentioned your collapse model,  did you also model the aircraft impact and the effect that the fires would have on the inputs to the structural model?

It seems to me that without both of those inputs your structural model would be useless.  And as we know, you deny there were any planes,  you also deny the fires were hot enough to affect the structural steel.

So you were forced to conclude controlled demolition is the only choice,  without exploring if your assumptions might in fact be wrong.

Lying once again...You didn't correct me on shit troll.

You just can't (or won't) compute that compressed jet fuel is different than non compressed. Different animal and way different temps.. you only talk about it compressed. If I wanted to burn a building down, I would not use kerosene based jet fuel. Do you know what liquid temp of jet fuel is if it has a fire burning on top of it? Do you know how hard it is to keep jet fuel burning in an open non compressed environment....Actually, on that though do you know anything besides how to be a troll?

Jet fuel is made to have to be compressed in order to ignite, so that way when it's making its way down a hot intake manifold it does pre detonate. On an internal combustion engine this damages valves, on a fan jet engine you might compressor stall or even might have a full out explosion.

Try to light a puddle of jet fuel on fire with a lit cigarette...Nope...no fire, cig will go out though

I don't know what inputs they used, no one does...They will never release them for their...errr I mean our safety. People at MIT and Berkeley have tired to recreate without avail....So have I....So have many others.

The only inputs I used was building tolerances, structural damages and possible hear from the fires. Doesn't work...

But I forgot to use magic, I don't have that patch...

Now as dispute said.....Be gone troll...Go back into whatever hole you came from.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 19, 2017, 05:14:45 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on February 19, 2017, 05:07:37 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 19, 2017, 03:00:50 AM
If you read my bowling ball experiment, do you disagree with me?

As I stated before the second law of thermodynamics pretty much precludes the possibility of a plumb collapse at close to or at free-fall.
(Without foul play)
I haven't read that experiment, could you repost or tell me where it is? And I don't know what a "plumb collapse" is, I guess it has something to do with the experiment?

Plumb being vertical and straight.
Level being horizontal and straight.

Here is the experiment and some supporting arguments.

Quote from: disputeone on February 19, 2017, 04:08:47 AM
I posted it before but here is NIST's lead investigator explaining why free fall of building 7 is impossible given the official story.




Here it is in my own words.

Quote from: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 11:01:11 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 09:39:27 PM
Quote from: markjo on February 18, 2017, 09:27:40 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed
This is how robust buildings are (this didn't fall fyi, not even a bit)
(http://i68.tinypic.com/297rtj.jpg)
Umm...  You do realize that building was only about 1/3 as tall as the towers and had a reinforced concrete core, don't you?  Kinda apples and oranges.

Fair point markjo, That wasn't claimed as evidence, just comparison.

I have said it before, my issue is the 2.25 seconds of gravitational acceleration for building 7, I kept bringing it up to Rayzor and now he's ignored me.

Would you like to explain how you think building 7 fell at gravitational acceleration for 2.25 seconds given the official story?

My position is that the official position is untrue as any structure providing any mechanical resistance will not fall at gravitational acceleration as the towers energy is taken up by the mechanical resistance crushing the tower underneath it.

An easy experiment is to put a bowling ball on any structure you like, weaken the structure until the bowling ball crushes the tower, does the tower and bowling ball fall at free fall or is it more a matter of gravitational acceleration - structural resistance = fall acceleration?

My hypothesis is for a controlled demolition, where all the structural support was removed and all the towers potential energy was converted into acceleration by gravity. None of the towers potential energy was taken by the towers structural resistance.

Quote from: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 10:35:50 PM
Quote from: sokarul on February 18, 2017, 10:22:53 PM
How much chromium was in the steel of those buildings?

Sokarul, come on now.

I like you and markjo, it's clear you are both intelligent and critical, I don't disrespect you for a difference of opinion here. However you are very late and I think you need to address some previous points raised.

Quote from: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 10:11:08 PM
We are trying to keep the debate focussed on physics, engineering and logic, the incidences you talk about I believe are highly relevant, but not necessary to prove our main two points.

1. The planes could not have penetrated and passed through the buildings given the official story.

2. The buildings fall acceleration and pretty much plumb, neat collapse could not of been caused by an event as chaotic as a plane impact.

Entropy always increases, that is to say with time a system becomes less ordered and more chaotic.

If you think I haven't read everything on the official report at least twice you are being silly.

Edit, real life example.

Quote from: disputeone on February 13, 2017, 11:55:17 PM
I work with tall buildings, I have seen them being built and I understand the loads and stresses on them, In fact there was a roof of a hospital that collapsed recently while it was being built as the tradesman forgot to install drains. The rain water built up on the roof until it collapsed. The funny thing about a progressive collapse, is that it's progressive, that is not instantaneous.

Individual structural components failed which led to the failure of other structural components and the buildings roof progressively collapsed, not neat and instantaneous like the 9/11 effectTM would predict.

I was not attempting an argument from authority far from it, I think this issue takes an open mind receptive to the truth and not blinded by what we want to believe.

Edit formatting.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 19, 2017, 05:22:15 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 19, 2017, 05:10:32 AM
Lying once again...You didn't correct me on shit troll.

Wrong again.  You claimed that it was so volatile, you could leave a tank open and it would evaporate significantly in an hour.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed
Oh and for fuel vaporising before doing any damage...Yes, I was speaking about that if it was by itself ?? Where was the confusion in that, we were talking about liquid dynamics there. So I am not retracting something you are trying to place out of context .....Again...

I obviously know it is stored as a liquid...It it around atmosphere, it doesn't like that. Leave a tank open for about an hour...See how much you have left when you return. I have worked with the shit for a decade, along with alcohol based fuels, nitroglycerin and many other fun fuels. Don't insult me for with your attempted word scrambling.

I then corrected you.

Quote from: Rayzor
Don't insult me with misinformation about Jet fuel volatility,  it's just not that volatile,  Jet-A is basically the kerosene fraction,   put an open beaker of kerosene somewhere,  it will evaporate but only very slowly, compared to say gasoline.   Try to light it and you'll find it actually doesn't burn all that readily,  but once it starts it goes quite nicely,  certainly not flash-bang like an earlier claim you made.

As far as nitroglycerin goes, I've never hear of it being used as a fuel,  that's insane.   are you sure you don't mean nitromethane?   

From Shell Aviation Fuels
Aviation Turbine Fuel (Jet Fuel)
Today’s kerosine ‘Jet’ fuels have been developed from the illuminating kerosine used in the
early gas turbine engines. These engines needed a fuel with good combustion characteristics
and ahigh energy content. The kerosine type fuels used in civil aviation nowadays are
mainly Jet A-1 and Jet A. The latter has a higher freezing point (minimum –40°C instead of
minimum –47°C) and is available only in the U.S.A.

Then you changed tack and said it's only volatile when compressed,  which is completely wrong as well ..   maybe I should have corrected you again.  I was feeling sorry for you at that point.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed
Also, that is what I am trying to say about the jet fuel used here. It isn't that volitile unless compressed...It can't be, that is the point it travels cool so it can prevent pre detonation. That is why it is hard to open burn...You just said it yourself.

As for a flash bang, that was pages ago about impact on the building...When it gets spread everywhere forcefully like that it will be prone to a flash bang as it turns more to vapor. Way different that if you had gallons in a puddle..I could put my cigarette out in the liquid. Though even at that point, a flash bang is possible, as it could burn in uneven increments depending on vapor pooling.

So you are agreeing with me on the fuel...Why are you arguing it could cause the temps presented in an open burn situation?

In any event who said it was only jet fuel burning?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 19, 2017, 05:28:24 AM
master evar

As for aluminum melting, aluminum in broad daylight is silver to a white like color, this is easily demonstrated. So it had to be steel or "something else" not aluminum. Plus, depending on which part of the official report you read, sometimes the plane vaporized sometimes it didn't. So one part of the story there would be no aluminum to melt. Plus I didn't see a spec or a plane crash in any of the videos.

As for specifics of the collapse etc...I will leave that up to you of what you want to talk about.

As for the why...Well in the states they passed tons of laws that removed liberties of ours. Not to mention they were trying to go to war for a while with these counties but the public kept saying no...Then this happened, and as long as we were "getting those that did this to us" everything was a yes. It is a fact rather you agree or not that this gave the government a crutch to do whatever they wanted for a time.

Plus, if you wanted to talk about the back end of it, all the 1000s of impossible coincidences that made this possible...We can, it is no better than the official story of the collapse. Plus I haven't heard you mention building 7...Not to mention we havent even got into the other two flights.

There is much much much much more...It is one of those things that you really can't run out of things to talk about.

I will leave it up to you on what you want to talk about.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 19, 2017, 05:30:18 AM
I could talk for 30 pages about why, but it is all speculation and we have been trying to avoid speculation since page one.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 19, 2017, 05:31:40 AM
It's not evidence, but I found a well-written explanation for the collapse of the twin towers:
Quote
I suppose the answer to that question has to be 'no'. Clearly, you can't say that a building is safe if over 2,000 of its occupants lost their lives due to its collapse.

It really depends on how you define 'safe'. No building is totally safe - all that we can ask is that it be as safe as reasonably practicable. That means that we have to think about whether the designers back in the late 60s should have foreseen the possibility that their building would have airplanes deliberately crashed into them by terrorists who were prepared to lose their own lives in pursuit of their goals.

Since the disaster eleven years ago, a huge amount of investigation has been carried out by structural engineers into just how the building behaved following the crashes and how the towers eventually collapsed. This has involved frame by frame analysis of thousands of images of the towers backed up by computer analysis. Much of this analysis is in the public domain for anyone who cares to look and so your statement that the collapse 'defies any type of logic' has been well and truly refuted.

Whilst a lot of the analysis is pretty complicated, the basic reasons for the collapse are fairly simple and are just elementary physics.

As Quantum X described, the towers had a 'shell and core' type construction with the central core, composed of steel columns, taking the vertical load of the structure and the external skin, composed of fabricated steel sections also taking its share of the vertical load but also the bending load due to wind load on the towers.

This design allowed a large area of column free office space to be provided on each floor, important in a modern building, and it is also believed that the heavyweight cladding of the exterior, with its narrow windows, appealed to the Japanese architect who suffered from vertigo and hated the huge expanses of glass with their vertiginous views common in many skyscrapers.

The floors also played an important role in the structure as, apart from the obvious function of supporting the loads from people and office furniture, they also acted as large diaphragms effectively bracing both the external skin and the central core.

Structural engineers are largely of the opinion that the floors were the reason for the buildings eventual collapse. Whilst adequate to support all ordinary loading, they were of relatively flimsy (lightweight steel truss with concrete topping) construction and with weak connections to the core and external skin.

Another problem with the shell and core design, which was especially notable in the case of Tower No. 2 was that the concentration of building services in the centre of the building, meant that the escape stairs were very close to each other and the plane impact effectively closed off all means of escape for the people above the crash zone. Had stairs been located at each corner of the building, many of the people above may have survived.

When the planes hit the towers, they caused massive damage to the external skin, which is clear from all the photos and videos of the event. About two thirds of the columns on one side of the tower were knocked out by the impact. What is less clear, but which has been proved by computer analysis is that several of the internal floors and some of the columns of the central core would have been knocked out.

The reason that the towers didn't collapse right away following the destruction of so many load bearing members is down to the fact that the designers had incorporated a huge structural steel truss into the roofs. So, following the impact, the external wall of the building and the floors that it supported, effectively hung from this truss and the load was distributed into the damaged central core.

The towers remained stable for some time after the crashes but the heat of the fire caused by the airliners fuel (backed up by that due to the paper, timber and plastic etc in the building) caused the exposed steel members to lose their strength (steel does this at temperatures well below that at which it melts). This effect was made worse by the fact that the brittle sprayed-on fireproofing of the building had been blown off by the impact explosion.

In addition, the failure of the floors meant that the steel columns of the building, overloaded by the load transfer, damaged by the impact and weakened by the intense heat also lost the propping effect of the floors (steel members subject to compressive loads need to be held in position at regular intervals to stop them from buckling). With that combination, collapse became inevitable.

Although the causes were the same, the two towers collapsed in different ways. Tower 2, the first to fall, did so due to the failure of its external skin. Tower 1 failed due to the failure of its central core.

As soon as the collapse was initiated, the speed of that collapse is not remarkable. The towers, I believe, weighed about half a million tonnes each, which means that the weight of the sections above the collapse zone would have been something like 100,000 to 200,000 tonnes - heavier than a fully laden supertanker. Once that started moving, only a massively strong structure could have stopped it or slowed it down. Effectively, the towers 'unzipped', the huge mass of the top section forced its way through the bottom section with the relatively flimsy floors offering little resistance and the external skin (just bolted together) being pushed out of the way. The central core probably lasted longer but the removal of its lateral restraint as the floors surrounding it collapsed meant that it could no longer support its own weight.

The idea that the towers were designed to withstand plane crashes is true but has been distorted by the conspiracy theorists.

In carrying out the design of structures such as this, you have to take into account the possibility that a plane could be flown into the building and, at the time of the design, that was not that extraordinary as a plane did fly into the Empire State Building during World War II. That was an accident caused by the pilot losing his direction in low cloud and it resulted in some structural damage to the building and the deaths of some people inside it.

By the 60s, planes were a lot bigger and faster and so the worst scenario considered by the designers was that a Boeing 707 would get lost and accidentally hit one of the towers. The most realistic scenario imagined at the time would be that a plane, coming into land at one of New York's airports would be flying low and accidentally collide with a tower.

The difference between that scenario and what happened on 911 was that the planes were deliberately flown at 400mph into the towers, as opposed to the maximum 200 mph of a plane on its landing approach (planes never normally fly at such speeds so close to the ground).

That makes a huge difference because, as anyone who is familiar with dynamics knows, the energy contained by a moving object is proportional to the square of its speed and so, the planes may have hit the towers at twice the envisaged speed but will have imparted four times the energy.

There is another factor as well. Both planes were at the beginning of cross-continental journeys and were, therefore, carrying their maximum fuel load as opposed to a landing plane that would normally have much less fuel on board. Not only did that add to the volume of fuel and hence the intensity of the fire but it also meant that the wings, where the fuel is stored, acted like battering rams and, instead of being shredded by the steel columns were heavy enough to smash them out of the way.

Leslie Robertson, the structural engineer responsible for the World Trade Center, stated that he was not aware just how a building could be protected against a massive fuel fire and that had probably not been taken into account in the design of the fire-proofing.

The investigation into the WTC collapse did result in a large number of recommendations, not all of which have yet been implemented.

Structurally, it was realised that more structural continuity was required in skyscrapers to guard against progressive collapse - highlighting the failure of the floors within the WTC.

Means of escape were also investigated and, apart from the need to have widely spaced escape routes, as I mentioned above, the need to have protected lifts to prevent people being faced with the need to climb down 100 storeys to get to a place of safety was recognised.

The inadequacies of fire-proofing in the WTC has led to the requirement either to embed structural steel members in concrete or use some blast-resistant material such as intumescent paint (which swells to form a protective coating when subject to) heat.

So, probably the towers were as safe as they probably could be given the level of knowledge back in the 60s but modern towers should be a lot safer.
Source: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1524620 (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=1524620), reply #13 by user Martin S.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 19, 2017, 05:33:57 AM
Blast resistant material they say?

Now, why would you need to blast proof a building to prevent fire induced collapse? I wonder.

Quote
The idea that the towers were designed to withstand plane crashes is true but has been distorted by the conspiracy theorists.

Also we are not arguing that it is impossible the plane crash couldn't possibly have led to a collapse.

We are arguing that the plane crash causing a plumb collapse at or near free fall is impossible.

This doesn't even begin to address building 7, please see my above post.

Edit, sorry trying to keep posts to a minimum.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 19, 2017, 05:36:06 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 19, 2017, 05:22:15 AM


Since when does an open tank outdoors and having a fast evaporation rate have anything to do with being volatile? It has nothing to do with stored energy.. Quite making up shit... I stated it has an high evaporation rate in an open tank outdoors...It does...

Now go troll else where....You will never answer a direct question, you only know twists and lies...there is obviously something wrong with you rather it be for a sinister reason or something not calibrated right...

Now go back where you came from
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 19, 2017, 05:39:49 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 19, 2017, 05:28:24 AM
master evar

As for aluminum melting, aluminum in broad daylight is silver to a white like color, this is easily demonstrated. So it had to be steel or "something else" not aluminum. Plus, depending on which part of the official report you read, sometimes the plane vaporized sometimes it didn't. So one part of the story there would be no aluminum to melt. Plus I didn't see a spec or a plane crash in any of the videos.
So was it aluminium or was it steel...
In any case, aluminium would have the lowest melting point, so if anything melted aluminium would also have melted. Aluminium can also be contaminated by soot and other materials.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 19, 2017, 05:28:24 AM
As for specifics of the collapse etc...I will leave that up to you of what you want to talk about.
Well, anything. I won't use too specific numbers though, if I have to guess wildly guess them.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 19, 2017, 05:28:24 AM
As for the why...Well in the states they passed tons of laws that removed liberties of ours. Not to mention they were trying to go to war for a while with these counties but the public kept saying no...Then this happened, and as long as we were "getting those that did this to us" everything was a yes. It is a fact rather you agree or not that this gave the government a crutch to do whatever they wanted for a time.
I still don't see a reason, that would be so strong to allow someone or some people who I hope where all right in their head to let thousands of people die.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 19, 2017, 05:28:24 AM
Plus, if you wanted to talk about the back end of it, all the 1000s of impossible coincidences that made this possible...We can, it is no better than the official story of the collapse. Plus I haven't heard you mention building 7...Not to mention we havent even got into the other two flights.

There is much much much much more...It is one of those things that you really can't run out of things to talk about.
Well, you know I trust in the official story. Do you have anything you want to discuss?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 19, 2017, 05:41:45 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 19, 2017, 05:14:45 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on February 19, 2017, 05:07:37 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 19, 2017, 03:00:50 AM
If you read my bowling ball experiment, do you disagree with me?

As I stated before the second law of thermodynamics pretty much precludes the possibility of a plumb collapse at close to or at free-fall.
(Without foul play)
I haven't read that experiment, could you repost or tell me where it is? And I don't know what a "plumb collapse" is, I guess it has something to do with the experiment?

Plumb being vertical and straight.
Level being horizontal and straight.

Here is the experiment and some supporting arguments.

Quote from: disputeone on February 19, 2017, 04:08:47 AM
I posted it before but here is NIST's lead investigator explaining why free fall of building 7 is impossible given the official story.




Here it is in my own words.

Quote from: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 11:01:11 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 09:39:27 PM
Quote from: markjo on February 18, 2017, 09:27:40 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed
This is how robust buildings are (this didn't fall fyi, not even a bit)
(http://i68.tinypic.com/297rtj.jpg)
Umm...  You do realize that building was only about 1/3 as tall as the towers and had a reinforced concrete core, don't you?  Kinda apples and oranges.

Fair point markjo, That wasn't claimed as evidence, just comparison.

I have said it before, my issue is the 2.25 seconds of gravitational acceleration for building 7, I kept bringing it up to Rayzor and now he's ignored me.

Would you like to explain how you think building 7 fell at gravitational acceleration for 2.25 seconds given the official story?

My position is that the official position is untrue as any structure providing any mechanical resistance will not fall at gravitational acceleration as the towers energy is taken up by the mechanical resistance crushing the tower underneath it.

An easy experiment is to put a bowling ball on any structure you like, weaken the structure until the bowling ball crushes the tower, does the tower and bowling ball fall at free fall or is it more a matter of gravitational acceleration - structural resistance = fall acceleration?

My hypothesis is for a controlled demolition, where all the structural support was removed and all the towers potential energy was converted into acceleration by gravity. None of the towers potential energy was taken by the towers structural resistance.

Quote from: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 10:35:50 PM
Quote from: sokarul on February 18, 2017, 10:22:53 PM
How much chromium was in the steel of those buildings?

Sokarul, come on now.

I like you and markjo, it's clear you are both intelligent and critical, I don't disrespect you for a difference of opinion here. However you are very late and I think you need to address some previous points raised.

Quote from: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 10:11:08 PM
We are trying to keep the debate focussed on physics, engineering and logic, the incidences you talk about I believe are highly relevant, but not necessary to prove our main two points.

1. The planes could not have penetrated and passed through the buildings given the official story.

2. The buildings fall acceleration and pretty much plumb, neat collapse could not of been caused by an event as chaotic as a plane impact.

Entropy always increases, that is to say with time a system becomes less ordered and more chaotic.

If you think I haven't read everything on the official report at least twice you are being silly.

Edit, real life example.

Quote from: disputeone on February 13, 2017, 11:55:17 PM
I work with tall buildings, I have seen them being built and I understand the loads and stresses on them, In fact there was a roof of a hospital that collapsed recently while it was being built as the tradesman forgot to install drains. The rain water built up on the roof until it collapsed. The funny thing about a progressive collapse, is that it's progressive, that is not instantaneous.

Individual structural components failed which led to the failure of other structural components and the buildings roof progressively collapsed, not neat and instantaneous like the 9/11 effectTM would predict.

I was not attempting an argument from authority far from it, I think this issue takes an open mind receptive to the truth and not blinded by what we want to believe.

Edit formatting.

Quote from: disputeone on February 19, 2017, 05:33:57 AM
Blast resistant material they say?

Now, why would you need to blast proof a building to prevent fire induced collapse? I wonder.

Quote
The idea that the towers were designed to withstand plane crashes is true but has been distorted by the conspiracy theorists.

Also we are not arguing that it is impossible the plane crash couldn't possibly have led to a collapse.

We are arguing that the plane crash causing a plumb collapse at or near free fall is impossible.

This doesn't even begin to address building 7, please see my above post.

Edit, sorry trying to keep posts to a minimum.

From the previous page Master Evar.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 19, 2017, 05:44:19 AM
Master_evar...

That is very little difference that the official report fyi.

So any debunking on the official story is interchangeable with that. The connections were not weak, individually they were. However, they were conjoined and welded together with reinforced joints, it created a box frame.

This was actually a cool design then because it allowed for more sq per floor to lease. Though I do agree with the emergency exit issue...They stopped doing that in the 80s because of a fire in Japan.

Edited for my shit typing and spelling
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 19, 2017, 05:51:34 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 19, 2017, 05:33:57 AM
Blast resistant material they say?

Now, why would you need to blast proof a building to prevent fire induced collapse? I wonder.
"or use some blast-resistant material such as intumescent paint (which swells to form a protective coating when subject to) heat."
Maybe because it also works, and it doubles as proofing against bombs?
If they don't intend to blow up more buildings (if they did), why would they say something like this, if it is considered suspicious? It's like people who think the moon landing is a conspiracy, but the conspiracy is led by idiots who don't know how to be inconspicuous. Sorry, but I can't see how it would be suspicious in any way.

Quote from: disputeone on February 19, 2017, 05:33:57 AM
Quote
The idea that the towers were designed to withstand plane crashes is true but has been distorted by the conspiracy theorists.

Also we are not arguing that it is impossible the plane crash couldn't possibly have led to a collapse.

We are arguing that the plane crash causing a plumb collapse at or near free fall is impossible.

This doesn't even begin to address building 7, please see my above post.

Edit, sorry trying to keep posts to a minimum.
This wasn't written by me and isn't adressing you, I just thought it explains well how the collapse of the twin towers escalated. I will also deal with the freefall stuff next, calm down. But first, reality calls.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 19, 2017, 05:51:49 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on February 19, 2017, 05:39:49 AM
you know I trust in the official story. Do you have anything you want to discuss?

Was not aluminum, was steel or something that shouldn't have been there.


Though as for discussion....I suppose it's done. Just don't hate on people who disagree because the facts aren't there for the science, the inputs are hidden, and cannot stand the 1000s of impossibilities outside the science on the story itself.

It sucks, you seem like a nice fellow, we have had good conversations before and I hate seeing you mislead.. but it is what it is.

I respect your belief....Though don't agree with it since you are being lied to and I don't like that.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 19, 2017, 05:59:11 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 19, 2017, 05:36:06 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 19, 2017, 05:22:15 AM


Since when does an open tank outdoors and having a fast evaporation rate have anything to do with being volatile? It has nothing to do with stored energy.. Quite making up shit... I stated it has an high evaporation rate in an open tank outdoors...It does...

Now go troll else where....You will never answer a direct question, you only know twists and lies...there is obviously something wrong with you rather it be for a sinister reason or something not calibrated right...

Now go back where you came from


Seriously I can't believe you don't know what volatile actually means?    Evaporation rate is in fact the very definition of volatility.   

Volatility actually does correlate to some degree with stored energy in the sense that heavier fuels are less volatile and are more energy dense than lighter more volatile fractions.  But the energy density is affected by other factors such as the chemistry of the combustion reaction.  Nitroglycerin is fairly energy dense but not especially volatile.

You never ask any sensible direct questions.  If you have I'd be happy to answer,  I've even answered some of your stupid questions.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 19, 2017, 06:03:38 AM
Quote
Several of the pager messages point to the mass of confusion and rumour-mongering that set in after the first plane hit the north tower. At 8.50am a message says that a bomb has been detonated in the World Trade Centre.

A minute later, Teresa messages: "THE WORLD TRADE CENTER HAS JUST BLOWN UP, WE SEEN THE EXPLOSION OUTSIDE OUR WINDOWS."

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2009/nov/25/wikileaks-publishes-messages-9-11

Quote
A Secret Service page at 10:32 a.m. warned: "ANONYMOUS CALL TO JOC REPORTING ANGEL IS TARGET." Angel is the Secret Service codeword for Air Force One; JOC means Joint Operations Center. When the president's plane had departed Florida about half an hour earlier, it was en route to D.C. That anonymous threat seems to be what diverted President Bush on a high-speed flight across the country, first to Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana, and then to an underground command center in Nebraska.

Amidst the confusion that day, the Secret Service's New York field office gave contradictory instructions to agents. At 9:06 a.m., their pagers lit up with these orders:
"MEET AT THE BASEBALL FIELD BEHIND THE EMBASSY SUITES HOTEL ON WEST STREET NY." Ninety minutes later: "ALL NEW YORK FIELD OFFICE PERSONNEL RESPOND TO STUYVESANT HIGH SCHOOL AT THE CORNER OF CHAMBERS AND WEST STREET ASAP." Later: "ALL NYFO PERSONNEL ARE TO DISREGARD THE LAST PAGE REGARDING STUVYSANT HIGH SCHOOL."

One message said: "#2 MCLL EXEC WAS ABOARD ONE OF THE PLANES. 1 OF THE ONES WHO BETRAYED HARRY. NO TEARS HERE." Metrocall founder Harry Brock had been ousted as president six years earlier. Metrocall chief operating officer Steven Jacoby died on Flight 77 that day.

Brinks, the armored car operator, received a series of requests for immediate deliveries from banks running low on cash after Americans rushed to withdraw currency: "Micheal, branch officer, is requesting a same day cash delivery. His branch is low on cash. The charge will be $50.00. Please respond to confirm."

A press aide for then-California governor Gray Davis spent the day fending off requests for interviews and updates from KABC, the Oakland Tribune, the Long Beach Press-Telegram, the National Guard, KTTV, Fox News, and someone who wanted to know, "Are the schools going to be closed for the rest of the week?"

https://wikileaks.org/wiki/Egads!_Confidential_9/11_Pager_Messages_Disclosed

R.I.P Assange.

As for the reason I can sum it up in one word, control.

To address the issue of the casualties do the two million civilian casualties in the war on "terror" put it in perspective?

It just gets deeper and deeper.

Quote
Much like al-Qaida, the Islamic State is made-in-the-USA, an instrument of terror designed to divide and conquer the oil-rich Middle East and to counter Iran’s growing influence in the region,” the Center for Research on Globalization wrote.

They went on to write that, “the fact that the United States has a long and torrid history of backing terrorist groups will surprise only those who watch the news and ignore history.”

http://www.telesurtv.net/english/analysis/US-Caused-Civilian-Deaths-Versus-Toll-of-Terrorist-Attacks--20151115-0010.html
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 19, 2017, 06:03:45 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 19, 2017, 05:28:24 AM
master evar

As for aluminum melting, aluminum in broad daylight is silver to a white like color, this is easily demonstrated. So it had to be steel or "something else" not aluminum. Plus, depending on which part of the official report you read, sometimes the plane vaporized sometimes it didn't. So one part of the story there would be no aluminum to melt. Plus I didn't see a spec or a plane crash in any of the videos.


I agree that aluminium at melting point is silver,  but what colour is it at 800 or 900 C,   it doesn't matter if it's daylight or not.   I don't know for sure,  but I wouldn't be surprised if it was reddish in colour.

What do you mean "Plus I didn't see a spec or a plane crash in any of the videos."   That makes no sense?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 19, 2017, 06:05:59 AM
Rayzor I worded it goofy....

This is all you have has an argument....Any one who was not intentionally trying to twist words would easily see that. Nor would we even be talking about this non sense over something of substance.

As I said, be gone rayzor...We all know what you are. I would block you, but I want to make sure you aren't spreading lies as always. So unfortunately I must see you non sense
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 19, 2017, 06:08:01 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 19, 2017, 06:03:45 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 19, 2017, 05:28:24 AM
master evar

As for aluminum melting, aluminum in broad daylight is silver to a white like color, this is easily demonstrated. So it had to be steel or "something else" not aluminum. Plus, depending on which part of the official report you read, sometimes the plane vaporized sometimes it didn't. So one part of the story there would be no aluminum to melt. Plus I didn't see a spec or a plane crash in any of the videos.


I agree that aluminium at melting point is silver,  but what colour is it at 800 or 900 C,   it doesn't matter if it's daylight or not.   I don't know for sure,  but I wouldn't be surprised if it was reddish in colour.

What do you mean "Plus I didn't see a spec or a plane crash in any of the videos."   That makes no sense?

Spec of a plane crash..It was my typo...Damn it.. I am used to using words for this shit not typing on a phone.

I need to use speech to text against trolls

*Edit for typo...Again.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 19, 2017, 06:17:51 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 19, 2017, 06:05:59 AM
Rayzor I worded it goofy....

This is all you have has an argument....Any one who was not intentionally trying to twist words would easily see that. Nor would we even be talking about this non sense over something of substance.

As I said, be gone rayzor...We all know what you are. I would block you, but I want to make sure you aren't spreading lies as always. So unfortunately I must see you non sense

Ok,  I'll accept that was a genuine mistake.   Now will you accept that it wasn't just jet fuel burning,  and that temperatures can get up to 1000C in building fires.

I had a policy earlier of replying in kind,  but for a while I'll let your insults pass,  just don't make a habit of it. 

Unlike you I've already made my position clear on the cause of the collapses.  You haven't


 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 19, 2017, 06:33:17 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 19, 2017, 06:17:51 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 19, 2017, 06:05:59 AM
Rayzor I worded it goofy....

This is all you have has an argument....Any one who was not intentionally trying to twist words would easily see that. Nor would we even be talking about this non sense over something of substance.

As I said, be gone rayzor...We all know what you are. I would block you, but I want to make sure you aren't spreading lies as always. So unfortunately I must see you non sense

Ok,  I'll accept that was a genuine mistake.   Now will you accept that it wasn't just jet fuel burning,  and that temperatures can get up to 1000C in building fires.

I had a policy earlier of replying in kind,  but for a while I'll let your insults pass,  just don't make a habit of it. 

Unlike you I've already made my position clear on the cause of the collapses.  You haven't

No...With materials inside the building 600c. If there is something that shouldn't have been there, hotter.

The cause...I don't know. All I can say is structural aspects and mass would have had to been removed in advance...And something other than a plane would have had to have been the cause to equal a uniform collapse at a speed close enough to free fall speed to call it free fall.

An intact structure with that design is impossible to fall as we saw. Even if I concede many things that are impossible, once you get to the fall itself you can never make it past that. The structure and mass cannot act like that if not even a percent of its total mass and structure is comprised
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 19, 2017, 06:40:14 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 19, 2017, 06:33:17 AM
No...With materials inside the building 600c. If there is something that shouldn't have been there, hotter.

The cause...I don't know. All I can say is structural aspects and mass would have had to been removed in advance...And something other than a plane would have had to have been the cause to equal a uniform collapse at a speed close enough to free fall speed to call it free fall.

An intact structure with that design is impossible to fall as we saw. Even if I concede many things that are impossible, once you get to the fall itself you can never make it past that. The structure and mass cannot act like that if not even a percent of its total mass and structure is comprised

You are wrong about that 600C 

There is fairly broad agreement in the fire science community that flashover is reached when the average upper gas temperature in the room exceeds about 600°C. Prior to that point, no generalizations should be made: There will be zones of 900°C flame temperatures, but wide spatial variations will be seen. Of interest, however, is the peak fire temperature normally associated with room fires. The peak value is governed by ventilation and fuel supply characteristics [12] and so such values will form a wide frequency distribution. Of interest is the maximum value which is fairly regularly found. This value turns out to be around 1200°C, although a typical post-flashover room fire will more commonly be 900~1000°C. The time-temperature curve for the standard fire endurance test, ASTM E 119 [13] goes up to 1260°C, but this is reached only in 8 hr. In actual fact, no jurisdiction demands fire endurance periods for over 4 hr, at which point the curve only reaches 1093°C.
The peak expected temperatures in room fires, then, are slightly greater than those found in free-burning fire plumes. This is to be expected. The amount that the fire plume's temperature drops below the adiabatic flame temperature is determined by the heat losses from the flame. When a flame is far away from any walls and does not heat up the enclosure, it radiates to surroundings which are essentially at 20°C. If the flame is big enough (or the room small enough) for the room walls to heat up substantially, then the flame exchanges radiation with a body that is several hundred °C; the consequence is smaller heat losses, and, therefore, a higher flame temperature.

The key factor here is the ventilation and air supply,  with gaping holes in the walls from the impact,  and lots of windows blown out,  there is plenty of air supply.

I used do a bit of consulting work on fire control systems,  and controlling AHU's to create sandwich zones in high rise is something I have a passing knowledge of,  this fire was totally out of control from the instant it started, and with no means of controlling the air circulation the fire easily exceeded the point at which steel significantly weakens.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 19, 2017, 06:43:50 AM
Why was the smoke so black tho?

Rayzor your point of weakened steel is moot, it would not lead to a free fall collapse, it's been demonstrated here repeatedly.

Please peddle your wares somewhere else.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 19, 2017, 06:58:01 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 19, 2017, 06:40:14 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 19, 2017, 06:33:17 AM
No...With materials inside the building 600c. If there is something that shouldn't have been there, hotter.

The cause...I don't know. All I can say is structural aspects and mass would have had to been removed in advance...And something other than a plane would have had to have been the cause to equal a uniform collapse at a speed close enough to free fall speed to call it free fall.

An intact structure with that design is impossible to fall as we saw. Even if I concede many things that are impossible, once you get to the fall itself you can never make it past that. The structure and mass cannot act like that if not even a percent of its total mass and structure is comprised

You are wrong about that 600C 

There is fairly broad agreement in the fire science community that flashover is reached when the average upper gas temperature in the room exceeds about 600°C. Prior to that point, no generalizations should be made: There will be zones of 900°C flame temperatures, but wide spatial variations will be seen. Of interest, however, is the peak fire temperature normally associated with room fires. The peak value is governed by ventilation and fuel supply characteristics [12] and so such values will form a wide frequency distribution. Of interest is the maximum value which is fairly regularly found. This value turns out to be around 1200°C, although a typical post-flashover room fire will more commonly be 900~1000°C. The time-temperature curve for the standard fire endurance test, ASTM E 119 [13] goes up to 1260°C, but this is reached only in 8 hr. In actual fact, no jurisdiction demands fire endurance periods for over 4 hr, at which point the curve only reaches 1093°C.
The peak expected temperatures in room fires, then, are slightly greater than those found in free-burning fire plumes. This is to be expected. The amount that the fire plume's temperature drops below the adiabatic flame temperature is determined by the heat losses from the flame. When a flame is far away from any walls and does not heat up the enclosure, it radiates to surroundings which are essentially at 20°C. If the flame is big enough (or the room small enough) for the room walls to heat up substantially, then the flame exchanges radiation with a body that is several hundred °C; the consequence is smaller heat losses, and, therefore, a higher flame temperature.

The key factor here is the ventilation and air supply,  with gaping holes in the walls from the impact,  and lots of windows blown out,  there is plenty of air supply.

I used do a bit of consulting work on fire control systems,  and controlling AHU's to create sandwich zones in high rise is something I have a passing knowledge of,  this fire was totally out of control from the instant it started, and with no means of controlling the air circulation the fire easily exceeded the point at which steel significantly weakens.

This does not prove that the fire was over 600c...This is actually very circular talk if you read it closely. Nor was there a giant hole compared to the total cfm.

Plus, how much fire did you actually see after the impact? I didn't see much....I saw a shit load of black smoke, which if you dealt with fire control you should know what that means. Plus there were people looking out the openings, couldn't be that hot in there.

Also, if I agree that the fire was 900c or so that doesn't make much difference. The short amount of time it burned wasn't enough to raise the steel to failure once you equal the heat load sharing of the entire structure...Just like a hot skillet handle.

Though what I saw was an oxygen starved fire, with people walking around in the opening with an ass load of oxygen starved smoke.

Not an out of control, super hot, ever expanding blaze.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sokarul on February 19, 2017, 07:09:48 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 18, 2017, 11:08:37 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 18, 2017, 10:29:38 PM
Quote from: sokarul on February 18, 2017, 10:22:53 PM
How much chromium was in the steel of those buildings?

Which ones?

So are you asking questions for no reason? Well to be honest with you, no one knows the actual number. The Japanese and British steel mills the beams came from lost all evidence. I do know the core was a form of ASTM A 36, trusses and other beams were a mix of ASTM A 36 and ASTM A 242.

Though how they were mixed original??? Question will be there.

I can say from my personal test of the material I was able to get, I only picked up trace amounts of Cr. The biggest anti corrosive I found was copper .16-.20.... Though in some pieces there was nickel present.

However, as I said, reverse analyzing steel is not always 100 percent.

Were you going somewhere with this?

Quote from: sokarul on February 18, 2017, 10:38:32 PM
I was referring to your pictures. It doesn't matter though, The History Channel claimed in a show that if the steel contained more chromium it wouldn't have collapsed, but I'm not finding anything else that backs that claim up.

I also can't find any of the people who planted explosives in the buildings. Know any?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 19, 2017, 07:19:45 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 18, 2017, 11:23:06 PM
Quote from: sokarul on February 18, 2017, 10:38:32 PM
I was referring to your pictures. It doesn't matter though, The History Channel claimed in a show that if the steel contained more chromium it wouldn't have collapsed, but I'm not finding anything else that backs that claim up.

I also can't find any of the people who planted explosives in the buildings. Know any?

I am sorry, I didn't see this.

Chromium is never used in high amounts in any structural steel, especially in a high rise. It can provide a bit more fire resistance and rigidity...But that is the issue... Rigidity, it is too much for a building that requires flex but not breaking. Too much CR...And you will start to have fractures or even failures  very quickly.

That is why any high rise in the structural steel uses mainly nickel, copper or a combo of both for the anti corrosive.

But for amounts Incase you didn't see this

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 18, 2017, 11:08:37 PM
Well to be honest with you, no one knows the actual number. The Japanese and British steel mills the beams came from lost all evidence. I do know the core was a form of ASTM A 36, trusses and other beams were a mix of ASTM A 36 and ASTM A 242.

Though how they were mixed original??? Question will be there.

I can say from my personal test of the material I was able to get, I only picked up trace amounts of Cr. The biggest anti corrosive I found was copper .16-.20.... Though in some pieces there was nickel present.

However, as I said, reverse analyzing steel is not always 100 percent.

I never want to be accused of ignoring questions...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 19, 2017, 07:22:59 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 19, 2017, 06:58:01 AM
This does not prove that the fire was over 600c...This is actually very circular talk if you read it closely. Nor was there a giant hole compared to the total cfm.

Plus, how much fire did you actually see after the impact? I didn't see much....I saw a shit load of black smoke, which if you dealt with fire control you should know what that means. Plus there were people looking out the openings, couldn't be that hot in there.

Also, if I agree that the fire was 900c or so that doesn't make much difference. The short amount of time it burned wasn't enough to raise the steel to failure once you equal the heat load sharing of the entire structure...Just like a hot skillet handle.

Though what I saw was an oxygen starved fire, with people walking around in the opening with an ass load of oxygen starved smoke.

Not an out of control, super hot, ever expanding blaze.

The black smoke doesn't always indicate an oxygen starved fire,  sometimes it can tell you a bit about what's burning,  like plastics etc, but even that's not 100% accurate.

Ok let's not get hung up on something that can never be known with precision, 

(http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0711/fig5.jpg)

At 600C the steel is already less than half,  by the time we get to 800C it's turned into pretzels.

The fires could easily have weakened the steel to the point of collapse.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rama Set on February 19, 2017, 07:28:22 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 18, 2017, 02:52:10 PM
Oh man....Why does Rama set and master evar have to join in...They were people I actually liked....Sigh... :(

All I keep hearing is "I believe"...This isn't a Disney show, nor can we click our heals.

No need to instantly toss out insults. I am just being honest about my level of knowledge in engineering.

Can you honestly say that the sounds of the WTC collapse sound like a controlled demolition? If you don't, then how did they mask the sound?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 19, 2017, 07:31:30 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 19, 2017, 07:19:45 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 18, 2017, 11:23:06 PM
Quote from: sokarul on February 18, 2017, 10:38:32 PM
I was referring to your pictures. It doesn't matter though, The History Channel claimed in a show that if the steel contained more chromium it wouldn't have collapsed, but I'm not finding anything else that backs that claim up.

I also can't find any of the people who planted explosives in the buildings. Know any?

I am sorry, I didn't see this.

Chromium is never used in high amounts in any structural steel, especially in a high rise. It can provide a bit more fire resistance and rigidity...But that is the issue... Rigidity, it is too much for a building that requires flex but not breaking. Too much CR...And you will start to have fractures or even failures  very quickly.

That is why any high rise in the structural steel uses mainly nickel, copper or a combo of both for the anti corrosive.

But for amounts Incase you didn't see this

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 18, 2017, 11:08:37 PM
Well to be honest with you, no one knows the actual number. The Japanese and British steel mills the beams came from lost all evidence. I do know the core was a form of ASTM A 36, trusses and other beams were a mix of ASTM A 36 and ASTM A 242.

Though how they were mixed original??? Question will be there.

I can say from my personal test of the material I was able to get, I only picked up trace amounts of Cr. The biggest anti corrosive I found was copper .16-.20.... Though in some pieces there was nickel present.

However, as I said, reverse analyzing steel is not always 100 percent.

I never want to be accused of ignoring questions...

The JOM published some data on the  recovered materials from the WTC    http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0711/banovic-0711.html

The steel from the WTC met or exceeded the design specifications.  The chemical analysis is there as well as the metallurgy of the WTC recovered steels.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 19, 2017, 07:45:56 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 19, 2017, 07:22:59 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 19, 2017, 06:58:01 AM
This does not prove that the fire was over 600c...This is actually very circular talk if you read it closely. Nor was there a giant hole compared to the total cfm.

Plus, how much fire did you actually see after the impact? I didn't see much....I saw a shit load of black smoke, which if you dealt with fire control you should know what that means. Plus there were people looking out the openings, couldn't be that hot in there.

Also, if I agree that the fire was 900c or so that doesn't make much difference. The short amount of time it burned wasn't enough to raise the steel to failure once you equal the heat load sharing of the entire structure...Just like a hot skillet handle.

Though what I saw was an oxygen starved fire, with people walking around in the opening with an ass load of oxygen starved smoke.

Not an out of control, super hot, ever expanding blaze.

The black smoke doesn't always indicate an oxygen starved fire,  sometimes it can tell you a bit about what's burning,  like plastics etc, but even that's not 100% accurate.

Ok let's got get hung up on something that can never be known with precision, 

(http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0711/fig5.jpg)

At 600C the steel is already less than half,  by the time we get to 800C it's turned into pretzels.

The fires could easily have weakened the steel to the point of collapse.

Yes, that is to assume as soon as the fire starts it is instantly that temp...It takes A lot of time to heat up the structural metal...That is alot of mass and structure to heat..They are made to share heat, not just for fires but for day to day temp changes, helps longevity of the joints etc... is why I said I had such hard time getting temp to build in the models with just simple fires on the damaged floors.

Especially in the core, that metal is very thick and very long...And that would be the key to get a collapse, these buildings were very reliant on the cores. I even played with the model to try and get the heat up in the core.

Plus remember where the fire is the hottest in fires like these rather it's from liquid fuel or office materials.

Quote from: Rama Set on February 19, 2017, 07:28:22 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 18, 2017, 02:52:10 PM
Oh man....Why does Rama set and master evar have to join in...They were people I actually liked....Sigh... :(

All I keep hearing is "I believe"...This isn't a Disney show, nor can we click our heals.

No need to instantly toss out insults. I am just being honest about my level of knowledge in engineering.

Can you honestly say that the sounds of the WTC collapse sound like a controlled demolition? If you don't, then how did they mask the sound?

Sorry Rama set...I didn't mean to put liked..I have terrible auto correct issues, I suppose I wasn't built for a smart phone and a forum. You can read through everyone harping on me, and not on just this thread. Change that to like...

Yes, listen to it loud and you can hear subtle and faint "booms"...plus there were tons of reports of the same thing from people rhere..To be honest, I have never been to a demo where the windows and sound deadening was still in and building completely intact.

Though I have heard some very quiet ones, just like that building I showed. 

It depends on the charge size and route they go....Plus I have never seen a demo that was attempted to be hid..So there are some theories on that, or exotic things like thermite. However, we are into theories again.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 19, 2017, 07:49:17 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 19, 2017, 05:14:45 AM
Plumb being vertical and straight.
Level being horizontal and straight.

Here is the experiment and some supporting arguments.

Quote from: disputeone on February 19, 2017, 04:08:47 AM
I posted it before but here is NIST's lead investigator explaining why free fall of building 7 is impossible given the official story.


The lead investigator didn't explain why it was impossible. He just said what was required to get a free-fall time. Then the creator of the video interprets the footage of the collapse (not wrongly). However we can't be certain that multiple supports couldn't have failed within a short timespan, and we don't know in which manner the inner parts of the structure collapsed.

Quote from: disputeone on February 19, 2017, 04:08:47 AM
Here it is in my own words.

Quote from: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 11:01:11 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 09:39:27 PM
Quote from: markjo on February 18, 2017, 09:27:40 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed
This is how robust buildings are (this didn't fall fyi, not even a bit)
(http://i68.tinypic.com/297rtj.jpg)
Umm...  You do realize that building was only about 1/3 as tall as the towers and had a reinforced concrete core, don't you?  Kinda apples and oranges.

Fair point markjo, That wasn't claimed as evidence, just comparison.

I have said it before, my issue is the 2.25 seconds of gravitational acceleration for building 7, I kept bringing it up to Rayzor and now he's ignored me.

Would you like to explain how you think building 7 fell at gravitational acceleration for 2.25 seconds given the official story?

My position is that the official position is untrue as any structure providing any mechanical resistance will not fall at gravitational acceleration as the towers energy is taken up by the mechanical resistance crushing the tower underneath it.

An easy experiment is to put a bowling ball on any structure you like, weaken the structure until the bowling ball crushes the tower, does the tower and bowling ball fall at free fall or is it more a matter of gravitational acceleration - structural resistance = fall acceleration?

My hypothesis is for a controlled demolition, where all the structural support was removed and all the towers potential energy was converted into acceleration by gravity. None of the towers potential energy was taken by the towers structural resistance.
The experiment... depends on the material used. Styrofoam reinforced with plastic straws could be one set of materials which could provide a structure similar to that of concrete reinforced with steel, and produce a near free-fall collapse. Mostly because the ball would weigh much more than the rest of the material, and once it starts cracking and bending it would collapse quickly. But WTC 7 did also collapse from the bottom, having all of that upper mass crushing down on the support near the floor. Had it collapsed further up, maybe it wouldn't have entered free-fall.

Quote from: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 10:11:08 PM
We are trying to keep the debate focussed on physics, engineering and logic, the incidences you talk about I believe are highly relevant, but not necessary to prove our main two points.

1. The planes could not have penetrated and passed through the buildings given the official story.

2. The buildings fall acceleration and pretty much plumb, neat collapse could not of been caused by an event as chaotic as a plane impact.

Entropy always increases, that is to say with time a system becomes less ordered and more chaotic.
On point 1: Evidence? The planes didn't have to make it through intact, not even close.

On point 2: Evidence?

On the last bit: Well, the human perception of what is ordered and not isn't perfect. And in any case, I can drop a ball perfectly neatly and orderly. Doesn't mean that nothing happened to entropy - neat and orderly potential energy turned into disorderly heat. In the case of WTC, it also left a lot of rubble. I can assure you that entering free-fall doesn't break the laws of physics.


Quote from: disputeone on February 13, 2017, 11:55:17 PM
I work with tall buildings, I have seen them being built and I understand the loads and stresses on them, In fact there was a roof of a hospital that collapsed recently while it was being built as the tradesman forgot to install drains. The rain water built up on the roof until it collapsed. The funny thing about a progressive collapse, is that it's progressive, that is not instantaneous.

Individual structural components failed which led to the failure of other structural components and the buildings roof progressively collapsed, not neat and instantaneous like the 9/11 effectTM would predict.

I was not attempting an argument from authority far from it, I think this issue takes an open mind receptive to the truth and not blinded by what we want to believe.
Well, there's a difference between collapsing from the roof, and collapsing from the foundation or in the middle of a building.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 19, 2017, 07:53:28 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 19, 2017, 07:31:30 AM
The JOM published some data on the  recovered materials from the WTC    http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0711/banovic-0711.html

The steel from the WTC met or exceeded the design specifications.  The chemical analysis is there as well as the metallurgy of the WTC recovered steels.

Isn't that exactly what I said? He didn't want tolerances or anything of the such, he asked a very specific question. Which is not in that report...I didn't want to stretch the truth, because we don't know the exacts or anything because of the companies being defunct now.

I said the type steel it was, what spec it was which is what they said...I also let him know what I found from the material I was able to get.. Anyways this is repeating.

I answered his question directly and that report was just echoing what I already said
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 19, 2017, 07:58:13 AM
Final post for the day.

If it was a controlled demolition, then how come the collapse started from the area where the planes impacted and the fires were?

If it was controlled demolition and the charges were placed exactly where the impact area was,  how did they get the charges installed?  The area was destroyed,  the lifts were out and we are 90 floors above ground.

So the charges couldn't have been carried up the 90 or so floors to be placed,  they would have to be put there beforehand,  if that's the case,  how did they know in advance where the planes were going to hit?

Further if somehow they managed to position the charges unnoticed, and also managed to crash the plane at the exact place,  why way up 90 floors,  why not down lower?

Finally suppose they the impossible and get the charges placed,  and got the planes to hit the unlikely spot 90 floors up,  How come the charges didn't detonate when hit by the impact or detonate due to the fires.

Maybe they had a magic wand?

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Heiwa on February 19, 2017, 08:04:48 AM
An easy experiment to see a structure collapsing from top down is to use any man made structure and disconnect the 10% top part from the 90% bottom part - raise the top part 3 meters - and drop the 10% top part on the 90% bottom part.

Anyone can do it! NIST, CIA, FBI, NSA, GWB, Donald Trump!

The structure may be of any type, any material, any size but the 90% bottom must be able to keep the 10% top in place before disconnection and drop for collapse attempt.

If you can find any such structure that collapses from top and describe it to me, I pay you €1,000,000:- (one million!) by bank transfer.

http://heiwaco.com/chall1.htm

I have tested many different types of structures but the 10% tops always bounces on the 90% bottom parts at contact. I wonder why? A top part slamming into a bottom part ... and there is no COLLAPSE? Am I part of a conspiracy? GWB & Co. have always said since 912 (2001) that there should be a COLLAPSE. Is GWB not telling the truth?

Or is the 90% intact bottom part always strong enough to bounce off or stop the 10% top part dropping down from globally collapsing 100%?

If you want to, you can put the 10% top part on fire and drop it on the 90% bottom part not on fire. Do not burn yourself!

A nice experiment when spring is arriving (ice melting) is to fill an open air ice hockey rink (not an inside hall one) with only 4" of jetfuel (about 140 tons) and put a heap of 140 tons of steel, aluminium, concrete and similar scrap in the centre (where the game starts). I used to play ice hockey when young. Then ignite the jet fuel and see how it burns. No fire ball! Just plenty black smoke. The scrap in the middle just gets dirty. Inform the local authorities before doing it!

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on February 19, 2017, 10:35:11 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 19, 2017, 03:03:30 AM
I'll accept that correction,  nice to see you being pedantic about facts.

Oh...

A presentation of facts is considered "pedantic."

That explains your difficulty.

LMMFAO!!!

(https://gomakemeasandwich.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/fcf7ff4eb6dd2a95d90aa140d80111dde55744a3113f0e0aa8077ad628cf8dd6.jpg)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rama Set on February 19, 2017, 11:26:45 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 19, 2017, 07:45:56 AM
Sorry Rama set...I didn't mean to put liked..I have terrible auto correct issues, I suppose I wasn't built for a smart phone and a forum. You can read through everyone harping on me, and not on just this thread. Change that to like...

No worries, you are just a hot-headed Texan  :D

Quote
Yes, listen to it loud and you can hear subtle and faint "booms"...plus there were tons of reports of the same thing from people rhere..To be honest, I have never been to a demo where the windows and sound deadening was still in and building completely intact.

I will give that a try.

Quote
Though I have heard some very quiet ones, just like that building I showed. 

It depends on the charge size and route they go....Plus I have never seen a demo that was attempted to be hid..So there are some theories on that, or exotic things like thermite. However, we are into theories again.

Gotcha. 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rama Set on February 19, 2017, 11:34:00 AM
Anyone aware of the Tehran Plasco Highrise fire and subsequent collapse due to fire?

https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2017/01/19/tehran-high-rise-collapses-during-fire-30-firefighters-killed.html
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on February 19, 2017, 01:38:42 PM
Quote from: Rama Set on February 19, 2017, 11:34:00 AM
Anyone aware of the Tehran Plasco Highrise fire and subsequent collapse due to fire?

https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2017/01/19/tehran-high-rise-collapses-during-fire-30-firefighters-killed.html

Funny, that building topples.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 19, 2017, 02:05:28 PM
Quote from: totallackey on February 19, 2017, 01:38:42 PM
Quote from: Rama Set on February 19, 2017, 11:34:00 AM
Anyone aware of the Tehran Plasco Highrise fire and subsequent collapse due to fire?

https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2017/01/19/tehran-high-rise-collapses-during-fire-30-firefighters-killed.html

Funny, that building topples.

Yeah.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 19, 2017, 04:40:13 PM
Daily reminder.

Quote from: disputeone on February 19, 2017, 04:08:47 AM
I posted it before but here is NIST's lead investigator explaining why free fall of building 7 is impossible given the official story.




Here it is in my own words.

Quote from: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 11:01:11 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 09:39:27 PM
Quote from: markjo on February 18, 2017, 09:27:40 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed
This is how robust buildings are (this didn't fall fyi, not even a bit)
(http://i68.tinypic.com/297rtj.jpg)
Umm...  You do realize that building was only about 1/3 as tall as the towers and had a reinforced concrete core, don't you?  Kinda apples and oranges.

Fair point markjo, That wasn't claimed as evidence, just comparison.

I have said it before, my issue is the 2.25 seconds of gravitational acceleration for building 7, I kept bringing it up to Rayzor and now he's ignored me.

Would you like to explain how you think building 7 fell at gravitational acceleration for 2.25 seconds given the official story?

My position is that the official position is untrue as any structure providing any mechanical resistance will not fall at gravitational acceleration as the towers energy is taken up by the mechanical resistance crushing the tower underneath it.

An easy experiment is to put a bowling ball on any structure you like, weaken the structure until the bowling ball crushes the tower, does the tower and bowling ball fall at free fall or is it more a matter of gravitational acceleration - structural resistance = fall acceleration?

My hypothesis is for a controlled demolition, where all the structural support was removed and all the towers potential energy was converted into acceleration by gravity. None of the towers potential energy was taken by the towers structural resistance.

Quote from: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 10:35:50 PM
Quote from: sokarul on February 18, 2017, 10:22:53 PM
How much chromium was in the steel of those buildings?

Sokarul, come on now.

I like you and markjo, it's clear you are both intelligent and critical, I don't disrespect you for a difference of opinion here. However you are very late and I think you need to address some previous points raised.

Quote from: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 10:11:08 PM
We are trying to keep the debate focussed on physics, engineering and logic, the incidences you talk about I believe are highly relevant, but not necessary to prove our main two points.

1. The planes could not have penetrated and passed through the buildings given the official story.

2. The buildings fall acceleration and pretty much plumb, neat collapse could not of been caused by an event as chaotic as a plane impact.

Entropy always increases, that is to say with time a system becomes less ordered and more chaotic.

If you think I haven't read everything on the official report at least twice you are being silly.

Edit, real life example.

Quote from: disputeone on February 13, 2017, 11:55:17 PM
I work with tall buildings, I have seen them being built and I understand the loads and stresses on them, In fact there was a roof of a hospital that collapsed recently while it was being built as the tradesman forgot to install drains. The rain water built up on the roof until it collapsed. The funny thing about a progressive collapse, is that it's progressive, that is not instantaneous.

Individual structural components failed which led to the failure of other structural components and the buildings roof progressively collapsed, not neat and instantaneous like the 9/11 effectTM would predict.

I was not attempting an argument from authority far from it, I think this issue takes an open mind receptive to the truth and not blinded by what we want to believe.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 19, 2017, 04:45:17 PM
Quote from: totallackey on February 19, 2017, 10:35:11 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 19, 2017, 03:03:30 AM
I'll accept that correction,  nice to see you being pedantic about facts.

Oh...

A presentation of facts is considered "pedantic."

That explains your difficulty.

LMMFAO!!!

LOL You seem confused as to what pedantic means,   Maybe that other meme dipshit can lend you his dictionary.


Here are the real facts.

1. Both towers were hit by aircraft.    WTC1 was hit by a hijacked fully loaded  767 AA11 with a heavy fuel load.  WTC2 was hit by another hijacked 767 UA175.
2. Both impacts caused significant structural damage and started fires.
3. The collapse initiation point is both cases was the fire damaged area hit by the aircraft.
4. The type of collapse was progressive collapse. 
5. The collapse was slower than free fall. 

If you want to present your "alternative facts"   try to make it relevant to the topic under discussion.

Finally a meme from TotalWanker that is on topic. 

This one is for Babyhighspeed.

(https://gomakemeasandwich.files.wordpress.com/2014/02/fcf7ff4eb6dd2a95d90aa140d80111dde55744a3113f0e0aa8077ad628cf8dd6.jpg)
[/quote]
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 19, 2017, 04:46:58 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 19, 2017, 07:58:13 AM
Final post for the day.

If it was a controlled demolition, then how come the collapse started from the area where the planes impacted and the fires were?

If it was controlled demolition and the charges were placed exactly where the impact area was,  how did they get the charges installed?  The area was destroyed,  the lifts were out and we are 90 floors above ground.

So the charges couldn't have been carried up the 90 or so floors to be placed,  they would have to be put there beforehand,  if that's the case,  how did they know in advance where the planes were going to hit?

Further if somehow they managed to position the charges unnoticed, and also managed to crash the plane at the exact place,  why way up 90 floors,  why not down lower?

Finally suppose they the impossible and get the charges placed,  and got the planes to hit the unlikely spot 90 floors up,  How come the charges didn't detonate when hit by the impact or detonate due to the fires.

Maybe they had a magic wand?

Crickets ....
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 19, 2017, 04:51:02 PM
Daily reminder.

Quote from: disputeone on February 19, 2017, 04:08:47 AM
I posted it before but here is NIST's lead investigator explaining why free fall of building 7 is impossible given the official story.




Here it is in my own words.

Quote from: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 11:01:11 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 09:39:27 PM
Quote from: markjo on February 18, 2017, 09:27:40 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed
This is how robust buildings are (this didn't fall fyi, not even a bit)
(http://i68.tinypic.com/297rtj.jpg)
Umm...  You do realize that building was only about 1/3 as tall as the towers and had a reinforced concrete core, don't you?  Kinda apples and oranges.

Fair point markjo, That wasn't claimed as evidence, just comparison.

I have said it before, my issue is the 2.25 seconds of gravitational acceleration for building 7, I kept bringing it up to Rayzor and now he's ignored me.

Would you like to explain how you think building 7 fell at gravitational acceleration for 2.25 seconds given the official story?

My position is that the official position is untrue as any structure providing any mechanical resistance will not fall at gravitational acceleration as the towers energy is taken up by the mechanical resistance crushing the tower underneath it.

An easy experiment is to put a bowling ball on any structure you like, weaken the structure until the bowling ball crushes the tower, does the tower and bowling ball fall at free fall or is it more a matter of gravitational acceleration - structural resistance = fall acceleration?

My hypothesis is for a controlled demolition, where all the structural support was removed and all the towers potential energy was converted into acceleration by gravity. None of the towers potential energy was taken by the towers structural resistance.

Quote from: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 10:35:50 PM
Quote from: sokarul on February 18, 2017, 10:22:53 PM
How much chromium was in the steel of those buildings?

Sokarul, come on now.

I like you and markjo, it's clear you are both intelligent and critical, I don't disrespect you for a difference of opinion here. However you are very late and I think you need to address some previous points raised.

Quote from: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 10:11:08 PM
We are trying to keep the debate focussed on physics, engineering and logic, the incidences you talk about I believe are highly relevant, but not necessary to prove our main two points.

1. The planes could not have penetrated and passed through the buildings given the official story.

2. The buildings fall acceleration and pretty much plumb, neat collapse could not of been caused by an event as chaotic as a plane impact.

Entropy always increases, that is to say with time a system becomes less ordered and more chaotic.

If you think I haven't read everything on the official report at least twice you are being silly.

Edit, real life example.

Quote from: disputeone on February 13, 2017, 11:55:17 PM
I work with tall buildings, I have seen them being built and I understand the loads and stresses on them, In fact there was a roof of a hospital that collapsed recently while it was being built as the tradesman forgot to install drains. The rain water built up on the roof until it collapsed. The funny thing about a progressive collapse, is that it's progressive, that is not instantaneous.

Individual structural components failed which led to the failure of other structural components and the buildings roof progressively collapsed, not neat and instantaneous like the 9/11 effectTM would predict.

I was not attempting an argument from authority far from it, I think this issue takes an open mind receptive to the truth and not blinded by what we want to believe.

I agree strongly with totallackey.

Rayzor contribute of gtfo.

Oh, and here.

ad hominem
ad ˈhɒmɪnɛm/
adverb & adjective
1.
(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
"an ad hominem response"
2.
relating to or associated with a particular person.
"the office was created ad hominem for Fenton"

straw man
noun
noun: strawman
1.
an intentionally misrepresented proposition that is set up because it is easier to defeat than an opponent's real argument.
"her familiar procedure of creating a straw man by exaggerating their approach"
2.
a person regarded as having no substance or integrity.
"a photogenic straw man gets inserted into office and advisers dictate policy"
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 19, 2017, 04:53:31 PM
Quote from: Rama Set on February 19, 2017, 11:34:00 AM
Anyone aware of the Tehran Plasco Highrise fire and subsequent collapse due to fire?

https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2017/01/19/tehran-high-rise-collapses-during-fire-30-firefighters-killed.html

I wonder what weakened the steel to the extent that it collapsed?    Some numbskull Babyhighspeed on here claims that a fire doesn't get hot enough.   



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 19, 2017, 04:56:38 PM
Please see the post where I make it explicitly clear that we are not arguing that collapse due to the OS is impossible but the plumb collapse at close to or at free-fallis impossible, especially building 7. In fact, it's just a couple of posts up.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 19, 2017, 04:57:56 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 19, 2017, 07:53:28 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 19, 2017, 07:31:30 AM
The JOM published some data on the  recovered materials from the WTC    http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0711/banovic-0711.html

The steel from the WTC met or exceeded the design specifications.  The chemical analysis is there as well as the metallurgy of the WTC recovered steels.

Isn't that exactly what I said? He didn't want tolerances or anything of the such, he asked a very specific question. Which is not in that report...I didn't want to stretch the truth, because we don't know the exacts or anything because of the companies being defunct now.

I said the type steel it was, what spec it was which is what they said...I also let him know what I found from the material I was able to get.. Anyways this is repeating.

I answered his question directly and that report was just echoing what I already said

I wasn't replying for your benefit, I was replying for Sokarul's benefit, but since you've read the JOM article,  would you like to retract your earlier claim about the steel being shipped overseas for recycling without being tested or examined?

The Recovery Effort and the Structural Steel Elements
During the recovery effort after September 11, and before NIST began its collapse investigation, volunteers from FEMA, ASCE, NIST, the National Science Foundation (NSF), and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEAoNY) worked at the four steel recycling facilities to identify and collect steel members important to the investigation. They focused on identifying pieces that the aircraft struck or were obviously burned, as well as pieces from the fire and impact zone. The National Institute of Standards and Technology arranged to have these pieces shipped to its facility in Gaithersburg, Maryland. The National Institute of Standards and Technology investigation team members cataloged the items and attempted to identify their original locations in the towers, using their dimensions and markings.

In all, NIST cataloged 236 structural steel elements:

Ninety exterior column panels, of which 42 were unambiguously identified. Of those identified, 26 came from the fire and impact floors, and four of these had been struck by the airplane that hit WTC 1.
Fifty-five core columns, of which 12 were unambiguously identified. Four of the identified columns came from the fire and impact zones.
Twenty-three pieces of floor truss. Unfortunately, these elements had no identifying marks, so their original location in the towers is unknown.
Twenty-five pieces of the channel that supported the floor trusses at the core; all are of unknown location.
Forty-three miscellaneous pieces including bolts, pieces of aluminum facade, and elements from WTC 5.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 19, 2017, 05:03:29 PM
Forfeit the game before somebody else takes you out of the frame, and puts your name to shame, cover up your face, you can't run the race the pace is too fast you just won't last.

You like to think you’re never wrong
(You like to think you’re never wrong)
You have to act like you’re someone
(You have to act like you’re someone)
You want someone to hurt like you
(You want someone to hurt like you)
You want to share what you’ve been through
You like to think you’re never wrong
(You like to think you’re never wrong)
You have to act like you’re someone
(You have to act like you’re someone)
You want someone to hurt like you
(You want someone to hurt like you)
You want to share what you’ve been through
You live what you’ve learned.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 19, 2017, 05:15:09 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 19, 2017, 04:46:58 PM

If it was a controlled demolition, then how come the collapse started from the area where the planes impacted and the fires were?

Because, if it hasn't, even you would think something was up, who am I kidding, no you wouldn't.

Quote
If it was controlled demolition and the charges were placed exactly where the impact area was,  how did they get the charges installed?  The area was destroyed,  the lifts were out and we are 90 floors above ground.

Obviously the building was prepped long before the plane impacts.

Quote
So the charges couldn't have been carried up the 90 or so floors to be placed,  they would have to be put there beforehand,  if that's the case,  how did they know in advance where the planes were going to hit?

Yes, beforehand, they knew where the planes where going to hit because the were either drone driven, or outright cgi.

Quote
Further if somehow they managed to position the charges unnoticed, and also managed to crash the plane at the exact place,  why way up 90 floors,  why not down lower?

Who would notice, the "businesses" "working" there?

Your question is irrelevant, it was probably a case of it being too difficult to crash the plane lower. We have shown the speeds and maneuvers of the "planes" were suspect to say the least.

Quote
Finally suppose they the impossible and get the charges placed,  and got the planes to hit the unlikely spot 90 floors up,  How come the charges didn't detonate when hit by the impact or detonate due to the fires.

Please see the video of the massive explosion where the plane hit.

As for detonating due to fire and heat, you have absolutely no engineering knowlege do you? You literally couldn't build your way out of a cardboard box.

Or debate, apparently.

Quote
Crickets ....

Please see above and adress the actual physics and engineering I have raised.

Or, gtfo.

Quote
How come the charges didn't detonate when hit by the impact



F.E.S. Think for yourself.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 19, 2017, 06:04:15 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 19, 2017, 06:58:01 AM
....I saw a shit load of black smoke,

Yep,  Black fire.   turbulent, high velocity,  high volume, dense black smoke,  just on the point of flashover,  smoke temperatures up over 500C.   Very nasty stuff.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 19, 2017, 06:05:00 PM
Ignoring me was unwise, Papa.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Twerp on February 19, 2017, 06:58:56 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 19, 2017, 05:03:29 PM
Forfeit the game before somebody else takes you out of the frame, and puts your name to shame, cover up your face, you can't run the race the pace is too fast you just won't last.

You like to think you’re never wrong
(You like to think you’re never wrong)
You have to act like you’re someone
(You have to act like you’re someone)
You want someone to hurt like you
(You want someone to hurt like you)
You want to share what you’ve been through
You like to think you’re never wrong
(You like to think you’re never wrong)
You have to act like you’re someone
(You have to act like you’re someone)
You want someone to hurt like you
(You want someone to hurt like you)
You want to share what you’ve been through
You live what you’ve learned.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 19, 2017, 10:01:57 PM
Quote from: Rama Set on February 19, 2017, 11:34:00 AM
Anyone aware of the Tehran Plasco Highrise fire and subsequent collapse due to fire?

https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2017/01/19/tehran-high-rise-collapses-during-fire-30-firefighters-killed.html

Yes, I knew about this, I have a friend that was there. He is Iranian (well Persian) and he has dual citizenship, was visiting family there (they didn't live in the building)..Him and his family helped with the after math clean up though.

Different thing completely, it's like comparing a tank to a Russian Yugo... Plus that was not a free fall collapse into its own foot print. It fell towards the trees, slowly, piece by piece, it covered alot of area...Plus there is alot of the base still intact...Half of the inside of the building took another 10 minutes to fall some more.

This is everything you would expect from a building that burned a high majority of the entire building for hours and hours, that was built like complete shit, and finally had a structural failure.

Although i don't have exact prints of the building (no one does, it was built over 50 years ago by a Jewish Iranian family as a shopping mall) there was no "building codes" then and not even now in Tehran...It's a free for all. Any codes there are now, you can just buy your way out of them. I have spent much time there myself and it is a different world for sure.. As my friend says, "Beautiful land, shitty people" which about sums it up.

It was a mix of concrete, tubular steel, flex steel and even WOOD! This is Tehran building, no different that a child using whatever it finds for Lincoln logs lol....The fact it stood that long with that much on fire is impressive in itself for what it was.. one of the biggest fears there is a mass fire or an earthquake, the death toll and destruction would be enormous.

I mean even look at the videos taken...Some was taking by people just walking around la la la by the fire engines and fire fighters, even some by people inside the building WILLINGLY there, not trapped...So dumb.

Anyways, it fell as you would expect anyways...Sad, not only could it have been prevented with proper building techniques, most of the deaths would have been prevented if people didn't go back in the building to either get things or just see what was going on...Not like they had crowd control anyways...

On a side note...The investigation so far has pointed to fowl play, looks highly possible it was a beef between the family that owned it and another family.

As I said...It's Tehran...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 19, 2017, 10:13:30 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 19, 2017, 10:01:57 PM
Quote from: Rama Set on February 19, 2017, 11:34:00 AM
Anyone aware of the Tehran Plasco Highrise fire and subsequent collapse due to fire?

Quote
It fell towards the trees, slowly, piece by piece, it covered alot of area...Plus there is alot of the base still intact...Half of the inside of the building took another 10 minutes to fall some more.

This is everything you would expect from a building that burned a high majority of the entire building for hours and hours, that was built like complete shit, and finally had a structural failure.

Thanks.

Much more eloquent then me and totallackey.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 19, 2017, 10:14:49 PM
To recap.

Quote from: disputeone on February 19, 2017, 04:56:38 PM
Please see the post where I make it explicitly clear that we are not arguing that collapse due to the OS is impossible but the plumb collapse at close to or at free-fall is impossible, especially building 7. In fact, it's just a couple of posts up.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 19, 2017, 10:17:52 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 19, 2017, 04:51:02 PM
Rayzor contribute of gtfo.

This...

Do you really think i am even going to respond to you? I was even attempting to respond nicely after everything with no ad hominems or anything. Then while I was clearly away you bring back in the ad hominems and everything else. (FYI, identifying something then either melting it down or sending it off doesn't can't as an "investigation" or "examining"...Not to mention, completely out of protocol for something like this, even Tehran investigates better)

Anyways.....As always go fornicate yourself...You can provide no direct argument to anything besides word twisting and lying.

There is also something obviously wrong with you, either it be sinister or the lack of something..I don't care. I would ignore you but I cannot so I can make sure you aren't misleading people with lies.

Oh..Again...On a side note...Money where your mouth is. Want to call me a Numbskull?? Prove...Show me why you are better than me, smarter, and more qualified to speak on the matter... I will follow suit..

But something tells me you won't be able to prove a thing about yourself...I wonder why that is? Hmmm..
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 19, 2017, 10:33:59 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 19, 2017, 10:17:52 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 19, 2017, 04:51:02 PM
Rayzor contribute of gtfo.

This...

Do you really think i am even going to respond to you? I was even attempting to respond nicely after everything with no ad hominems or anything. Then while I was clearly away you bring back in the ad hominems and everything else. (FYI, identifying something then either melting it down or sending it off doesn't can't as an "investigation" or "examining"...Not to mention, completely out of protocol for something like this, even Tehran investigates better)

Anyways.....As always go fornicate yourself...You can provide no direct argument to anything besides word twisting and lying.

There is also something obviously wrong with you, either it be sinister or the lack of something..I don't care. I would ignore you but I cannot so I can make sure you aren't misleading people with lies.

Oh..Again...On a side note...Money where your mouth is. Want to call me a Numbskull?? Prove...Show me why you are better than me, smarter, and more qualified to speak on the matter... I will follow suit..

But something tells me you won't be able to prove a thing about yourself...I wonder why that is? Hmmm..

Why don't you present something to support your case that "no planes hit the twin towers"  and that it was "controlled demolition",   on the other hand keep up with the personal attacks and I'll respond in kind,  if you can't take it don't dish it out.

Nothing you've presented so far comes anywhere near supporting your case. 

Let's try a simple question and see how you go.   

How did they get the demolition charges on the exact floors that the planes hit?


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 19, 2017, 10:41:21 PM
Elevators, everyone sees what you are trying to do here.

Quote from: disputeone on February 19, 2017, 05:15:09 PM
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 19, 2017, 11:32:15 PM
Elevators and maintenance work. Not hard... September 8th and 9th they left notices to the upper decks of both there would be a power outage, the port authority gave 3 weeks notice of this. This was little notice for a 2 day black out to a data center... Especially for the reason of internet upgrades.

There were no security cameras or electronic locks at WTC, it was all manual locks. Securicom, the company responsible had Marvin Bush as chair until the end of 2000, which then he went to HCC until 2002 which was one of the insurance companies responsible for issuring the towers.

Tenants report parts of the building being shut down for months before before the collapse. People having to be temporarily displaced while work was going on rolling areas of closures. Some floors elevators would not even stop on. People reported heavy sounds of rolling, banging, large amounts of workers in and out...

Also, until Silverstein took over the properties they towers were mostly vacant...They had high amounts of foot traffic, but that was for the subway under...When he took them over, suddenly businesses started to move in, though they were nefarious in the companies themselves (little proof of experience)(also many of them were paid to help with the "clean up" small world)...Just keep in mind, this was a highly experienced business man that took over mostly empty buildings that needed billions of dollars worth of asbestos removal...He didn't not get a" deal" on the buildings...And as soon as he took them over he took multiple insurance policies worth more than the buildings by many times...Not to mention one of those had a bush as a chair...

Also don't forget, he took over, and did all this months before the attacks...

This is just the tip of the ice burg...

Long story short, it would be very easy to prep the towers ahead of time and much motivation to want them gone.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 19, 2017, 11:36:59 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 19, 2017, 11:32:15 PM
Elevators and maintenance work. Not hard... September 8th and 9th they left notices to the upper decks of both there would be a power outage, the port authority gave 3 weeks notice of this. This was little notice for a 2 day black out to a data center... Especially for the reason of internet upgrades.

There were no security cameras or electronic locks at WTC, it was all manual locks. Securicom, the company responsible had Marvin Bush as chair until the end of 2000, which then he went to HCC until 2002 which was one of the insurance companies responsible for issuring the towers.

Tenants report parts of the building being shut down for months before before the collapse. People having to be temporarily displaced while work was going on rolling areas of closures. Some floors elevators would not even stop on. People reported heavy sounds of rolling, banging, large amounts of workers in and out...

Also, until Silverstein took over the properties they towers were mostly vacant...They had high amounts of foot traffic, but that was for the subway under...When he took them over, suddenly businesses started to move in, though they were nefarious in the companies themselves (little proof of experience)(also many of them were paid to help with the "clean up" small world)...Just keep in mind, this was a highly experienced business man that took over mostly empty buildings that needed billions of dollars worth of asbestos removal...He didn't not get a" deal" on the buildings...And as soon as he took them over he took multiple insurance policies worth more than the buildings by many times...Not to mention one of those had a bush as a chair...

Also don't forget, he took over, and did all this months before the attacks...

This is just the tip of the ice burg...

Long story short, it would be very easy to prep the towers ahead of time and much motivation to want them gone.

How did they know the floors that the planes were going to hit?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 19, 2017, 11:47:15 PM
God, this guy's either retarted, or trying to accomplish a goal through confusion and distraction.

Sorry for low content, felt applicable.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 19, 2017, 11:50:55 PM
@Disputeone, I have responded to your post concerning the free-fall.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 20, 2017, 12:04:23 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 19, 2017, 11:47:15 PM
God, this guy's either retarted, or trying to accomplish a goal through confusion and distraction.

Sorry for low content, felt applicable.

It's obvious...I am not answering questions for his sake.

Quote from: Rayzor on February 19, 2017, 11:36:59 PM

How did they know the floors that the planes were going to hit?


Drone or missle laser guided, we can hit much smaller targets not hard. The tech has been around for a while.

Remember rumsfeld was given control conveniently of NORAD during this brief time (first time ever, and has never happened before or again with a civilian) was unheard-of. He conveniently gave the stand-down orders . Though also remember, the day before he announced missing trillions of dollars from the Pentagon...Though fortunately, the next day, the exact area of the Pentagon was struck by a "plane" that destroyed all the evidence. Fortunately for him he was on the other side of the Pentagon.

Bush should have warned him though, since he was able to see the first attack on television (which was impossible, it didn't exist) before he walked into the classroom to read my pet goat. Though, it is every day practice for the secret service to let the president hang out while "our country is under attack"...Any other time the president would have already been in a "unknown location safe house"...

I can keep going, this is just page one of the book.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 20, 2017, 12:11:22 AM
Also for Stratasec/securicom was also the same security company for United Airlines and Dulles International Airport. Again...Such a small world. For some reason i always forget that

Or it took almost two years to get your precious commission report even started when all evidence was gone...The outline they had to follow was written by Phil Zelikow...Though something like JFK or Pearl harbor was started in less than a week.

Or the Patriot act was already completed and written months before the "attack" and passed not even a month after the attack lol..

I am just rambling for fun now
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 20, 2017, 12:13:31 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on February 19, 2017, 11:50:55 PM
@Disputeone, I have responded to your post concerning the free-fall.

Thanks.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 20, 2017, 12:18:49 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 20, 2017, 12:04:23 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 19, 2017, 11:47:15 PM
God, this guy's either retarted, or trying to accomplish a goal through confusion and distraction.

Sorry for low content, felt applicable.

It's obvious...I am not answering questions for his sake.

Quote from: Rayzor on February 19, 2017, 11:36:59 PM

How did they know the floors that the planes were going to hit?


Drone or missle laser guided, we can hit much smaller targets not hard. The tech has been around for a while.

Remember rumsfeld was given control conveniently of NORAD during this brief time (first time ever, and has never happened before or again with a civilian) was unheard-of. He conveniently gave the stand-down orders . Though also remember, the day before he announced missing trillions of dollars from the Pentagon...Though fortunately, the next day, the exact area of the Pentagon was struck by a "plane" that destroyed all the evidence. Fortunately for him he was on the other side of the Pentagon.

Bush should have warned him though, since he was able to see the first attack on television (which was impossible, it didn't exist) before he walked into the classroom to read my pet goat. Though, it is every day practice for the secret service to let the president hang out while "our country is under attack"...Any other time the president would have already been in a "unknown location safe house"...

I can keep going, this is just page one of the book.

1. If they were going to use missiles why bother with demolition charges?
2. Why didn't the charges detonate on missile impact?
3. Why did they wait for so long after the missile impact to detonate the charges?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 20, 2017, 12:23:50 AM
1. Because a missle would not have caused the collapse we saw.
I have demonstrated this extensively.

2. Cause heat and blast proofing (you think these guys are amateurs?)

3. To make the total progressive collapse hypothesis make slightly more logical sense. For building one and two. They messed up on building 7.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Heiwa on February 20, 2017, 12:35:48 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 19, 2017, 10:33:59 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 19, 2017, 10:17:52 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 19, 2017, 04:51:02 PM
Rayzor contribute of gtfo.

This...

Anyways.....As always go fornicate yourself...You can provide no direct argument to anything besides word twisting and lying.

There is also something obviously wrong with you, either it be sinister or the lack of something..I don't care. I would ignore you but I cannot so I can make sure you aren't misleading people with lies.


But something tells me you won't be able to prove a thing about yourself...I wonder why that is? Hmmm..
Why don't you present something to support your case that "no planes hit the twin towers"  and that it was "controlled demolition",   on the other hand keep up with the personal attacks and I'll respond in kind,  if you can't take it don't dish it out.

Allow me to remind you that you can fly as many planes you like into the tops of skyscrapers and nothing will happen to the intact, strong bottoms.
No structure can collapse from top down, e.g. weak top crushes strong bottom by gravity.

But didn't we see it "live on TV", you may say.
Yes, but it was a pre-recorded show that was broadcasted. It was typical 'Hollywood'.
But what about the eyewitnesses? 
Yes, what about them?

But how were the buildings destroyed?

I assume from bottom up in the normal controlled demolition way, while lower Manhattan was fenced off with plenty smoke everywhere.

Easiest way to find out the truth is of course to question (pls without torture) the suspects at Gitmo. Do they really believe slamming planes into the weak tops of two skyscrapers will destroy three skyscrapers? http://heiwaco.com/AB911story.htm
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 20, 2017, 12:36:12 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 20, 2017, 12:18:49 AM

1. If they were going to use missiles why bother with demolition charges?
2. Why didn't the charges detonate on missile impact?
3. Why did they wait for so long after the missile impact to detonate the charges?

It is already bad enough that the lie is obvious now..Imagine what it would be like if the plane hit the building and it immediately did what it did. Even the most dense brainwashed person would say "hold on a minute" .This was a multi faceted design...It needed to create fear and anger, as well as provide any sort of plausible explanation for the collapse. It handled many issues at once, passed laws they needed, went to war where they needed, covered massive embezzlement when needed...And those who were involved also made a large sum of money (Silverstein for example)...

Simple thing...A story was already written, so it must be shown as realisticly as possible. Give the entire world time to turn their heads, then the final act. Building 7 was just a fail safe because of what was inside...That is why no one talked about it (except for the premature report of its collapse), that is why NIST and the official report intentionally left it out, the media was blacked out on the building.....And I better you didn't even know a brand new building 7 was built before the new tower? Not even announced.

As for why the charges didn't ignite with the plane collision. There are many possibilities...Some explosions won't ignite with just trauma. If you know where everything is going to happen you can shield them from heat and fire, not high tech. You honestly wouldn't need many charges on the already damaged floors, majority of the charges would be focused on the core, with some focused on removing mass in other areas. 

This is assuming they used a method we are familiar with...

Speaking of that...Why did they break all protocol for a plane collision here? Any other accident, the FAA and other companies collect every available part, collect the part number on every part, reconstruct what they can etc etc etc. This didn't happen here...

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 20, 2017, 12:43:52 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 20, 2017, 12:23:50 AM
They messed up on building 7.

They got greedy...Typical actions for people like that...They don't know when to stop. Though it was necessary, it was obvious there was something there that shouldn't have been...And all those (government officials/employees) that announced what they saw and heard in building 7 was "suicided" lol....I could see one as a natural...But that many...Lol

Pretty sure that gave a clear message to other employees..

Not to mention, what is it up to now? Almost 600 reports of just first responders alone that went against the official story whos account was stricken from the report?? Interesting...

Or the 1000s of regular Joes stricken...

I think if it was a more intelligent group of people than bush and company...This could have been pulled off much better
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 20, 2017, 12:51:59 AM
I believe in a possible Coincidence here and there...

But 1000s all working together (some impossible) to form one complete act...Come one now.....Let's step back to reality.

If this were true I would have already won the powerball lottery about 25 times...Became the next Michael Jackson and could guess how many fingers you are holding up behind your back....Every time ::)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 20, 2017, 01:06:46 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 20, 2017, 12:36:12 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 20, 2017, 12:18:49 AM

1. If they were going to use missiles why bother with demolition charges?
2. Why didn't the charges detonate on missile impact?
3. Why did they wait for so long after the missile impact to detonate the charges?

It is already bad enough that the lie is obvious now..Imagine what it would be like if the plane hit the building and it immediately did what it did. Even the most dense brainwashed person would say "hold on a minute" .This was a multi faceted design...It needed to create fear and anger, as well as provide any sort of plausible explanation for the collapse. It handled many issues at once, passed laws they needed, went to war where they needed, covered massive embezzlement when needed...And those who were involved also made a large sum of money (Silverstein for example)...

Simple thing...A story was already written, so it must be shown as realisticly as possible. Give the entire world time to turn their heads, then the final act. Building 7 was just a fail safe because of what was inside...That is why no one talked about it (except for the premature report of its collapse), that is why NIST and the official report intentionally left it out, the media was blacked out on the building.....And I better you didn't even know a brand new building 7 was built before the new tower? Not even announced.

As for why the charges didn't ignite with the plane collision. There are many possibilities...Some explosions won't ignite with just trauma. If you know where everything is going to happen you can shield them from heat and fire, not high tech. You honestly wouldn't need many charges on the already damaged floors, majority of the charges would be focused on the core, with some focused on removing mass in other areas. 

This is assuming they used a method we are familiar with...

Speaking of that...Why did they break all protocol for a plane collision here? Any other accident, the FAA and other companies collect every available part, collect the part number on every part, reconstruct what they can etc etc etc. This didn't happen here...

I can agree in principle with your comments about explosives,  I once worked making shaped charges by melting RDX/TNT (comp b) in a beaker over a naked flame before pouring into moulds,   Hard to detonate,  but once you kicked  it off with sufficient shock, different story.  In this case a fire would just melt the explosives into a puddle before detonation,  ( if it was RDX, C4, TNT type that is ) not so sure about the robustness to fire and impact of the detonators or fire control electronics and timing systems.

1. So why did they pick the floors 94 to 98 on WTC1 for the attack when they would have been better to pick lower floors.
2. Same question for WTC2 floors 77 to 85 were hit,  again it would have been better to pick lower floors.

I'll come back to your question on the investigation protocol later.


PS.  I should add that I don't claim any special knowledge of explosives,  just a job that I  once had years ago.  We used to do a lot of funny shock wave experiments with shaped charges,  and I was the bunny who got to do the preparation. 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 20, 2017, 01:21:47 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed first reply
My starting position, is just the mechanics alone make it a conspiracy...Let alone all the back end issues of the who, what, why, how etc..

30 pages later.

Quote from: Razyor
but but, muh assumptions.

Here's a post of a guy who did a bit of research on the 9/11 ritual.

This explains well "why?" Also Rayzors utter ignorance of the power of numbers.

Anyone who practices, this is obvious, to those that don't here's some assumptions and coincidences to read and consider.

Crowley (rhymes with holy not hourly) was a devout servant of the light imo, this article is written with a heart full of fear, however he raises some good points.

Occult doesnt equal evil, this is one of the biggest lies we have been told. We are turned away from spiritual growth and development in favour of obedience and complacency, our real potential, is to most of us unknown.

I belive in magick, In fact, I know magick works. Belief relies on faith. Most people think magick is stupid but a bit of research into the occult shows very quickly that the people in power without doubt, also know magick is real.

Quote
I've been researching the anomalies surrounding the events of 9/11 for 10 years now...and never before have I come across such damning information regarding the occult nature of the Mega-Ritual that was carried out on that fateful day.

9/11 was so effective that it literally incapacitated the majority of the world's population. The event was so diabolical, so grand, that it literally brought about an alchemical transmutation in the minds of the populace.

The events that day polarized the world more than any before: some people were thrust further into the blindness of their "matrix", and others were catapulted directly out of it, being forced into Chapel Perilous.

I've come a long way in my research surrounding this event (as have many of you), but I wasn't prepared for the revelations in this book: "The Most Dangerous Book in the World: 9/11 as Mass Ritual".

So, why are the flight numbers on 9/11 so important?

11...175...77...93...

...and what do they have to do with "the wickedest man in the world", Aleister Crowley?

If I ever had a doubt about the ritualistic nature of 9/11 (and the sheer degree of planning that went into it), I couldn't be more convinced now.

The Twin Towers, the Twin Pillars of Hercules, the Gemini of astrology, Joachim and Boaz of Freemasonry (with the "Salomon's" Temple Building 7 accompanying them)...were they constructed with the foreknowledge that they would be brought down in a fiery sacrificial cataclysm?

So what does this have to do with the infamous Aleister Crowley? And what does the number 11 have do with all of this?

In Crowley's own words: the number 11 is "the number of Magick in itself [and] therefore suitable to all types of operation. [It is] the sacred number par excellence of the new Aeon [the Aeon of Horus, Crowley's name for the new age, with himself as the prophet, of course.]"

What better way to start a Mega-Ritual on the 11th day of September (111 days before the end of the year) than to have Flight 11 crash into the tower on the 93rd floor (the significance of that number will become apparent, if it isn't already).

And the second plane? Flight 175 would soon smash into the 77th floor of the other tower. We'll get to the 77, but for now what's the significance of 175?

Since we're in the realm of Crowley, let's see what he had to say about 175.

"There are three main methods of invoking any Deity...The 'First Method' consists of devotion to that Deity...a perfect instruction exists in Liber 175. This is the book of uniting to a particular Deity by devotion."

Here's the Wikipedia page for the Libri of Crowley. Note that 175 says "On uniting oneself to a Deity."

Before you start to think this is getting way too esoteric, I'll give you three guesses as to which Deity was being invoked (and the first two don't count).

Again in Crowley's own words: "I was not content to believe in a personal devil and serve him, in the ordinary sense of the word. I wanted to get hold of him personally and become his chief of staff."

So, is there an unusual event that might give us an idea which Deity was invoked when 175 supposedly hit the tower?

If you recall what the Commander in Thief at the time was doing, well then it should become painfully obvious.

The moment the 2nd plane hit the tower George W. Bush was reading "The Pet Goat" in Sarasota, Florida, strangely enough just 10 miles away from Venice, the location of the flight school Mohamed Atta and another "hijacker" trained at. What a coincidence!

This "reading" of The Pet Goat was essentially a "Black Mass", a "satirical ceremony, a Commander-in-Chief that wouldn't leave his seat until the reading of a story about a pet goat was completed ("I read this book that I may study the nature of my Deity,") during which time hundreds of his fellow Americans were in harm's way, many of them meeting horrific ends as they burned alive or plunged to their deaths from the towers ("Yet also may he deliberately practise cruelties")--conjuring the image of The Tower tarot card--all taking place in..."Paradise," the city of Sarasota's unofficial yet widely-used nickname. Well How about that?"

For those who still are unsure what Deity was being invoked, here's an image that may give you a hint.

If you still think all of this is a stretch, hang on, it gets better (or worse, depending on how you look at it)!

AA77 was supposedly piloted by an individual who, according to one of his instructors, "could not fly at all." And yet he was able to pull off an incredible stunt, and instead of attacking several more strategic points in the Pentagon, he just so happened to choose the very wing were the DoD's accounting division was located...and conveniently enough Donald Rumsfeld had announced the day before the attacks they they couldn't account for $2.3 trillion in transactions. The records of this and interest in this announcement all but disappeared after the attacks.

Is there significance to the number 77? You bet your occult-deciphering ass there is.

A∴A∴ is a magical order that was created by Crowley in 1907. Here's their seal.

AA77 anyone???????

From The Book of Lies: "7, the septenary; 11, the magical number; 77, the manifestation, therefore, of the septenary. Through matter, because 77 is written in Hebrew Ayin Zayin (OZ), and He-Goat, the symbol of matter, Capricornus, the Devil of the Tarot; which is the picture of the Goat of the Sabbath upon an altar.

Black Mass anyone?

Anton LaVey, founder of the Church of Satan, lists 77 "infernal names" of the "Gods and Goddesses of the Royal Palace of Hell."

It gets better: the Pentagon, which is 77 feet tall, is located on the 77th meridian west!. Oh and George H.W. Bush, who first announced his plans for a "New World Order" on September 11th, 1990 (11 years before...well shit this is just getting too obvious), well daddy Bush was...77 at the time of the attacks.

For the record, I'm not demonizing any of these numbers. Symbols can be used for good or evil, I don't believe a number can be inherently "evil." After all, "Symbols don't kill people; people with symbols kill people."

Any more 77's we can add to this already overbearing occult script? You bet.

I'm sure most of you are familiar with the "mystery plane" that was spotting in New York and above the Pentagon during the attacks. The plane has since been identified as the E-4B, a highly secretive and advanced plane also referred to as the "Doomsday Plane".

A FOIA request finally got more information from the FAA in 2008 about this extremely unusual plane that should not have been there (unless it piloting the attack aircraft by remote control, but that opens a whole new can of worms. The call sign of this plane that was spotted above the Pentagon during the attack? VENUS77!

For those that are astrologically-minded, the conjunctions of the planet Venus against the Zodiac form a pentagram!...Venus invokes the pentagram (plenty of information available on this with a simple online search).

So Flight 77 eliminates Rummy's dirty laundry (along with anyone else who knew too much) by hitting the 77-foot tall Pentagon (with 7 floors!), on the 77th meridian west, while the Doomsday Plane, call sign Venus77 (Pentagram 77!) circles above. Oh, and flight 175, the plane that evoked the "Deity", hit the 77th floor.

And what about that final number? Flight 11 hit floor 93...the final fateful flight that day was...drumroll...flight 93!

For those who are familiar with Crowley, this 4th flight is by far the easiest to associate with the diabolical individual.

In fact, there's an entire Wikipedia page on the importance of the number 93 to Crowley and his religious philosophy Thelema. In fact, Thelemites ofter greet each other with "93" or will sign correspondences with "93/93" at the end. Flight 93...flight AA11 crashes into the 93rd floor...is this starting to make more or less sense?

There is a great deal of information out their on Building 7 as well, including it essentially being an occult-Masonic construct (Salomon building anyone?). It's 47 stories and trapezoidal shape can attest to that (the 47th Problem of Euclid, also known as the Pythagorean Theorem, "represents a perfect symbol of Freemasonry").

There is of course a whole new can of worms to open with respect to the astrological importance of the 9/11 Mega-Ritual, but there is far too much information on this topic to delve into here, as this is already becoming long-winded.

However, more information can be found in this well-made series of Youtube videos. In a nutshell, Saturn and Pluto achieved a position of powerful opposition on September 11th, 2001 (they are both considered to be "Lords of Death). Any astrologer can tell you that this alignment does not bode well for the people on Earth.

Whether or not you believe in astrology is irrelevant...what is relevant is that TPTB do believe in this stuff and they flaunt it in our faces because they can.

For those of you who have been studying these occult scripts, it should come as no surprise that Sirius would get dragged into this mess as well.

From "The Most Dangerous Book": "Today's Coptic calendar (also called the Alexandrian calendar) is based on the ancient Egyptian calendar and is still used in Egypt, and also by the Coptic Orthodox Church. The first month of the year is named Thout, after Thoth, and thus the first day of the New Year is the 1st of Thout. On the Gregorian calendar, this date coincides with September 11th--so that date is not only New Year's Day, but, more importantly, it is the symbolic, or observed, date of Sirius' heliacal rising."

Of course, the precession of the equinoxes has shifted this a bit, and today that date has shifted 45 days...now the heliacal rising of Sirius occurs on August 5th.

You'll never guess which date both the Statue of Liberty (really an homage to both Isis and Lucifer) and the Twin Towers were "initiated"...August 5th! (Oh, and the Pentagon was initiated in a Masonic ceremony on September 11th 1941.)

The occult importance of Sirius is beyond the scope of this post, but just trust me that it's important! Did TPTB do anything to associated the event with the word "Sirius?" You betcha.

Do a search for 9/11 and Sirius and you'll find that the only K-9 (K=11...11-9...9-11...maybe I need to slow down a bit) who died on that fateful day was named.......SIRIUS. Sirius was dog number 17...17 is The Star in the Tarot...which according to occultists depicts the star of SIRIUS. cough.

If you think it's overkill that they would name and sacrifice a dog merely to add another layer to their occult script, well then you still don't really get how these events work. The more symbolism they cram into the rituals, the more powerful the ritual becomes.

Too lazy to type it myself, the guy is pretty spot on in most points.

These are assumptions but Rayzor has made it very clear he will not address physics and engineering.

This thread is becoming one of the best 9/11 resources on the internet, I thought I'd throw in some coincidences.

Coincidences do occur, however as has been said before, this many?

Come on.

Edit.

Quote from: Aleister Crowley
Love is the law

I just wanted to stand up for Crowley, the occult is an esoteric subject using things like Crowley did to scare the profane people away from the study of the occult is normal.

In Wiccan tradition "Baby Blood" was a code for "strawberry juice" it did it's job perfectly, the uninitiated couldn't perform rituals and most were scared away from trying thus the esoteric wiccan tradition continues today.

Crowley was very similar, I have read all his books I do not believe for a second he was "evil" we were told that to prune the weak and gullible from the occult.

See the tone of the article for example.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 20, 2017, 01:31:06 AM
If you dig deep enough, you'll always find lot's of coincidences. Especially when it comes to numbers. Consult your local statistician to see if it's actually significant or not.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 20, 2017, 01:33:32 AM
Oh, and did you read my answer to your concern about free-fall and the experiment? It's back on page 22, near the bottom.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 20, 2017, 01:41:38 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on February 19, 2017, 07:49:17 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 19, 2017, 05:14:45 AM
Plumb being vertical and straight.
Level being horizontal and straight.

Here is the experiment and some supporting arguments.

Quote from: disputeone on February 19, 2017, 04:08:47 AM
I posted it before but here is NIST's lead investigator explaining why free fall of building 7 is impossible given the official story.


The lead investigator didn't explain why it was impossible. He just said what was required to get a free-fall time. Then the creator of the video interprets the footage of the collapse (not wrongly). However we can't be certain that multiple supports couldn't have failed within a short timespan, and we don't know in which manner the inner parts of the structure collapsed.

Quote from: disputeone on February 19, 2017, 04:08:47 AM
Here it is in my own words.

Quote from: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 11:01:11 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 09:39:27 PM
Quote from: markjo on February 18, 2017, 09:27:40 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed
This is how robust buildings are (this didn't fall fyi, not even a bit)
(http://i68.tinypic.com/297rtj.jpg)
Umm...  You do realize that building was only about 1/3 as tall as the towers and had a reinforced concrete core, don't you?  Kinda apples and oranges.

Fair point markjo, That wasn't claimed as evidence, just comparison.

I have said it before, my issue is the 2.25 seconds of gravitational acceleration for building 7, I kept bringing it up to Rayzor and now he's ignored me.

Would you like to explain how you think building 7 fell at gravitational acceleration for 2.25 seconds given the official story?

My position is that the official position is untrue as any structure providing any mechanical resistance will not fall at gravitational acceleration as the towers energy is taken up by the mechanical resistance crushing the tower underneath it.

An easy experiment is to put a bowling ball on any structure you like, weaken the structure until the bowling ball crushes the tower, does the tower and bowling ball fall at free fall or is it more a matter of gravitational acceleration - structural resistance = fall acceleration?

My hypothesis is for a controlled demolition, where all the structural support was removed and all the towers potential energy was converted into acceleration by gravity. None of the towers potential energy was taken by the towers structural resistance.
The experiment... depends on the material used. Styrofoam reinforced with plastic straws could be one set of materials which could provide a structure similar to that of concrete reinforced with steel, and produce a near free-fall collapse. Mostly because the ball would weigh much more than the rest of the material, and once it starts cracking and bending it would collapse quickly. But WTC 7 did also collapse from the bottom, having all of that upper mass crushing down on the support near the floor. Had it collapsed further up, maybe it wouldn't have entered free-fall.

Quote from: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 10:11:08 PM
We are trying to keep the debate focussed on physics, engineering and logic, the incidences you talk about I believe are highly relevant, but not necessary to prove our main two points.

1. The planes could not have penetrated and passed through the buildings given the official story.

2. The buildings fall acceleration and pretty much plumb, neat collapse could not of been caused by an event as chaotic as a plane impact.

Entropy always increases, that is to say with time a system becomes less ordered and more chaotic.
On point 1: Evidence? The planes didn't have to make it through intact, not even close.

On point 2: Evidence?

On the last bit: Well, the human perception of what is ordered and not isn't perfect. And in any case, I can drop a ball perfectly neatly and orderly. Doesn't mean that nothing happened to entropy - neat and orderly potential energy turned into disorderly heat. In the case of WTC, it also left a lot of rubble. I can assure you that entering free-fall doesn't break the laws of physics.


Quote from: disputeone on February 13, 2017, 11:55:17 PM
I work with tall buildings, I have seen them being built and I understand the loads and stresses on them, In fact there was a roof of a hospital that collapsed recently while it was being built as the tradesman forgot to install drains. The rain water built up on the roof until it collapsed. The funny thing about a progressive collapse, is that it's progressive, that is not instantaneous.

Individual structural components failed which led to the failure of other structural components and the buildings roof progressively collapsed, not neat and instantaneous like the 9/11 effectTM would predict.

I was not attempting an argument from authority far from it, I think this issue takes an open mind receptive to the truth and not blinded by what we want to believe.
Well, there's a difference between collapsing from the roof, and collapsing from the foundation or in the middle of a building.

Decent response, not a rebuttal, no offense, I appreciate your honesty.

I don't believe you addressed the freefall to be honest.

NISTS lead investigator clearly states that "free-fall cannot happen with structural resistance."

Myself and Bhs have explained that there was a lot of structural resistance, for example the buildings standing upright and not collapsing.

I've also explained that by the time structural components were failing the building would start to topple and collapse (PROGRESSIVELY NOT AT FREEFALL) Staying perfectly intact until gravitational acceleration does violate the laws of physics. (Given the OS.)

Think about it.

Also your example of a styrofoam tower follows my formula.

Gravitational acceleration - structural resistance = fall speed.

Now imagine that styrofoam is hardened structural steel and reinforced concrete under compression.

Sorry for edits.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 20, 2017, 01:51:29 AM
Well, there's nothing to debunk then. You have not provided evidence of anything being impossible. So I don't know what kind of response you are asking for.

Oh, and I somehow found this video:
(http://)
Yeah, it's not reality or evidence, but it still simulates our real world physics when it comes to structural integrity. The bomb landed in one side of the building, causing uneven damage to the bottom of the structure.

The key to this is energy. How much energy is required to topple vs how much energy is required to break the structure. The more mass the top part has, the more energy is required for it to topple. That makes it easier for it to just break the supports below.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 20, 2017, 01:53:22 AM
Quote from: Rayzor
I can agree in principle with your comments about explosives,  I once worked making shaped charges by melting RDX/TNT (comp b) in a beaker over a naked flame before pouring into moulds,   Hard to detonate,  but once you kicked  it off with sufficient shock, different story.  In this case a fire would just melt the explosives into a puddle before detonation,  ( if it was RDX, C4, TNT type that is ) not so sure about the robustness to fire and impact of the detonators or fire control electronics and timing systems.

1. So why did they pick the floors 94 to 98 on WTC1 for the attack when they would have been better to pick lower floors.
2. Same question for WTC2 floors 77 to 85 were hit,  again it would have been better to pick lower floors.

I'll come back to your question on the investigation protocol later.


PS.  I should add that I don't claim any special knowledge of explosives,  just a job that I  once had years ago.  We used to do a lot of funny shock wave experiments with shaped charges,  and I was the bunny who got to do the preparation.

I have no specialty in explosives, I know a fair amount and have dealt with them on teams I would either shadow for a purpose or invited as a guest (usually after I invite them to shadow me on something, it's a good way to learn and get out of your comfort zone).. This would actually be areas I would have to be certed at if I wanted my company to do demo work (if you remember when I said we could go into demo work with a few extra certs)

Anyways...In answer to your questions....

How much lower do you want? We are going through new York city with a large plane (even if it's a drone to look the part), there are tall buildings everywhere.

Not to mention, flight dynamics at high speed low altitude is already horrible, as you keep getting lower it only becomes even less controllable (even for a specially designed drone, even military pilots...Do they do low altitude runs the first day??? Hell no, many times they never do it, and if they do, it is a couple 1000 feet, not 100s, no one wants to fly that low) The air burst hitting the ground will attempt to force you higher or begin to become unstable. This is also why they plane into the Pentagon is impossible...You simply cannot get that low at that trim...The air burst will push you right back up.

The planes was for dynamic effect, not for demolition...No point in going too low on the buildings, the lower the less chance of making it.


As for why those exact floors? Opportunity, amount of occupancy, etc etc etc....Not to mention, if they both hit the exact same floors then that would be suspect would it not?

I will add more to the occupancy later, I have the entire list and floors...It is at the shop, I will grab it when I go there later.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 20, 2017, 01:53:45 AM
Just to clarify.

Gravitational acceleration - structural resistance = fall speed.

The tower fell at g.

Therefore no structural resistance.

Fire could not have taken 100% of the structural resistance.

Yet we can measure free-fall.

Therefore controlled demolition.

Master Evar. For the 1000th time in this thread no one has argued that the towers shouldn't have fell period.

Please watch your video and see the tower fall over rather than collapsing plumb at gravitational acceleration.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 20, 2017, 02:07:08 AM
Just to throw another data point in the discussion.

The NIST FAQ contains the following statement regarding the black smoke.

19. If thick black smoke is characteristic of an oxygen-starved, lower temperature, less intense fire, why was thick black smoke exiting the WTC towers when the fires inside were supposed to be extremely hot?
Nearly all indoor large fires, including those of the principal combustibles in the WTC towers, produce large quantities of optically thick, dark smoke. This is because, at the locations where the actual burning is taking place, the oxygen is severely depleted and the combustibles are not completely oxidized to colorless carbon dioxide and water.
The visible part of fire smoke consists of small soot particles whose formation is favored by the incomplete combustion associated with oxygen-depleted burning. Once formed, the soot from the tower fires was rapidly pushed away from the fires into less hot regions of the building or directly to broken windows and breaks in the building exterior. At these lower temperatures, the soot could no longer burn away. Thus, people saw the thick dark smoke characteristic of burning under oxygen-depleted conditions.


That's actually misleading,  the black smoke is not in fact a foolproof marker of an oxygen starved fire,  although it can be.  It's  often a characteristic of the fuel and other factors.

Reading smoke is a bit of an art form, and certainly not an exact science,  because of the number of factors involved.

Here is what fire engineering had to say about black smoke.

Black Fire
“Black fire” is a good phrase to describe smoke that is high-volume, turbulent velocity, ultradense, and black. Black fire is a sure sign of impending autoignition and flashover. In actuality, the phrase “black fire” is accurate-the smoke itself is doing all the destruction that flames would cause-charring, heat damage to steel, content destruction, and victim death. Black fire can reach temperatures of more than 1,000°F! Treat black fire just as actual flames.


I haven't seen proper analysis of the WTC smoke properties and behavoiur,  and no mention anywhere of "black fire"  seems to be an oversight if temperature of the structure is an important factor.

It is worthwhile to keep in mind that all fires of this type are ventilation limited to some degree or other,  and there are plenty examples of open burn pools with no shortage of oxygen producing thick black smoke.

Looking at the videos,  high volume,  turbulent flow,  ultradense and black,  would seem to describe the smoke from the WTC fires pretty well.  I'd have no hesitation saying it could be black fire.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 20, 2017, 02:08:31 AM
Can someone quote this for Papa Rayzor?

Quote from: disputeone on February 20, 2017, 01:53:45 AM
Just to clarify.

Gravitational acceleration - structural resistance = fall speed.

The tower fell at g.

Therefore no structural resistance.

Fire could not have taken 100% of the structural resistance.

Yet we can measure free-fall.

Therefore controlled demolition.

Edit.

Quote from: Rayzor
The visible part of fire smoke consists of small soot particles whose formation is favored by the incomplete combustion associated with oxygen-depleted burning.

He knows he's shooting himself in the foot right? Guys....

What, did they have hypergolic aeroplane fuel which didn't require oxygen in the building to burn????
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 20, 2017, 02:27:50 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 20, 2017, 01:41:38 AM
Decent response, not a rebuttal, no offense, I appreciate your honesty.

I don't believe you addressed the freefall to be honest.

NISTS lead investigator clearly states that "free-fall cannot happen with structural resistance."
Yes, but there's more ways for structural resistance to go away than blowing it up. Such as a bunch of rubble from a the collapsing central structure knocking it away. It's possible that the supports which failed first didn't give away immediately, if the surrounding supports could make up for it. In fact, if the building was strong and rigid enough it wouldn't be surprising if it held together until the whole floor collapsed. I'd expect that a lot more energy would be required to topple almost the whole building, than knocking down the bottom supports.

Quote from: disputeone on February 20, 2017, 01:41:38 AM
Myself and Bhs have explained that there was a lot of structural resistance, for example the buildings standing upright and not collapsing.
Neighbouring walls could have provided initial resistance to keep the building in one piece before totally collapsing. Footage does show that some parts of the wall start falling down a bit earlier, then the neighbouring parts of the walls follows before it breaks apart.

Quote from: disputeone on February 20, 2017, 01:41:38 AM
I've also explained that by the time structural components were failing the building would start to topple and collapse (PROGRESSIVELY NOT AT FREEFALL) Staying perfectly intact until gravitational acceleration does violate the laws of physics.
They didn't stay intact, they were breaking as they collapsed. I'm pretty sure the buildings weren't completely sound and fine inside those clouds of rubble. If the center collapsed first, but still stayed somewhat connected to the outer walls, it could have helped combat the structural resistance. And how do you know it wasn't a progressive collapse? If the progressiveness is fast enough, with that debris cloud it would be impossible to tell. You may have explained your stance, but you have not proved anything.

Quote from: disputeone on February 20, 2017, 01:41:38 AM
Think about it.

Also your example of a styrofoam tower follows my formula.

Gravitational acceleration - structural resistance = fall speed.

Now imagine that styrofoam is hardened structural steel and reinforced concrete under compression.

Sorry for edits.
If the structural resistance is low enough, the collapse acceleration will be similar to gravitational acceleration. There's a reason I insist on using the term NEAR free-fall. Even in a controlled demolition, there's still some structural resistance. It's just reduced to a very low degree compared to the inertia of the whole building.

Quote from: disputeone on February 20, 2017, 01:53:45 AM
Master Evar. For the 1000th time in this thread no one has argued that the towers shouldn't have fell period.
I never claimed that either, so I have absolutely no idea why or how you could even say that.

Quote from: disputeone on February 20, 2017, 01:53:45 AM
Please watch your video and see the tower fall over rather than collapsing plumb at gravitational acceleration.
That's at the end. So you're right, if you just ignore a substantial part of the video. But I think that serves to further prove my concern about energy - as the top part lost it's mass, it eventually became harder for it to push away the support below and easier to topple. And it's not like either of the towers fell perfectly neatly to the very end.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 20, 2017, 02:31:25 AM
Thanks good reply, the 1000 times comment wasn't at you, sorry.

Check out how it stays level and plumb until the collapse.



You are right, even in controlled demolitions it is difficult to attain gravitational acceleration during the collapse. I wonder why building 7 fell at gravitational acceleration for at least 2.25 seconds.

For your last point.

I agree it would make them topple it wouldn't cause them to collapse plumb at nearly free-fall or at gravitational acceleration.

You and I agree on more than you would care to admit, I think.

No disrespect you seem like a good and intelligent guy.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 20, 2017, 02:38:12 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on February 20, 2017, 02:27:50 AM
If the structural resistance is low enough, the collapse acceleration will be similar to gravitational acceleration. There's a reason I insist on using the term NEAR free-fall. Even in a controlled demolition, there's still some structural resistance. It's just reduced to a very low degree compared to the inertia of the whole building.

Ah yes, but long before a freefall would ever occur, the building would reach a point of no return where the building would start to collapse slowly and then faster as more and more structural components fail.

Going from intact, to free fall, violates the laws of physics given the OS.

The only explanation for building 7s gravitational acceleration is controlled demolition.

My equation stands.

G-S=F

Gravitational acceleration - structural resistance = fall speed.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 20, 2017, 02:57:04 AM
I re watched your video without bias, it isn't bad, notice the explosion happened at the very base and not on floor 77,(or across the street) nor did the building fall at freefall, you can see it getting faster as it progresses in the model.

Sorry for dismissing it out of hand. It's more relevant than I thought.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 20, 2017, 02:57:37 AM
Master_evar....If all you are looking for is to explain why the collapse as stated in the official record was impossible that is all you had to say. We can discuss this, very easy to prove.

Rayzor... As for the smoke ...All signs from the way the smoke acted, color, and from video evidence it was being extinguished. That is the same thing the new York fire department said as well. "under control" and "controllable" was used many times.

We also know for certain there is no way it could have been hot enough to liquify the Steel used in the tower as we saw on video...There was a variable that was there that shouldn't have been.

Quote from: disputeone on February 20, 2017, 02:08:31 AM
Quote from: Rayzor
The visible part of fire smoke consists of small soot particles whose formation is favored by the incomplete combustion associated with oxygen-depleted burning.

He knows he's shooting himself in the foot right? Guys....

What, did they have hypergolic aeroplane fuel which didn't require oxygen in the building to burn????
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Heiwa on February 20, 2017, 03:04:37 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 20, 2017, 02:38:12 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on February 20, 2017, 02:27:50 AM
If the structural resistance is low enough, the collapse acceleration will be similar to gravitational acceleration. There's a reason I insist on using the term NEAR free-fall. Even in a controlled demolition, there's still some structural resistance. It's just reduced to a very low degree compared to the inertia of the whole building.

Ah yes, but long before a freefall would ever occur, the building would reach a point of no return where the building would start to collapse slowly and then faster as more and more structural components fail.

Going from intact, to free fall, violates the laws of physics given the OS.

The only explanation for building 7s gravitational acceleration is controlled demolition.

My equation stands.

G-S=F

Gravitational acceleration - structural resistance = fall speed.

Actually S = G always, so F = 0 always.

You cannot suddenly remove the structural resistance of an intact bottom, when the small top is on fire.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 20, 2017, 03:12:51 AM
Well if the building is still standing I hope S > G by a large margin, especially if I am in it.

I agree you cannot instantly remove 100% of the structural resistance to cause a 2.25 second collapse at gravitational acceleration.

It's simply impossible, I've been harping on about this for quite some time, Rayzor is quite agitated indeed.

Unless of course we use a method like Bhs has explained earlier in the thread. (Controlled demolition)

Or another method that has been mentioned, a magic(not magick) wand.

You will enjoy reading the whole thread I think Heiwa.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 20, 2017, 03:21:21 AM
Apparently, the building collapsed in near free-fall for about 8 floors. Because of the fire in the building, I would expect that 8 floors could be damaged by that. If the central structure collapsed and damaged the outer structure, I'd expect maybe 2 to 3 floors to be affected. The concrete would be especially weakened by the fire, the steel by rubble smashing into it from the side. So if 2-3 floors of steel failed at a couple of places, and the concrete was weakened to the point where it couldn't take the compression, that would explain at least 2-3 floors of near free-fall. The building would have most of it's potential energy, and relatively little to no energy might be required to break those supports. Once the building started collapsing, the steel would be of little use. Concrete would be what would resist the collapse. However, the fire and the flexing of the building due to the collapse would have probably weakened and cracked maybe another 5-6 floors' concrete. Rubble from the center rushing outwards might also be washing away the concrete from below. So for these floors, the energy of the building could be far greater than the energy required to break those floors worth of support. After those total 8 floors, we would start getting undamaged concrete and steel, and the building would weigh a bit less. So at that point the acceleration of the building would start to smoothly decrease. However, the whole building did flex as it began to collapse, which would have cracked lots of concrete. So it didn't stop.

It's not like I'm disagreeing with even most of what you are saying, I have agreed with some things you have been saying. What I don't agree with is your interpretation of certain bits of "evidence". I think that the energy of the towers would be enough to crush the supports instead of topple the buildings.

Quote
I agree it would make them topple it wouldn't cause them to collapse plumb at nearly free-fall or at gravitational acceleration.
A bit of a dishonest statement, making it seem as if I claimed to believe that the buildings should have toppled, when I actually claimed to believe the buildings could and even should have collapsed the way they did concerning the damage and point of collapse and not topple until the end of the collapse, which I'm pretty sure they did (or at least the rubble left did). We also have to take into account the compressibility of the ground below a structure - if the ground is incompressible and a building collapses from the ground, in order to topple a wall has to give out. If a wall doesn't give out, the whole building would have to be lifted in order to topple over. And if a wall is subject to a much larger force than any other wall from below, the building would probably just topple the other way. We can see that with WTC 7: it starts to topple very slightly one way, but after about half or a third of the collapse it starts to topple the other way. The force pushing back on the wall at the side of the building the toppling was directed at, pushed the building back up and toppled it slightly in the opposite direction.


Quote from: disputeone on February 20, 2017, 02:38:12 AM
Ah yes, but long before a freefall would ever occur, the building would reach a point of no return where the building would start to collapse slowly and then faster as more and more structural components fail.

Going from intact, to free fall, violates the laws of physics given the OS.
That was the collapse of the central structure of the building. Because we don't have footage of it (only parts of the roof falling into the building) we can't tell how quickly the collapse accelerated at the very beginning. Once the central collapse was in motion, there was enough energy to quickly snap the supports of the outer walls.

Quote from: disputeone on February 20, 2017, 02:57:04 AM
I re watched your video without bias, it isn't bad, notice the explosion happened at the very base and not on floor 77,(or across the street) nor did the building fall at freefall, you can see it getting faster as it progresses in the model.

Sorry for dismissing it out of hand. It's more relevant than I thought.
Well, look at the fall speed of the bomb. Scale is different in the game, compared to reality. We don't know the scale of the thing, we'd have to look at the code for that.

Quote from: disputeone on February 20, 2017, 03:12:51 AM
I agree you cannot instantly remove 100% of the structural resistance to cause a 2.25 second collapse at gravitational acceleration.

It's simply impossible, I've been harping on about this for quite some time, Rayzor is quite agitated indeed.
Well, good thing no one claims that.  The collapse didn't happen instantly, and there wasn't a 100% free-fall. And harping on about it does little good. Some evidence would help a lot though.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 20, 2017, 03:22:08 AM
Not to mention the official story can't decide which one of these possibilities they want for the plane crash dynamics. (You can only pick one in reality)

Invincible/Invincible/No deceleration Invincible/Invincible/Deceleration Invincible/Flimsy/No deceleration Invincible/Flimsy/Deceleration Flimsy/Flimsy/No deceleration Flimsy/Flimsy/Deceleration Flimsy/Invincible/No deceleration Flimsy/Invincible/Deceleration

They pick 3 ???

And I am the one not in reality???
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 20, 2017, 03:23:27 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on February 20, 2017, 03:04:37 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 20, 2017, 02:38:12 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on February 20, 2017, 02:27:50 AM
If the structural resistance is low enough, the collapse acceleration will be similar to gravitational acceleration. There's a reason I insist on using the term NEAR free-fall. Even in a controlled demolition, there's still some structural resistance. It's just reduced to a very low degree compared to the inertia of the whole building.

Ah yes, but long before a freefall would ever occur, the building would reach a point of no return where the building would start to collapse slowly and then faster as more and more structural components fail.

Going from intact, to free fall, violates the laws of physics given the OS.

The only explanation for building 7s gravitational acceleration is controlled demolition.

My equation stands.

G-S=F

Gravitational acceleration - structural resistance = fall speed.

Actually S = G always, so F = 0 always.

You cannot suddenly remove the structural resistance of an intact bottom, when the small top is on fire.

Quote from: some idiot
But but, muh burning elevator shafts.

All elevator doors are fireproofed in commercial buildings, although the towers were old the lifts had been replaced and or modernised multiple times, they fit 2001 safety regulations.

The fires would have to have been hot enough in the elevator pit to burn through the steel doors and fireproofing do do any actual damage.

Quote from: some idiot
But but teh d34d1y oxygen starved black smoke!!33!!

I got nothing man.






You have raised some astute and relevant points in this thread Heiwa, bravo.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 20, 2017, 03:26:05 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 20, 2017, 03:22:08 AM
They pick 3 ???

This, imo, is not irrelevant, nor were three towers falling when it would have been neater and cleaner to have just fell two.

Purely speculation and irrelevant to the debate.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 20, 2017, 03:26:32 AM
Very important message regarding that video: The time was slowed to 1%. At the top left corner of the video there is a slider that the creator controls, to decide how fast the game should be running.

EDIT: The video also looks sped up by the creator, looking at the camera transitions.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 20, 2017, 03:26:48 AM
Master evar

I have already given you specifics , and just those few, make the collapse as seen with the supposed catalyst impossible.

Your answer was you didn't want to talk specifics and that you saw nothing wrong with the official story.

So if you want to accept magic over reality and accept the 1000s of "coincidences" (some impossible) that forms this impossible story on the back end (as in everything excluding the physics of the collapse) then there is nothing I, dispute, or anyone can do for you. So why are you still debating with dispute? You have already made up your mind.


*Edit spelling
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 20, 2017, 03:28:56 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 20, 2017, 03:26:05 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 20, 2017, 03:22:08 AM
They pick 3 ???

This, imo, is not irrelevant, nor were three towers falling when it would have been neater and cleaner to have just fell two.

Purely speculation and irrelevant to the debate.

I am missing what you are saying I think...I meant they pick 3 of the 8 options I presented instead of only 1 (which is all you can pick in reality) for the plane impact physics.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 20, 2017, 03:34:54 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on February 20, 2017, 03:21:21 AM
Apparently, the building collapsed in near free-fall for about 8 floors. Because of the fire in the building, I would expect that 8 floors could be damaged by that. If the central structure collapsed and damaged the outer structure, I'd expect maybe 2 to 3 floors to be affected. The concrete would be especially weakened by the fire, the steel by rubble smashing into it from the side. So if 2-3 floors of steel failed at a couple of places, and the concrete was weakened to the point where it couldn't take the compression, that would explain at least 2-3 floors of near free-fall. The building would have most of it's potential energy, and relatively little to no energy might be required to break those supports. Once the building started collapsing, the steel would be of little use. Concrete would be what would resist the collapse. However, the fire and the flexing of the building due to the collapse would have probably weakened and cracked maybe another 5-6 floors' concrete. Rubble from the center rushing outwards might also be washing away the concrete from below. So for these floors, the energy of the building could be far greater than the energy required to break those floors worth of support. After those total 8 floors, we would start getting undamaged concrete and steel, and the building would weigh a bit less. So at that point the acceleration of the building would start to smoothly decrease. However, the whole building did flex as it began to collapse, which would have cracked lots of concrete. So it didn't stop.

It's not like I'm disagreeing with even most of what you are saying, I have agreed with some things you have been saying. What I don't agree with is your interpretation of certain bits of "evidence". I think that the energy of the towers would be enough to crush the supports instead of topple the buildings.

Quote
I agree it would make them topple it wouldn't cause them to collapse plumb at nearly free-fall or at gravitational acceleration.
A bit of a dishonest statement, making it seem as if I claimed to believe that the buildings should have toppled, when I actually claimed to believe the buildings could and even should have collapsed the way they did concerning the damage and point of collapse and not topple until the end of the collapse, which I'm pretty sure they did (or at least the rubble left did). We also have to take into account the compressibility of the ground below a structure - if the ground is incompressible and a building collapses from the ground, in order to topple a wall has to give out. If a wall doesn't give out, the whole building would have to be lifted in order to topple over. And if a wall is subject to a much larger force than any other wall from below, the building would probably just topple the other way. We can see that with WTC 7: it starts to topple very slightly one way, but after about half or a third of the collapse it starts to topple the other way. The force pushing back on the wall at the side of the building the toppling was directed at, pushed the building back up and toppled it slightly in the opposite direction.


Quote from: disputeone on February 20, 2017, 02:38:12 AM
Ah yes, but long before a freefall would ever occur, the building would reach a point of no return where the building would start to collapse slowly and then faster as more and more structural components fail.

Going from intact, to free fall, violates the laws of physics given the OS.
That was the collapse of the central structure of the building. Because we don't have footage of it (only parts of the roof falling into the building) we can't tell how quickly the collapse accelerated at the very beginning. Once the central collapse was in motion, there was enough energy to quickly snap the supports of the outer walls.

Quote from: disputeone on February 20, 2017, 02:57:04 AM
I re watched your video without bias, it isn't bad, notice the explosion happened at the very base and not on floor 77,(or across the street) nor did the building fall at freefall, you can see it getting faster as it progresses in the model.

Sorry for dismissing it out of hand. It's more relevant than I thought.
Well, look at the fall speed of the bomb. Scale is different in the game, compared to reality. We don't know the scale of the thing, we'd have to look at the code for that.

Quote from: disputeone on February 20, 2017, 03:12:51 AM
I agree you cannot instantly remove 100% of the structural resistance to cause a 2.25 second collapse at gravitational acceleration.

It's simply impossible, I've been harping on about this for quite some time, Rayzor is quite agitated indeed.
Well, good thing no one claims that.  The collapse didn't happen instantly, and there wasn't a 100% free-fall. And harping on about it does little good. Some evidence would help a lot though.

Best counter argument of the debate.

I'm sorry if you felt I was dishonest it was never my intention.

I think Bhs can explain the specifics far better than I can on this if you don't mind, I have shown to be what I believe quite strong circumstantial evidence on the towers collapse but I am not an engineer.

@ Bhs just the fact of picking three options of plane impact physics is interesting for more than just evasion, if you are going to lie why not pick just two? It would be a bit neater could even go four? I mean we accepted three.

Edit. Like I've said before, I could possibly swallow the OS if it was just the two towers falling without building 7, the Pentagon "plane crash" and the rest of the imo claptrap.

Your explanation is much more applicable to buildings 1 and 2 rather than 7, although I do think from what we saw and the research I've done, buildings 1 and 2s collapse was impossible given the OS.

Did you post that video of the dodgy skyscraper collapsing? I can't remember who. That illustrated our point well I think.

The model you posted could possibly show a similar collapse to buildings 1 and 2, but as I stated before the bomb detonated in the basement and critically damaged the structure more than three planes could.

If you watch the video and get some free video editing software you can draw a line on the roof of building 7 and measure the moment the main structure starts to fall.

The roof does go from stable to free-fall for 2.25 seconds, I was not being dishonest in this regard.

Videos for reference.



Please pay close attention to the collapse at 4:00
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 20, 2017, 04:04:22 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 20, 2017, 03:34:54 AM
@ Bhs just the fact of picking three options of plane impact physics is interesting for more than just evasion, if you are going to lie why not pick just two? It would be a bit neater could even go four? I mean we accepted three.

Its an educated gamble...I would take the same one if I wanted to something like this.

The government already has the perfect "reeducation" machine...Schools and Mainstream media, control information as well as remove people's "critical thought" mechanism, anyone who dares to do such a thing are brow beaten until they follow suit.

So we have a mass of people following suit like sheep....Now we only have the specialist to worry about...People in the Industries pertinent to this investigation. That is easy to take care off...

Use the ones that are on government payroll...Then you have the ones that aren't , yet they are so brainwashed they would never question something an "official" told them or want to swim upstream.

So in reality, all you really need to deal with are the 1000s of people like me....So of course you make those people look like nuts, spread disinformation, provide over coverage to those that are nuts and no coverage to those with valid evidence...

So you can have something that only looks the part and pass it as legit.

Though they didn't plan on a few things....Such as people in the government turning on them, first responders etc etc. They didn't plan on people like me to care enough and form highly educated groups to build cases against their lies...Nor did they plan on video sharing becoming so huge (such as YouTube) so the general masses can learn, I really think they believed this would be fully under the mat years ago.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 20, 2017, 04:11:56 AM
Architects and engineers for 9/11 truth is a massive blow to the OS.

Can you imagine if we had "astrophysicists and cosmologists for the revelation of the flat earth"

I didn't think so.

I don't see why Rayzor insists on calling us loonies and crazy.

I appreciate Master Evars honest debate.

Edit. (I am sure the reason why we dont see an "astrophysicists and cosmologists for the revelation of the flat earth" society is because the penguins got to them first)

Also it's great being ignored and not having my statements twisted out of meaning.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 20, 2017, 04:29:30 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 20, 2017, 03:26:48 AM
Master evar

I have already given you specifics , and just those few, make the collapse as seen with the supposed catalyst impossible.
No, you have not given me any specifics, as far as I'm aware.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 20, 2017, 03:26:48 AM
Your answer was you didn't want to talk specifics and that you saw nothing wrong with the official story.
That's a blatant lie, I already explained to you that I didn't want to make any wild guesses in an argument with disputeone. I said I'm okay discussing anything regarding this.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 20, 2017, 03:26:48 AM
So if you want to accept magic over reality and accept the 1000s of "coincidences" (some impossible) that forms this impossible story on the back end (as in everything excluding the physics of the collapse) then there is nothing I, dispute, or anyone can do for you. So why are you still debating with dispute? You have already made up your mind.
I don't believe in magic, or that anything in the official story is impossible as far as anyone can prove scientifically. To word a famous phrase a bit differently: Any system complex enough is indistinguishable from magic in our current understanding of the universe.

Why does anyone of us argue anything here? It's not to change our own minds, it's to change at least something about others minds, and possibly to understand more about some interesting viewpoints we aren't used to, or just to be heard.

Quote from: disputeone on February 20, 2017, 03:34:54 AM
Best counter argument of the debate.

I'm sorry if you felt I was dishonest it was never my intention.

I think Bhs can explain the specifics far better than I can on this if you don't mind, I have shown to be what I believe quite strong circumstantial evidence on the towers collapse but I am not an engineer.
Thanks, and it's OK. Hopefully I've at least shown that the collapse of WTC 7, or the other towers, isn't impossible as far as we know. But it's been fun discussing with you.

Quote from: disputeone on February 20, 2017, 03:34:54 AM
Edit. Like I've said before, I could possibly swallow the OS if it was just the two towers falling without building 7, the Pentagon "plane crash" and the rest of the imo claptrap.

Your explanation is much more applicable to buildings 1 and 2 rather than 7, although I do think from what we saw and the research I've done, buildings 1 and 2s collapse was impossible given the OS.
Well, I don't think it's impossible, and I seriously doubt you have enough evidence to pass a scientific peer review. A respectable hypothesis? Yes, while you are lacking some evidence you're still reasonable and logical about your explanation, it's not just speculation.

Quote from: disputeone on February 20, 2017, 03:34:54 AM
Did you post that video of the dodgy skyscraper collapsing? I can't remember who. That illustrated our point well I think.
Only the video of that wooden skyscraper built in a game.

Quote from: disputeone on February 20, 2017, 03:34:54 AM
The model you posted could possibly show a similar collapse to buildings 1 and 2, but as I stated before the bomb detonated in the basement and critically damaged the structure more than three planes could.

If you watch the video and get some free video editing software you can draw a line on the roof of building 7 and measure the moment the main structure starts to fall.

The roof does go from stable to free-fall for 2.25 seconds, I was not being dishonest in this regard.

Videos for reference.



Please pay close attention to the collapse at 4:00
I have seen the collapse. As I have stated before, while it certainly is evidence for controlled demolition it isn't evidence against structural damage.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 20, 2017, 04:35:17 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 20, 2017, 04:11:56 AM
Architects and engineers for 9/11 truth is a massive blow to the OS.

Can you imagine if we had "astrophysicists and cosmologists for the revelation of the flat earth"

I didn't think so.

I don't see why Rayzor insists on calling us loonies and crazy.

I appreciate Master Evars honest debate.

One thing you have to remember about master evar is he lives in Sweden. Their country is smaller, the government is socialist, the government has its hands in the people instead of into everything else like our government.

Plus, at least from an outside perspective, rather it's misguided or not..His government seems to at least try to care for the people.

So even with evidence provided, he may not be capable of processing such a heinous crime committed or aided by a government. Like someone who is not a Thief will have a hard time understanding a Thief or their motives /actions.


Also..I haven't watching footage of 7 in a long time....I just shake my damn head, not even needed to discuss the other two towers...Just ridiculous
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 20, 2017, 04:38:30 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on February 20, 2017, 04:29:30 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 20, 2017, 03:34:54 AM
Best counter argument of the debate.

I'm sorry if you felt I was dishonest it was never my intention.

I think Bhs can explain the specifics far better than I can on this if you don't mind, I have shown to be what I believe quite strong circumstantial evidence on the towers collapse but I am not an engineer.
Thanks, and it's OK. Hopefully I've at least shown that the collapse of WTC 7, or the other towers, isn't impossible as far as we know. But it's been fun discussing with you.

Quote from: disputeone on February 20, 2017, 03:34:54 AM
Edit. Like I've said before, I could possibly swallow the OS if it was just the two towers falling without building 7, the Pentagon "plane crash" and the rest of the imo claptrap.

Your explanation is much more applicable to buildings 1 and 2 rather than 7, although I do think from what we saw and the research I've done, buildings 1 and 2s collapse was impossible given the OS.
Well, I don't think it's impossible, and I seriously doubt you have enough evidence to pass a scientific peer review. A respectable hypothesis? Yes, while you are lacking some evidence you're still reasonable and logical about your explanation, it's not just speculation.

Thanks Master Evar I really appreciate that mate. I freely admit I have nowhere near enough evidence to pass a scientific peer review, plus I'm nowhere near a scientist :P

All I want is a fair and open investigation into 9/11 without a predetermined hypothesis.

Forgive us if we are cranky from dealing with Rayzor.

For what it's worth I have always found you intelligent and reasonable, you have been very intelligent and reasonable in this thread.

Edit. Politics aside haha that's personal.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on February 20, 2017, 04:42:15 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 20, 2017, 04:38:30 AM
"...I freely admit I have nowhere near enough evidence to pass a scientific peer review, plus I'm nowhere near a scientist...


That is correct.

But you are scientist enough to REJECT the NIST reports because THOSE REPORTS meet the very definition of NON-SCIENTIFIC!

And for this instance you meet the definition of scientist.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 20, 2017, 04:49:36 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 20, 2017, 04:35:17 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 20, 2017, 04:11:56 AM
Architects and engineers for 9/11 truth is a massive blow to the OS.

Can you imagine if we had "astrophysicists and cosmologists for the revelation of the flat earth"

I didn't think so.

I don't see why Rayzor insists on calling us loonies and crazy.

I appreciate Master Evars honest debate.

One thing you have to remember about master evar is he lives in Sweden. Their country is smaller, the government is socialist, the government has its hands in the people instead of into everything else like our government.

Plus, at least from an outside perspective, rather it's misguided or not..His government seems to at least try to care for the people.

So even with evidence provided, he may not be capable of processing such a heinous crime committed or aided by a government. Like someone who is not a Thief will have a hard time understanding a Thief or their motives /actions.


Also..I haven't watching footage of 7 in a long time....I just shake my damn head, not even needed to discuss the other two towers...Just ridiculous
I agree it's so hard to think about, it just blows your whole world perspective, like that scene in the original matrix where neo wakes up from the matrix and his brain nearly "pops" I started questioning 9/11 when I found out about building 7, sixteen years ago.

This is anecdotal but a first hand account, watching the towers on tv as a kid I asked my father "Why did they fall like that?" I was by no stretch a dumb kid, I just remember him looking like a ghost and saying "I don't know." It just felt awful to me, something about it felt sinister and wrong.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 20, 2017, 04:53:42 AM
Quote from: totallackey on February 20, 2017, 04:42:15 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 20, 2017, 04:38:30 AM
"...I freely admit I have nowhere near enough evidence to pass a scientific peer review, plus I'm nowhere near a scientist...


That is correct.

But you are scientist enough to REJECT the NIST reports because THOSE REPORTS meet the very definition of NON-SCIENTIFIC!

And for this instance you meet the definition of scientist.

Agree to point out NIST put out about as much real evidence as Bhs and myself did in this thread.

Imagine handing in your maths and physics tests without showing your working.

In Australia you would fail.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 20, 2017, 04:55:47 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 20, 2017, 04:35:17 AM
One thing you have to remember about master evar is he lives in Sweden. Their country is smaller, the government is socialist, the government has its hands in the people instead of into everything else like our government.

Plus, at least from an outside perspective, rather it's misguided or not..His government seems to at least try to care for the people.

So even with evidence provided, he may not be capable of processing such a heinous crime committed or aided by a government. Like someone who is not a Thief will have a hard time understanding a Thief or their motives /actions.


Also..I haven't watching footage of 7 in a long time....I just shake my damn head, not even needed to discuss the other two towers...Just ridiculous
Could you please provide a full explanation (well, as full as possible) about why the government would be behind it? It'd be interesting to discuss the psychology and motives, as well as how tempting and smart it could had been seen as.

Quote from: disputeone on February 20, 2017, 04:38:30 AM
Thanks Master Evar I really appreciate that mate. I freely admit I have nowhere near enough evidence to pass a scientific peer review, plus I'm nowhere near a scientist :P

All I want is a fair and open investigation into 9/11 without a predetermined hypothesis.

Forgive us if we are cranky from dealing with Rayzor.

For what it's worth I have always found you intelligent and reasonable, you have been very intelligent and reasonable in this thread.

Edit. Politics aside haha that's personal.

I agree it's so hard to think about, it just blows your whole world perspective, like that scene in the original matrix where neo wakes up from the matrix and his brain nearly "pops" I started questioning 9/11 when I found out about building 7, sixteen years ago.
No problem. I agree that a better analysis of 9/11 incident should and could be done. For what it's worth, it could help prevent future incidents, but if, as I suspect, the buildings fell the way they did naturally, an analysis of how everything elapsed could be amazing for developing a construction which would collapse in the same way those buildings did - a seemingly controlled collapse with little collateral damage is preferred over a building toppling over into others any day, so if buildings could be constructed to collapse that way if they take too much damage it could save money and lives. I also suspect that if something fishy would be exposed, it'd be that some cheating was done during construction. The buildings were exempt from lots of restrictions when built, and lots of new techniques were tested on them. It would make sense if the government didn't want to expose that part of the fault lied in the construction.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 20, 2017, 04:59:49 AM
Master_evar....

I am sorry I must have misunderstood of what you said about not wanting to discuss anything specific.

Though when I presented evidence of a slightly specific nature you didn't really say anything about it, then spoke about not wanting to speak about specifics.

In the smallest nut shell possible, I present the collapse is impossible as stated because of mass distribution, CG distribution (old school Bowie design, not like newer buildings with mechanical CG load distribution systems and hollow tube design) joint load tolerance to cert ratio, core design and mass on the 44th floor and lower...I will just start there.

Not to mention the official report lied talking about the support joints of the floors...Yes they were individual joints, but there were joined together by welded support joist that formed a very solid box frame. This is the only way they could have open floor plans with the design.

Also with the official report refusing to release their model inputs, so any model they have is useless...(also not releasing is non scientific)..

As for you asking for pier reviewed things, I can present you with peer reviewed things on this subject, how do you think scientist and people in the field are recruited? That is what turned me around, I was still wanting to kill bin Laden when I read a report presented, made me open my eyes..Then almost 12 years later here I am lol.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 20, 2017, 05:12:42 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 20, 2017, 04:59:49 AM
Master_evar....

I am sorry I must have misunderstood of what you said about not wanting to discuss anything specific.

Though when I presented evidence of a slightly specific nature you didn't really say anything about it, then spoke about not wanting to speak about specifics.
I can't remember that, could you quote it?

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 20, 2017, 04:59:49 AM
In the smallest nut shell possible, I present the collapse is impossible as stated because of mass distribution, CG distribution (old school Bowie design, not like newer buildings with mechanical CG load distribution systems and hollow tube design) joint load tolerance to cert ratio, core design and mass on the 44th floor and lower...I will just start there.
You present two pictures and a bunch of assertions... Not really any evidence, or even specifics.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 20, 2017, 04:59:49 AM
Not to mention the official report lied talking about the support joints of the floors...Yes they were individual joints, but there were joined together by welded support joist that formed a very solid box frame. This is the only way they could have open floor plans with the design.

Also with the official report refusing to release their model inputs, so any model they have is useless...(also not releasing is non scientific)..
Here's where I'd rather believe in some cheating during the joint welding than controlled demolition.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 20, 2017, 04:59:49 AM
As for you asking for pier reviewed things, I can present you with peer reviewed things on this subject, how do you think scientist and people in the field are recruited? That is what turned me around, I was still wanting to kill bin Laden when I read a report presented, made me open my eyes..Then almost 12 years later here I am lol.
I didn't necessarily ask for anything peer reviewed. I have been asking for evidence, or a decent simulation with a report. And the latest thing I asked from you was:
Quote
Could you please provide a full explanation (well, as full as possible) about why the government would be behind it? It'd be interesting to discuss the psychology and motives, as well as how tempting and smart it could had been seen as.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 20, 2017, 05:17:30 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on February 20, 2017, 04:55:47 AM
Could you please provide a full explanation (well, as full as possible) about why the government would be behind it? It'd be interesting to discuss the psychology and motives, as well as how tempting and smart it could had been seen as.

Imagine a plan that can get you the foreign policy you want, get the laws passed you want, cover up massive embezzlement, and make you alot of money...All in one plan....

Cover up the 2.3 trillions dollars found missing at the Pentagon, announced literally the day before (the "plane" that struck the part of the Pentagon that held all the evidence, their lucky day)

The Patriot act was already written before this and passed not even a month after it because of this event.

The government was trying to go to war in the middle East for some time being rejected, this gave them the fear and mass hysteria to do whatever they please as long as they were "killing the terrorists"...Fear is the number one way to get the public to follow suit of whatever you want them to do.

Silverstein who is an accomplished business man (also well acquainted with the bush family) purchase the towers primarily vacant needed billions of dollars of repair and asbestos removal for a non discounted price (no one wanted them and they were falling into disrepair because no one wanted the liability or to sink the money into them, so tenants were leaving at an alarming rate)..

Then suddenly after he purchases them, they start "filling up" with ambiguous companies and he takes out multiple insurance policies worth many more times the value of the towers...Mind you he did all this within months of the collapse. He made billions up billions on this (Marvin Bush was also the chair of one of the insurance companies, this was fresh off his setting as chair of the security company that handled the Trifecta...WTC, united, and the air port they came from lol...Small world)


This is just the very tip of the ice burg master...

If this were a court, I wouldn't even need physical evidence to sentence all involved to death...The circumstantial evidence is enough in itself
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 20, 2017, 05:26:31 AM
Response to master evar last post

I would rather believe in something else as well master....Doesn't mean it's reality...This whole thing has made me sick for a long time...And the biggest thing is it looks like they are going to get away with it. I had alot more hope a decade ago than now.

Also they are not assertions, they are issues founded in structural design...Just those small things (though there are many more and I am not even addressing building 7 yet) are enough to make anyone with a background in that to say "what"?...This is why there are websites and groups with 1000s of people like me saying "wait a minute"...Not people wearing tin foil hats.

If you are interested I suggest you read some educational books on structural design
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 20, 2017, 05:45:32 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 20, 2017, 05:17:30 AM
Imagine a plan that can get you the foreign policy you want, get the laws passed you want, cover up massive embezzlement, and make you alot of money...All in one plan....

Cover up the 2.3 trillions dollars found missing at the Pentagon, announced literally the day before (the "plane" that struck the part of the Pentagon that held all the evidence, their lucky day)

The Patriot act was already written before this and passed not even a month after it because of this event.

The government was trying to go to war in the middle East for some time being rejected, this gave them the fear and mass hysteria to do whatever they please as long as they were "killing the terrorists"...Fear is the number one way to get the public to follow suit of whatever you want them to do.

Silverstein who is an accomplished business man (also well acquainted with the bush family) purchase the towers primarily vacant needed billions of dollars of repair and asbestos removal for a non discounted price (no one wanted them and they were falling into disrepair because no one wanted the liability or to sink the money into them, so tenants were leaving at an alarming rate)..

Then suddenly after he purchases them, they start "filling up" with ambiguous companies and he takes out multiple insurance policies worth many more times the value of the towers...Mind you he did all this within months of the collapse. He made billions up billions on this (Marvin Bush was also the chair of one of the insurance companies, this was fresh off his setting as chair of the security company that handled the Trifecta...WTC, united, and the air port they came from lol...Small world)


This is just the very tip of the ice burg master...

If this were a court, I wouldn't even need physical evidence to sentence all involved to death...The circumstantial evidence is enough in itself
You can do better. It lacks a good structure, more details are required. Tell me more about pentagon, the patriot act, the middle east war, silverstein, and how the collapse of the towers lead to everyone achieving their goal.

If this is enough evidence to sentence people to death, I guess pretty much all rape accusations with believable stories are enough to sentence the accused to prison?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 20, 2017, 05:58:06 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on February 20, 2017, 05:45:32 AM
You can do better. It lacks a good structure, more details are required. Tell me more about pentagon, the patriot act, the middle east war, silverstein, and how the collapse of the towers lead to everyone achieving their goal.

If this is enough evidence to sentence people to death, I guess pretty much all rape accusations with believable stories are enough to sentence the accused to prison?

I can do much better...That was just a quick blurb (which i also clearly stated)...The the snarky nonsense was not appreciated, I have been very polite with you.

Typically everyone I have discussed this with that is actually searching for truth know a fair amount about it, they ask me for more specifics on some aspects. So if this is just snarky bullshit wasting my time please let me know now so I can not waste anymore of my time.

Thanks
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 20, 2017, 06:03:58 AM
Master Evar to be fair asking Myself of Bhs to justify "why" to you is not an argument against anything we have presented.

I could tell you why, control. That is enough. I could get into specifics but you wouldn't accept it as evidence because "why" by definition can't be proven.

Edit.

You can only look at who gained the most from it, Bhs pointed out a few glaring coincidences. There isn't much more to say on it than that because any physical evidence went down with the towers.

Everything else is circumstantial, as has been pointed out, why was so much protocol broken on the days and those days following?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 20, 2017, 06:31:48 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 20, 2017, 05:58:06 AM
I can do much better...That was just a quick blurb (which i also clearly stated)...The the snarky nonsense was not appreciated, I have been very polite with you.
I don't see where you state that it was "just a quick blurb", you seemed rather serious. I did ask for a full, or at least as full as possible, explanation. The way you wrote it I'll still have to look up all the details, fill them in and guess what you're referring to and guess what you think the motives are. I have been polite with you, too. I'm just being blunt. I don't need an essay on it, but I want something relatively well-written with decent grammar, as it's uncertain what you mean sometimes:
"Silverstein who is an accomplished business man (also well acquainted with the bush family) purchase the towers primarily vacant needed billions of dollars of repair and asbestos removal for a non discounted price"
Silverstein purchase the towers vacant needed billions of dollars of repair and asbestos removal for a non discounted price? I guess you mean that despite the towers needing maintenance and being in disrepair, he bought them for full price? That doesn't explain why he did it.  Just to have planes crash into them? How would the insurance work? Did he actually pay for maintenance and repair? And how is WTC connected to pentagon? Who is the mastermind?

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 20, 2017, 05:58:06 AM
Typically everyone I have discussed this with that is actually searching for truth know a fair amount about it, they ask me for more specifics on some aspects. So if this is just snarky bullshit wasting my time please let me know now so I can not waste anymore of my time.

Thanks
Snarky bullshit? Come back with that when you can write a coherent, grammatically decent argument and support it yourself. As it is you're putting half of your work unto me.

Quote from: disputeone on February 20, 2017, 06:03:58 AM
Master Evar to be fair asking Myself of Bhs to justify "why" to you is not an argument against anything we have presented.

I could tell you why, control. That is enough. I could get into specifics but you wouldn't accept it as evidence because "why" by definition can't be proven.
No, I never said that, but it's hard to make an argument against something unknown. I am very skeptical that the US government would do something like that, even a person in the government who would earn a lot. It's hard for a person to do something if they know it directly leads to a lot of deaths, especially if it is people that they feel some connection to and are of absolutely no threat to them (like, people of the same country). And I would also like to know how much would be gained, if it really is enough to make up for the heavy mental load on their consciousness. I would also like to know who would fly the planes into the towers, if not terrorists - after all, we do know that passenger planes, with passengers and steered by pilots, crashed into the towers. "Control" is not an answer, unless we also assume the perpetrator has some mental disorder or akin.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 20, 2017, 06:49:50 AM
Have you considered the arguments we have presented on the difficulty of the planes to maneuver like we we're told also the violations of thermodynamics for the energy of the explosion and subsequent fires?

There's strong circumstantial evidence to consider the possibility something other than a passenger plane hit the first tower at least.

As for the second tower a computer piloted plane would do fine, have you seen the video of the helicopter hovering close above the buildings? It's not shown in many videos but they are viral. This is circumstantial evidence for lazer guidance or something similar.

I gave you the quick rundown on the occult significance. You have to admit the numbers are coincidental in that post alone.

Also how many people do you think really had to be involved, this isnt FET we are talking about, it could've been done by a select few very powerful people in government with outside help.

Look into all the confusion on that day, why wasn't the second plane shot down?
Everyone was given orders that were conflicting or just downright confusing on the day and for days afterwards.

Alright really tired gtg thanks guys.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Heiwa on February 20, 2017, 07:04:30 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on February 20, 2017, 06:31:48 AM
I would also like to know who would fly the planes into the towers, if not terrorists - after all, we do know that passenger planes, with passengers and steered by pilots, crashed into the towers. "Control" is not an answer, unless we also assume the perpetrator has some mental disorder or akin.

Hm, do you really believe in terrorists flying planes? Egyptians! Having taken some lessons at US flying schools? I don't.

Perpetrators having some mental disorder?

No, it all sounds like Hollywood C movies to me. I really wonder what twerps made it up.

It is really a pity that the suspects at Gitmo, after torture, are not permitted to defend themselves in court.

I am really curious how they could convince some Egyptians to carry out a suicide terrorist act.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 20, 2017, 07:56:25 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 20, 2017, 06:49:50 AM
Have you considered the arguments we have presented on the difficulty of the planes to maneuver like we we're told also the violations of thermodynamics for the energy of the explosion and subsequent fires?
No, I haven't seen those arguments.

Quote from: disputeone on February 20, 2017, 06:49:50 AM
There's strong circumstantial evidence to consider the possibility something other than a passenger plane hit the first tower at least.

As for the second tower a computer piloted plane would do fine, have you seen the video of the helicopter hovering close above the buildings? It's not shown in many videos but they are viral. This is circumstantial evidence for lazer guidance or something similar.
Surely there's records of people getting on board the planes, and then going missing after the incident? Unless you have substantial hard physical evidence of something other than passenger planes, I don't really feel like discussing that.

Quote from: disputeone on February 20, 2017, 06:49:50 AM
I gave you the quick rundown on the occult significance. You have to admit the numbers are coincidental in that post alone.

Also how many people do you think really had to be involved, this isnt FET we are talking about, it could've been done by a select few very powerful people in government with outside help.
Dunno, I never adressed that as a concern. My concern is that someone actually name some suspects, and why they are suspects.

Quote from: disputeone on February 20, 2017, 06:49:50 AM
Look into all the confusion on that day, why wasn't the second plane shot down?
Everyone was given orders that were conflicting or just downright confusing on the day and for days afterwards.

Alright really tired gtg thanks guys.
Because of the confusion, maybe? Humans don't always make the best decisions, even when it's obvious what is the best decision, due to pressure or confusion. One conflicting order is enough to create more confusion and even more conflciting orders, or orders that seem conflicting.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: markjo on February 20, 2017, 08:20:49 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on February 20, 2017, 07:04:30 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on February 20, 2017, 06:31:48 AM
I would also like to know who would fly the planes into the towers, if not terrorists - after all, we do know that passenger planes, with passengers and steered by pilots, crashed into the towers. "Control" is not an answer, unless we also assume the perpetrator has some mental disorder or akin.

Hm, do you really believe in terrorists flying planes? Egyptians! Having taken some lessons at US flying schools? I don't.

Perpetrators having some mental disorder?

No, it all sounds like Hollywood C movies to me. I really wonder what twerps made it up.
Maybe the same twerps that filed this story:
Quote from: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3012053/Andreas-Lubitz-Germanwings-flight-9525-French-alps-crash-French-alps-Germanwings-plane-crash-Airbus-A320-Barcelonnette.html
Mass-killer co-pilot who deliberately crashed Germanwings plane had to STOP training because he was suffering depression and 'burn-out'

    Black box voice recorder reveals chilling final moments of Airbus A320
    Passengers heard 'screaming' in final moments before crash that killed 150
    Prosecutor: 'The intention was to destroy the plane. Death was instant'
    Co-pilot was named today as 28-year-old German Andreas Günter Lubitz
    Raises serious questions about why he was allowed to fly commercial jet
    Airline boss insists Lubitz was '100% fit to fly' after passing medical tests
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Heiwa on February 20, 2017, 09:36:37 AM
Quote from: markjo on February 20, 2017, 08:20:49 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on February 20, 2017, 07:04:30 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on February 20, 2017, 06:31:48 AM
I would also like to know who would fly the planes into the towers, if not terrorists - after all, we do know that passenger planes, with passengers and steered by pilots, crashed into the towers. "Control" is not an answer, unless we also assume the perpetrator has some mental disorder or akin.

Hm, do you really believe in terrorists flying planes? Egyptians! Having taken some lessons at US flying schools? I don't.

Perpetrators having some mental disorder?

No, it all sounds like Hollywood C movies to me. I really wonder what twerps made it up.
Maybe the same twerps that filed this story:
Quote from: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3012053/Andreas-Lubitz-Germanwings-flight-9525-French-alps-crash-French-alps-Germanwings-plane-crash-Airbus-A320-Barcelonnette.html
Mass-killer co-pilot who deliberately crashed Germanwings plane had to STOP training because he was suffering depression and 'burn-out'

    Black box voice recorder reveals chilling final moments of Airbus A320
    Passengers heard 'screaming' in final moments before crash that killed 150
    Prosecutor: 'The intention was to destroy the plane. Death was instant'
    Co-pilot was named today as 28-year-old German Andreas Günter Lubitz
    Raises serious questions about why he was allowed to fly commercial jet
    Airline boss insists Lubitz was '100% fit to fly' after passing medical tests

Yes, we all know about this sick German. Was he a terrorist? What has he to do with 911?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: markjo on February 20, 2017, 10:17:00 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on February 20, 2017, 09:36:37 AM
Quote from: markjo on February 20, 2017, 08:20:49 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on February 20, 2017, 07:04:30 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on February 20, 2017, 06:31:48 AM
I would also like to know who would fly the planes into the towers, if not terrorists - after all, we do know that passenger planes, with passengers and steered by pilots, crashed into the towers. "Control" is not an answer, unless we also assume the perpetrator has some mental disorder or akin.

Hm, do you really believe in terrorists flying planes? Egyptians! Having taken some lessons at US flying schools? I don't.

Perpetrators having some mental disorder?

No, it all sounds like Hollywood C movies to me. I really wonder what twerps made it up.
Maybe the same twerps that filed this story:
Quote from: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3012053/Andreas-Lubitz-Germanwings-flight-9525-French-alps-crash-French-alps-Germanwings-plane-crash-Airbus-A320-Barcelonnette.html
Mass-killer co-pilot who deliberately crashed Germanwings plane had to STOP training because he was suffering depression and 'burn-out'

    Black box voice recorder reveals chilling final moments of Airbus A320
    Passengers heard 'screaming' in final moments before crash that killed 150
    Prosecutor: 'The intention was to destroy the plane. Death was instant'
    Co-pilot was named today as 28-year-old German Andreas Günter Lubitz
    Raises serious questions about why he was allowed to fly commercial jet
    Airline boss insists Lubitz was '100% fit to fly' after passing medical tests

Yes, we all know about this sick German. Was he a terrorist? What has he to do with 911?
First of all, it goes to show that sometimes pilots can have mental diseases.

Secondly, I don't know about you, but I'd call intentionally crashing a plane full of passengers into a mountain an act of terror.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sceptimatic on February 20, 2017, 10:28:04 AM
Markjo: This is being debated as to whether there were any planes or so called terrorists as we were told.
A supposed mentally unstable pilot that has nothing to do with 9/11 is for another topic, I'd say.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: markjo on February 20, 2017, 11:13:44 AM
Quote from: sceptimatic on February 20, 2017, 10:28:04 AM
Markjo: This is being debated as to whether there were any planes or so called terrorists as we were told.
A supposed mentally unstable pilot that has nothing to do with 9/11 is for another topic, I'd say.
Well, a bunch of people on the street saw at least one plane fly into a tower on 9/11, so I don't know how that's even a question.  And I don't think that I'd call flying an airliner full of people into a building the act of a mentally stable person.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Heiwa on February 20, 2017, 11:37:53 AM
Quote from: markjo on February 20, 2017, 11:13:44 AM
Quote from: sceptimatic on February 20, 2017, 10:28:04 AM
Markjo: This is being debated as to whether there were any planes or so called terrorists as we were told.
A supposed mentally unstable pilot that has nothing to do with 9/11 is for another topic, I'd say.
Well, a bunch of people on the street saw at least one plane fly into a tower on 9/11, so I don't know how that's even a question.  And I don't think that I'd call flying an airliner full of people into a building the act of a mentally stable person.

You haven't understood. According US authorities the 911 pilots were part of an organization that possessed

Quote
leaders able to evaluate, approve, and supervise the planning and direction of a major operation;

a personnel system that could recruit candidates, indoctrinate them, vet them, and give them the necessary training;

communications sufficient to enable planning and direction of operatives and those who would be helping them;

an intelligence effort to gather required information and form assessments of enemy strengths and weaknesses;

the ability to move people great distances; and

the ability to raise and move the money necessary to finance an attack.

Source http://heiwaco.com/AB911story.htm

It seems the people involved were mentally stable, to say the least. Of course, so far nobody has been brought to justice.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: markjo on February 20, 2017, 12:28:52 PM
Quote from: Heiwa on February 20, 2017, 11:37:53 AM
Quote from: markjo on February 20, 2017, 11:13:44 AM
Quote from: sceptimatic on February 20, 2017, 10:28:04 AM
Markjo: This is being debated as to whether there were any planes or so called terrorists as we were told.
A supposed mentally unstable pilot that has nothing to do with 9/11 is for another topic, I'd say.
Well, a bunch of people on the street saw at least one plane fly into a tower on 9/11, so I don't know how that's even a question.  And I don't think that I'd call flying an airliner full of people into a building the act of a mentally stable person.

You haven't understood. According US authorities the 911 pilots were part of an organization that possessed

Quote
leaders able to evaluate, approve, and supervise the planning and direction of a major operation;

a personnel system that could recruit candidates, indoctrinate them, vet them, and give them the necessary training;

communications sufficient to enable planning and direction of operatives and those who would be helping them;

an intelligence effort to gather required information and form assessments of enemy strengths and weaknesses;

the ability to move people great distances; and

the ability to raise and move the money necessary to finance an attack.

Source http://heiwaco.com/AB911story.htm

It seems the people involved were mentally stable, to say the least. Of course, so far nobody has been brought to justice.
Who says that sociopaths and psychopaths can't be highly intelligent, well organized and quite resourceful?  ???
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: physical observer on February 20, 2017, 01:07:55 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 13, 2017, 10:36:59 PM
Quote
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on Today at 07:27:01 AM
So by this I assume he is an official story guy? If that is the case you can't expect too much from him ;D....Also, he should never give any crap about their views or believing in fairy tales.

I'll  take that challenge.   What real evidence is there for a conspiracy about 911?   Innuendo and speculation don't count as evidence.

My starting position is that there is no conspiracy,  I remember watching the coverage on TV,  and my first comment, even before the towers collapsed was Osama Bin Laden is behind this,  I've not seen anything since that would change my mind. 

So over to Babyhighspeed for the fairy tales.   :)

Didn't they find evidence the Saudis were involved, and Ex-{thank gawd!}, President Obama prevented any law suits from American citizens against Saudi? You should also check into the relationship between the Saudis{Bin Ladens} and Ex{thank gawd!}, President Bush. I think you'll find they are business partners, and have office skyrises right near each other in Texas, Huston I believe. My, my, my, maybe that is why Bush Jr. was not whisked away to Air Force One instead of being left in that kindergarten classroom, putting all those innocent children at risk! My, my, my, actions speak louder than words! Or lack thereof!
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: onebigmonkey on February 20, 2017, 01:31:47 PM
Quote from: markjo on February 20, 2017, 12:28:52 PM
Quote from: Heiwa on February 20, 2017, 11:37:53 AM
Quote from: markjo on February 20, 2017, 11:13:44 AM
Quote from: sceptimatic on February 20, 2017, 10:28:04 AM
Markjo: This is being debated as to whether there were any planes or so called terrorists as we were told.
A supposed mentally unstable pilot that has nothing to do with 9/11 is for another topic, I'd say.
Well, a bunch of people on the street saw at least one plane fly into a tower on 9/11, so I don't know how that's even a question.  And I don't think that I'd call flying an airliner full of people into a building the act of a mentally stable person.

You haven't understood. According US authorities the 911 pilots were part of an organization that possessed

Quote
leaders able to evaluate, approve, and supervise the planning and direction of a major operation;

a personnel system that could recruit candidates, indoctrinate them, vet them, and give them the necessary training;

communications sufficient to enable planning and direction of operatives and those who would be helping them;

an intelligence effort to gather required information and form assessments of enemy strengths and weaknesses;

the ability to move people great distances; and

the ability to raise and move the money necessary to finance an attack.

Source http://heiwaco.com/AB911story.htm

It seems the people involved were mentally stable, to say the least. Of course, so far nobody has been brought to justice.
Who says that sociopaths and psychopaths can't be highly intelligent, well organized and quite resourceful?  ???

They can build popular websites. Plenty visitors.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 20, 2017, 01:57:25 PM
Keep it on topic please guys.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 20, 2017, 04:23:02 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 20, 2017, 02:57:37 AM
Rayzor... As for the smoke ...All signs from the way the smoke acted, color, and from video evidence it was being extinguished. That is the same thing the new York fire department said as well. "under control" and "controllable" was used many times.

We also know for certain there is no way it could have been hot enough to liquify the Steel used in the tower as we saw on video...There was a variable that was there that shouldn't have been.


I'd agree,  no-one  claims the fires were hot enough to melt steel,  and that might relate to my next couple of questions.

I know some people who are pretty good at reading smoke,  so I asked them, and they didn't think it was "black fire",   so I'll retract that hypothesis,   but they did say that fires like that are very nasty and smoke temperatures closer to the source of combustion can be as hot as the flames. in some sense more dangerous because of the heat transfer to the surrounds is much faster with turbulent flow.
Flashover is highly likely when you have a reducing atmosphere and get a sudden increase in the oxygen supply. 

Lets' move on the the explosives themselves,  there are two stages involved.

1.  After the missile impact on WTC2 we see a huge fireball,   that looks like burning hydrocarbon,  was that from the missile, or did they store a few thousand gallons of  jet fuel on those floors?

2.  The collapse initiation,  was from the pre-planted explosives,  you mentioned tritium and nano-thermite,  what are you suggesting was used to start the collapse?

3.  What is the significance of the tritium,  are you suggesting mini-nukes?

4. I know a little about thermite,  and I would have thought,  thermite or nano-thermite was too unstable to survive the missile impact and fuel fireball?

 


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Heiwa on February 20, 2017, 04:39:42 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 20, 2017, 04:23:02 PM

Lets' move on the the explosives themselves,  there are two stages involved.

1.  After the missile impact on WTC2 we see a huge fireball,   that looks like burning hydrocarbon,  was that from the missile, or did they store a few thousand gallons of  jet fuel on those floors?

2.  The collapse initiation,  was from the pre-planted explosives,  you mentioned tritium and nano-thermite,  what are you suggesting was used to start the collapse?


1. IMO the fireball is Computer Generated Images, CGI. Isn't it easy to see?

2. The collapse initiation is also CGI as shown at http://heiwaco.com/Wtc1SeriesNW.ppt . The weak top between floor 92 and the roof is mysteriously compressed/disappearing in the video with smoke added for action. And then 'collapse' starts below with floors disappearing from top down with smoke and debris added ... and no top seen anywhere.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 20, 2017, 06:16:48 PM
Daily reminder that truth, justice and freedom are more than just words, they are perspectives.

Also truth may be closer than we think, fear not.



(https://s11.postimg.org/5erg0zvcz/images_1.png)

If everyone who silently questioned 9/11 spoke out, we would have truth within the year.



We are your friends, your nighbours, your family and your workmates, we build your infrastructure, we teach your children, we are your doctors, your laywers, we are the police officers that protect justice and we are the judges of the ones who protect lies, we are you as you are us.

We are anonymous
We are legion
We do not forgive
We do not forget
Nothing is beyond our reach.
expect us


#freedisseminationofinformation
#burnfacebook
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on February 21, 2017, 03:13:09 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 20, 2017, 04:23:02 PM
1.  After the missile impact on WTC2 we see a huge fireball,   that looks like burning hydrocarbon,  was that from the missile, or did they store a few thousand gallons of  jet fuel on those floors?

You mean we saw something that looked like this?

(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/2Bgb9DjlZ44/hqdefault.jpg)

I agree!
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 21, 2017, 05:33:26 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 20, 2017, 04:23:02 PM
I'd agree,  no-one  claims the fires were hot enough to melt steel,  and that might relate to my next couple of questions.

I know some people who are pretty good at reading smoke,  so I asked them, and they didn't think it was "black fire",   so I'll retract that hypothesis,   but they did say that fires like that are very nasty and smoke temperatures closer to the source of combustion can be as hot as the flames. in some sense more dangerous because of the heat transfer to the surrounds is much faster with turbulent flow.
Flashover is highly likely when you have a reducing atmosphere and get a sudden increase in the oxygen supply. 

Lets' move on the the explosives themselves,  there are two stages involved.

1.  After the missile impact on WTC2 we see a huge fireball,   that looks like burning hydrocarbon,  was that from the missile, or did they store a few thousand gallons of  jet fuel on those floors?

2.  The collapse initiation,  was from the pre-planted explosives,  you mentioned tritium and nano-thermite,  what are you suggesting was used to start the collapse?

3.  What is the significance of the tritium,  are you suggesting mini-nukes?

4. I know a little about thermite,  and I would have thought,  thermite or nano-thermite was too unstable to survive the missile impact and fuel fireball?

As for the fire ball, well as you can see there are many opinions there from heiwa saying everything was CGI even the fireball to fuel or explosives being placed inside for the "show", to it was the plane itself.

I tend to lean away from the plane itself, just because the amount of fuel that is stored in the wings yet the delay it took until we saw the fire ball. We should have saw an instant reduction of speed from the fuselage and instant ignition from the wings. The building was the "invincible" mass here and the plane the " fragile" mass... Though I have already said my disapproval of what we witnessed on television of what should have happened in reality with the aircraft wreck alone.

At a minimum we should have seen instant ignition outside the building, instead of something cutting through like butter, disappearing then a internal fireball. This defies physics on many levels.

This is assuming a typical 767...A specialty designed drone with all the fuel in the fuselage would act differently, so would a missle obviously. Though I am not an expert of any sort on missles so i have no idea how big of a fire ball they would leave. Though I will say typical explosives rely on concussive force and not fire, so I imagine a missle would be the same. It would also not be hard to have that area loaded with fuel and a missle guided right there to ignite the fuel...This would also explain the strange delay seen between impact and explosion.

One thing I can feel sure of is something hit the tower...Although people reported seeing nothing, the majority reported seeing something...Though that is where it ends, most of those people don't recall seeing a commercial air craft.


So for tritium and nano thermite....All I can state is it was present in the dust. The dust I got has it present, I presented reports as well as many others presented reports that were peer reviewed. The official story is from the compression of the destruction of the buildings and the material in it "formed" this...Which is not an answer of course. Not even a real attempt.

So all we can say for sure is it was there. I also already told you how I would destroy the towers with a combo of nano thermite and c4 caps to dislodge the weakened area. This, in my professional opinion, is the only way I know how to demo the towers the way we saw with thermite. That doesn't mean it's the only way to do it.

To initiate the collapse...If I wanted to sneak it, and attempt to hide the demo, this is what I would do. I would start at the floors already shown to be damaged. Not only catch people's attention, but also start creating noise...Then I would activate the lower charges. Keep in mind, you would only need about 30-40 well placed charges at the lower decks on these buildings because of the core design.


As for shielding thermite...first, that stuff is much more robust than you think to unintentional ignition, it can also be mixed in different variations depending on what you need. Though for shielding...That is easy, probably one of the easier issues to solve here. There are many solutions, but one easier thing, ones you draw it and set it, build a protective box around it with everything contained in it. There are other ways, this is just one of the easier ones.


As for a mini nuke or something like that? I don't know...I can only go off what we know. I know what we found in the dust...What does it mean?? I don't know..I know we saw molton steel pouring from the upper sections...What does it mean?? I don't know, but we can say there was something up there that was not supposed to be. Pulling molton steel for months from ground zero.

"heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel." There are hundreds of other quotes and pictures to prove this. What to make of this?? I don't know...But we can safely make the conclusion it was from nothing that should have been there.

I actually know nothing that can cause that for months and months...also remember they were trying to put these fires out the whole time, it is not like it was sitting untreated. Even if it was untreated I know nothing that can go for months melting steel...It makes my skin crawl...We aren't just talking about hot metal, we are talking about "dripping molton steel, puddles"....

The health problems of those at ground zero is well documented..It was from the dust they say, which I could see that. But perhaps it could be from whatever caused this.

So simply, I don't know...I can state things from what non governmental employees in the industry would know. But I am not deep seated in the government, so I don't know what capabilities they really have. I joke about a death ray from space.....It is said in a passing snarky tone, however in the end, I could never completely rule it out because I don't know what they really have to work with.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 21, 2017, 05:55:30 AM
Great post thanks.

I stand by my statement of this being one of the best 9/11 truth threads.

Rayzor, in your OP you asked for real evidence of a conspiracy, this post alone is full of real evidence things didn't happen the way we were told, not even counting the rest of the thread.

I will accept your apology of the "fairytales" remark in the OP when you are ready.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Heiwa on February 21, 2017, 07:38:55 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 21, 2017, 05:33:26 AM

As for the fire ball, well as you can see there are many opinions there from heiwa saying everything was CGI even the fireball to fuel or explosives being placed inside for the "show", to it was the plane itself.

I tend to lean away from the plane itself, just because the amount of fuel that is stored in the wings yet the delay it took until we saw the fire ball. We should have saw an instant reduction of speed from the fuselage and instant ignition from the wings. The building was the "invisible" mass here and the plane the " fragile" mass... Though I have already said my disapproval of what we witnessed on television of what should have happened in reality with the aircraft wreck alone.

At a minimum we should have seen instant ignition outside the building, instead of something cutting through like butter, disappearing then a internal fireball. This defies physics on many levels.


Thanks. Being a recognized expert of ships colliding with oil tankers, I fully agree. No striking ship penetrates inside an oiltanker and then explodes in a FIREBALL.

The WTC 1/2 towers were like oiltankers. Most of the local strenght was in the hull plates/walls with inside floors as web frames, etc. http://heiwaco.com/ce_collision.htm

The whole idea that a 'plane' slices into and disappears into a skyscraper without any noise and then just becomes a FIREBALL is stupid. Most of the 'plane' should have bounced away on the outside.

The creators of the CGI didn't know it. But with Bill, Hillary, GWB and Condi applauding the show ... what can I do?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 21, 2017, 08:13:29 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on February 21, 2017, 07:38:55 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 21, 2017, 05:33:26 AM

As for the fire ball, well as you can see there are many opinions there from heiwa saying everything was CGI even the fireball to fuel or explosives being placed inside for the "show", to it was the plane itself.

I tend to lean away from the plane itself, just because the amount of fuel that is stored in the wings yet the delay it took until we saw the fire ball. We should have saw an instant reduction of speed from the fuselage and instant ignition from the wings. The building was the "invisible" mass here and the plane the " fragile" mass... Though I have already said my disapproval of what we witnessed on television of what should have happened in reality with the aircraft wreck alone.

At a minimum we should have seen instant ignition outside the building, instead of something cutting through like butter, disappearing then a internal fireball. This defies physics on many levels.


Thanks. Being a recognized expert of ships colliding with oil tankers, I fully agree. No striking ship penetrates inside an oiltanker and then explodes in a FIREBALL.

The WTC 1/2 towers were like oiltankers. Most of the local strenght was in the hull plates/walls with inside walls as web frames, etc. http://heiwaco.com/ce_collision.htm

The whole idea that a 'plane' slices into and disappears into a skyscraper without any noise and then just becomes a FIREBALL is stupid. Most of the 'plane' should have bounced away on the outside.

The creators of the CGI didn't know it. But with Bill, Hillary, GWB and Condi applauding the show ... what can I do?

Well one I meant Invincible Not Invisible lol...I should not be allowed to type on tha internets.

With that said, in the "netting" on the outside exoskeleton the thinnest parts was a little under an inch thick steel. I might be able to accept a plane at that speed and mass could "slice" through the material to a certain ease. Certainly not just through like butter without shedding anything on the outside or any Deceleration, but we will leave that alone for the moment.

However, when you get into the fact of the vertically facing floors with steel vertical facing trusses and 4 inches of reinforced concrete. Every floor was surrounded by a reinforced "box frame" that was two inches thick .Then to the fact on the outside exoskeleton where the floors connected...That was 5 feet tall and FOUR INCH THICK steel....(for anyone not in the business, 4 inch solid steel is not for the faint of heart, you cannot even weld it with one pass. You have to trough it and stack it with multiple passes. A welder with the same settings would blast a hole through aircraft aluminum like a plasma cutter)

You tell me the plane sliced through these things like butter....Now we have a problem, an issue with physics as well as simple visual data to this.

Or

A fairy tale
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sceptimatic on February 21, 2017, 08:19:57 AM
What we have to remember here, is, we are not dealing with idiots.
We have to really go right back to square one with this, as easy as it appears to be to see holes in the official story.
What you have to think of, is, what really happened in real LIVE New York time.
Now those who want to try and fathom it out have to either go looking for people who were close enough to actually understand what was going on prior to the events of that day.
Then they need to actually question random people in high rises that are close to the towers to find out what the situation was by their own sight.
Many may have different recollections and views, depending on how much they relied on TV, regardless of being there in that close proximity.

The problem with all of what I've just said is, who can we trust to have done this?
Who stands out as actually being a legitimate person/s who have done this and looked for the real truth?

The answer may vary.
Many of us could use all kinds of names, from the sublime to the ridiculous.
Bill Cooper or Alex Jones?
Loose change or similar set ups like that?
Clues forum and other forums?

The thing is we are all dealing with people who are a mix of all kinds of info, mis-info and dis-info.
So how do we get to the actual crux of the physical reality of it...or at least the most logical aspect of what we actually know exists and their strengths and limitations, as well as using clear logic on what constitutes real coincidence and what surpasses the coincidence theory so far away from as to be deemed inadmissible as any real bona fide answer.

Some of the basic stuff has already been dealt with, such as aluminium tubes with fuel filled wings not being able to melt like butter into steel framed buildings, such as the absolute grid system of the WTC 1 and 2 sky scrapers.

So what is the actual truth?
What is the most feasible and reasonable reality of 3 tower collapses in real live NY time that day?

We can't use TV because we obviously know that the TV are showing us planes melting into the buildings...so  if we can't use one mainstream TV feed we basically can't use any as any yardstick to argue for reality.

What we can do is use TV footage to show what is impossible by absolute common sense, regardless of people shouting " you're not a structural engineer and you don't know what happens to planes at those speeds."
Fair enough, but then we have to go back and find out what these planes and buildings can do and withstand in all forms of scenarios.

Stuff that has already been said. 767 jets flying at under 1000 feet at over 500 mph and banking at those speeds as well.
Not possible but apparently possible on that day. The day to defy all known basic physics, it seems.

So for those arguing for the official lines in all aspects, as a truth...you are not expert enough to assert anything but you are free to accept official lines based on visual (but dodgy) TV footage and plenty of official story-lines.
The trouble with that is, it makes you look decidedly dishonest or naive in the extreme.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 21, 2017, 09:08:18 AM
The sad thing is scepti, there are 1000s of people who are experts in fields involving this lie. From structural, to Aviation to pilots and the list goes on and on. Yet these people will never get any mainstream attention, however the guy scanning groceries at a Walmart will whenever he says "those guys are liars" or "those people are stupid, the official story is real".

How dumb is this? Even with someone who already possesses a doctorate, I wouldn't call a medical doctor who has nothing to gain an idiot if he told me something that went against mainstream. I would say hmmm...I wonder why this MD is telling me this, and investigate.

I also do not know any "alternative theory" that has such a backing of qualified people to support it.

I know people have been molded to not critical think, and some people will never be capable of breaking form mainstream...Though I don't consider this much of an excuse...We all have the given ability, depending on how tough we are.


My biggest fear is the real perpetrators will get away with it. As more and more time passes, the less and less of people that care. Especially as the mainstream is being molded to care about less and less meaningful things....Such as Kim K's ass or a person going from an outie to an innie.

Also narcissistic traits are being rewarded and supported. "It doesn't effect me so who cares"...All of these things then adding time, I have a sickening feeling the real perpetrators will escape Scott free and wealthy.

I can have all the hard evidence in the world of Godzilla's existence, but what the hell does it matter if people are conditioned to not listen or care?

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sceptimatic on February 21, 2017, 09:33:54 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 21, 2017, 09:08:18 AM
The sad thing is scepti, there are 1000s of people who are experts in fields involving this lie. From structural, to Aviation to pilots and the list goes on and on. Yet these people will never get any mainstream attention, however the guy scanning groceries at a Walmart will whenever he says "those guys are liars" or "those people are stupid, the official story is real".
Exactly. It's weird in the extreme but this is what conditioning does. Follow the masses and you become a face in the crowd instead of an outcast.


Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 21, 2017, 09:08:18 AM
How dumb is this? Even with someone who already possesses a doctorate, I wouldn't call a medical doctor who has nothing to gain an idiot if he told me something that went against mainstream. I would say hmmm...I wonder why this MD is telling me this, and investigate.
You might but most people are happy to follow mass opinion and are more than happy to become an in crowd expert over the expert to aid in rendering that expert jobless and tarnished with a conspiracy nut tag....or worse.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 21, 2017, 09:08:18 AM
I also do not know any "alternative theory" that has such a backing of qualified people to support it.
I know people have been molded to not critical think, and some people will never be capable of breaking form mainstream...Though I don't consider this much of an excuse...We all have the given ability, depending on how tough we are.
If one insignificant person can stand up and get a crowd singing at a football game...imagine what someone of significance can do to a population.
Idols were created for good reason.



Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 21, 2017, 09:08:18 AM
My biggest fear is the real perpetrators will get away with it. As more and more time passes, the less and less of people that care. Especially as the mainstream is being molded to care about less and less meaningful things....Such as Kim K's ass or a person going from an outie to an innie.
That's all we ever will be, because we are basically drones.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 21, 2017, 09:08:18 AM
Also narcissistic traits are being rewarded and supported. "It doesn't effect me so who cares"...All of these things then adding time, I have a sickening feeling the real perpetrators will escape Scott free and wealthy.

Everything is a strategic game to those people. They gain nothing in the end. Nobody gains anything. We all lose in the end. In physical life that is.
The after life is a different kettle of fish to many people. Of that, I say, each to their own thinking.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 21, 2017, 09:08:18 AM
I can have all the hard evidence in the world of Godzilla's existence, but what the hell does it matter if people are conditioned to not listen or care?
Exactly. It matters little to anyone who is engrossed in a materialistic world. Most people are living a life worrying how to buy the next gadget or eating the best meals or wearing the best jewelry/clothing/perfumes, etc.
Equally they spend the rest of the time worrying how to pay for it.
Their minds are full. They do not want to know that someone has a mass of evidence of a deception, unless there is some advantage for themselves.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Twerp on February 21, 2017, 09:41:19 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 21, 2017, 09:08:18 AM
The sad thing is scepti, there are 1000s of people who are experts in fields involving this lie. From structural, to Aviation to pilots and the list goes on and on. Yet these people will never get any mainstream attention, however the guy scanning groceries at a Walmart will whenever he says "those guys are liars" or "those people are stupid, the official story is real".

How dumb is this? Even with someone who already possesses a doctorate, I wouldn't call a medical doctor who has nothing to gain an idiot if he told me something that went against mainstream. I would say hmmm...I wonder why this MD is telling me this, and investigate.

I also do not know any "alternative theory" that has such a backing of qualified people to support it.

I know people have been molded to not critical think, and some people will never be capable of breaking form mainstream...Though I don't consider this much of an excuse...We all have the given ability, depending on how tough we are.


My biggest fear is the real perpetrators will get away with it. As more and more time passes, the less and less of people that care. Especially as the mainstream is being molded to care about less and less meaningful things....Such as Kim K's ass or a person going from an outie to an innie.

Also narcissistic traits are being rewarded and supported. "It doesn't effect me so who cares"...All of these things then adding time, I have a sickening feeling the real perpetrators will escape Scott free and wealthy.

I can have all the hard evidence in the world of Godzilla's existence, but what the hell does it matter if people are conditioned to not listen or care?

Like I've said elsewhere, my tendency is to be skeptical of conspiracy theories, but I don't know enough about this to offer any real argument one way or the other.

Assuming there was a cover-up however, the only way that it is going to be exposed is if there is a well coordinated, well funded, private re-investigation. (That is barring the unlikely scenario where Trump would decide to re-open the case. He is a wildcard so you never know what he'll do.) Everyone ranting and arguing about it on YouTube and elsewhere won't help anything unless someone starts to raise money and recruit a credible team capable of completing a proper investigation. One of the key components of this investigation would be to manage the media/PR in such a way that the real perpetrators would be unable to use their obviously considerable resources and reach to squash or discredit the investigation.

Thinking about the Trump angle, he is the biggest political shake-up in the USA since 911. Maybe he is the solution. Has anyone tried lobbying him on this issue yet?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sceptimatic on February 21, 2017, 10:12:02 AM
Nobody needs to solve it. People just need to open up their minds to alternate possibilities to the mainstream norm.
There's enough in this type of stuff for any normal rational person to open up for, to see it for the confusing senseless issue that it was and still is today.

When we are fed scores and scores of coincidences  and extremely unlikely events all on the same day, it has to beg questions by even the staunchest HONEST person.
The trouble is, too many people have their price to stand back from questioning.
It can range from the honest  fear of rejection by the wider public if they question, to those who will take a back hander for any scenario they are asked to give out.

The reality is that most people are basically honest on the whole. Most want an easy life  and the trimmings it affords. This is what changes the integrity of a person and it's a shame but understandable in the grand scheme of things.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 21, 2017, 12:25:48 PM
Quote from: sceptimatic on February 21, 2017, 09:33:54 AM
most people are happy to follow mass opinion and are more than happy to become an in crowd expert over the expert to aid in rendering that expert jobless and tarnished with a conspiracy nut tag....or worse.
Quote from: sceptimatic on February 21, 2017, 09:33:54 AM
They do not want to know that someone has a mass of evidence of a deception, unless there is some advantage for themselves.

Very, very accurate....at the same time very, very sad.

Quote from: Boots on February 21, 2017, 09:41:19 AM

Like I've said elsewhere, my tendency is to be skeptical of conspiracy theories, but I don't know enough about this to offer any real argument one way or the other.

Assuming there was a cover-up however, the only way that it is going to be exposed is if there is a well coordinated, well funded, private re-investigation. (That is barring the unlikely scenario where Trump would decide to re-open the case. He is a wildcard so you never know what he'll do.) Everyone ranting and arguing about it on YouTube and elsewhere won't help anything unless someone starts to raise money and recruit a credible team capable of completing a proper investigation. One of the key components of this investigation would be to manage the media/PR in such a way that the real perpetrators would be unable to use their obviously considerable resources and reach to squash or discredit the investigation.

Thinking about the Trump angle, he is the biggest political shake-up in the USA since 911. Maybe he is the solution. Has anyone tried lobbying him on this issue yet?

That has been what the 1000s of people like myself has done, there has been millions that have rooted us (though of course the loudest people are the ones that don't, they are also the ones that get all the attention from mainstream).

This is what the victims families want (they had a list of 300+ questions they wanted answered, only a handful were answered by the official report, rest ignored), the majority of the victims families want this and polls show more than 50 percent of Americans want it. It wont happen, someone is going to have to force the issue, hell the government wont even release the input numbers for their model. To authorize a full private investigation and cooperate with what they want lol???

I just don't know what to do in all honesty..I have already spent more money, time, man hours etc than you would want to know as did everyone in my group. Not to mention all the groups like us. Yet here we are today....there needs to be a different route and it needs to happen fast, time is running out..I just don't know what. As I said, once this passes a couple decades, i believe we are SOL.


As for Trump, he might but I doubt it. Something tells me he knew many secrets about it before being president, he might know the full story now who knows. He might turn on them, but that would be a monster risk. The people who's names are "not important or spoken" made an example out of JFK (he made a speech a couple weeks before on these people, that he was gonna kick them out of their roost, as well as he was going to abolish the federal reserve..two of the biggest no nos...they showed their reach was endless, even the president of the united states)..so would Trump risk being another JFK? Exposing 9/11 would be another monster NO-NO.

He may not say anything either for the safety of the world...who knows what the backlash would be? If the obvious real motive and perpetrators are correct, would it start a war against us or another world war? Remember world war II was started over telephone poles lol...If it comes out we lied our asses off, killed millions, destabilized regions just for some money and oil??? That might be enough in a world already very jumpy..

If someone presented me the whole truth, yet I knew by releasing it I would start world war III....I would hate every second of it, be sick to my stomach, but I would burn the evidence and never say a word.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 21, 2017, 01:06:29 PM
I was just reading how CNN was faking news from my buddy Trump :D

There was a time they forgot they were...

This reporter didn't get the memo...He is still probably on a "road trip", sure he will be back soon..


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sceptimatic on February 21, 2017, 02:43:05 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 21, 2017, 01:06:29 PM
I was just reading how CNN was faking news from my buddy Trump :D

There was a time they forgot they were...

This reporter didn't get the memo...He is still probably on a "road trip", sure he will be back soon..


It's interesting that you put this video up of Jamie McIntyre, because as was the case for many a slip up on that day, the normal rectification had to be brought to the fore a bit later.

A classic way that they twist and turn their way our of their mishaps, by hook or by crook, regardless of how ridiculous it sounds.
Go to 1:50 onwards and listen to Jamie try and squirm out of this nonsense.



It's absolutely cringe-worthy.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 21, 2017, 03:28:54 PM
Quote from: Boots on February 21, 2017, 09:41:19 AM
Assuming there was a cover-up however, the only way that it is going to be exposed is if there is a well coordinated, well funded, private re-investigation. (That is barring the unlikely scenario where Trump would decide to re-open the case. He is a wildcard so you never know what he'll do.) Everyone ranting and arguing about it on YouTube and elsewhere won't help anything unless someone starts to raise money and recruit a credible team capable of completing a proper investigation. One of the key components of this investigation would be to manage the media/PR in such a way that the real perpetrators would be unable to use their obviously considerable resources and reach to squash or discredit the investigation.

Thinking about the Trump angle, he is the biggest political shake-up in the USA since 911. Maybe he is the solution. Has anyone tried lobbying him on this issue yet?

Boots quickly gets to the crux of the problem. I agree. One poster once asked myself and Bhs why we didn't go to the "police" if we had evidence.

It will be a long fought difficult battle to discover what really happened, the reward will be the greatest reward of all, truth.

There is, as we speak here a large faceless online organisation pushing for Trump to investigate this fully, many of us have great hope.

If Trump came out and said what he said on the actual day1, there would be a huge backlash and I can imagine that he would be impeached or "suicided."

This comes back to when I said Trump is playing 4d chess. I really hope he does try to shift some of the corruption that has been in the US government for generations.

As I said I have great hope.

On this issue I find that the truth finds you when you are ready, as has been said. You can present all the facts logic and physics you like but if someone wants to believe something well, there's not much anyone can do.

1Edit for video please watch and share to push Trump to fight for truth and justice. /ourguy/

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 21, 2017, 03:33:29 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 21, 2017, 05:33:26 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 20, 2017, 04:23:02 PM
I'd agree,  no-one  claims the fires were hot enough to melt steel,  and that might relate to my next couple of questions.

I know some people who are pretty good at reading smoke,  so I asked them, and they didn't think it was "black fire",   so I'll retract that hypothesis,   but they did say that fires like that are very nasty and smoke temperatures closer to the source of combustion can be as hot as the flames. in some sense more dangerous because of the heat transfer to the surrounds is much faster with turbulent flow.
Flashover is highly likely when you have a reducing atmosphere and get a sudden increase in the oxygen supply. 

Lets' move on the the explosives themselves,  there are two stages involved.

1.  After the missile impact on WTC2 we see a huge fireball,   that looks like burning hydrocarbon,  was that from the missile, or did they store a few thousand gallons of  jet fuel on those floors?

2.  The collapse initiation,  was from the pre-planted explosives,  you mentioned tritium and nano-thermite,  what are you suggesting was used to start the collapse?

3.  What is the significance of the tritium,  are you suggesting mini-nukes?

4. I know a little about thermite,  and I would have thought,  thermite or nano-thermite was too unstable to survive the missile impact and fuel fireball?

As for the fire ball, well as you can see there are many opinions there from heiwa saying everything was CGI even the fireball to fuel or explosives being placed inside for the "show", to it was the plane itself.

I tend to lean away from the plane itself, just because the amount of fuel that is stored in the wings yet the delay it took until we saw the fire ball. We should have saw an instant reduction of speed from the fuselage and instant ignition from the wings. The building was the "invincible" mass here and the plane the " fragile" mass... Though I have already said my disapproval of what we witnessed on television of what should have happened in reality with the aircraft wreck alone.

At a minimum we should have seen instant ignition outside the building, instead of something cutting through like butter, disappearing then a internal fireball. This defies physics on many levels.

This is assuming a typical 767...A specialty designed drone with all the fuel in the fuselage would act differently, so would a missle obviously. Though I am not an expert of any sort on missles so i have no idea how big of a fire ball they would leave. Though I will say typical explosives rely on concussive force and not fire, so I imagine a missle would be the same. It would also not be hard to have that area loaded with fuel and a missle guided right there to ignite the fuel...This would also explain the strange delay seen between impact and explosion.

One thing I can feel sure of is something hit the tower...Although people reported seeing nothing, the majority reported seeing something...Though that is where it ends, most of those people don't recall seeing a commercial air craft.


So for tritium and nano thermite....All I can state is it was present in the dust. The dust I got has it present, I presented reports as well as many others presented reports that were peer reviewed. The official story is from the compression of the destruction of the buildings and the material in it "formed" this...Which is not an answer of course. Not even a real attempt.

So all we can say for sure is it was there. I also already told you how I would destroy the towers with a combo of nano thermite and c4 caps to dislodge the weakened area. This, in my professional opinion, is the only way I know how to demo the towers the way we saw with thermite. That doesn't mean it's the only way to do it.

To initiate the collapse...If I wanted to sneak it, and attempt to hide the demo, this is what I would do. I would start at the floors already shown to be damaged. Not only catch people's attention, but also start creating noise...Then I would activate the lower charges. Keep in mind, you would only need about 30-40 well placed charges at the lower decks on these buildings because of the core design.


As for shielding thermite...first, that stuff is much more robust than you think to unintentional ignition, it can also be mixed in different variations depending on what you need. Though for shielding...That is easy, probably one of the easier issues to solve here. There are many solutions, but one easier thing, ones you draw it and set it, build a protective box around it with everything contained in it. There are other ways, this is just one of the easier ones.


As for a mini nuke or something like that? I don't know...I can only go off what we know. I know what we found in the dust...What does it mean?? I don't know..I know we saw molton steel pouring from the upper sections...What does it mean?? I don't know, but we can say there was something up there that was not supposed to be. Pulling molton steel for months from ground zero.

"heat so intense they encountered rivers of molten steel." There are hundreds of other quotes and pictures to prove this. What to make of this?? I don't know...But we can safely make the conclusion it was from nothing that should have been there.

I actually know nothing that can cause that for months and months...also remember they were trying to put these fires out the whole time, it is not like it was sitting untreated. Even if it was untreated I know nothing that can go for months melting steel...It makes my skin crawl...We aren't just talking about hot metal, we are talking about "dripping molton steel, puddles"....

The health problems of those at ground zero is well documented..It was from the dust they say, which I could see that. But perhaps it could be from whatever caused this.

So simply, I don't know...I can state things from what non governmental employees in the industry would know. But I am not deep seated in the government, so I don't know what capabilities they really have. I joke about a death ray from space.....It is said in a passing snarky tone, however in the end, I could never completely rule it out because I don't know what they really have to work with.

Ok,  the fireball could have been from either the missile, or from fuel that was placed in position beforehand.  The fireball was on the opposite side of the building to the impact,  which might favour the idea that the fuel was in the missile.   Since we didn't see the usual explosion you would expect from a missile strike,  and the purpose of the missile wasn't to bring down the towers, but to provide a cover for the plane impact theory.

I'm going to suggest the missile didn't have an explosive payload but rather was just the fuel delivery system,  perhaps to enhance the impression it was a plane impact.

Moving onto the collapse initiation,  and subsequent  floor by floor collapse  ( I hesitate to say "pancake" or progressive" ).

Let's assume the demolition charges were prepped to withstand missile impact and fire,  it's tricky but not impossible as you pointed out.  Fire control systems would likewise need to be hardened, difficult  but not impossible.

So,  moving on.

1. Would taking out columns on the impact floors be sufficient to trigger the collapse scenario?
2. Would it be necessary to take out columns on lower floors as well,  as the collapse progressed.





Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 21, 2017, 03:54:03 PM
1. No. Maybe a collapse, not a plumb collpase at free-fall.

2. Yes. For the fall acceleration, especially of  building 7.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 21, 2017, 06:31:15 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 21, 2017, 03:33:29 PM
Ok,  the fireball could have been from either the missile, or from fuel that was placed in position beforehand.  The fireball was on the opposite side of the building to the impact,  which might favour the idea that the fuel was in the missile.   Since we didn't see the usual explosion you would expect from a missile strike,  and the purpose of the missile wasn't to bring down the towers, but to provide a cover for the plane impact theory.

I'm going to suggest the missile didn't have an explosive payload but rather was just the fuel delivery system,  perhaps to enhance the impression it was a plane impact.

Moving onto the collapse initiation,  and subsequent  floor by floor collapse  ( I hesitate to say "pancake" or progressive" ).

Let's assume the demolition charges were prepped to withstand missile impact and fire,  it's tricky but not impossible as you pointed out.  Fire control systems would likewise need to be hardened, difficult  but not impossible.

So,  moving on.

1. Would taking out columns on the impact floors be sufficient to trigger the collapse scenario?
2. Would it be necessary to take out columns on lower floors as well,  as the collapse progressed.

Full disclosure, my answers might be a bit "bumpy" this evening, my buddy down the street, his business is having a party and it has filtered over to mine and I have already had a few...And it is only gonna get worse. I actually have someone looking over my shoulder this very second giving me shit for posting on a flat earth forum...If he keeps it up I will tell everyone the bridge story....He is just curious anyways and wants to join, just doesn't know how to express it.

He actually has a speciality in a subject pertinent to this and I haven't seen anyone here have much experience in.


Anyways, enough of the non sense...To your answers.

On your missle talk, I have no issue with it even being a specially designed drone, or maybe even a specially designed 767. The problem is, for a commercial 767 to perform the Maneuvers at the speed stated is impossible unless you have a miracle behind you, but twice..Never (not to mention the speed is impossible, engines did have what it took)...In this situation, where you only have one shot on a big stage, you will need the closest thing to consistency...Which would be a missle first, drone second..Then maybe some special retrofit of a 767 third.

Also as for difficulty to protecting the explosives/thermite or whether used...I wouldn't even put it at complicated, I already have a design in my alcohol rattled head without having to think much. I would say " correct planning" would be the correct description.

Even worse case... Magically removing all core supports in the effected floors would not trigger the collapse as we saw it....Even applying every worse case scenario and magic..As I described before, you have the problem of the 44th floor and lower. This is a huge issue for a free fall (or close to) decent. Then trying to get it in its own foot print, double the problem.

So no...Need much more structural weakening as well as mass moved. Not to mention, you only have one shot and need to do it 3 times...You need to KNOW it will work, no chance for maybe.

Yes, would need to take out columns on the lower floors just like any other demo...Just need to make sure the shapes are correct and the supports move the correct directs for proper diverting of mass. On that tall of a building with heavy mass directed dead center, you would typically criss cross ever 8-12 floors. Some demo teams will even attempt a 180 degree oscillating spiral pattern... Absolutely beautiful when everything goes to plan, damn near free fall, almost an untouched foot print, ugly when something doesn't (such as a core still standing, toppling).


Though none of this matters because NIST decided there was no need to even consider a possible use of explosives...Wrote it out and broke all investigative protocol. Then when receiving multiple peer reviewed evidence of explosives (such as dust contents) they finally answer after years, well we don't think there would be any so we aren't investigating anything case closed. Though any other time they would be on it... Complete nonsense.

Not to mention their nonsense theory on building 7 was one support beam failure on a floor where video evidence shows the fire was extinguished already lol.

Even though you could see squibs down the entire side during its free fall. Only on the corner supports where you would need the larger charges, this also rules out compression as well.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 21, 2017, 07:14:11 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 21, 2017, 06:31:15 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 21, 2017, 03:33:29 PM
Ok,  the fireball could have been from either the missile, or from fuel that was placed in position beforehand.  The fireball was on the opposite side of the building to the impact,  which might favour the idea that the fuel was in the missile.   Since we didn't see the usual explosion you would expect from a missile strike,  and the purpose of the missile wasn't to bring down the towers, but to provide a cover for the plane impact theory.

I'm going to suggest the missile didn't have an explosive payload but rather was just the fuel delivery system,  perhaps to enhance the impression it was a plane impact.

Moving onto the collapse initiation,  and subsequent  floor by floor collapse  ( I hesitate to say "pancake" or progressive" ).

Let's assume the demolition charges were prepped to withstand missile impact and fire,  it's tricky but not impossible as you pointed out.  Fire control systems would likewise need to be hardened, difficult  but not impossible.

So,  moving on.

1. Would taking out columns on the impact floors be sufficient to trigger the collapse scenario?
2. Would it be necessary to take out columns on lower floors as well,  as the collapse progressed.

Full disclosure, my answers might be a bit "bumpy" this evening, my buddy down the street, his business is having a party and it has filtered over to mine and I have already had a few...And it is only gonna get worse. I actually have someone looking over my shoulder this very second giving me shit for posting on a flat earth forum...If he keeps it up I will tell everyone the bridge story....He is just curious anyways and wants to join, just doesn't know how to express it.

He actually has a speciality in a subject pertinent to this and I haven't seen anyone here have much experience in.


Anyways, enough of the non sense...To your answers.

On your missle talk, I have no issue with it even being a specially designed drone, or maybe even a specially designed 767. The problem is, for a commercial 767 to perform the Maneuvers at the speed stated is impossible unless you have a miracle behind you, but twice..Never (not to mention the speed is impossible, engines did have what it took)...In this situation, where you only have one shot on a big stage, you will need the closest thing to consistency...Which would be a missle first, drone second..Then maybe some special retrofit of a 767 third.

Also as for difficulty to protecting the explosives/thermite or whether used...I wouldn't even put it at complicated, I already have a design in my alcohol rattled head without having to think much. I would say " correct planning" would be the correct description.

Even worse case... Magically removing all core supports in the effected floors would not trigger the collapse as we saw it....Even applying every worse case scenario and magic..As I described before, you have the problem of the 44th floor and lower. This is a huge issue for a free fall (or close to) decent. Then trying to get it in its own foot print, double the problem.

So no...Need much more structural weakening as well as mass moved. Not to mention, you only have one shot and need to do it 3 times...You need to KNOW it will work, no chance for maybe.

Yes, would need to take out columns on the lower floors just like any other demo...Just need to make sure the shapes are correct and the supports move the correct directs for proper diverting of mass. On that tall of a building with heavy mass directed dead center, you would typically criss cross ever 8-12 floors. Some demo teams will even attempt a 180 degree oscillating spiral pattern... Absolutely beautiful when everything goes to plan, damn near free fall, almost an untouched foot print, ugly when something doesn't (such as a core still standing, toppling).


Though none of this matters because NIST decided there was no need to even consider a possible use of explosives...Wrote it out and broke all investigative protocol. Then when receiving multiple peer reviewed evidence of explosives (such as dust contents) they finally answer after years, well we don't think there would be any so we aren't investigating anything case closed. Though any other time they would be on it... Complete nonsense.

Not to mention their nonsense theory on building 7 was one support beam failure on a floor where video evidence shows the fire was extinguished already lol.

Even though you could see squibs down the entire side during its free fall. Only on the corner supports where you would need the larger charges, this also rules out compression as well.

You might not know this,  but a light plane crashed into a shopping center in Melbourne in the last few days,  killing all 5 on board  ( thought to be engine failure on takeoff )   one picture that grabbed my attention was this one

(http://nnimgt-a.akamaihd.net/transform/v1/crop/frm/GJZ5TVpAk84wrTzsQfLQRB/74d03448-0bef-490c-b26d-9cf544f489a6.jpg/r0_0_620_348_w1200_h678_fmax.jpg)

Notice the smoke colour.   No,  I don't know if it was oxygen deprived or not, it's more likely the colour is an indicator of fuel type in this instance.

Go to the party and have fun,  have a few beers,  plenty of time to continue the discussion later.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 21, 2017, 08:12:00 PM
What does that prove Rayzor? Fuel burns.

Alright Totes I'll pay your objection to my "equation"

Instead of expressing structural resistance in units we can use a percentage.

Say 100% structural resistance will hold the building up exactly, any more weight and it will start to collapse. Most working loads are two to four times the fail point.
So we can safely assume building 7 had over 100% structural resistance before it fell.

So we have gravitational acceleration - percentage of structural resistance = fall speed.

9.8m/s2×75%=7.35m/s2

9.8 m/s2 - 7.35m/s2 = 2.45 m/s2

At 75% structural resistance I would predict a 2.45m/s2 fall speed.

Obviously this doesnt calculate change and inertia, however it doesn't need to.

We can clearly see building 7 go from over 100% structural resistance to 0% pretty much instantly.

To go from totally upright and intact to free fall (gravitational acceleration) for 2.25 seconds violates the laws of physics.

The only way building 7 could do this is to have nearly all of its structural resistance removed nearly instantly.

The only way this is possible is a controlled demolition.

So, G- %S = F
Gravitational acceleration - percentage of structural resistance = fall speed.

Better? Maths was never my best subject haha.

Video for reference.


Tell me if I'm wrong I know I can't hold a candle to you in maths :P.

I think the logic is sound as I stated before.

Edit. Fall acceleration not speed, I'm an idiot haha.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 21, 2017, 08:33:48 PM
I'd like to see you try to address the above also Rayzor.

Edit. You can even work backwards and calculate the approximate structural resistance from the fall acceleration.

O/S BTFO lol, sorry.

Or anyone tell me what I did wrong?
How are we still being fed the O/S????
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 21, 2017, 10:39:01 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 21, 2017, 08:12:00 PM
What does that prove Rayzor? Fuel burns.

Alright Totes I'll pay your objection to my "equation"

Instead of expressing structural resistance in units we can use a percentage.

Say 100% structural resistance will hold the building up exactly, any more weight and it will start to collapse. Most working loads are two to four times the fail point.
So we can safely assume building 7 had over 100% structural resistance before it fell.

So we have gravitational acceleration - percentage of structural resistance = fall speed.

9.8m/s2×75%=7.35m/s2

9.8 m/s2 - 7.35m/s2 = 2.45 m/s2

At 75% structural resistance I would predict a 2.45m/s2 fall speed.

Obviously this doesnt calculate change and inertia, however it doesn't need to.

We can clearly see building 7 go from over 100% structural resistance to 0% pretty much instantly.

To go from totally upright and intact to free fall (gravitational acceleration) for 2.25 seconds violates the laws of physics.

The only way building 7 could do this is to have nearly all of its structural resistance removed nearly instantly.

The only way this is possible is a controlled demolition.

So, G- %S = F
Gravitational acceleration - percentage of structural resistance = fall speed.

Better? Maths was never my best subject haha.

Video for reference.


Tell me if I'm wrong I know I can't hold a candle to you in maths :P.

I think the logic is sound as I stated before.

You need to be thinking in terms of the forces involved,   and the result of subtracting two accelerations will be final acceleration not "fall speed".   
The "fall speed" is only applicable when the acceleration is zero, that is when the force from air resistance balances gravitational force mg.   Terminal velocity.

Why am I talking about smoke colour?    The NIST report cited  the black smoke as an indication that the fire was oxygen starved,  and while that's true sometimes,  it's not always true,  and more the the point it doesn't tell you much about the temperature.  It does sometimes tell you about what sort of material is burning. 

Not only does NIST get it wrong,  but others also point to black smoke as an indicator of a low temperature fire.  It's not always the case.

The most likely candidate for the demolition charges seems to be thermite of some form or other,  at least that's the way the evidence points. 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 21, 2017, 11:02:16 PM
I'm not subtracting two accelerations.

First I consider the two main forces, gravitational acceleration and structural resistance.

Then I convert the structural resistance into a % then into a m/s2 to work with.

Then I follow the equation.

It works.

Edit. I get it I should state fall "acceleration" not "speed" my bad.

Still it works.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 21, 2017, 11:14:40 PM
Instead of expressing structural resistance in units we can use a percentage.

Say 100% structural resistance will hold the building up exactly, any more weight and it will start to collapse. Most working loads are two to four times the fail point.
So we can safely assume building 7 had over 100% structural resistance before it fell.

So we have gravitational acceleration - percentage of structural resistance = fall acceleration.

9.8m/s2×75%=7.35m/s2

9.8 m/s2 - 7.35m/s2 = 2.45 m/s2

At 75% structural resistance I would predict a 2.45m/s2 fall acceleration.

Obviously this doesnt calculate change and inertia, however it doesn't need to.

We can clearly see building 7 go from over 100% structural resistance to 0% pretty much instantly.

To go from totally upright and intact to free fall (gravitational acceleration) for 2.25 seconds violates the laws of physics.

The only way building 7 could do this is to have nearly all of its structural resistance removed nearly instantly.

The only way this is possible is a controlled demolition.

So, G- %S = F
Gravitational acceleration - percentage of structural resistance = fall acceleration.

Video for reference.


Fixed.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 21, 2017, 11:28:59 PM
Building 7 was brought down by controlled demolition, it's the only hypothesis that fits observations.

Now, what was that about the colour of smoke ;).
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on February 22, 2017, 12:09:53 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 21, 2017, 11:02:16 PM
I'm not subtracting two accelerations.

First I consider the two main forces, gravitational acceleration and structural resistance.

Then I convert the structural resistance into a % then into a m/s2 to work with.

Then I follow the equation.

It works.

Edit. I get it I should state fall "acceleration" not "speed" my bad.

Still it works.

I'm not really a fan of expressing resistance as a %, but I get your point. The thing is, when a beam fails, it's going to go from 100 to 0 darn quick. A broken beam doesn't provide much support. Once one supportive beam fails, that will transfer the load to the remaining beams, which could cause all the rest to fail simultaneously if they are already weakened. The rest of the building isn't going to offer much resistance at that point. The speed at which it falls doesn't really surprise me, though you might be able to change my mind if you can show that it accelerates at almost exactly the rate of gravity.

The surprising thing to me is how symmetrically it falls. If the first beam to fail is on the edge, it will likely fall towards that edge. However, watching that video, from several angles, it appears that the center starts to drop first, and then the rest of the building follows. It seems plausible to me that if the first beam to fail was in the center, the rest of the suports could fail roughly symmetrically, causing it to fall straight down.

Just my mostly worthless 2 cents. I'm not a demolitions expert or building engineer, and I haven't looked at the building schematics. I didn't read most of this thread either, so I apologize if I missed some context.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 22, 2017, 12:32:51 AM
Your contribution is always welcome Totes and I hardly found it worthless.

The centre dropping before the collapse at g is strong evidence of a controlled demolition, this happens when the central supports are initially cut, look into it, it looks like a textbook "pull"

I can show you a collapse at gravitational acceleration for 2.25 seconds here.

Quote
the analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:
Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity.

https://www.nist.gov/pba/questions-and-answers-about-nist-wtc-7-investigation

This video shows well when the building actually starts to fall. E.g stage one never happened...



Please see NIST's "models" for wtc 7



The collapses in the "model" are nowhere near free-fall or symmetrical

Also check this out.
(https://s16.postimg.org/egsybiml1/Screenshot_20170215_205717.png)

Please note that handing in your maths test without showing working equals a fail. Pay close attention to the fact it is stated they won't release the data because of "safety"

I'd love to believe the official story but I can't for the same reason I can't believe the earth is flat.

Here is a video of NIST's lead investigator explaining why free fall of the building is impossible given the official story.



If you have technical questions Bhs will get to them. Hope I explained my position well enough.

Sorry for the redpill, you are far too smart to fall for this elaborate ruse.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 22, 2017, 12:43:25 AM
@disputeone,   this is from 10 pages back,  you never responded properly about center collapse on WTC7 back then, in spite of the fact that it's NIST's opinion as well.   have you a different view now?

Quote from: disputeone
The centre dropping before the collapse at g is strong evidence of a controlled demolition, this happens when the central supports are initially cut, look into it, it looks like a textbook "pull"


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 22, 2017, 12:48:33 AM
I thought I explained I don't respect their models as they don't release the inputs?

Bhs raised a similar point about the "model" of the plane crash, no inputs, no way to peer review, no way to test it.

Not acceptable evidence.

Just to clarify, doing a maths test without showing your working equals an automatic fail.

Why is NIST held to lower standards than a year 8 student?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 22, 2017, 12:53:49 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 22, 2017, 12:48:33 AM
I thought I explained I don't respect their models as they don't release the inputs?

Bhs raised a similar point about the "model" of the plane crash, no inputs, no way to peer review, no way to test it.

Not acceptable evidence.

You might be surprised to find I agree that they should release the 70,000 odd files they withheld from FOI,   I think if you read back through the thread,  that's been my consistent view. 

Has anyone done a publically available FEA model of WTC7 with controlled demolition?

Sigh?..   one or two posts, and he's back into memes...  bye bye  and no return this time.   I was going to put you back on ignore,  but I see you made a reasonable response.   

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 22, 2017, 01:00:43 AM
I haven't, I'm sure Totes or Bhs could if they so desired, Totes is scary smart, I don't need to tell you that about Bhs.

I'm willing to bet we could get a plumb collapse at close to or at free-fall using a controlled demolition model. Much more accurate than the total progressive collapse hypothesis anyway, if the model fits...

Check out some controlled demolition videos.

Its fine to say that it should be investigated, I want a fair investigation into it, without the red tape and predetermined hypothesis that we had back then.

Taking 7 years to hand in a maths test also equals an automatic fail, for the record.

We aren't "looneys" we just want truth and justice and we feel that it hasn't been delivered.

Who knows, I could be wrong.

You have been doing a much better job of debating lately imo, thanks.

Who's back into memes?

Totes?

Go easy it was his first post back, it was also hilarious.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 22, 2017, 01:09:06 AM
I deleted the video if you don't like it, the song just resonates with me on this issue.

You'll find I am usually quite reasonable.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 22, 2017, 01:10:13 AM
From the previous page Totes, my reply to your post.

Quote from: disputeone on February 22, 2017, 12:32:51 AM
Your contribution is always welcome Totes and I hardly found it worthless.

The centre dropping before the collapse at g is strong evidence of a controlled demolition, this happens when the central supports are initially cut, look into it, it looks like a textbook "pull"

I can show you a collapse at gravitational acceleration for 2.25 seconds here.

Quote
the analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:
Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity.

https://www.nist.gov/pba/questions-and-answers-about-nist-wtc-7-investigation

This video shows well when the building actually starts to fall. E.g stage one never happened...



Please see NIST's "models" for wtc 7



The collapses in the "model" are nowhere near free-fall or symmetrical

Also check this out.
(https://s16.postimg.org/egsybiml1/Screenshot_20170215_205717.png)

Please note that handing in your maths test without showing working equals a fail. Pay close attention to the fact it is stated they won't release the data because of "safety"

I'd love to believe the official story but I can't for the same reason I can't believe the earth is flat.

Here is a video of NIST's lead investigator explaining why free fall of the building is impossible given the official story.



If you have technical questions Bhs will get to them. Hope I explained my position well enough.

Sorry for the redpill, you are far too smart to fall for this elaborate ruse.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 22, 2017, 01:16:23 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 22, 2017, 01:00:43 AM
I haven't, I'm sure Totes or Bhs could if they so desired, Totes is scary smart, I don't need to tell you that about Bhs.

I'm willing to bet we could get a plumb collapse at close to or at free-fall using a controlled demolition model. Much more accurate than the total progressive collapse hypothesis anyway, if the model fits...

Check out some controlled demolition videos.

Its fine to say that it should be investigated, I want a fair investigation into it, without the red tape and predetermined hypothesis that we had back then.

Taking 7 years to hand in a maths test also equals an automatic fail, for the record.

We aren't "looneys" we just want truth and justice and we feel that it hasn't been delivered.

Who knows, I could be wrong.

You have been doing a much better job of debating lately imo, thanks.

Who's back into memes?

Yes there are loonies in the 911 conspiracy movement,  you don't have to look very far to find them,  just go to youtube or any of the thousands of forums and websites for any number of wacky theories.

And, then there are genuine people with real unanswered questions that don't go leaping to conclusions without real evidence,   this is where the discussion heads into a brick wall, because the NIST report doesn't answer those questions satisfactorily.   

Forget WTC7 for a minute,   concentrate on WTC1 or WTC2  and  look at the evidence that supports the theory that something other than fire was required for collapse.   NIST modelling goes to collapse initiation,  but not the collapse itself.   It's not possible to know for sure what the collapse mechanism actually was.

With the time that's passed and the increase in cpu capacity,  what took NIST weeks to run on a xeon cluster could probably run in hours today. 

I'm of the opinion that it's time to revisit the collapse properly,  not just the collapse initiation.  But the whole deal.



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 22, 2017, 01:18:14 AM
Wtc 7 explains what happened that day perfectly imo.

Wtc 7 had to be a controlled demolition, as I have shown. Therefore the whole day was a psy-op.

But I totally agree, lets re open the investigation and find out once and for all what really happened.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 22, 2017, 01:19:36 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 22, 2017, 01:10:13 AM
From the previous page Totes reply to your post.

Huh?   That's you replying not Totes?   You've lost me again.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 22, 2017, 01:21:13 AM
My reply to Totes' post. Prolly shoulda used a comma. My bad.

Fixed.

Really interested to hear Totes' opinion on this he's one of the smartest guys I know.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 22, 2017, 01:25:15 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 22, 2017, 01:18:14 AM
Wtc 7 explains what happened that day perfectly imo.

Wtc 7 had to be a controlled demolition, as I have shown. Therefore the whole day was a psy-op.

But I totally agree, lets re open the investigation and find out once and for all what really happened.

I don't agree that you leap automatically to claim it's a psy-op,   I do agree however that there are questions that haven't been answered adequately.

If Trump initiates a 911 commission,  I'm going to bet it will be used a stick to beat up the intelligence agencies about what  they knew in advance and kept to themselves.  The split between Trump and the intelligence community is well known.   So even the next enquiry if it ever happens  will also be tainted with political motives.   I'd prefer to focus on engineering and physics, rather than politics and spooks,  although the two get tangled up in these sort of enquiries.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 22, 2017, 01:29:01 AM
Have you watched the video I've posted of Trumps interview on the day.

Here.


A very smart man imo, I assume you are older than me, do you remember watching it live and people's first impressions before we were given the official narrative.

The O/S has more holes than a strainer imo, I was never happy with the way building 7 fell.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 22, 2017, 01:50:54 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 22, 2017, 01:29:01 AM
Have you watched the video I've posted of Trumps interview on the day.

A very smart man imo, I assume you are older than me, do you remember watching it live and people's first impressions before we were given the official narrative.

The O/S has more holes than a strainer imoo, I was never happy with the way building 7 fell.

Yes,  I remember it clearly,   I was in the workshop,  and it came on the ABC radio that a light plane had crashed  into the world trade center,  So I went and turned on the TV,  they had the commentators debating what sort of plane it was, and the early impression was that it was an accident,  and that it in fact was a large commercial aircraft, not a light plane as everyone first assumed.  I was amazed that the building was still standing so I rang my son in Melbourne and told him to turn on the TV,  we were talking about how tough they build those skyscrapers, and about that time in WW2 that a bomber had hit the empire state building.   Then the second plane hit and the whole story changed in a instant.  This was no accident, this was deliberate,  and I immediately said to my son,  I bet it's Osama Bin Laden,  I'd been reading about  the attack  on his Al Qaeda training camp in Afghanistan where several high ranking Pakistani intelligence people were killed,  and Pakistan was pissed about it to say the least.

Just as we were marvelling about how strong the towers were,  WTC2 came down.  Then WTC1.   Then the reports about the other planes started to come in, and US airspace was shut down.  I think everyone was glued to TV screens and binged on 911 news for weeks.  Basically the entire world was in a state of shock.

Still is, in some respects. 

There was weird postscript,  in that, a series of anthrax scares for weeks and months immediately after ward as well.   I think all were eventually dismissed as hoaxes.   

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 22, 2017, 01:56:29 AM
The entire world changed that day.

Do you know about the links George Bush had to Bin laden? Also how the US government funded and backed Al Queada against the Russians, then how they backed the moderate rebels (what is now ISIS) against Saddam and Al Queada?

I've said it before, some days I wish I could go back and take the blue pill, then I am reminded that truth is beauty, as beauty is truth.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 22, 2017, 01:58:37 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 21, 2017, 08:12:00 PM
Most working loads are two to four times the fail point.

Actually closer to 30 times by estimates. Some joints over 100.. The way they built these back then was without computer assistance. So they designed something that should work, that was over designed ....Then multiplied it by many times just to be safe.

NIST used as evidence is not acceptable...They did not follow protocol, ignored evidence, only answered a few questions of the almost 400 presented by the victims (this was suppose to be the "blueprint" for the investigation) in the investigation, held 1000s of files and won't release their inputs for their models etc etc etc.

I would accept a kindergarten students play doh analysis over NIST...They are obviously government spooks, as well as an embarrassment to real science.

As for the penthouse collapse on building 7, that is exactly what would happen in a demo, not the failure of the one beam NIST presented. Not to mention you can see squids all down the side of the building during its free fall (which even NIST admitted it was at free fall on 7)..The squid markers was ONLY on the main corner braces which is demo 101, you will never get a successful demo with removing those, that is 100 percent mandatory with a core design like that. Not to mention that is where the bracket system was for the core cross braces.

The fact squid markers were seen only in these areas not only is another obvious sign of a demo, but rules out they were from floor compression...Also that these were seen during its free fall...

As always, we are talking magic to reality.


I don't have much else to comment unless I missed something, seems dispute has it under control
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 22, 2017, 02:00:22 AM
There you go guys I messed up, BHS in for the kill.

Thanks man hope you're having a good party.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 22, 2017, 02:07:52 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 22, 2017, 01:56:29 AM
The entire world changed that day.

Do you know about the links George Bush had to Bin laden? Also how the US government funded and backed Al Queada against the Russians, then how they backed the moderate rebels (what is now ISIS) against Saddam and Al Queada?

I've said it before, some days I wish I could go back and take the blue pill, then I am reminded that truth is beauty, as beauty is truth.

Yes,  the CIA funded armed and trained Osama Bin Laden during the war against the Russians in Afghanistan.  and Bush was a friend of the Bin Laden family,  but not Osama Bin Laden as I recall,
The attacks on the Al Qaeda camps i referred to was this one  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Infinite_Reach   60-70 cruise missiles. 
 
Any  way,  that's enough about spooks. 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 22, 2017, 02:12:02 AM
I was wrong about the anthrax attacks,  some were in fact real and people died

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_anthrax_attacks

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 22, 2017, 02:12:57 AM
For sure, I think I have explained my views on why the physics dont add up for me.

Speculation will always be speculation, nothing more.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 22, 2017, 02:21:32 AM
This is no different than a police investigation...You get an impossible story from someone, you assume their guilt because of the lie and continue your investigation.

The government gives us an entire lie and impossible story, (not to mention all the directly broken protocols just for this event) so this tells me there is guilt.

Then you can look at all the circumstantial evidence and build a case on the true motivation and aggressors. If this were a court case, all of those involved would be easily put to death on circumstantial evidence alone...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 22, 2017, 02:36:03 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 22, 2017, 02:21:32 AM
This is no different than a police investigation...You get an impossible story from someone, you assume their guilt because of the lie and continue your investigation.

The government gives us an entire lie and impossible story, (not to mention all the directly broken protocols just for this event) so this tells me there is guilt.

Then you can look at all the circumstantial evidence and build a case on the true motivation and aggressors. If this were a court case, all of those involved would be easily put to death on circumstantial evidence alone...

That's where we differ,   I  look at what the NIST report says,  and see if it matches up,  and where it doesn't match up or make sense,  I ask why,  what things were overlooked,  what assumptions did they get wrong,  because of the magnitude of the event,  the level of proof required to prove it was a government conspiracy has to be 100% absolutely watertight. 

The central questions as to what does the evidence say, and what caused the collapse, both remain speculative,  I'd put demolition theory as a possibility,  but I'd want much more concrete evidence before reaching that conclusion.   The FEA modelling is at the very center of this whole debate,  that need to be revisited and publicly debated until a consensus is reached on the collapse mechanism.

I should add,  that NIST never investigated the idea that it was demolition,  simply because they started from the assumption that it was the consequences of impact from hijacked planes and fires that caused the collapse,  thinking back to those days, and under the circumstances of the time, it was a reasonable starting point.   In consequence  I think that assumption was responsible for the approach in everything they did.
 

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 22, 2017, 02:41:01 AM
We can agree on that, No doubt.

Edit for your edit.

The fact NIST started from a predetermined hypothesis is very concerning for me, as I am sure you know, this is not how the scientific method works.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 22, 2017, 02:49:51 AM
The model is an obvious forgery...You know what score I or anyone else would have gotten in college if we didn't show the inputs on any model?? The professor would not accept "for his own safety" as an excuse either.

The entire NIST report is fabricated, the story was already written, they just had to follow. We even know who wrote it, though I already went through this earlier.

What more do you want? We have an entire back end of evidence to show the culprit, motive, and means. A physical story that is an entire lie..

Also don't get me started on 93 or the Pentagon, we haven't even touched on that...Any half witted barbarian can see there was no planes there. 100 percent impossible flight dynamics for the Pentagon, not to mention, our country is under attack for over an hour and the Pentagon is just letting planes fly around in a no fly zone lol. Though we have seen plenty of evidence though...80+ videos and we get 5 frames with 2 missing in the middle recorded from a potato lol.

Everyone one the scene was saying "uh, where is the plane?"...Not to mention, flight 93 the damn mayor of the town was on scene (who has work flight crashes before) said "There was no plane, just a smoking hole"...This along with hundreds of other testimonials saying wtf..

As I said, people from hung from The Gallows for cases that didn't even have a percent of evidence this has.

You may not like it, neither do I, but it is what it is

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 22, 2017, 02:55:28 AM
Agreed, the evidence for foul play far outweighs evidence for the official story.

It was physically impossible for a commercial passenger plane to hit the Pentagon, the video confirms no plane hit the building.

Edit for video,
Speaks for itself.



Only together can we fight darkness and shine light on the darkest aspects of our existence.

Expect us.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 22, 2017, 03:40:18 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 22, 2017, 02:55:28 AM
Agreed, the evidence for foul play far outweighs evidence for the official story.

It was physically impossible for a commercial passenger plane to hit the Pentagon, the video confirms no plane hit the building.

Edit for video,
Speaks for itself.

Only together can we fight darkness and shine light on the darkest aspects of our existence.

Expect us.

I'm not going to open a can of worms here,  but there is evidence of  AA77 757 hitting the pentagon.  To say it's impossible is incorrect.  Improbable,  maybe?   

Pictures of wreckage of 757 from inside the Pentagon
http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm



What about  United 93  was it shot down?   Or does the popular passenger revolt theory stand up?

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 22, 2017, 03:45:57 AM
Open it, if you like. We can address the physical impossibility of a commercial passenger plane hitting such a low target.

Not even getting into the fact the pilots supposedly had no commercial plane experience.

Quote
Further suspension in logic exists in the 'official story's' narrative as to who flew Flight 77 so expertly into the Pentagon's west wing. Hani Hanjour is credited with being the airplane's pilot. This is a man who, three weeks before September 11, attempted to rent a Cessna at an airfield in Maryland. Suspicious of his dubious 'pilot's license', officials at the airfield insisted he take a chaperoned test-flight before rental would be approved. He failed his test flight miserably. He could neither control, nor properly land the Cessna. In fact, the instructors at the airfield in Maryland said, "It was like he had hardly even ever driven a car. He could not fly at all." Other source. And yet, the official narrative of 9/11 asks us to believe that Hanjour pulled off a stunt that would press the limits of even the most experienced aviation test pilot.

The official story unfolds something like this. The rather diminutive Hanjour, sometime after take-off, fought his way into the cockpit, and wrestled control of Flight 77 from a 6'4" former Marine combat fighter pilot named Charles Burlingame, a man family members and colleagues say would never have given up his aircraft or the safety of his passengers. After dispatching with the co-pilot as well, Hanjour settled in and turned his attention to the bewildering array of gadgets and devices of a Boeing 757 instrument panel - a panel he was wholly unfamiliar with - in an airplane traveling 500 mph, 7 miles in the air, under the stress of a recently executed hijacking plot. Then, without the help of any ground control or air-traffic controllers providing him information and/or settings, this pilot who could not control a tiny Cessna 3 weeks earlier "would have to very quickly interpret his heading, ground track, altitude, and airspeed information on the displays before he could even figure out where in the world he was, much less where the Pentagon was located in relation to his position." (From the essay 'The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training', by Nila Sagadevan, an aeronautical engineer and pilot.)

From the Ohio/Kentucky border, Hanjour then supposedly turned the plane around, set course for Washigton D.C. hundreds of miles away, and successfully entered the most restricted airspace in the world without eliciting a single military intercept - despite the crash of two other known hijacked aircraft into the WTC, and a missing third, being covered on every radio and television station in the country. "In order to perform this bit of electronic navigation, he would have to be very familiar with (Instrument Flight Rules) procedures. None of these fellows (the alleged hijackers) even knew what a navigational chart looked like, or even how to plug frequencies into NAV/COM radios, much less input information into flight management computers (FMC) and engage LNAV (lateral navigation automated mode). If one is to believe the official story, all of this was supposedly accomplished by raw student pilots while flying blind at 500 MPH over unfamiliar (and practically invisible) terrain, using complex methodologies and employing sophisticated instruments."

According to the official account, an unidentified aircraft that somebody randomly decided was 'Flight 77' (remember, the transponder needed to identify the aircraft had been turned off) then suddenly pops up over Washington DC out of nowhere and executes an incredibly precise diving turn at a rate of 360 degrees/minute while descending at 3,500 ft/min, at the end of which "Hanjour" allegedly levels out at ground level. The maneuver was in fact so precisely executed that the air traffic controllers at Dulles refused to believe the blip on their screen was a commercial airliner. Danielle O'Brian, one of the air traffic controllers at Dulles who reported seeing the aircraft at 9:25 said, 'The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane.'" (ABC News, 10/24/2001, also archived at www.cooperativeresearch.org)

The official story of Hanjour's flight path continues in an even more bizarre narrative. Having successfully entered D.C. airspace, with no idea how soon fighter aircraft would show up to shoot him down, he finds himself pointed in the ideal direction toward the East wing of the Pentagon, where all the top brass in the military are known to be stationed. But then he apparently changes his mind as to his heading, and pulls off that incredible, sweeping 270-degree descending turn at 400+mph to approach the Pentagon from the opposite direction. There, he inexplicably lines up the less valued West wing, which was miraculously scheduled to receive the finishing touches of extensive bomb-blast retrofitting the next day, September 12, leaving it conveniently empty of most of its military employees. "The section known as Wedge 1 (the West Wing) had been under renovation and was scheduled for final completion on Wednesday, September 12th, 2001."

DOWNLOAD PDF FILE
A Review of the Temporary Shoring Used to Stabilize the Pentagon After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11th, 2001

One year after the attacks, MSNBC's Ashleigh Banfield mused, "It's ironic says Pentagon Renovation Manager Lee Evey that the hijacked airliner smashed into the very area of the Pentagon that had just undergone a renovation to strengthen the building against a terrorist attack. The death toll could have been much worse. Evey said the hijacked aircraft hit a portion of the building that had been renovated and reinforced with blast resistant windows, a special reinforced steel construction, and even fire-resistant Kevlar cloth."?(September 9, 2002 Monday TRANSCRIPT: # 090901cb.467) Ms. Manfield chooses the expression 'ironic' to describe these bizarre facts. That's perhaps one word. Absurd and criminally suspicious could easily be two others.

So from a mile out, the man who could not properly land a Cessna at a small airport in Maryland weeks earlier, zeroes in on the conveniently chosen western façade of the Pentagon, flies 20 feet off the ground in a Boeing 757 at 400 mph, clips a number of lamp poles on his way in, apparently providing no adverse interference to his flight path, then runs into a tree and a generator trailer, before depositing the enormous aircraft perfectly in between the first and second floor of the United States' military headquarters. Leaving no visible scratch on the Pentagon lawn, no large sections of airplane, no cars from the adjacent I-395 disturbed by the enormous jet-wake, and no publicly available video evidence of this incredible feat - despite the existence of at least 83 cameras on buildings and lamp posts encircling the Pentagon.

"I shan't get into the aerodynamic impossibility of flying a large commercial jetliner 20 feet above the ground at over 400 MPH. A discussion on ground effect energy, vortex compression, downwash reaction, wake turbulence, and jetblast effects are beyond the scope of this article. Let it suffice to say that it is physically impossible to fly a 200,000-lbs airliner 20 feet above the ground at 400 MPH. The author, a pilot and aeronautical engineer, challenges any pilot in the world to do so in any large high-speed aircraft that has a relatively low wing-loading (such as a commercial jet). I.e., to fly the craft at 400 MPH, 20 feet above ground in a flat trajectory over a distance of one mile. (Remember that when a plane is landing conventionally, it is traveling somewhere around 150 mph, producing SIGNIFICANTLY less wake than a plane traveling at 400 mph.)

"Furthermore, it is known that the craft impacted the Pentagon's ground floor. For purposes of reference: If a 757 were placed on the ground on its engine nacelles (I.e., gear retracted as in flight profile), its nose would be about fifteen feet above the ground! Ergo, for the aircraft to impact the ground floor of the Pentagon, Hanjour would have needed to have flown in with the engines buried in the Pentagon lawn. Some pilot. At any rate, why is such ultra-low-level flight aerodynamically impossible? Because the reactive force of the hugely powerful downwash sheet, coupled with the compressibility effects of the tip vortices, simply will not allow the aircraft to get any lower to the ground than approximately one half the distance of its wingspan - until speed is drastically reduced, which, of course, is what happens during normal landings."

In response to Sagadevan's essay, a pilot contacted the writer to report the following. And while it doesn't reference Flight 77 specifically, surely the comments apply to all flights that morning. Including AA 77:

"Regarding your comments on flight simulators, several of my colleagues and I have tried to simulate the 'hijacker's' final approach maneuvers into the towers on our company 767 simulator. We tried repeated tight, steeply banked 180 turns at 500 mph followed by a fast rollout and lineup with a tall building. More than two-thirds of those who attempted the maneuver failed to make a 'hit'. How these rookies who couldn't fly a trainer pulled this off is beyond comprehension."

Quite tellingly, on the morning of 9/11, before the shock and awe and relentless re-telling and reshaping of the official story had a chance to trump all logic and critical analysis, this following clip shows other expert incomprehension as to the level of skill it would have required to carry out the flight maneuvers displayed in the strikes. It was broadcast on ABC news in the hours just after the attacks. Or consider this early speculation on the failure of navigation systems, before people even considered the unreasonable possibility of untrained pilots being able to fly huge airplanes with such expertise.

Even the director of the flight school at which the supposed hijackers trained found it impossible to believe the expert aviation maneuvers pulled off on the morning of 9/11 could have been executed by any of the alleged pilots. "My opinion is I don't think it is possible. I have spoken to many captains from the airlines and they say there is no way what the planes did could they have done that (sic). They changed altitude. They changed speed. They changed direction. They had to know about the equipment to do what they had to do and there is no way that could have been done." There is, in fact, an entire website and organization of pilots and aeronautical engineers who have banded together to demand an open, public inquiry into ALL the unbelievable flight maneuvers pulled off on the morning of September 11. They have done studies and experiments, and have offered their expert opinions and analyses on many of the events of 9/11. Their aforementioned and excellent website is: pilotsfor911truth.org. These experts and professionals in the field of aviation with nothing to gain from the exposure of 9/11 have concluded that the official story is bogus, and that the officially blamed perpetrators and hijackers had no chance of pulling off the maneuvers we saw on the morning of 9/11.

So who or what did? Could Flight 77, indeed all the aircrafts in question on the morning of 9/11, have somehow been over-ridden, or swapped out (as with the plan in Operation Northwoods) and then guided remotely by sophisticated navigation systems? The technology does exist to fly planes remotely - with a responsiveness and a sophistication far beyond the capacities of a human pilot. And in another of the wildly unbelievable coincidences that have proved commonplace in the narrative of 9/11, the former CEO of the world's leading remote aviation technology company, System Planning Corporation, is Dov Zakheim. In May of 2001, four months before 9/11, Mr. Zakheim was appointed Undersecretary of Defense and Comptroller of the Pentagon - putting him in charge of the Defense Department's vast, bottomless sums of money. Unsurprising, and even more intriguing, Zakheim was also a founding member and co-author of PNAC's seminal document "Rebuilding America's Defenses", the document calling for the radical neo-Con restructuring of American foreign and domestic policy, a restructuring the authors famously said would be unlikely "absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor."

Why are these people not being investigated? Why are these coincidences and connections not being questioned and de-constructed by the media and investigators armed with subpoena power? Why am I, and random school teachers and college students and 'unemployed hacks', doing this work? How many dots do we need before they connect themselves?



A. Whistle Blowers

Defenders of the official story say over and over and over again, if 9/11 was truly an inside job, if these planes truly did pull off unreasonable maneuvers, if this conspiracy really was hatched, there would be a litany of whistle blowers trying to expose these crimes. The simple response to this comment is, there is. There is an enormous number of pilots, aeronautical engineers, FAA flight controllers, military officers, military intelligence operatives, intelligence analysts, FBI employees, and others with expertise in these fields who have come together into organizations with the explicit intent of exposing the crimes of 9/11. Here is a very short list of a few members of one of these 'whistle-blower' organizations, 'Pilots for 9/11 Truth' - www.pilotsfor911truth.org

http://www.911hardfacts.com/report_14.htm

Edit, Bhs put it better in his own words, sorry for the copy pasta.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 22, 2017, 03:53:23 AM
Lol at those pictures.... I surely don't think those construe proof (at least that a plane hit it)..

Though I don't need any of that, the simple fact it was 100 percent impossible for a 767 (or any high speed aircraft) to fly that low at the trajectory proposed....Down burst will never let you get that low...This is not questionable nor a secret.

Also, if you are sold by those pictures as evidence of a plane, I suggest you do more research on the dynamics of aviation accidents (though it would be a waste of your time, as the plane could never get there anyways. Only where would be an out of control nose dive more than likely pitching left at the same time. Not at a perfect horizontal angle, making a tiny hole with nothing else, not even a scratch on the lawn....Then add in a terrorist as a pilot lol lol)

This shit story wouldn't be accepted by even Hollywood
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 22, 2017, 03:57:49 AM
Nice post dispute... Don't typically like copy and paste even though everyone does it, I can appreciate that one.

This is a subject you literally never run out of contradictions, magic, and impossibilities


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 22, 2017, 03:59:20 AM
Thanks I've had a few and feeling lazy. Got a four day weekend. (yeww)

I have great hope for the future.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 22, 2017, 04:06:39 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 22, 2017, 03:45:57 AM
Open it, if you like. We can address the physical impossibility of a commercial passenger plane  hitting such a low target.

Not even getting into the fact the pilots supposedly had no commercial plane experience.


Diverting back to UA175 for a minute,  here's the comments from a 767 pilot with 6500 hours on 767's

Disclaimer,  the following is cherry picked,  I could just have easily found a quote from some pilot who thought it was impossible.   

Quote from: 767pilot
A 767 is not difficult to hand fly. At high altitude it sensitive, due to high moments of inertia, but not impossible. We had a 767 hand flown for 7 hours at 35-37000 feet a few years ago after the auto-pilots were knocked out by a lightning strike (Specifically, the TAT probe was hit). The three pilots took turns and no-one noticed. At low altitudes it handles very nicely. Not a Cessna.... but easy to fly.

During 9/11, there was a significant crosswind blowing relative to the run-in of the second aircraft. It almost missed the tower. The only thing that stopped it missing was the last second turn to the left that the pilot made. An experienced pilot, with the line-up that the aircraft had and interpreting the in-cockpit wind display and the track box on the EHSI, would have hit it dead-on. Once you know what to look for, it is easy, particularly at the ridiculous speed that aircraft was doing.

To my mind it indicates an inexperienced pilot, but someone with some training, at the controls.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 22, 2017, 04:08:30 AM
That quote refers to the planes that hit the towers, not the "plane" that hit the Pentagon.

Also source?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 22, 2017, 04:13:21 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 22, 2017, 03:53:23 AM
Lol at those pictures.... I surely don't think those construe proof (at least that a plane hit it)..

Though I don't need any of that, the simple fact it was 100 percent impossible for a 767 (or any high speed aircraft) to fly that low at the trajectory proposed....Down burst will never let you get that low...This is not questionable nor a secret.

Not clear what you mean by "down burst"  are you referring to ground effect?    You might be thinking of micro bursts, which have the opposite effect of dumping you on the ground when you least expect it.
Perhaps you can clarify what you mean with a reference.   Ground effect wouldn't stop you from flying a 757 into the pentagon.


Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 22, 2017, 03:53:23 AM
Also, if you are sold by those pictures as evidence of a plane, I suggest you do more research on the dynamics of aviation accidents (though it would be a waste of your time, as the plane could never get there anyways. Only where would be an out of control nose dive more than likely pitching left at the same time. Not at a perfect horizontal angle, making a tiny hole with nothing else, not even a scratch on the lawn....Then add in a terrorist as a pilot lol lol)

This shit story wouldn't be accepted by even Hollywood

Ok,   I'll leave that till later.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 22, 2017, 04:14:16 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 22, 2017, 04:08:30 AM
That quote refers to the planes that hit the towers, not the "plane" that hit the Pentagon.

Also source?

And that's why I said diverting back to UA175 for a minute.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 22, 2017, 04:15:53 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 22, 2017, 04:14:16 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 22, 2017, 04:08:30 AM
That quote refers to the planes that hit the towers, not the "plane" that hit the Pentagon.

Also source?

And that's why I said diverting back to UA175 for a minute.

No worries, there is a lot of information here.

http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/
http://www.ae911truth.org/
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 22, 2017, 04:17:09 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 22, 2017, 04:06:39 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 22, 2017, 03:45:57 AM
Open it, if you like. We can address the physical impossibility of a commercial passenger plane  hitting such a low target.

Not even getting into the fact the pilots supposedly had no commercial plane experience.


Diverting back to UA175 for a minute,  here's the comments from a 767 pilot with 6500 hours on 767's

Disclaimer,  the following is cherry picked,  I could just have easily found a quote from some pilot who thought it was impossible.   

Quote from: 767pilot
A 767 is not difficult to hand fly. At high altitude it sensitive, due to high moments of inertia, but not impossible. We had a 767 hand flown for 7 hours at 35-37000 feet a few years ago after the auto-pilots were knocked out by a lightning strike (Specifically, the TAT probe was hit). The three pilots took turns and no-one noticed. At low altitudes it handles very nicely. Not a Cessna.... but easy to fly.

During 9/11, there was a significant crosswind blowing relative to the run-in of the second aircraft. It almost missed the tower. The only thing that stopped it missing was the last second turn to the left that the pilot made. An experienced pilot, with the line-up that the aircraft had and interpreting the in-cockpit wind display and the track box on the EHSI, would have hit it dead-on. Once you know what to look for, it is easy, particularly at the ridiculous speed that aircraft was doing.

To my mind it indicates an inexperienced pilot, but someone with some training, at the controls.

What does this have to do with anything? A couple maneuvers in the air at "low altitude" which would be about 10k not at 20 feet... That doesn't address knowing the controls and figure out where the hell you are... Actually just reread the copy and paste in dispute's post I am not going to rehash all that.

Not to mention this "pilot" I question him already. Autopilot knocked out by a lightning strike lol.... All modules are static shielded, grounded etc etc etc... Though mildly plausible, but highly unlikely.

None of that matters, getting the plane to 20 feet at 400+ miles per hour is impossible in our reality....100 percent, not questionable... I know this won't sink in, but none the less true.


Edit, vortex compression, downwash reaction and wake turbulence are just a start, I oversimplify to save time
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 22, 2017, 04:20:57 AM
Ok,  let's stick with AA77 and the pentgon and the claim that ground effect would have made it 100% impossible.

Here's a detailed look at that question with eye witness accounts of the planes approach to the pentagon,  and a detailed discussion of ground effect.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0274.shtml


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 22, 2017, 04:23:29 AM
I will not entertain this....It is too much of a waste of time, I will waste my time somewhat in this thread, but not that much.

It is not possible, 100 percent, sorry
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 22, 2017, 04:24:30 AM
Agreed physics is physics.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 22, 2017, 04:26:33 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 22, 2017, 04:23:29 AM
I will not entertain this....It is too much of a waste of time, I will waste my time somewhat in this thread, but not that much.

It is not possible, 100 percent, sorry

Did you read the reference I gave?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 22, 2017, 04:30:02 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 22, 2017, 04:26:33 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 22, 2017, 04:23:29 AM
I will not entertain this....It is too much of a waste of time, I will waste my time somewhat in this thread, but not that much.

It is not possible, 100 percent, sorry

Did you read the reference I gave?

I went to it and recognized it instantly...You would be surprised, I know exactly where that original info was sourced from.

That just doubles down my decision not to entertain this ignorance


Also I think this marks a first on this site when I actually have stated I won't entertain an idea.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 22, 2017, 04:36:22 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 22, 2017, 04:30:02 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 22, 2017, 04:26:33 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 22, 2017, 04:23:29 AM
I will not entertain this....It is too much of a waste of time, I will waste my time somewhat in this thread, but not that much.

It is not possible, 100 percent, sorry

Did you read the reference I gave?

I went to it and recognized it instantly...You would be surprised, I know exactly where that original info was sourced from.

That just doubles down my decision not to entertain this ignorance

Also I think this marks a first on this site when I actually have stated I won't entertain an idea.

Why not?   



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 22, 2017, 04:39:44 AM
For the same reason you don't entertain the idea the earth is flat.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 22, 2017, 04:46:06 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 22, 2017, 04:36:22 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 22, 2017, 04:30:02 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 22, 2017, 04:26:33 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 22, 2017, 04:23:29 AM
I will not entertain this....It is too much of a waste of time, I will waste my time somewhat in this thread, but not that much.

It is not possible, 100 percent, sorry

Did you read the reference I gave?

I went to it and recognized it instantly...You would be surprised, I know exactly where that original info was sourced from.

That just doubles down my decision not to entertain this ignorance

Also I think this marks a first on this site when I actually have stated I won't entertain an idea.

Why not?

Because that is how dumb it is... I can entertain something where there could be a plausible alternative option no matter how remote the chances.

However this, it is non negotiable....Leaving out all the other evidence in just this "plane" incident, the fact the flight dynamics is 100 percent impossible. There is nothing that can be done about that.

Not to mention, have you ever flown rayzor? I go out with a few of my customers and they let me take the controls for a time if we are in one of their trainers (which have duplicate controls like a training car)...I am not pilot or anything of the such, however, I bet you I have logged more flight hours than the "terrorist" (don't forget at least 8 of them have been found alive by MAINSTREAM media)...

Let me tell you this, I wouldn't even want to fucking think about trying to do that maneuver they did to line up then hit the Pentagon in a small trainer going 150 mph. Much less a 767 going 400+ lol..It is just asinine...

Not to mention...One more time, even if I wanted to, would never happen, physics is a bitch that was.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 22, 2017, 04:51:09 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 22, 2017, 04:46:06 AM
Because that is how dumb it is... I can entertain something where there could be a plausible alternative option no matter how remote the chances.

However this, it is non negotiable....Leaving out all the other evidence in just this "plane" incident, the fact the flight dynamics is 100 percent impossible. There is nothing that can be done about that.

Not to mention, have you ever flown rayzor? I go out with a few of my customers and they let me take the controls for a time if we are in one of their trainers (which have duplicate controls like a training car)...I am not pilot or anything of the such, however, I bet you I have logged more flight hours than the "terrorist" (don't forget at least 8 of them have been found alive by MAINSTREAM media)...

Let me tell you this, I wouldn't even want to fucking think about trying to do that maneuver they did to line up then hit the Pentagon in a small trainer going 150 mph. It is just asinine...

Not to mention...One more time, even if I wanted to, would never happen, physics is a bitch that was.

Yes I've flown,  but not for years.  but I do know aerodynamics,  and the description of ground effect in that reference is correct.  Ground effect would not have stopped the plane hitting the pentagon.

If you want to stick to your 100% impossible position,  that's fine,  can you cite any references supporting that position.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 22, 2017, 04:52:19 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 22, 2017, 04:51:09 AM
If you want to stick to your 100% impossible position,  that's fine,  can you cite any references supporting that position.

Here.
http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/

Quote
It is now established the aircraft utilized on September 11, 2001 outperformed the design capability of a standard 757 and 767 by a wide margin. Investigating aircraft parts can and will provide positive identification of any aircraft. Have the four aircraft been positively identified through the wreckage recovered? Pilots For Truth present in depth analysis of the aircraft parts with alarming results.

We have all the evidence, all the facts, all the physics and all the math.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 22, 2017, 04:57:45 AM
Number one...You are incorrect 100 percent impossible. So apparently you do not know aerodynamics as you say. I am not a pilot, but I have many that are customers that laugh. Not to mention there are 1000s that determined it was worth their time and important enough to form groups to tell us the same thing.

Number two...I know exactly where your "sourced" information came from, I know the horse's mouth. This affirms the action to "not entertain"


I know you are cranky because I am writing off your hypothesis...But I am sorry, that is just how easily proven false it is. Just don't want to waste time on something so dumb.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 22, 2017, 04:59:51 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 22, 2017, 04:52:19 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 22, 2017, 04:51:09 AM
If you want to stick to your 100% impossible position,  that's fine,  can you cite any references supporting that position.

Here.
http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/

Quote
It is now established the aircraft utilized on September 11, 2001 outperformed the design capability of a standard 757 and 767 by a wide margin. Investigating aircraft parts can and will provide positive identification of any aircraft. Have the four aircraft been positively identified through the wreckage recovered? Pilots For Truth present in depth analysis of the aircraft parts with alarming results.

We have all the evidence, all the facts, all the physics and all the math.

Is there a specific reference on that site that you can link to?  Regarding ground effect on the AA77 hitting the pentagon.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 22, 2017, 05:05:33 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 22, 2017, 04:57:45 AM
Number one...You are incorrect 100 percent impossible. So apparently you do not know aerodynamics as you say. I am not a pilot, but I have many that are customers that laugh. Not to mention there are 1000s that determined it was worth their time and important enough to form groups to tell us the same thing.

Number two...I know exactly where your "sourced" information came from, I know the horse's mouth. This affirms the action to "not entertain"


I know you are cranky because I am writing off your hypothesis...But I am sorry, that is just how easily proven false it is. Just don't want to waste time on something so dumb.

Your hypothesis is that it was impossible because of ground effect,   that's just not true.   At low angles of attack and high speed the ground effect is less, and the 757 flight control system can overcome ground effect, so all that's impossible is if the pilot could do it.   

That's not 100% impossible.

I'll chase up a couple of Qantas pilots I know and ask them.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 22, 2017, 05:11:26 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 22, 2017, 05:05:33 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 22, 2017, 04:57:45 AM
Number one...You are incorrect 100 percent impossible. So apparently you do not know aerodynamics as you say. I am not a pilot, but I have many that are customers that laugh. Not to mention there are 1000s that determined it was worth their time and important enough to form groups to tell us the same thing.

Number two...I know exactly where your "sourced" information came from, I know the horse's mouth. This affirms the action to "not entertain"


I know you are cranky because I am writing off your hypothesis...But I am sorry, that is just how easily proven false it is. Just don't want to waste time on something so dumb.

Your hypothesis is that it was impossible because of ground effect,   that's just not true.   At low angles of attack and high speed the ground effect is less, and the 757 flight control system can overcome ground effect, so all that's impossible is if the pilot could do it.   

That's not 100% impossible.

I'll chase up a couple of Qantas pilots I know and ask them.

This isn't low....Low is a 1000 feet...Even 500 which is nuts for a commercial 767, damn near impossible there.

But 20 feet....No....100 percent impossible

This is a dumb fight, go back to your other stuff.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 22, 2017, 05:16:03 AM
We'll allow a one on one trillion chance for the Pentagon plane.

Then a one in one billion chance the planes actually hit the buildings.

Also a one in one billion chance for each towers collapse for the reasons we were told.

Have a one in one trillion chance the passport survived the heat which apparently caused the buildings to collapse at close to or at free-fall.

And a free one in one trillion chance the fourth plane "vaporised"

How's your probability?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 22, 2017, 05:26:48 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 22, 2017, 05:16:03 AM
We'll allow a one on one trillion chance for the Pentagon plane.

Then a one in one billion chance the planes actually hit the buildings.

Also a one in one billion chance for each towers collapse for the reasons we were told.

Have a one in one trillion chance the passport survived the heat which apparently caused the buildings to collapse at close to or at free-fall.

And a free one in one trillion chance the fourth plane "vaporised"

How's your probability?

Let's see if we can find video evidence,  crash debris and  eyewitness accounts,  then re-calculate the probabilities.

I found a thread on the professional pilots forum discussing flying a 757 at 20ft at 400k  the thread is here http://www.pprune.org/questions/156455-ground-effects-airspeed.html

The general consensus seems to be that it's possible.  In fact some claim that flying inside the ground effect drag is reduced.   
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 22, 2017, 05:30:29 AM
From your sauce.

Quote
Quote:
Would a 757 type aircraft be able to fly 400-500 knots at VERY low altitude (20 feet)??
Only over a surface already at high altitude...

Tthough I don't know the Vmo of the 757, the 747-400 (which is a very speedy airliner) has a 365 KIAS Vmo. You would have to be at an altitude where TAS would be over 400 Kt at Vmo (e.g., 5,000-7,000' for the 744).

Please note the "terrorist" couldn't fly a Cessna.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 22, 2017, 05:33:47 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 22, 2017, 05:30:29 AM
From your sauce.

Quote
Quote:
Would a 757 type aircraft be able to fly 400-500 knots at VERY low altitude (20 feet)??
Only over a surface already at high altitude...

Tthough I don't know the Vmo of the 757, the 747-400 (which is a very speedy airliner) has a 365 KIAS Vmo. You would have to be at an altitude where TAS would be over 400 Kt at Vmo (e.g., 5,000-7,000' for the 744).

Please note the "terrorist" couldn't fly a Cessna.

Lmao!!! Rayzor I think you just got nut punched on that one lmao
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 22, 2017, 05:40:47 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 22, 2017, 05:30:29 AM
From your sauce.

Quote
Quote:
Would a 757 type aircraft be able to fly 400-500 knots at VERY low altitude (20 feet)??
Only over a surface already at high altitude...

Tthough I don't know the Vmo of the 757, the 747-400 (which is a very speedy airliner) has a 365 KIAS Vmo. You would have to be at an altitude where TAS would be over 400 Kt at Vmo (e.g., 5,000-7,000' for the 744).

So, convert 365 knots to mph,  what do you get?  The key parameter under discussion here is altitude not air speed.

Here is an A380 doing a low flyby



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 22, 2017, 05:44:16 AM
Well no shit. Obviously a 767 can land.

Just not at 400+ lol.

This is so dumb
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 22, 2017, 05:45:32 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 22, 2017, 05:33:47 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 22, 2017, 05:30:29 AM
From your sauce.

Quote
Quote:
Would a 757 type aircraft be able to fly 400-500 knots at VERY low altitude (20 feet)??
Only over a surface already at high altitude...

Tthough I don't know the Vmo of the 757, the 747-400 (which is a very speedy airliner) has a 365 KIAS Vmo. You would have to be at an altitude where TAS would be over 400 Kt at Vmo (e.g., 5,000-7,000' for the 744).

Please note the "terrorist" couldn't fly a Cessna.

Lmao!!! Rayzor I think you just got nut punched on that one lmao

LOL  you really think this is about ego?   I''d hope that it's about facts,  and  your 100% impossible claim has been proven to be wrong.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 22, 2017, 05:48:26 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 22, 2017, 05:45:32 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 22, 2017, 05:33:47 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 22, 2017, 05:30:29 AM
From your sauce.

Quote
Quote:
Would a 757 type aircraft be able to fly 400-500 knots at VERY low altitude (20 feet)??
Only over a surface already at high altitude...

Tthough I don't know the Vmo of the 757, the 747-400 (which is a very speedy airliner) has a 365 KIAS Vmo. You would have to be at an altitude where TAS would be over 400 Kt at Vmo (e.g., 5,000-7,000' for the 744).

Please note the "terrorist" couldn't fly a Cessna.

Lmao!!! Rayzor I think you just got nut punched on that one lmao

LOL  you really think this is about ego?   I''d hope that it's about facts,  and  your 100% impossible claim has been proven to be wrong.

Rayzor lie...

At the supposed speed, pitch and needed altitude 100, percent impossible.

Sorry lol.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 22, 2017, 05:53:16 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 22, 2017, 05:48:26 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 22, 2017, 05:45:32 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 22, 2017, 05:33:47 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 22, 2017, 05:30:29 AM
From your sauce.

Quote
Quote:
Would a 757 type aircraft be able to fly 400-500 knots at VERY low altitude (20 feet)??
Only over a surface already at high altitude...

Tthough I don't know the Vmo of the 757, the 747-400 (which is a very speedy airliner) has a 365 KIAS Vmo. You would have to be at an altitude where TAS would be over 400 Kt at Vmo (e.g., 5,000-7,000' for the 744).

Please note the "terrorist" couldn't fly a Cessna.

Lmao!!! Rayzor I think you just got nut punched on that one lmao

LOL  you really think this is about ego?   I''d hope that it's about facts,  and  your 100% impossible claim has been proven to be wrong.

Rayzor lie...

At the supposed speed, pitch and needed altitude 100, percent impossible.

Sorry lol.

Ok.  I think we can move on,  your refusal to admit you are wrong, is telling.   

You never did explain what you thought "down burst" was?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 22, 2017, 05:58:31 AM
I leave it open on all things questionable for me to be wrong on.

This isn't questionable, it is a simple fact.

If you want me to say the sun isn't bright just because it goes against what you want, doesn't put me in the wrong.

Be mad all you want, doesn't change reality.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 22, 2017, 06:10:02 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 22, 2017, 05:58:31 AM
I leave it open on all things questionable for me to be wrong on.

This isn't questionable, it is a simple fact.

If you want me to say the sun isn't bright just because it goes against what you want, doesn't put me in the wrong.

Be mad all you want, doesn't change reality.

If we get hung up on everything we don't agree on then we'll just end up with stalemate.   I'm happy to "agree to disagree" and move on.

1. So what happened  with AA77,  if it didn't hit the pentagon where did it go?
2. Where did the aircraft debris found inside the crash site come from?

I'll leave you to mull over those questions, and catch up tomorrow,  I've got an all day on-site consulting job, got to keep the cash flow positive. :)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on February 22, 2017, 06:21:47 AM
Let us accept the impossible and state it was a 757 that hit the Pentagon..

Which part of the plane survived to make this hole on an inner ring?

(http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/imgs/fuselagefragment.jpg)

(https://truthandshadows.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/pentagon-inside-hole.jpg?w=620)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 22, 2017, 06:45:13 AM
Quote from: totallackey on February 22, 2017, 06:21:47 AM
Let us accept the impossible and state it was a 757 that hit the Pentagon..

Which part of the plane survived to make this hole on an inner ring?

(http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/imgs/fuselagefragment.jpg)

The consensus seem to be that it was landing gear.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 22, 2017, 07:01:01 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 22, 2017, 06:45:13 AM
The consensus seem to be that it was landing gear.

Lordy..
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 22, 2017, 07:06:55 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 22, 2017, 06:45:13 AM
Quote from: totallackey on February 22, 2017, 06:21:47 AM
Let us accept the impossible and state it was a 757 that hit the Pentagon..

Which part of the plane survived to make this hole on an inner ring?

(http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/imgs/fuselagefragment.jpg)

The consensus seem to be that it was landing gear.

Here is the hole from the other side,  most of the debris has been cleared
(http://www.rense.com/general32/InteriorDamage3.jpg)

Inside C ring
(http://www.rense.com/general32/landinggear002.jpg)

As other witnesses related, debris lying outside the C-ring punchout hole in A-E Drive included a chunk of nose fuselage or nose cone, a landing gear, and an aircraft tire tread.The following photo (by Fort Belvoir photographers) shows two pieces of fuselage debris (note the green primer) lying in front of the hole. Note a ring of 8 small holes on the larger piece. A similar ring of 8 holes may be found on a 757 nose (with an attaching piece), just below the cockpit windows -- but it is far from clear whether the configuration is a match. This larger piece of debris may be the fragment of "nose cone" referred to by Lt. Kevin Shaeffer and Victor Correa.


The following photo, shows both the fuselage fragment and the wheel hub:
(http://www.rense.com/general32/trou1moyenne.jpg)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 22, 2017, 07:31:36 AM
The majority of first responders said "plane crash??? Where?"...You even hear it on the news by accident of course. That is just talking about the Pentagon. A couple randomly placed parts isn't going to do it for me... Especially when 99 percent of the plane was magically "vaporized"...Including materials much stronger than parts "found". For all I know they just threw a few things in there before hand...Not rocket science.

Not like we would know where the parts came from, we weren't allowed to check the parts to the maintenance logs of the aircrafts...And no one in the official report found that necessary even though it is standard practice...Criminal to not do it.

Unless those objects were made of the same material the passport was made out of...Then I suppose it makes since.

Not to mention...The plane isn't going to hit 20 feet at that speed, trim, pitch.... IMPOSSIBLE, I don't care how much you want to believe in magic.

This is the real conspiracy here....

What material was the passport made of...

Discuss..
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 22, 2017, 03:01:15 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 22, 2017, 07:31:36 AM
The majority of first responders said "plane crash??? Where?"...You even hear it on the news by accident of course. That is just talking about the Pentagon. A couple randomly placed parts isn't going to do it for me... Especially when 99 percent of the plane was magically "vaporized"...Including materials much stronger than parts "found". For all I know they just threw a few things in there before hand...Not rocket science.

Not like we would know where the parts came from, we weren't allowed to check the parts to the maintenance logs of the aircrafts...And no one in the official report found that necessary even though it is standard practice...Criminal to not do it.

Unless those objects were made of the same material the passport was made out of...Then I suppose it makes since.

Not to mention...The plane isn't going to hit 20 feet at that speed, trim, pitch.... IMPOSSIBLE, I don't care how much you want to believe in magic.

This is the real conspiracy here....

What material was the passport made of...

Discuss..

So what hit the pentagon,  and what is the evidence?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on February 22, 2017, 03:43:54 PM
This requires a bit more attention than I have right now. I'll take a look at it tomorrow or later this week. Not ignoring it, don't worry.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 22, 2017, 04:05:23 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 22, 2017, 03:01:15 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 22, 2017, 07:31:36 AM
The majority of first responders said "plane crash??? Where?"...You even hear it on the news by accident of course. That is just talking about the Pentagon. A couple randomly placed parts isn't going to do it for me... Especially when 99 percent of the plane was magically "vaporized"...Including materials much stronger than parts "found". For all I know they just threw a few things in there before hand...Not rocket science.

Not like we would know where the parts came from, we weren't allowed to check the parts to the maintenance logs of the aircrafts...And no one in the official report found that necessary even though it is standard practice...Criminal to not do it.

Unless those objects were made of the same material the passport was made out of...Then I suppose it makes since.

Not to mention...The plane isn't going to hit 20 feet at that speed, trim, pitch.... IMPOSSIBLE, I don't care how much you want to believe in magic.

This is the real conspiracy here....

What material was the passport made of...

Discuss..

So what hit the pentagon,  and what is the evidence?

Where did the wings go?

If the wings could cut through wtc 1 + 2 like butter why did the wings "vaporise" on the pentagon?

How did a pilot who couldn't fly a Cessna pull off maneuvers that most pilots consider impossible?

This is enough for a clever man.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rama Set on February 22, 2017, 04:52:34 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 22, 2017, 07:31:36 AM
The majority of first responders said "plane crash??? Where?"...You even hear it on the news by accident of course. That is just talking about the Pentagon. A couple randomly placed parts isn't going to do it for me... Especially when 99 percent of the plane was magically "vaporized"...Including materials much stronger than parts "found". For all I know they just threw a few things in there before hand...Not rocket science.

Not like we would know where the parts came from, we weren't allowed to check the parts to the maintenance logs of the aircrafts...And no one in the official report found that necessary even though it is standard practice...Criminal to not do it.

Unless those objects were made of the same material the passport was made out of...Then I suppose it makes since.

Not to mention...The plane isn't going to hit 20 feet at that speed, trim, pitch.... IMPOSSIBLE, I don't care how much you want to believe in magic.

This is the real conspiracy here....

What material was the passport made of...

Discuss..

Same thing all passports are made of. You make it sound like things don't survive explosions ever.

Also, which if the 9/11 planes do you not believe were planes?  Follow up question, if some or none of them were planes, what happened to the people on those planes?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 22, 2017, 04:56:39 PM
Quote from: Rama Set on February 22, 2017, 04:52:34 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 22, 2017, 07:31:36 AM
The majority of first responders said "plane crash??? Where?"...You even hear it on the news by accident of course. That is just talking about the Pentagon. A couple randomly placed parts isn't going to do it for me... Especially when 99 percent of the plane was magically "vaporized"...Including materials much stronger than parts "found". For all I know they just threw a few things in there before hand...Not rocket science.

Not like we would know where the parts came from, we weren't allowed to check the parts to the maintenance logs of the aircrafts...And no one in the official report found that necessary even though it is standard practice...Criminal to not do it.

Unless those objects were made of the same material the passport was made out of...Then I suppose it makes since.

Not to mention...The plane isn't going to hit 20 feet at that speed, trim, pitch.... IMPOSSIBLE, I don't care how much you want to believe in magic.

This is the real conspiracy here....

What material was the passport made of...

Discuss..

Same thing all passports are made of. You make it sound like things don't survive explosions ever.

Also, which if the 9/11 planes do you not believe were planes?  Follow up question, if some or none of them were planes, what happened to the people on those planes?

Catch up on the thread before making a comment..

Thanks
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 22, 2017, 05:19:25 PM
(http://i65.tinypic.com/30thxcn.gif)

Reality at it's finest

(http://i68.tinypic.com/9fyxjd.jpg)

Right on...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 22, 2017, 05:42:44 PM
Quote from: David handschuh
"I was underneath it. I was looking at the tower. I had my camera in my hand. I heard the noise. I never saw the airplane. . . . I was less than a hundred yards away from the building. I was standing on West St.” Note that Mr. Handschuh says: “I was looking at the tower.”

(http://i63.tinypic.com/zkpgkw.jpg)

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 22, 2017, 06:09:56 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 22, 2017, 05:19:25 PM
(http://i65.tinypic.com/30thxcn.gif)

Reality at it's finest

(http://i68.tinypic.com/9fyxjd.jpg)

Right on...

Both aeroplane wings cut right through structural steel on the towers like jelly.

Pentagon planes wings vaporise without leaving a mark.

Fourth plane vaporises without a trace.

Seems kinda contradictory...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Heiwa on February 22, 2017, 06:54:32 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 22, 2017, 03:01:15 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 22, 2017, 07:31:36 AM
The majority of first responders said "plane crash??? Where?"...You even hear it on the news by accident of course. That is just talking about the Pentagon. A couple randomly placed parts isn't going to do it for me... Especially when 99 percent of the plane was magically "vaporized"...Including materials much stronger than parts "found". For all I know they just threw a few things in there before hand...Not rocket science.

Not like we would know where the parts came from, we weren't allowed to check the parts to the maintenance logs of the aircrafts...And no one in the official report found that necessary even though it is standard practice...Criminal to not do it.

Unless those objects were made of the same material the passport was made out of...Then I suppose it makes since.

Not to mention...The plane isn't going to hit 20 feet at that speed, trim, pitch.... IMPOSSIBLE, I don't care how much you want to believe in magic.

This is the real conspiracy here....

What material was the passport made of...

Discuss..

So what hit the pentagon,  and what is the evidence?

One suggestion is one or several bombs. It is called an inside job by clever terrorists.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rama Set on February 22, 2017, 07:31:55 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 22, 2017, 04:56:39 PM
Quote from: Rama Set on February 22, 2017, 04:52:34 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 22, 2017, 07:31:36 AM
The majority of first responders said "plane crash??? Where?"...You even hear it on the news by accident of course. That is just talking about the Pentagon. A couple randomly placed parts isn't going to do it for me... Especially when 99 percent of the plane was magically "vaporized"...Including materials much stronger than parts "found". For all I know they just threw a few things in there before hand...Not rocket science.

Not like we would know where the parts came from, we weren't allowed to check the parts to the maintenance logs of the aircrafts...And no one in the official report found that necessary even though it is standard practice...Criminal to not do it.

Unless those objects were made of the same material the passport was made out of...Then I suppose it makes since.

Not to mention...The plane isn't going to hit 20 feet at that speed, trim, pitch.... IMPOSSIBLE, I don't care how much you want to believe in magic.

This is the real conspiracy here....

What material was the passport made of...

Discuss..

Same thing all passports are made of. You make it sound like things don't survive explosions ever.

Also, which if the 9/11 planes do you not believe were planes?  Follow up question, if some or none of them were planes, what happened to the people on those planes?

Catch up on the thread before making a comment..

Thanks

K thanks. Done. Will you answer now?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 22, 2017, 07:54:13 PM
We have shown the plane that hit the pentagon was not what we were told, with physics, we have explained the planes passing through the towers like jelly couldn't have happened, with physics, we have explained how a plane cannot "vaporise" when it hits the ground, with physics.

Here, have some more.

Quote from: disputeone on February 21, 2017, 11:14:40 PM
Instead of expressing structural resistance in units we can use a percentage.

Say 100% structural resistance will hold the building up exactly, any more weight and it will start to collapse. Most working loads are two to four times (corrected, 30 to 100 times) the fail point.
So we can safely assume building 7 had over 100% structural resistance before it fell.

So we have gravitational acceleration - percentage of structural resistance = fall acceleration.

9.8m/s2×75%=7.35m/s2

9.8 m/s2 - 7.35m/s2 = 2.45 m/s2

At 75% structural resistance I would predict a 2.45m/s2 fall acceleration.

Obviously this doesnt calculate change and inertia, however it doesn't need to.

We can clearly see building 7 go from over 100% structural resistance to 0% pretty much instantly.

To go from totally upright and intact to free fall (gravitational acceleration) for 2.25 seconds violates the laws of physics.

The only way building 7 could do this is to have nearly all of its structural resistance removed nearly instantly.

The only way this is possible is a controlled demolition.

So, G- %S = F
Gravitational acceleration - percentage of structural resistance = fall acceleration.

Video for reference.


To answer your question I believe a plane of some sort most likely hit the second tower, not a commercial jet, no plane hit the Pentagon cause physics, and no plane crashed and vaporized cause physics.

Asking where the planes went and what happened to the passengers is pure speculation.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: onebigmonkey on February 22, 2017, 09:34:02 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 22, 2017, 07:54:13 PM
We have shown the plane that hit the pentagon was not what we were told, with physics,

No, you haven't. Read up on your physics.

Quote
we have explained the planes passing through the towers like jelly couldn't have happened, with physics,

No, you haven't. Read up on your physics and what actually happened.  No plane passed through the towers. The towers did a pretty good job of slicing up those planes and stopping them in their tracks.

Quote
we have explained how a plane cannot "vaporise" when it hits the ground, with physics.

No, you haven't. Read up on your physics and what actually happened.

Quote
To answer your question I believe a plane of some sort most likely hit the second tower, not a commercial jet,

Erm..then how did this plane cause the damage, because you have already explained that this isn't possible?

Quote
no plane hit the Pentagon cause physics,

Then explain the physics of what did.

Quote
and no plane crashed and vaporized cause physics.

It didn't vapourise.

Quote
Asking where the planes went and what happened to the passengers is pure speculation.

No, asking for supporting evidence for this nonsense is not speculation. Saying that there may not have been a plane with passengers is pure speculation.

You can speculate about the motives of the attackers all you want, you can speculate about who motivated them, and who they actually were, but claiming there were no planes involved in the attacks on 9/11 is just plain dumb. It is not a question of "as we are told", it is in the evidence that thousands of people witnessed with their own eyes and live on TV. This event did not take place on youtube, it happened in front of actual people.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 22, 2017, 09:38:03 PM
I think you should read the thread.

I am not a heiwa and this is not a fairy tale.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 23, 2017, 12:20:42 AM
Quote from: onebigmonkey on February 22, 2017, 09:34:02 PM
Clap trap nonsense

It's like groundhog day all over again...

Everything you said has already been addressed in this thread and proven incorrect. There was not one factual statement in your post...

If you would like to revise your post with factual information, read the actual thread then comment, or ask a specific question then we can communicate. I would be happy to explain to you why everything you are attempting to support is incorrect.

However, if you want to appear out of no where and make nonsensical claims, then you can exit state left.

Your choice buttercup
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 23, 2017, 12:25:03 AM
Just another data point.   This time refuting the theory that you can't fly a 757 at 20' at 300k+ because of ground effect.

This what an experienced qantas pilot had to say about that theory.

Quote
Utter crap. I have had many airplanes in ground effect at that speed if not faster. I had a 737-200 (on a sanctioned, approved beat-up of Dublin's RWY 28) going 340 at what I thought was 50ft but in the photos you cannot see much if any daylight below the engine pods. it was easy. Perhaps too easy. I have seen fast Vulcans (big mofo) so low that the engines were sucking up water from the wet runway.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 23, 2017, 12:28:04 AM
Source??

You can't just post that.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 23, 2017, 12:28:38 AM
I've been studying the page http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html) regarding the pentagon crash, specifically I have studied their analysis of the commission report so far:

One error on their part: They correctly calculate that the groundspeed for the plane 77 was 396 knots, but then claim that the 9/11 commission report is inaccurate because it contradicts the reported airspeed of 325 knots, which is false as airspeed and groundspeed can and almost always are different for aircraft, especially at high altitudes. So they fail to differentiate between ground- and airspeed.

The next error they make is basing a whole maneuver off of this error, and thus wrongly analyses how much skill would be required to make the turn.

The next error they make is also because of this wrong assumption - they assume the plane would only have accelerated about 30 knots from the end of the dive, to the impact at pentagon, implying that it should have accelerated to a higher velocity. I calculated that the average velocity of the plane, in groundspeed, would be about 417 knots. Near the ground, airspeed and groundspeed would start to match up. So at impact, ground- and airspeed should be comparable with each other at 460 knots. Before the descent, we know that groundspeed was higher than airspeed. Which means that the average airspeed should have been lower than 417 knots, so I'd guess that the plane might have accelerated by a total of 50-80 knots during the 30 seconds before impact, not only 30, at full engine power. Which would mean that the acceleration from the dive would range from 55-85 knots, not the 30 knots that the website assumes. This seems far more plausible, and I think they would agree. It also means that flaps was probably not used during the maneuver, at last not for the final straight.

Then they make some claims about the skill of the alleged pilot and back it up with... "This also can be verified via google searches." <- That's a big no, they should be citing proper reliable sources.

They do say that the maneuver is possible, but they don't think the alleged pilot could have done it. If they realised the mistake they did, they'd probably realise it's a bit more likely than they think.

I don't know about the aerodynaimcs of the boeing 757, but the impact velocity was pretty high. That close to the ground, I think that some of the stability to the plane can be attributed to compression. Ailerons tend have a decreased effect as a plane passes half of the speed of sound, but planes should be designed to self-stabilise. The thing that the pilot had to worry more about was the elevator, which might also be slightly less effective and thus harder to effect the plane majorly, keeping it going more straight. So even if the pilot was nervous and shaky as the plane got close to the ground, it would be hard (well, harder than usual) to pull of any sharp maneuvers.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 23, 2017, 12:29:17 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 23, 2017, 12:28:04 AM
Source??

You can't just post that.
Well, your own source does state that the maneuver is possible.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 23, 2017, 12:32:27 AM
(http://www.rense.com/general32/trou1moyenne.jpg)

What happened to the wings? Not even a scratch? I am no pilot, I'm not an idiot however.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 23, 2017, 12:37:07 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 22, 2017, 06:09:56 PM

Both aeroplane wings cut right through structural steel on the towers like jelly.

Pentagon planes wings vaporise without leaving a mark.

Fourth plane vaporises without a trace.

Seems kinda contradictory...

Not really,  what do you find contradictory?

The argument that an aluminium aircraft can't slice through steel beams is a nonsense.  I thought we already dealt with that issue,  but perhaps not,  if it keeps coming back.

Try thinking about it in terms of momentum   mv,   you have 175,000 kg travelling at 500 mph,   to stop that and absorb the kinetic energy requires a lot more than steel beams.

The force required is directly proportional to the change in momentum    force = mass * Δv    and of course that force is applied across the impact area, unevenly, the shearing forces can easily exceed the capacity of structural steel.

The kinetic energy goes into shredding the aircraft, the steel structure and the building and of course heat.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 23, 2017, 12:38:14 AM
(https://s9.postimg.org/s9fd59vr3/images_53.jpg)

http://howthingsfly.si.edu/aerodynamics

This is just a silly argument guys.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 23, 2017, 12:38:21 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 23, 2017, 12:32:27 AM
(http://www.rense.com/general32/trou1moyenne.jpg)

What happened to the wings? Not even a scratch? I am no pilot, I'm not an idiot however.

That's not the impact point,  that's the famous punch out hole in one of the inner rings.  And you can see aircraft debris.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 23, 2017, 12:39:26 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 23, 2017, 12:28:04 AM
Source??

You can't just post that.

The source is a friend of mine who has been flying for qantas for more than 20 years.   

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 23, 2017, 12:40:23 AM
Quote
Instead of expressing structural resistance in units we can use a percentage.

Say 100% structural resistance will hold the building up exactly, any more weight and it will start to collapse. Most working loads are two to four times (corrected, 30 to 100 times) the fail point.
So we can safely assume building 7 had over 100% structural resistance before it fell.

So we have gravitational acceleration - percentage of structural resistance = fall acceleration.

9.8m/s2×75%=7.35m/s2

9.8 m/s2 - 7.35m/s2 = 2.45 m/s2

At 75% structural resistance I would predict a 2.45m/s2 fall acceleration.

Obviously this doesnt calculate change and inertia, however it doesn't need to.

We can clearly see building 7 go from over 100% structural resistance to 0% pretty much instantly.

To go from totally upright and intact to free fall (gravitational acceleration) for 2.25 seconds violates the laws of physics.

The only way building 7 could do this is to have nearly all of its structural resistance removed nearly instantly.

The only way this is possible is a controlled demolition.

So, G- %S = F
Gravitational acceleration - percentage of structural resistance = fall acceleration.

Video for reference.


Rayzor enough with your dishonesty.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 23, 2017, 12:42:25 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 23, 2017, 12:39:26 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 23, 2017, 12:28:04 AM
Source??

You can't just post that.

The source is a friend of mine who has been flying for qantas for more than 20 years.

Sure mate ok.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 23, 2017, 12:47:17 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 23, 2017, 12:32:27 AM
(http://www.rense.com/general32/trou1moyenne.jpg)

What happened to the wings? Not even a scratch? I am no pilot, I'm not an idiot however.
Apparently, one of the wings did hit the ground before impact. The plane had swept wings, so the wing-root would hit first and the rest of the wing would be slowed down by that, possibly bent back even further and sucked into the hole. The hole was apparently 75 feet wide, which would mean that it's about as wide as the distance between the outer edges of the engines, judging by this document of the 757:
http://www.boeing.com/resources/boeingdotcom/company/about_bca/startup/pdf/freighters/757f.pdf (http://www.boeing.com/resources/boeingdotcom/company/about_bca/startup/pdf/freighters/757f.pdf)
Which makes sense, the engines are solid enough to also make a hole. The hole is a bit wider, which does leave space for the wings to fold back (especially the tips of the wings which normally wouldn't fit) and go through, gettng sucked in by the rest of the plane or shredded off.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 23, 2017, 12:48:58 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 23, 2017, 12:40:23 AM
Quote
Instead of expressing structural resistance in units we can use a percentage.

Say 100% structural resistance will hold the building up exactly, any more weight and it will start to collapse. Most working loads are two to four times (corrected, 30 to 100 times) the fail point.
So we can safely assume building 7 had over 100% structural resistance before it fell.

So we have gravitational acceleration - percentage of structural resistance = fall acceleration.

9.8m/s2×75%=7.35m/s2

9.8 m/s2 - 7.35m/s2 = 2.45 m/s2

At 75% structural resistance I would predict a 2.45m/s2 fall acceleration.

Obviously this doesnt calculate change and inertia, however it doesn't need to.

We can clearly see building 7 go from over 100% structural resistance to 0% pretty much instantly.

To go from totally upright and intact to free fall (gravitational acceleration) for 2.25 seconds violates the laws of physics.

The only way building 7 could do this is to have nearly all of its structural resistance removed nearly instantly.

The only way this is possible is a controlled demolition.

So, G- %S = F
Gravitational acceleration - percentage of structural resistance = fall acceleration.


Rayzor enough with your dishonesty.

So pointing out where you are wrong is dishonest? 

Just to stop you re-posting that argument over and over again,  you do realise it's completely false?

You claim that whenever a building collapses in free fall it must mean demolition?   That's not true.   Think about it for a while.

Second if a building doesn't collapse at free fall rates,  does that mean its' not demolition? 

So the upshot is that free fall doesn't really tell you anything conclusive about why it fell.  It's something to take into account for the analysis,  along with many other factors,  but that's it.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 23, 2017, 12:53:03 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 23, 2017, 12:37:07 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 22, 2017, 06:09:56 PM

Both aeroplane wings cut right through structural steel on the towers like jelly.

Pentagon planes wings vaporise without leaving a mark.

Fourth plane vaporises without a trace.

Seems kinda contradictory...

Not really,  what do you find contradictory?

The argument that an aluminium aircraft can't slice through steel beams is a nonsense.  I thought we already dealt with that issue,  but perhaps not,  if it keeps coming back.

Try thinking about it in terms of momentum   mv,   you have 175,000 kg travelling at 500 mph,   to stop that and absorb the kinetic energy requires a lot more than steel beams.

The force required is directly proportional to the change in momentum    force = mass * Δv    and of course that force is applied across the impact area, unevenly, the shearing forces can easily exceed the capacity of structural steel.

The kinetic energy goes into shredding the aircraft, the steel structure and the building and of course heat.

Bhs has repeatedly shut you down on this, however you keep posting it?

I've had enough of your dishonesty.

Yes for a building to collapse at 9.8m/s2 it must be a controlled demolition.

It is very difficult, even with a demo to attain gravitational acceleration, it is the ultimate goal of the people pulling it but it is very difficult and rarely achieved.

My equation works well enough, deal with it.

Back to clues forum Rayzor honestly.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 23, 2017, 12:55:56 AM
This is 20 feet....

(http://i68.tinypic.com/9fyxjd.jpg)

At 400+ mph....Lol...No. Not with a light wing craft, this completely excludes how they craft got to this position in the first place.

Not leaving a trace, except for a couple random parts from a plane that is not even a 767, no marks on the lawn, not a single part number from 4 planes (average is about 350,000 recognizable recovered pieces from an accident) no FAA investigation (reg 121 is just one of many), not a single shred of evidence that this was a plane, no BTS records (even though they are kept on every single plane in America, and even on these EXCEPT for that one day),a pilot that can't even handle a Cessna can figure out how to fly blind/navigate a 767 100+ mph past vme and vne (something trained pilots couldn't even do on a sim) to perform an impossible maneuver, all first responders including city leaders, reporters, emergency crew etc etc say "There was no plane"....I could keep going on..

Simple fact, y'all wanna believe in fairy tales...Fine.

But that is y'all's choice and belief...It is not rooted in reality
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 23, 2017, 12:59:05 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 23, 2017, 12:53:03 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 23, 2017, 12:37:07 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 22, 2017, 06:09:56 PM

Both aeroplane wings cut right through structural steel on the towers like jelly.

Pentagon planes wings vaporise without leaving a mark.

Fourth plane vaporises without a trace.

Seems kinda contradictory...

Not really,  what do you find contradictory?

The argument that an aluminium aircraft can't slice through steel beams is a nonsense.  I thought we already dealt with that issue,  but perhaps not,  if it keeps coming back.

Try thinking about it in terms of momentum   mv,   you have 175,000 kg travelling at 500 mph,   to stop that and absorb the kinetic energy requires a lot more than steel beams.

The force required is directly proportional to the change in momentum    force = mass * Δv    and of course that force is applied across the impact area, unevenly, the shearing forces can easily exceed the capacity of structural steel.

The kinetic energy goes into shredding the aircraft, the steel structure and the building and of course heat.

Bhs has repeatedly shut you down on this, however you keep posting it?

I've had enough of your dishonesty.

Yes for a building to collapse at 9.8m/s2 it must be a controlled demolition.

It is very difficult, even with a demo to attain gravitational acceleration, it is the ultimate goal of the people pulling it but it is very difficult and rarely achieved.

My equation works well enough, deal with it.

Back to clues forum Rayzor honestly.

Let's make it as simple as I can.   

So if I have a bowling ball on a plank and the plank breaks, the ball falls at free fall rate,  that must be controlled demolition that broke the plank according to your theory.

I'll say it again,  the free fall of the bowling ball, doesn't tell you why the plank broke,  only that it did.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 23, 2017, 01:00:08 AM
But theres not just one plank Rayzor.

I can't belive you are this dumb.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 23, 2017, 01:01:42 AM

Quote
Utter crap. I have had many airplanes in ground effect at that speed if not faster. I had a 737-200 (on a sanctioned, approved beat-up of Dublin's RWY 28) going 340 at what I thought was 50ft but in the photos you cannot see much if any daylight below the engine pods. it was easy. Perhaps too easy. I have seen fast Vulcans (big mofo) so low that the engines were sucking up water from the wet runway.

I absolutely believe this story to be true and not fabricated whatsoever.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 23, 2017, 01:05:31 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 23, 2017, 01:01:42 AM

Quote
Utter crap. I have had many airplanes in ground effect at that speed if not faster. I had a 737-200 (on a sanctioned, approved beat-up of Dublin's RWY 28) going 340 at what I thought was 50ft but in the photos you cannot see much if any daylight below the engine pods. it was easy. Perhaps too easy. I have seen fast Vulcans (big mofo) so low that the engines were sucking up water from the wet runway.

I absolutely believe this story to be true and not fabricated whatsoever.

Rotflmfao.

Rayzor, wanna hazard a guess at why this bullet slows down? In your world it shouldn't lose any velocity apparently.



Hint. The bricks are structural resistance.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 23, 2017, 01:05:43 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 23, 2017, 12:55:56 AM
This is 20 feet....

(http://i68.tinypic.com/9fyxjd.jpg)

Not quite, but it's pretty close and one wing did hit the ground before the impact, and that's also what that security footage suggests.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 23, 2017, 01:06:02 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 23, 2017, 12:55:56 AM
This is 20 feet....

(http://i68.tinypic.com/9fyxjd.jpg)

At 400+ mph....Lol...No. Not with a light wing craft, this completely excludes how they craft got to this position in the first place.

Not leaving a trace, except for a couple random parts from a plane that is not even a 767, no marks on the lawn, not a single part number from 4 planes (average is about 350,000 recognizable recovered pieces from an accident) no FAA investigation (reg 121 is just one of many), not a single shred of evidence that this was a plane, no BTS records (even though they are kept on every single plane in America, and even on these EXCEPT for that one day),a pilot that can't even handle a Cessna can figure out how to fly blind/navigate a 767 100+ mph past vme and vne (something trained pilots couldn't even do on a sim) to perform an impossible maneuver, all first responders including city leaders, reporters, emergency crew etc etc say "There was no plane"....I could keep going on..

Simple fact, y'all wanna believe in fairy tales...Fine.

But that is y'all's choice and belief...It is not rooted in reality

You missed the fact that it came in on a shallow dive.  As far as eye witness accounts let's look at the evidence.

Out of 136 witnesses,   104 directly people saw the plane hit the pentagon,    of those 26 reported that it was an American Airlines Jet,   39 others said it was a large commercial aircraft,   7 said it was a boeing 757,  16 people reported seeing the plate hit light poles and trees and a power transformer was hit. 

None of the 136 witnesses saw a missile or military aircraft.

As for the first responders,  yes, i'd believe that a 400 mph crash isn't going to leave much evidence.  BTW,  could you tell dispute the difference between the main impact on the outer walls and the punch out hole on one of the inner rings,  he called me dishonest when I pointed out he was wrong.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 23, 2017, 01:06:53 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 23, 2017, 01:05:31 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 23, 2017, 01:01:42 AM

Quote
Utter crap. I have had many airplanes in ground effect at that speed if not faster. I had a 737-200 (on a sanctioned, approved beat-up of Dublin's RWY 28) going 340 at what I thought was 50ft but in the photos you cannot see much if any daylight below the engine pods. it was easy. Perhaps too easy. I have seen fast Vulcans (big mofo) so low that the engines were sucking up water from the wet runway.

I absolutely believe this story to be true and not fabricated whatsoever.

Rotflmfao.

Rayzor, wanna hazard a guess at why this bullet slows down? In your world it shouldn't lose any velocity apparently.



Momentum.   Do you really need a lesson in basic physics?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 23, 2017, 01:07:34 AM
Momentum vs structural resistance.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 23, 2017, 01:10:41 AM
Daily reminder no ones even attempted to touch this.

Quote
Instead of expressing structural resistance in units we can use a percentage.

Say 100% structural resistance will hold the building up exactly, any more weight and it will start to collapse. Most working loads are two to four times (corrected, 30 to 100 times) the fail point.
So we can safely assume building 7 had over 100% structural resistance before it fell.

So we have gravitational acceleration - percentage of structural resistance = fall acceleration.

9.8m/s2×75%=7.35m/s2

9.8 m/s2 - 7.35m/s2 = 2.45 m/s2

At 75% structural resistance I would predict a 2.45m/s2 fall acceleration.

Obviously this doesnt calculate change and inertia, however it doesn't need to.

We can clearly see building 7 go from over 100% structural resistance to 0% pretty much instantly.

To go from totally upright and intact to free fall (gravitational acceleration) for 2.25 seconds violates the laws of physics.

The only way building 7 could do this is to have nearly all of its structural resistance removed nearly instantly.

The only way this is possible is a controlled demolition.

So, G- %S = F
Gravitational acceleration - percentage of structural resistance = fall acceleration.

Video for reference.


Rayzor enough with your dishonesty.

Quote from: Rayzor on February 23, 2017, 12:59:05 AM
I'll say it again,  the free fall of the bowling ball, doesn't tell you why the plank broke,  only that it did.

Quote from: disputeone on February 23, 2017, 01:00:08 AM
But theres not just one plank Rayzor.

I can't belive you are this dumb.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 23, 2017, 01:16:13 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on February 23, 2017, 01:05:43 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 23, 2017, 12:55:56 AM
This is 20 feet....

(http://i68.tinypic.com/9fyxjd.jpg)

Not quite, but it's pretty close and one wing did hit the ground before the impact, and that's also what that security footage suggests.

What security footage?? The one that shows 5 frames with 2 missing in the middle? And out of 80 plus tapes they have of it they release just that? With excuse of "it's too traumatic"? Yet they have no problem showing people falling out of the WTC?

Get real...There were no marks on the lawn either....

Nor did you answer anything else in my post of course...

As I said...You don't need to convince me of why you want to believe in miracles...Just don't try to convince me they aren't miracles.


Oh and fyi, to those that keep saying "but but...The planes were going fast, so there would be nothing left in them" obviously have no idea on physics or metallurgy...Not to mention every plane accident in the history of aviation.

Planes dont vaporize, sure sometimes we lose them and don't know where they wreck, but even then we eventually find them.

The average recognizable pieces of a plane wreck is around 350,000, sometimes more... Usually half of those have part numbers that can be verified by either maintenance logs or through design records.

Hell even challenger we found over 80,000 pieces and that was going almost 20k mph lol...

Not one found for 4 planes lmao....

Smdh...

Y'all need to get real....This is getting old.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 23, 2017, 01:16:27 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 23, 2017, 01:10:41 AM
Daily reminder no ones even attempted to touch this.

Quote
Instead of expressing structural resistance in units we can use a percentage.

Say 100% structural resistance will hold the building up exactly, any more weight and it will start to collapse. Most working loads are two to four times (corrected, 30 to 100 times) the fail point.
So we can safely assume building 7 had over 100% structural resistance before it fell.

So we have gravitational acceleration - percentage of structural resistance = fall acceleration.

9.8m/s2×75%=7.35m/s2

9.8 m/s2 - 7.35m/s2 = 2.45 m/s2

At 75% structural resistance I would predict a 2.45m/s2 fall acceleration.

Obviously this doesnt calculate change and inertia, however it doesn't need to.

We can clearly see building 7 go from over 100% structural resistance to 0% pretty much instantly.

To go from totally upright and intact to free fall (gravitational acceleration) for 2.25 seconds violates the laws of physics.

The only way building 7 could do this is to have nearly all of its structural resistance removed nearly instantly.

The only way this is possible is a controlled demolition.

So, G- %S = F
Gravitational acceleration - percentage of structural resistance = fall acceleration.


Rayzor enough with your dishonesty.

Quote from: Rayzor on February 23, 2017, 12:59:05 AM
I'll say it again,  the free fall of the bowling ball, doesn't tell you why the plank broke,  only that it did.

Quote from: disputeone on February 23, 2017, 01:00:08 AM
But theres not just one plank Rayzor.

I can't belive you are this dumb.

So let me get this straight,  I want to be 100% clear,  you are saying that free fall is a necessary and sufficient condition to conclude controlled demolition.     Think before you answer.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 23, 2017, 01:20:39 AM
It depends on the structure, for building 7, yes no doubt as I have explained the building would start to collapse long before a freefall.

(https://s23.postimg.org/tm6vxgb9n/pentagon_aerial.jpg)

Nowhere near enough damage to all but vaporise the plane.

Come on guys.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 23, 2017, 01:22:37 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 23, 2017, 01:07:34 AM
Momentum vs structural resistance.

Hey,  you got one correct,  and the critical factor is the weight of the bullet,  if you used depleted uranium for example you have a much higher mass, and proportionally higher impact.

If you fired a 1 kg block of plastic at those bricks at rifle velocities,  you'd see pulverized and shattered bricks everywhere.   impact =  Δv * mass
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 23, 2017, 01:25:21 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 23, 2017, 01:16:13 AM
Oh and fyi, to those that keep saying "but but...The planes were going fast, so there would be nothing left in them" obviously have no idea on physics or metallurgy...Not to mention every plane accident in the history of aviation.

Planes dont vaporize, sure sometimes we lose them and don't know where they wreck, but even then we eventually find them.

The average recognizable pieces of a plane wreck is around 350,000, sometimes more... Usually half of those have part numbers that can be verified by either maintenance logs or through design records.

Hell even challenger we found over 80,000 pieces and that was going almost 20k mph lol...

Not one found for 4 planes lmao....

Smdh...

Y'all need to get real....This is getting old.

Quote from: disputeone on February 23, 2017, 01:10:41 AM
Daily reminder no ones even attempted to touch this.

Quote
Instead of expressing structural resistance in units we can use a percentage.

Say 100% structural resistance will hold the building up exactly, any more weight and it will start to collapse. Most working loads are two to four times (corrected, 30 to 100 times) the fail point.
So we can safely assume building 7 had over 100% structural resistance before it fell.

So we have gravitational acceleration - percentage of structural resistance = fall acceleration.

9.8m/s2×75%=7.35m/s2

9.8 m/s2 - 7.35m/s2 = 2.45 m/s2

At 75% structural resistance I would predict a 2.45m/s2 fall acceleration.

Obviously this doesnt calculate change and inertia, however it doesn't need to.

We can clearly see building 7 go from over 100% structural resistance to 0% pretty much instantly.

To go from totally upright and intact to free fall (gravitational acceleration) for 2.25 seconds violates the laws of physics.

The only way building 7 could do this is to have nearly all of its structural resistance removed nearly instantly.

The only way this is possible is a controlled demolition.

So, G- %S = F
Gravitational acceleration - percentage of structural resistance = fall acceleration.

Video for reference.


Rayzor enough with your dishonesty.

Quote from: Rayzor on February 23, 2017, 12:59:05 AM
I'll say it again,  the free fall of the bowling ball, doesn't tell you why the plank broke,  only that it did.

Quote from: disputeone on February 23, 2017, 01:00:08 AM
But theres not just one plank Rayzor.

I can't belive you are this dumb.

Quote from: disputeone on February 22, 2017, 12:32:51 AM
The centre dropping before the collapse at g is strong evidence of a controlled demolition, this happens when the central supports are initially cut, look into it, it looks like a textbook "pull"

I can show you a collapse at gravitational acceleration for 2.25 seconds here.

Quote
the analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:
Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity.

https://www.nist.gov/pba/questions-and-answers-about-nist-wtc-7-investigation

This video shows well when the building actually starts to fall. E.g stage one never happened...



Please see NIST's "models" for wtc 7



The collapses in the "model" are nowhere near free-fall or symmetrical

Also check this out.
(https://s16.postimg.org/egsybiml1/Screenshot_20170215_205717.png)

Please note that handing in your maths test without showing working equals a fail. Pay close attention to the fact it is stated they won't release the data because of "safety"

I'd love to believe the official story but I can't for the same reason I can't believe the earth is flat.

Here is a video of NIST's lead investigator explaining why free fall of the building is impossible given the official story.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 23, 2017, 01:31:50 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 23, 2017, 01:20:39 AM
It depends on the structure, for building 7, yes no doubt as I have explained the building would start to collapse long before a freefall.

(https://s23.postimg.org/tm6vxgb9n/pentagon_aerial.jpg)

Nowhere near enough damage to all but vaporise the plane.

Come on guys.

Well,  at least you stopped thinking the inner ring punchout hole was the impact point.   That's a little progress.

At 400 mph the plane would in fact have just about completely disintegrated,  most of the wreckage that did survive ended up inside the building,  not much outside.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 23, 2017, 01:34:53 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 23, 2017, 01:16:13 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on February 23, 2017, 01:05:43 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 23, 2017, 12:55:56 AM
This is 20 feet....

(http://i68.tinypic.com/9fyxjd.jpg)

Not quite, but it's pretty close and one wing did hit the ground before the impact, and that's also what that security footage suggests.

What security footage?? The one that shows 5 frames with 2 missing in the middle? And out of 80 plus tapes they have of it they release just that? With excuse of "it's too traumatic"? Yet they have no problem showing people falling out of the WTC?

Get real...There were no marks on the lawn either....

Nor did you answer anything else in my post of course...

As I said...You don't need to convince me of why you want to believe in miracles...Just don't try to convince me they aren't miracles.


Oh and fyi, to those that keep saying "but but...The planes were going fast, so there would be nothing left in them" obviously have no idea on physics or metallurgy...Not to mention every plane accident in the history of aviation.

Planes dont vaporize, sure sometimes we lose them and don't know where they wreck, but even then we eventually find them.

The average recognizable pieces of a plane wreck is around 350,000, sometimes more... Usually half of those have part numbers that can be verified by either maintenance logs or through design records.

Hell even challenger we found over 80,000 pieces and that was going almost 20k mph lol...

Not one found for 4 planes lmao....

Smdh...

Y'all need to get real....This is getting old.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 23, 2017, 01:35:09 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 23, 2017, 01:16:13 AM
Oh and fyi, to those that keep saying "but but...The planes were going fast, so there would be nothing left in them" obviously have no idea on physics or metallurgy...Not to mention every plane accident in the history of aviation.

Planes dont vaporize, sure sometimes we lose them and don't know where they wreck, but even then we eventually find them.

Are you sure about that?



This was a 500 mph impact with a structure designed to absorb the impact,  not a conventional building.  Still nothing much is left of the plane.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 23, 2017, 01:37:47 AM
Actually the towers were also built to withstand a passenger plane crash.

Edit, stop shilling up the thread and let us talk to the honest posters.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 23, 2017, 01:39:50 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 23, 2017, 01:37:47 AM
Actually the towers were also built to withstand a passenger plane crash.

Yes, and they did.   until some other as yet undetermined factors initiated the collapse.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 23, 2017, 01:41:58 AM
Edit in case that post "vaporises"
Quote from: Rayzor on February 23, 2017, 01:39:50 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 23, 2017, 01:37:47 AM
Actually the towers were also built to withstand a passenger plane crash.

Yes, and they did.   until some other as yet undetermined factors initiated the collapse.

I think we have conclusively proven it was CD on this thread, to be fair, haven't you been following?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 23, 2017, 01:49:20 AM
I said accident, not specifically designed test to stress test a wall.

I promise you there would be at least a few pieces of material that we can draw a part number off of. Not to mention this wall was designed to reflect the plane in its entirety.

Also, as you notice, this is a real plane collision, the moment the plane made contact with the wall it started to decelerate and break up...If this were 9/11, it would have just vanished into the wall.

Sure the exoskeleton of WTC would have been compromised in certain areas, but there would have been this reflection noticed as well instantly as we see here. It is very very simple physics.

Not disappearing inside of a building without a trace, then exploding when it feels like it.

Smdh
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 23, 2017, 01:49:44 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 23, 2017, 01:41:58 AM
I think we have conclusively proven it was CD on this thread to be fair, haven't you been following?

No, that was one  theory we discussed.  We concluded a new analysis was required, and NIST should release their models and supporting data.

You can leap to that conclusion if you like.  So long as you are aware that's not proven.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 23, 2017, 01:51:12 AM
Reminder of Rayzors dishonesty.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 23, 2017, 01:16:13 AM
Oh and fyi, to those that keep saying "but but...The planes were going fast, so there would be nothing left in them" obviously have no idea on physics or metallurgy...Not to mention every plane accident in the history of aviation.

Planes dont vaporize, sure sometimes we lose them and don't know where they wreck, but even then we eventually find them.

The average recognizable pieces of a plane wreck is around 350,000, sometimes more... Usually half of those have part numbers that can be verified by either maintenance logs or through design records.

Hell even challenger we found over 80,000 pieces and that was going almost 20k mph lol...

Not one found for 4 planes lmao....

Smdh...

Y'all need to get real....This is getting old.

Quote from: disputeone on February 23, 2017, 01:10:41 AM
Daily reminder no ones even attempted to touch this.

Quote
Instead of expressing structural resistance in units we can use a percentage.

Say 100% structural resistance will hold the building up exactly, any more weight and it will start to collapse. Most working loads are two to four times (corrected, 30 to 100 times) the fail point.
So we can safely assume building 7 had over 100% structural resistance before it fell.

So we have gravitational acceleration - percentage of structural resistance = fall acceleration.

9.8m/s2×75%=7.35m/s2

9.8 m/s2 - 7.35m/s2 = 2.45 m/s2

At 75% structural resistance I would predict a 2.45m/s2 fall acceleration.

Obviously this doesnt calculate change and inertia, however it doesn't need to.

We can clearly see building 7 go from over 100% structural resistance to 0% pretty much instantly.

To go from totally upright and intact to free fall (gravitational acceleration) for 2.25 seconds violates the laws of physics.

The only way building 7 could do this is to have nearly all of its structural resistance removed nearly instantly.

The only way this is possible is a controlled demolition.

So, G- %S = F
Gravitational acceleration - percentage of structural resistance = fall acceleration.

Video for reference.


Rayzor enough with your dishonesty.

Quote from: Rayzor on February 23, 2017, 12:59:05 AM
I'll say it again,  the free fall of the bowling ball, doesn't tell you why the plank broke,  only that it did.

Quote from: disputeone on February 23, 2017, 01:00:08 AM
But theres not just one plank Rayzor.

I can't belive you are this dumb.

Quote from: disputeone on February 22, 2017, 12:32:51 AM
The centre dropping before the collapse at g is strong evidence of a controlled demolition, this happens when the central supports are initially cut, look into it, it looks like a textbook "pull"

I can show you a collapse at gravitational acceleration for 2.25 seconds here.

Quote
the analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:
Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity.

https://www.nist.gov/pba/questions-and-answers-about-nist-wtc-7-investigation

This video shows well when the building actually starts to fall. E.g stage one never happened...



Please see NIST's "models" for wtc 7



The collapses in the "model" are nowhere near free-fall or symmetrical

Also check this out.
(https://s16.postimg.org/egsybiml1/Screenshot_20170215_205717.png)

Please note that handing in your maths test without showing working equals a fail. Pay close attention to the fact it is stated they won't release the data because of "safety"

I'd love to believe the official story but I can't for the same reason I can't believe the earth is flat.

Here is a video of NIST's lead investigator explaining why free fall of the building is impossible given the official story.




Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 23, 2017, 01:49:20 AM
I said accident, not specifically designed test to stress test a wall.

I promise you there would be at least a few pieces of material that we can draw a part number off of. Not to mention this wall was designed to reflect the plane in its entirety.

Also, as you notice, this is a real plane collision, the moment the plane made contact with the wall it started to decelerate and break up...If this were 9/11, it would have just vanished into the wall.

Sure the exoskeleton of WTC would have been compromised in certain areas, but there would have been this reflection noticed as well instantly as we see here. It is very very simple physics.

Not disappearing inside of a building without a trace, then exploding when it feels like it.

Smdh
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 23, 2017, 01:52:25 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 23, 2017, 01:34:53 AM
What security footage??
The only security footage of it.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 23, 2017, 01:34:53 AM
The one that shows 5 frames with 2 missing in the middle? And out of 80 plus tapes they have of it they release just that? With excuse of "it's too traumatic"? Yet they have no problem showing people falling out of the WTC?
Source?

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 23, 2017, 01:34:53 AM
Get real...There were no marks on the lawn either....
Source?

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 23, 2017, 01:34:53 AM
Nor did you answer anything else in my post of course...
Sorry, but most of it was just baseless assertions.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 23, 2017, 01:34:53 AM
The average recognizable pieces of a plane wreck is around 350,000, sometimes more... Usually half of those have part numbers that can be verified by either maintenance logs or through design records.

Hell even challenger we found over 80,000 pieces and that was going almost 20k mph lol...

Not one found for 4 planes lmao....

Smdh...

Y'all need to get real....This is getting old.
Source?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 23, 2017, 01:55:27 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 23, 2017, 01:49:20 AM
I said accident, not specifically designed test to stress test a wall.

I promise you there would be at least a few pieces of material that we can draw a part number off of. Not to mention this wall was designed to reflect the plane in its entirety.

Also, as you notice, this is a real plane collision, the moment the plane made contact with the wall it started to decelerate and break up...If this were 9/11, it would have just vanished into the wall.

Sure the exoskeleton of WTC would have been compromised in certain areas, but there would have been this reflection noticed as well instantly as we see here. It is very very simple physics.

Not disappearing inside of a building without a trace, then exploding when it feels like it.

Smdh

That  animated gif that was posted earlier is deliberately misleading  you only need to roll on a few more frames to see the impact damage.



You definition of "without a trace"  is not supported by the video evidence.



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 23, 2017, 02:04:31 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on February 23, 2017, 01:52:25 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 23, 2017, 01:34:53 AM
What security footage??
The only security footage of it.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 23, 2017, 01:34:53 AM
The one that shows 5 frames with 2 missing in the middle? And out of 80 plus tapes they have of it they release just that? With excuse of "it's too traumatic"? Yet they have no problem showing people falling out of the WTC?
Source?


Check out the car driving in not even hearing or seeing the plane lol.

Quote
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 23, 2017, 01:34:53 AM
Get real...There were no marks on the lawn either....
Source?

(https://s4.postimg.org/xez2b5ael/00003e01_medium.jpg)

The fence and lightposts are still up lmao...

(https://s17.postimg.org/bmy7ln0a7/images_99.jpg)


Quote
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 23, 2017, 01:34:53 AM
Nor did you answer anything else in my post of course...
Sorry, but most of it was just baseless assertions.

Incorrect.

Quote
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 23, 2017, 01:34:53 AM
The average recognizable pieces of a plane wreck is around 350,000, sometimes more... Usually half of those have part numbers that can be verified by either maintenance logs or through design records.

Hell even challenger we found over 80,000 pieces and that was going almost 20k mph lol...

Not one found for 4 planes lmao....

Smdh...

Y'all need to get real....This is getting old.
Source?

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Plane+crashes
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 23, 2017, 02:07:16 AM
The gif is just a simple frame by frame....Just that alone is impossible.

Either you have zero knowledge in anything we are discussing here, can't let your ego be bruised, mentally handicapped, or a shill... However, I can't go back to square one with you, it is a waste of my time.


Master I am going to tell you the same thing I told rayzor in the very beginning...I don't have time to teach you how the wheel is made.

If you can't hold even the most basic conversation please just watch the thread or don't visit. I didn't figure you for someone who would be this "sort", however I have been wrong before.

So please, do some research first, as well as learn some of the basics that you would need to know in fields pertaining to this subject.

That is if you actually care about truth, if not, and you only want to reinforce your preconceived notions at whatever cost, reality and truth be dammed....Then fine, live your life that way, I don't fault you.

Just don't waste my time.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 23, 2017, 02:10:05 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 23, 2017, 01:55:27 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 23, 2017, 01:49:20 AM
I said accident, not specifically designed test to stress test a wall.

I promise you there would be at least a few pieces of material that we can draw a part number off of. Not to mention this wall was designed to reflect the plane in its entirety.

Also, as you notice, this is a real plane collision, the moment the plane made contact with the wall it started to decelerate and break up...If this were 9/11, it would have just vanished into the wall.

Sure the exoskeleton of WTC would have been compromised in certain areas, but there would have been this reflection noticed as well instantly as we see here. It is very very simple physics.

Not disappearing inside of a building without a trace, then exploding when it feels like it.

Smdh

That  animated gif that was posted earlier is deliberately misleading  you only need to roll on a few more frames to see the impact damage.

Why wasn't the impact damage done as the plane entered the building, surely momentum vs structural resistance happens the instant the momentum meets the structural resistance????
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 23, 2017, 02:16:48 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 23, 2017, 02:04:31 AM
(http://)

Check out the car driving in not even hearing or seeing the plane lol.
Yeah, it really is surprising that they were concentrated on driving.. (sorry for the sarcasm).
Anyways, don't see what BHS meant by missing frames.

Quote from: disputeone on February 23, 2017, 02:04:31 AM
(https://s4.postimg.org/xez2b5ael/00003e01_medium.jpg)

The fence and lightposts are still up lmao...

(https://s17.postimg.org/bmy7ln0a7/images_99.jpg)
I can't see the lawn in front of the impact site in the first picture, so I'm not sure what this photo is supposed to prove. The second picture is not at a good angle, and the lawn to the left of the impact is obscured.


Quote from: disputeone on February 23, 2017, 02:04:31 AM
Incorrect.
Did he quote/cite any sources? I'm very positive that he didn't.

Quote from: disputeone on February 23, 2017, 02:04:31 AM
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Plane+crashes
Ah, a bunch of lists/top 5's of plane crashes, just the evidence I need right? (Not sorry for sarcasm this time, that was a bit disrespectful).
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 23, 2017, 02:17:45 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 23, 2017, 02:10:05 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 23, 2017, 01:55:27 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 23, 2017, 01:49:20 AM
I said accident, not specifically designed test to stress test a wall.

I promise you there would be at least a few pieces of material that we can draw a part number off of. Not to mention this wall was designed to reflect the plane in its entirety.

Also, as you notice, this is a real plane collision, the moment the plane made contact with the wall it started to decelerate and break up...If this were 9/11, it would have just vanished into the wall.

Sure the exoskeleton of WTC would have been compromised in certain areas, but there would have been this reflection noticed as well instantly as we see here. It is very very simple physics.

Not disappearing inside of a building without a trace, then exploding when it feels like it.

Smdh

That  animated gif that was posted earlier is deliberately misleading  you only need to roll on a few more frames to see the impact damage.

Why wasn't the impact damage done as the plane entered the building, surely momentum vs structural resistance happens the instant the momentum meets the structural resistance????

It was,  you can see the aluminium cladding getting shredded.

And it's NOT momentum vs structural strength,  it's CHANGE in momentum vs the resistance of the structure to various forms of failure.   

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 23, 2017, 02:18:39 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on February 23, 2017, 02:16:48 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 23, 2017, 02:04:31 AM
(http://)

Check out the car driving in not even hearing or seeing the plane lol.
Yeah, it really is surprising that they were concentrated on driving.. (sorry for the sarcasm).
Anyways, don't see what BHS meant by missing frames.

Quote from: disputeone on February 23, 2017, 02:04:31 AM
(https://s4.postimg.org/xez2b5ael/00003e01_medium.jpg)

The fence and lightposts are still up lmao...

(https://s17.postimg.org/bmy7ln0a7/images_99.jpg)
I can't see the lawn in front of the impact site in the first picture, so I'm not sure what this photo is supposed to prove. The second picture is not at a good angle, and the lawn to the left of the impact is obscured.


Quote from: disputeone on February 23, 2017, 02:04:31 AM
Incorrect.
Did he quote/cite any sources? I'm very positive that he didn't.

Quote from: disputeone on February 23, 2017, 02:04:31 AM
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Plane+crashes
Ah, a bunch of lists/top 5's of plane crashes, just the evidence I need right? (Not sorry for sarcasm this time, that was a bit disrespectful).

Quote from: Rayzor on February 23, 2017, 02:17:45 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 23, 2017, 02:10:05 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 23, 2017, 01:55:27 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 23, 2017, 01:49:20 AM
I said accident, not specifically designed test to stress test a wall.

I promise you there would be at least a few pieces of material that we can draw a part number off of. Not to mention this wall was designed to reflect the plane in its entirety.

Also, as you notice, this is a real plane collision, the moment the plane made contact with the wall it started to decelerate and break up...If this were 9/11, it would have just vanished into the wall.

Sure the exoskeleton of WTC would have been compromised in certain areas, but there would have been this reflection noticed as well instantly as we see here. It is very very simple physics.

Not disappearing inside of a building without a trace, then exploding when it feels like it.

Smdh

That  animated gif that was posted earlier is deliberately misleading  you only need to roll on a few more frames to see the impact damage.

Why wasn't the impact damage done as the plane entered the building, surely momentum vs structural resistance happens the instant the momentum meets the structural resistance????

It was,  you can see the aluminium cladding getting shredded.


Are you serious?

Are you interested in truth or do you want to believe what is comfortable?

We've said it before your right to your beliefs is your own.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 23, 2017, 02:25:40 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 23, 2017, 02:07:16 AM
Master I am going to tell you the same thing I told rayzor in the very beginning...I don't have time to teach you how the wheel is made.
You claimed that the maneuver at pentagon is impossible. A website by experienced pilots and such, provided by disputeone, disagrees and says it is possible, and they even calculated it wrongly. I don't think you're in a position to say that.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 23, 2017, 02:07:16 AM
If you can't hold even the most basic conversation please just watch the thread or don't visit. I didn't figure you for someone who would be this "sort", however I have been wrong before.
You're the one who seldom provides citation for your claims. I am capable of holding a more than basic conversation.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 23, 2017, 02:07:16 AM
So please, do some research first, as well as learn some of the basics that you would need to know in fields pertaining to this subject.
I did some research as proved by my analysis of the analysis by pilots of the 9/11 commission report. Can you prove you have done your research?

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 23, 2017, 02:07:16 AM
That is if you actually care about truth, if not, and you only want to reinforce your preconceived notions at whatever cost, reality and truth be dammed....Then fine, live your life that way, I don't fault you.

Just don't waste my time.
I care about truth, which is why I, as opposed to you, try to keep my arguments based on facts and don't claim absolutes when I can't prove or substantiate them enough.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 23, 2017, 02:27:31 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 23, 2017, 02:18:39 AM
[Are you serious?
Yes  very.   

Quote from: disputeone on February 23, 2017, 02:18:39 AM
Are you interested in truth or do you want to believe what is comfortable?
Read the thread title I chose.

Quote from: disputeone on February 23, 2017, 02:18:39 AM
We've said it before your right to your beliefs is your own.

I'll add the obvious qualifier,  everyone is entitled to his or her opinion,  but not their own facts.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 23, 2017, 02:29:16 AM
Getting back on track about AAL 77,   if you claim it didn't hit the pentagon what happened to it?

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 23, 2017, 02:30:20 AM
Master Evar I am basing my opinion on facts.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 23, 2017, 01:16:13 AM
Oh and fyi, to those that keep saying "but but...The planes were going fast, so there would be nothing left in them" obviously have no idea on physics or metallurgy...Not to mention every plane accident in the history of aviation.

Planes dont vaporize, sure sometimes we lose them and don't know where they wreck, but even then we eventually find them.

The average recognizable pieces of a plane wreck is around 350,000, sometimes more... Usually half of those have part numbers that can be verified by either maintenance logs or through design records.

Hell even challenger we found over 80,000 pieces and that was going almost 20k mph lol...

Not one found for 4 planes lmao....

Smdh...

Y'all need to get real....This is getting old.

Quote from: disputeone on February 23, 2017, 01:10:41 AM
Daily reminder no ones even attempted to touch this.

Quote
Instead of expressing structural resistance in units we can use a percentage.

Say 100% structural resistance will hold the building up exactly, any more weight and it will start to collapse. Most working loads are two to four times (corrected, 30 to 100 times) the fail point.
So we can safely assume building 7 had over 100% structural resistance before it fell.

So we have gravitational acceleration - percentage of structural resistance = fall acceleration.

9.8m/s2×75%=7.35m/s2

9.8 m/s2 - 7.35m/s2 = 2.45 m/s2

At 75% structural resistance I would predict a 2.45m/s2 fall acceleration.

Obviously this doesnt calculate change and inertia, however it doesn't need to.

We can clearly see building 7 go from over 100% structural resistance to 0% pretty much instantly.

To go from totally upright and intact to free fall (gravitational acceleration) for 2.25 seconds violates the laws of physics.

The only way building 7 could do this is to have nearly all of its structural resistance removed nearly instantly.

The only way this is possible is a controlled demolition.

So, G- %S = F
Gravitational acceleration - percentage of structural resistance = fall acceleration.

Video for reference.


Rayzor enough with your dishonesty.

Quote from: Rayzor on February 23, 2017, 12:59:05 AM
I'll say it again,  the free fall of the bowling ball, doesn't tell you why the plank broke,  only that it did.

Quote from: disputeone on February 23, 2017, 01:00:08 AM
But theres not just one plank Rayzor.

I can't belive you are this dumb.

Quote from: disputeone on February 22, 2017, 12:32:51 AM
The centre dropping before the collapse at g is strong evidence of a controlled demolition, this happens when the central supports are initially cut, look into it, it looks like a textbook "pull"

I can show you a collapse at gravitational acceleration for 2.25 seconds here.

Quote
the analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:
Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity.

https://www.nist.gov/pba/questions-and-answers-about-nist-wtc-7-investigation

This video shows well when the building actually starts to fall. E.g stage one never happened...



Please see NIST's "models" for wtc 7



The collapses in the "model" are nowhere near free-fall or symmetrical

Also check this out.
(https://s16.postimg.org/egsybiml1/Screenshot_20170215_205717.png)

Please note that handing in your maths test without showing working equals a fail. Pay close attention to the fact it is stated they won't release the data because of "safety"

I'd love to believe the official story but I can't for the same reason I can't believe the earth is flat.

Here is a video of NIST's lead investigator explaining why free fall of the building is impossible given the official story.



Quote from: Rayzor on February 23, 2017, 02:29:16 AM
Getting back on track about AAL 77,   if you claim it didn't hit the pentagon what happened to it?

Obvious shillary is obvious.

Thought you might be an honest person before your "qantas pilot" mate, yuck.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 23, 2017, 02:38:17 AM
Those are not facts. First, it's blatantly false that not a single piece of any of the 4 aircrafts were found.
Secondly, WTC7 did not accelerate at g, but near g, and your claim that the collapse couldn't "start" (as I have pointed out many times before, the collapse probably began inside the building long before you'd notice the walls go down) at g isn't a fact, it's just a claim. If that's a fact, then it's a fact that god doesn't exist. You can't prove such negatives.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 23, 2017, 02:40:53 AM
2.25 seconds at g.

Quote from: NIST
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)

https://www.nist.gov/pba/questions-and-answers-about-nist-wtc-7-investigation

Edit check out how far the tower "falls" in the first 1.75 seconds.

You're much smarter than this.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 23, 2017, 02:47:08 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on February 23, 2017, 02:25:40 AM

You have never spoken specifics with me... I don't need citations from anything I speak from that is in my field. It is simple things things that can be found in any accepted educational material..As I said I don't have time to teach you the wheel. Just don't accuse me of avoiding a conversation.

As for the aerial maneuvers to flying at 20 feet..I am not a pilot, but have have dealt with enough to draw a firm conclusion. This also includes my grandfather who raised me....

If it werent for 9/11 I would be in the military right now, that was the entire plan from an early age to follow in his footsteps. HE is the one who said not to join...A Patriot told me that, those in charge can no longer be trusted as he said. (Yes ex pilot, navy then air force, then went with TI after retiring from service, retired from TI running a fleet of lear jets...By the way ask John Lear what he things of 9/11)


Anyways, anything I state from my own expertise is simple design specs of the buildings, metallurgical makeup, stress tolerances etc etc...To much to list, same with the planes. This are areas I can talk with authority...Other areas I provide citations that I do not have expertise from if I need someone else's expert option..I even do this with things from my field many times.

Also, as for if I studied the official story...Read the damn thread for that answer...

If someone from my field is bullshitting me I don't need Google to call them and vice versa.... I prefer real world things...

Actually I am stopping here from new posts yall posted to address them....Y'all are wasting my time ...


Master....Not one single piece of any of these planes were found. There was a couple random pieces that didn't even belong to a 767 or 757....Not a single piece confirmed...Not a single part number, not an investigation...Which violates FAA 121 alone, and that would be considered criminal in any other case.

Do some research master..You obviously have done zero...And please, learn some on the foundation subjects as well.

I am sorry for the harshness, just stupidity and ignorance is really starting to bug me
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 23, 2017, 02:51:41 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 23, 2017, 02:40:53 AM
You're much smarter than this.

I would tend to agree...I am surprised at master's demeanor in this thread...It saddens me.

I am sure he is more intelligent though...He just doesn't want to be, you can't be with this story...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 23, 2017, 02:52:55 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 23, 2017, 02:51:41 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 23, 2017, 02:40:53 AM
You're much smarter than this.

I would tend to agree...I am surprised at master's demeanor in this thread...It saddens me.

I am sure he is more intelligent though...He just doesn't want to be, you can't be with this story...

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 23, 2017, 02:56:30 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 23, 2017, 02:40:53 AM
2.25 seconds at g.

Quote from: NIST
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)

https://www.nist.gov/pba/questions-and-answers-about-nist-wtc-7-investigation

Edit check out how far the tower "falls" in the first 1.75 seconds.

You're much smarter than this.
Close to freefall, yes.

From the report:
Quote
The heat from the uncontrolled fires caused steel floor beams and girders to thermally expand, leading to a chain of events that caused a key structural column to fail. The failure of this structural column then initiated a fire-induced progressive collapse of the entire building.
According to the report's probable collapse sequence, heat from the uncontrolled fires caused thermal expansion of the steel beams on the lower floors of the east side of WTC 7, damaging the floor framing on multiple floors.
Eventually, a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical column, Column 79, that provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building (see Diagram 1). The displaced girder and other local fire-induced damage caused Floor 13 to collapse, beginning a cascade of floor failures down to the 5th floor. Many of these floors had already been at least partially weakened by the fires in the vicinity of Column 79. This collapse of floors left Column 79 insufficiently supported in the east-west direction over nine stories.
The unsupported Column 79 then buckled and triggered an upward progression of floor system failures that reached the building's east penthouse. What followed in rapid succession was a series of structural failures. Failure first occurred all the way to the roof line-involving all three interior columns on the easternmost side of the building (79, 80, 81). Then, progressing from east to west across WTC 7, all of the columns failed in the core of the building (58 through 78). Finally, the entire façade collapsed.
This is kind of how I thought it would happen. The facade went down last, and as the report states it didn't immediately enter freefall - it took 1.75 seconds before doing that, enough time that shifting loads can destroy most structural support. As we can see in footage, the corners gave out last.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 23, 2017, 02:57:38 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 23, 2017, 02:30:20 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 23, 2017, 02:29:16 AM
Getting back on track about AAL 77,   if you claim it didn't hit the pentagon what happened to it?

Obvious shillary is obvious.

Thought you might be an honest person before your "qantas pilot" mate, yuck.

I regard that as an unwarranted personal attack.    I take it you don't want to go back to a slanging match,  try answering the question instead of making personal insults.  and posting stupid memes

If you claim AAL 77 didn't hit the pentagon,  what happened to it?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 23, 2017, 02:59:02 AM
Instead of expressing structural resistance in units we can use a percentage.

Say 100% structural resistance will hold the building up exactly, any more weight and it will start to collapse. Most working loads are two to four times (corrected, 30 to 100 times) the fail point.
So we can safely assume building 7 had over 100% structural resistance before it fell.

So we have gravitational acceleration - percentage of structural resistance = fall acceleration.

9.8m/s2×75%=7.35m/s2

9.8 m/s2 - 7.35m/s2 = 2.45 m/s2

At 75% structural resistance I would predict a 2.45m/s2 fall acceleration.

Obviously this doesnt calculate change and inertia, however it doesn't need to.

We can clearly see building 7 go from over 100% structural resistance to 0% pretty much instantly.

To go from totally upright and intact to free fall (gravitational acceleration) for 2.25 seconds violates the laws of physics.

The only way building 7 could do this is to have nearly all of its structural resistance removed nearly instantly.

The only way this is possible is a controlled demolition.

So, G- %S = F
Gravitational acceleration - percentage of structural resistance = fall acceleration.

Video for reference.


Rayzor enough with your dishonesty.

Quote from: Rayzor on February 23, 2017, 12:59:05 AM
I'll say it again,  the free fall of the bowling ball, doesn't tell you why the plank broke,  only that it did.

Quote from: disputeone on February 23, 2017, 01:00:08 AM
But theres not just one plank Rayzor.

I can't belive you are this dumb.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Heiwa on February 23, 2017, 02:59:44 AM
(https://s17.postimg.org/bmy7ln0a7/images_99.jpg)

I like this fake photo. The Pentagon building's windows 3rd/4th floor left are intact after the adjacent windows right have dropped down after the fake, local destruction of the Pentagon outer wall 911 attack.
Pls don't tell me they were repaired and wiped clean by US Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld's little boy Donald Trump after the show. 
No, so who did it?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 23, 2017, 03:02:14 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 23, 2017, 02:47:08 AM
Master....Not one single piece of any of these planes were found. There was a couple random pieces that didn't even belong to a 767 or 757....Not a single piece confirmed...Not a single part number, not an investigation...Which violates FAA 121 alone, and that would be considered criminal in any other case.

FDR from AAL 77 was recovered from the imapct zone.   So you appear to be misinformed yet again.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 23, 2017, 03:04:02 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on February 23, 2017, 02:56:30 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 23, 2017, 02:40:53 AM
2.25 seconds at g.

Quote from: NIST
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)

https://www.nist.gov/pba/questions-and-answers-about-nist-wtc-7-investigation

Edit check out how far the tower "falls" in the first 1.75 seconds.

You're much smarter than this.
Close to freefall, yes.

2.25 seconds at g.

Quote from: NIST
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)

https://www.nist.gov/pba/questions-and-answers-about-nist-wtc-7-investigation

Edit.
Meme for Rayzor because I know how much he enjoys them.

(https://s4.postimg.org/50y0ksbb1/rayzorlookinthemirrorforme.jpg)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 23, 2017, 03:06:13 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 23, 2017, 02:59:02 AM
Instead of expressing structural resistance in units we can use a percentage.

Say 100% structural resistance will hold the building up exactly, any more weight and it will start to collapse. Most working loads are two to four times (corrected, 30 to 100 times) the fail point.
So we can safely assume building 7 had over 100% structural resistance before it fell.

So we have gravitational acceleration - percentage of structural resistance = fall acceleration.

9.8m/s2×75%=7.35m/s2

9.8 m/s2 - 7.35m/s2 = 2.45 m/s2

At 75% structural resistance I would predict a 2.45m/s2 fall acceleration.

Obviously this doesnt calculate change and inertia, however it doesn't need to.

We can clearly see building 7 go from over 100% structural resistance to 0% pretty much instantly.

To go from totally upright and intact to free fall (gravitational acceleration) for 2.25 seconds violates the laws of physics.

The only way building 7 could do this is to have nearly all of its structural resistance removed nearly instantly.

The only way this is possible is a controlled demolition.

So, G- %S = F
Gravitational acceleration - percentage of structural resistance = fall acceleration.

Rayzor enough with your dishonesty.

Quote from: Rayzor on February 23, 2017, 12:59:05 AM
I'll say it again,  the free fall of the bowling ball, doesn't tell you why the plank broke,  only that it did.

Quote from: disputeone on February 23, 2017, 01:00:08 AM
But theres not just one plank Rayzor.

I can't belive you are this dumb.

You diodged the question I asked.

In your expert opinion is evidence of free fall a necessary and sufficient condition to conclude controlled demolition?

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 23, 2017, 03:07:44 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on February 23, 2017, 02:56:30 AM

From the report:
Quote
The heat from the uncontrolled fires caused steel floor beams and girders to thermally expand, leading to a chain of events that caused a key structural column to fail. The failure of this structural column then initiated a fire-induced progressive collapse of the entire building.
According to the report's probable collapse sequence, heat from the uncontrolled fires caused thermpansion of the steel beams on the lower floors of the east side of WTC 7, damaging the floor framing on multiple floors.
Eventually, a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical column, Column 79, that provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building (see Diagram 1). The displaced girder and other local fire-induced damage caused Floor 13 to collapse, beginning a cascade of floor failures down to the 5th floor. Many of these floors had already been at least partially weakened by the fires in the vicinity of Column 79. This collapse of floors left Column 79 insufficiently supported in the east-west direction over nine stories.
The unsupported Column 79 then buckled and triggered an upward progression of floor system failures that reached the building's east penthouse. What followed in rapid succession was a series of structural failures. Failure first occurred all the way to the roof line-involving all three interior columns on the easternmost side of the building (79, 80, 81). Then, progressing from east to west across WTC 7, all of the columns failed in the core of the building (58 through 78). Finally, the entire façade collapsed.


Negative....Cert load of the beams and joints alone defy this magic story...Not to mention the actual failure load necessary.

Then you add in the increased density of floors below the 28th (little over double that of the upper floors) beams went to concrete in cased I beams, then boxed beams, reinforced with a web of support trusses..Below the 28th was a tank. It was built close to 30 times stronger than it needed to be when you add in the ratio for complete failure. This is how they did things then before computer aided design got so complex where we could do hollow tube design and ad in CG compensation devices.

Then they made an acceptable design, then doubled it a few times to be safe.

This is just for starters..

This collapse would not be possible by a fire on a floor that was already extinguished causing a beam to get too hot.

They know all this, they aren't stupid. This is why they won't release the inputs...You can't
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 23, 2017, 03:11:18 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 23, 2017, 03:06:13 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 23, 2017, 02:59:02 AM
Instead of expressing structural resistance in units we can use a percentage.

Say 100% structural resistance will hold the building up exactly, any more weight and it will start to collapse. Most working loads are two to four times (corrected, 30 to 100 times) the fail point.
So we can safely assume building 7 had over 100% structural resistance before it fell.

So we have gravitational acceleration - percentage of structural resistance = fall acceleration.

9.8m/s2×75%=7.35m/s2

9.8 m/s2 - 7.35m/s2 = 2.45 m/s2

At 75% structural resistance I would predict a 2.45m/s2 fall acceleration.

Obviously this doesnt calculate change and inertia, however it doesn't need to.

We can clearly see building 7 go from over 100% structural resistance to 0% pretty much instantly.

To go from totally upright and intact to free fall (gravitational acceleration) for 2.25 seconds violates the laws of physics.

The only way building 7 could do this is to have nearly all of its structural resistance removed nearly instantly.

The only way this is possible is a controlled demolition.

So, G- %S = F
Gravitational acceleration - percentage of structural resistance = fall acceleration.

Rayzor enough with your dishonesty.

Quote from: Rayzor on February 23, 2017, 12:59:05 AM
I'll say it again,  the free fall of the bowling ball, doesn't tell you why the plank broke,  only that it did.

Quote from: disputeone on February 23, 2017, 01:00:08 AM
But theres not just one plank Rayzor.

I can't belive you are this dumb.

You diodged the question I asked.

In your expert opinion is evidence of free fall a necessary and sufficient condition to conclude controlled demolition?

In the case of building 7 with the circumstances we were told and saw, in my opinion, yes, any reasonable person can see occams razor dictates a controlled demolition.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 23, 2017, 03:16:04 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 23, 2017, 03:02:14 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 23, 2017, 02:47:08 AM
Master....Not one single piece of any of these planes were found. There was a couple random pieces that didn't even belong to a 767 or 757....Not a single piece confirmed...Not a single part number, not an investigation...Which violates FAA 121 alone, and that would be considered criminal in any other case.

FDR from AAL 77 was recovered from the imapct zone.   So you appear to be misinformed yet again.

I love it when you think you have a point on something.

You mean the FDR that was supposed to be found at the scene, yet they won't tell us where or when they found it. They took 6 years to release the info...

Then the info shows the plane would have been 400 feet over the Pentagon....Then, it stopped recording one second before "impact"...

Lol...

Not to mention ignore everything I wrote in that post...

Smdh...

Y'all need to come to grips with yourself
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on February 23, 2017, 03:19:01 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar link=topic=69306.msg1873043#msg1873043
Not quite, but it's pretty close and one wing did hit the ground before the impact, and that's also what that security footage suggests.

LMFAO!

Kindly point out in the security footage that even indicates a plane was present!

Your imagination is astounding!
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 23, 2017, 03:19:18 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 23, 2017, 03:11:18 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 23, 2017, 03:06:13 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 23, 2017, 02:59:02 AM
Instead of expressing structural resistance in units we can use a percentage.

Say 100% structural resistance will hold the building up exactly, any more weight and it will start to collapse. Most working loads are two to four times (corrected, 30 to 100 times) the fail point.
So we can safely assume building 7 had over 100% structural resistance before it fell.

So we have gravitational acceleration - percentage of structural resistance = fall acceleration.

9.8m/s2×75%=7.35m/s2

9.8 m/s2 - 7.35m/s2 = 2.45 m/s2

At 75% structural resistance I would predict a 2.45m/s2 fall acceleration.

Obviously this doesnt calculate change and inertia, however it doesn't need to.

We can clearly see building 7 go from over 100% structural resistance to 0% pretty much instantly.

To go from totally upright and intact to free fall (gravitational acceleration) for 2.25 seconds violates the laws of physics.

The only way building 7 could do this is to have nearly all of its structural resistance removed nearly instantly.

The only way this is possible is a controlled demolition.

So, G- %S = F
Gravitational acceleration - percentage of structural resistance = fall acceleration.

Rayzor enough with your dishonesty.

Quote from: Rayzor on February 23, 2017, 12:59:05 AM
I'll say it again,  the free fall of the bowling ball, doesn't tell you why the plank broke,  only that it did.

Quote from: disputeone on February 23, 2017, 01:00:08 AM
But theres not just one plank Rayzor.

I can't belive you are this dumb.

You diodged the question I asked.

In your expert opinion is evidence of free fall a necessary and sufficient condition to conclude controlled demolition?

In the case of building 7 with the circumstances we were told and saw, in my opinion, yes, any reasonable person can see occams razor dictates a controlled demolition.

Ok,   do you also accept that in controlled demolitions  buildings don't always fall at free fall rates?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 23, 2017, 03:19:42 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 23, 2017, 02:47:08 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on February 23, 2017, 02:25:40 AM

You have never spoken specifics with me... I don't need citations from anything I speak from that is in my field. It is simple things things that can be found in any accepted educational material..As I said I don't have time to teach you the wheel. Just don't accuse me of avoiding a conversation.
I have repeatedly told you that I do not like guessing numbers in my arguments, if I know I'm likely to be way off. I have repeatedly told you that I have no problem discussing specifics, and that you can bring up anything. I just have a problem with discussing specifics that aren't supported. As you see in my analysis-post, I went into some specifics and even guessed some numbers, because I'd be unlikely to be way off.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 23, 2017, 02:47:08 AM
As for the aerial maneuvers to flying at 20 feet..I am not a pilot, but have have dealt with enough to draw a firm conclusion. This also includes my grandfather who raised me....
Even experienced pilots who agree with you that 9/11 is a hoax disagrees with you on the impossibility of the maneuver. If you won't listen to me, at leat listen to other "truth seekers" that feel the same way you do.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 23, 2017, 02:47:08 AM
Anyways, anything I state from my own expertise is simple design specs of the buildings, metallurgical makeup, stress tolerances etc etc...To much to list, same with the planes. This are areas I can talk with authority...Other areas I provide citations that I do not have expertise from if I need someone else's expert option..I even do this with things from my field many times.
On this internet forum, no one can really prove they are an authority. I'm not gonna say that you outright lie, however I do think you are prone to exaggerating. If you could provide citation that what you say is at least true for the twin towers or WTC 7, at least something, I'd be more trustful of you.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 23, 2017, 02:47:08 AM
Master....Not one single piece of any of these planes were found. There was a couple random pieces that didn't even belong to a 767 or 757....Not a single piece confirmed...Not a single part number, not an investigation...Which violates FAA 121 alone, and that would be considered criminal in any other case.
This, however, I'm very positive is an outright lie. Not necessarily by you. There's plenty of evidence of parts of the planes existing. Can you provide som evidence that no plane parts where found (and no, random interviews of people "not seeing anything" isn't good enough, there's plenty of interviews of people who did see)? I doubt it.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 23, 2017, 02:47:08 AM
Do some research master..You obviously have done zero...And please, learn some on the foundation subjects as well.

I am sorry for the harshness, just stupidity and ignorance is really starting to bug me
Ahahahaha... Sorry, but OH the hypocrisy. I have done research, as evident by my analysis. You, on the other hand, seems to not have done much research on the planes (well, at least not any factual research on the statistics of the crash). I'm not just going to take your word on it. Seriously, you're supposed to be the one who speaks out against being too gullible, then you expect others to take your words for granted.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 23, 2017, 03:21:30 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 23, 2017, 03:04:02 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on February 23, 2017, 02:56:30 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 23, 2017, 02:40:53 AM
2.25 seconds at g.

Quote from: NIST
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)

https://www.nist.gov/pba/questions-and-answers-about-nist-wtc-7-investigation

Edit check out how far the tower "falls" in the first 1.75 seconds.

You're much smarter than this.
Close to freefall, yes.

2.25 seconds at g.

Quote from: NIST
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)

https://www.nist.gov/pba/questions-and-answers-about-nist-wtc-7-investigation

Edit.
Meme for Rayzor because I know how much he enjoys them.

(https://s4.postimg.org/50y0ksbb1/rayzorlookinthemirrorforme.jpg)
What I'm saying is that it's maybe 9.7 m/s^2 instead of 9.8m/s^2. Hell, the air would slow the acceleration. That's what I mean by "near g". That doesn't debunk anything that I said.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 23, 2017, 03:25:00 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 23, 2017, 03:16:04 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 23, 2017, 03:02:14 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 23, 2017, 02:47:08 AM
Master....Not one single piece of any of these planes were found. There was a couple random pieces that didn't even belong to a 767 or 757....Not a single piece confirmed...Not a single part number, not an investigation...Which violates FAA 121 alone, and that would be considered criminal in any other case.

FDR from AAL 77 was recovered from the imapct zone.   So you appear to be misinformed yet again.

I love it when you think you have a point on something.

You mean the FDR that was supposed to be found at the scene, yet they won't tell us where or when they found it. They took 6 years to release the info...

Then the info shows the plane would have been 400 feet over the Pentagon....Then, it stopped recording one second before "impact"...

Lol...

Not to mention ignore everything I wrote in that post...

Smdh...

Y'all need to come to grips with yourself

Did you actually look at the FDR analysis?   http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/Calibration%20of%20altimeter_92.pdf
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 23, 2017, 03:27:20 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 23, 2017, 03:07:44 AM
Negative....Cert load of the beams and joints alone defy this magic story...Not to mention the actual failure load necessary.
Source? No, your expert opinion is not enough.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 23, 2017, 03:07:44 AM
Then you add in the increased density of floors below the 28th (little over double that of the upper floors) beams went to concrete in cased I beams, then boxed beams, reinforced with a web of support trusses..Below the 28th was a tank. It was built close to 30 times stronger than it needed to be when you add in the ratio for complete failure. This is how they did things then before computer aided design got so complex where we could do hollow tube design and ad in CG compensation devices.
Do you have any evidence that this is specifically true for WTC 7? And what kind of strength are you speaking of, only compression or are you actually taking bending and pulling into account?

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 23, 2017, 03:07:44 AM
Then they made an acceptable design, then doubled it a few times to be safe.
I still want your source on this.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on February 23, 2017, 03:29:18 AM
An airplane would not even bust a hole in a typical concrete road barrier.

It would break apart upon impact.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 23, 2017, 03:34:28 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on February 23, 2017, 03:19:42 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 23, 2017, 02:47:08 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on February 23, 2017, 02:25:40 AM

You have never spoken specifics with me... I don't need citations from anything I speak from that is in my field. It is simple things things that can be found in any accepted educational material..As I said I don't have time to teach you the wheel. Just don't accuse me of avoiding a conversation.
I have repeatedly told you that I do not like guessing numbers in my arguments, if I know I'm likely to be way off. I have repeatedly told you that I have no problem discussing specifics, and that you can bring up anything. I just have a problem with discussing specifics that aren't supported. As you see in my analysis-post, I went into some specifics and even guessed some numbers, because I'd be unlikely to be way off.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 23, 2017, 02:47:08 AM
As for the aerial maneuvers to flying at 20 feet..I am not a pilot, but have have dealt with enough to draw a firm conclusion. This also includes my grandfather who raised me....
Even experienced pilots who agree with you that 9/11 is a hoax disagrees with you on the impossibility of the maneuver. If you won't listen to me, at leat listen to other "truth seekers" that feel the same way you do.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 23, 2017, 02:47:08 AM
Anyways, anything I state from my own expertise is simple design specs of the buildings, metallurgical makeup, stress tolerances etc etc...To much to list, same with the planes. This are areas I can talk with authority...Other areas I provide citations that I do not have expertise from if I need someone else's expert option..I even do this with things from my field many times.
On this internet forum, no one can really prove they are an authority. I'm not gonna say that you outright lie, however I do think you are prone to exaggerating. If you could provide citation that what you say is at least true for the twin towers or WTC 7, at least something, I'd be more trustful of you.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 23, 2017, 02:47:08 AM
Master....Not one single piece of any of these planes were found. There was a couple random pieces that didn't even belong to a 767 or 757....Not a single piece confirmed...Not a single part number, not an investigation...Which violates FAA 121 alone, and that would be considered criminal in any other case.
This, however, I'm very positive is an outright lie. Not necessarily by you. There's plenty of evidence of parts of the planes existing. Can you provide som evidence that no plane parts where found (and no, random interviews of people "not seeing anything" isn't good enough, there's plenty of interviews of people who did see)? I doubt it.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 23, 2017, 02:47:08 AM
Do some research master..You obviously have done zero...And please, learn some on the foundation subjects as well.

I am sorry for the harshness, just stupidity and ignorance is really starting to bug me
Ahahahaha... Sorry, but OH the hypocrisy. I have done research, as evident by my analysis. You, on the other hand, seems to not have done much research on the planes (well, at least not any factual research on the statistics of the crash). I'm not just going to take your word on it. Seriously, you're supposed to be the one who speaks out against being too gullible, then you expect others to take your words for granted.

This is what you bring to the table master? That's a shame...(fyi, I have proved plenty of what I said about myself, I always offer to prove more as well..Name one other person that has done that on here?)

Any specifics I talk are easily verified...From design to the buildings, to shared load reaction, to basic physics etc etc etc..If you are too lazy to put in the required research and time, then don't bother arguing from any point of other than opinion and what you want to think.

As for your plane parts...You are incorrect, the FAA did not do an investigation, broke their own protocol (121 for example which would be criminal in any other scenario), not one single part number has been recorded, BTM logs do not exist for that day, etc etc etc.

As for the pictures they released of a few random parts, they weren't even to a 767/757....Again, do your research, this isn't even complicated stuff.

If I was spouting secret information, secret physics or design specs I would understand...

Also, please find me a pilot that says you can run a commercial airliner a couple feet off the ground at 530 mph at 40 feet above sea level...Smdh...

Are you listening to yourself?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 23, 2017, 03:36:48 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 23, 2017, 03:25:00 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 23, 2017, 03:16:04 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 23, 2017, 03:02:14 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 23, 2017, 02:47:08 AM
Master....Not one single piece of any of these planes were found. There was a couple random pieces that didn't even belong to a 767 or 757....Not a single piece confirmed...Not a single part number, not an investigation...Which violates FAA 121 alone, and that would be considered criminal in any other case.

FDR from AAL 77 was recovered from the imapct zone.   So you appear to be misinformed yet again.

I love it when you think you have a point on something.

You mean the FDR that was supposed to be found at the scene, yet they won't tell us where or when they found it. They took 6 years to release the info...

Then the info shows the plane would have been 400 feet over the Pentagon....Then, it stopped recording one second before "impact"...

Lol...

Not to mention ignore everything I wrote in that post...

Smdh...

Y'all need to come to grips with yourself

Did you actually look at the FDR analysis?   http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/Calibration%20of%20altimeter_92.pdf

Yes...Even took into account the air pressure for the day to get accurate readings of the altimeter. Not my first rodeo..
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 23, 2017, 03:39:04 AM
Quote from: totallackey on February 23, 2017, 03:29:18 AM
An airplane would not even bust a hole in a typical concrete road barrier.

It would break apart upon impact.

Cement? Metal??

Shit, just give me a bird and I will damn near take a wing off, destroy the nose cone...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 23, 2017, 03:48:40 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 23, 2017, 03:36:48 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 23, 2017, 03:25:00 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 23, 2017, 03:16:04 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 23, 2017, 03:02:14 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 23, 2017, 02:47:08 AM
Master....Not one single piece of any of these planes were found. There was a couple random pieces that didn't even belong to a 767 or 757....Not a single piece confirmed...Not a single part number, not an investigation...Which violates FAA 121 alone, and that would be considered criminal in any other case.

FDR from AAL 77 was recovered from the imapct zone.   So you appear to be misinformed yet again.

I love it when you think you have a point on something.

You mean the FDR that was supposed to be found at the scene, yet they won't tell us where or when they found it. They took 6 years to release the info...

Then the info shows the plane would have been 400 feet over the Pentagon....Then, it stopped recording one second before "impact"...

Lol...

Not to mention ignore everything I wrote in that post...

Smdh...

Y'all need to come to grips with yourself

Did you actually look at the FDR analysis?   http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/Calibration%20of%20altimeter_92.pdf

Yes...Even took into account the air pressure for the day to get accurate readings of the altimeter. Not my first rodeo..

So what did you conclude about what happened to AAL 77?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on February 23, 2017, 03:50:50 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 23, 2017, 03:39:04 AM
Quote from: totallackey on February 23, 2017, 03:29:18 AM
An airplane would not even bust a hole in a typical concrete road barrier.

It would break apart upon impact.

Cement? Metal??

Shit, just give me a bird and I will damn near take a wing off, destroy the nose cone...

Absolutely correct.

They do not want birds around airports.

Metal does not do well vs concrete in an impact...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 23, 2017, 04:00:06 AM
Rayzor why are you still trying to steer the debate to speculation after over thirty pages.

I answered you before about CD's, no, gravitational acceleration doesn't always happen, in fact it is quite rare, it takes 0% structural resistance to fall at g, haven't you been following?

You are the most dishonest person I have ever met.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 23, 2017, 04:01:28 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 23, 2017, 03:48:40 AM

So what did you conclude about what happened to AAL 77?

There is interesting evidence with the tail numbers that they were in service for some time afterwards, GPS pings and packets sent etc...

Though this is too hypothetical... Doubt we will ever know this for sure unless we can get the government to crack the real files open.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 23, 2017, 04:10:30 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 23, 2017, 04:01:28 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 23, 2017, 03:48:40 AM

So what did you conclude about what happened to AAL 77?

There is interesting evidence with the tail numbers that they were in service for some time afterwards, GPS pings and packets sent etc...

Though this is too hypothetical... Doubt we will ever know this for sure unless we can get the government to crack the real files open.

What do you make of the DNA evidence that the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology identified?

They identified 184 of the 189 that died in the pentagon, and 58 of the 59 passengers. 

http://web.archive.org/web/20030209223904/http://www.armymedicine.army.mil/news/releases/afip.htm
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 23, 2017, 04:14:40 AM
How hard is it to make up 200 people.

If the plane was vaporized surely the passengers were also.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 23, 2017, 04:15:49 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 23, 2017, 04:00:06 AM
Rayzor why are you still trying to steer the debate to speculation after over thirty pages.

I answered you before about CD's, no, gravitational acceleration doesn't always happen, in fact it is quite rare, it takes 0% structural resistance to fall at g, haven't you been following?

You are the most dishonest person I have ever met.

You meant to say free-fall. 

Now finish the logic,  if the collapse is free fall is it always controlled demolition?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 23, 2017, 04:17:34 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 23, 2017, 04:14:40 AM
How hard is it to make up 200 people.

If the plane was vaporized surely the passengers were also.

Are you saying the people were fake?   
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 23, 2017, 04:24:12 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 23, 2017, 04:15:49 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 23, 2017, 04:00:06 AM
Rayzor why are you still trying to steer the debate to speculation after over thirty pages.

I answered you before about CD's, no, gravitational acceleration doesn't always happen, in fact it is quite rare, it takes 0% structural resistance to fall at g, haven't you been following?

You are the most dishonest person I have ever met.

You meant to say free-fall. 

Now finish the logic,  if the collapse is free fall is it always controlled demolition?

Quote from: NIST
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)

If you could cite a similar building that fell at g that wasn't a CD you would've by now.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 23, 2017, 04:24:43 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 23, 2017, 04:17:34 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 23, 2017, 04:14:40 AM
How hard is it to make up 200 people.

If the plane was vaporized surely the passengers were also.

Are you saying the people were fake?

He is trying his twisting and deflection tactics dispute, don't bite.

This "DNA" evidence came from the same source that has lied about every single aspect so far, I apologize if I don't take them at face value on this "evidence".

Plus as dispute said, everything was vaporized anyways, according to them, so they need to make up their mind. Plus first responders along with not seeing any evidence of a plane, they saw no evidence of blood, body parts or anything. Hell we even found body parts from the Challenger disaster.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 23, 2017, 04:44:17 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 23, 2017, 04:24:43 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 23, 2017, 04:17:34 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 23, 2017, 04:14:40 AM
How hard is it to make up 200 people.

If the plane was vaporized surely the passengers were also.

Are you saying the people were fake?

He is trying his twisting and deflection tactics dispute, don't bite.

This "DNA" evidence came from the same source that has lied about every single aspect so far, I apologize if I don't take them at face value on this "evidence".

Plus as dispute said, everything was vaporized anyways, according to them, so they need to make up their mind. Plus first responders along with not seeing any evidence of a plane, they saw no evidence of blood, body parts or anything. Hell we even found body parts from the Challenger disaster.

It's not a trick question, it's you who are claiming the dna evidence is faked.  I'm trying to clarify what dispute means when he says it isn't hard to make up 200 people,  I think he forgot that most of them were pentagon workers.   One of those 184 died in hospital.  My question is about the passengers.



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 23, 2017, 04:46:47 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 23, 2017, 04:24:12 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 23, 2017, 04:15:49 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 23, 2017, 04:00:06 AM
Rayzor why are you still trying to steer the debate to speculation after over thirty pages.

I answered you before about CD's, no, gravitational acceleration doesn't always happen, in fact it is quite rare, it takes 0% structural resistance to fall at g, haven't you been following?

You are the most dishonest person I have ever met.

You meant to say free-fall. 

Now finish the logic,  if the collapse is free fall is it always controlled demolition?

Quote from: NIST
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)

If you could cite a similar building that fell at g that wasn't a CD you would've by now.

That wasn't what I asked.  Now who's being evasive?

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 23, 2017, 05:00:56 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 23, 2017, 04:44:17 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 23, 2017, 04:24:43 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 23, 2017, 04:17:34 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 23, 2017, 04:14:40 AM
How hard is it to make up 200 people.

If the plane was vaporized surely the passengers were also.

Are you saying the people were fake?

He is trying his twisting and deflection tactics dispute, don't bite.

This "DNA" evidence came from the same source that has lied about every single aspect so far, I apologize if I don't take them at face value on this "evidence".

Plus as dispute said, everything was vaporized anyways, according to them, so they need to make up their mind. Plus first responders along with not seeing any evidence of a plane, they saw no evidence of blood, body parts or anything. Hell we even found body parts from the Challenger disaster.

It's not a trick question, it's you who are claiming the dna evidence is faked.  I'm trying to clarify what dispute means when he says it isn't hard to make up 200 people,  I think he forgot that most of them were pentagon workers.   One of those 184 died in hospital.  My question is about the passengers.

It was easy making up the suspect businesses occupying the upper areas of the towers...Just as easy to spot them with Port authority records, permits, tax records etc etc etc...

Even easy to make up a flight full of people when there are no BTM records for that day just for those "flights".... That is one of the easier parts of this story
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 23, 2017, 05:07:03 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 23, 2017, 05:00:56 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 23, 2017, 04:44:17 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 23, 2017, 04:24:43 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 23, 2017, 04:17:34 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 23, 2017, 04:14:40 AM
How hard is it to make up 200 people.

If the plane was vaporized surely the passengers were also.

Are you saying the people were fake?

He is trying his twisting and deflection tactics dispute, don't bite.

This "DNA" evidence came from the same source that has lied about every single aspect so far, I apologize if I don't take them at face value on this "evidence".

Plus as dispute said, everything was vaporized anyways, according to them, so they need to make up their mind. Plus first responders along with not seeing any evidence of a plane, they saw no evidence of blood, body parts or anything. Hell we even found body parts from the Challenger disaster.

It's not a trick question, it's you who are claiming the dna evidence is faked.  I'm trying to clarify what dispute means when he says it isn't hard to make up 200 people,  I think he forgot that most of them were pentagon workers.   One of those 184 died in hospital.  My question is about the passengers.

It was easy making up the suspect businesses occupying the upper areas of the towers...Just as easy to spot them with Port authority records, permits, tax records etc etc etc...

Even easy to make up a flight full of people when there are no BTM records for that day just for those "flights".... That is one of the easier parts of this story

One of the eye witnesses reported seeing a C130  following AA77,  did you make anything of that?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 23, 2017, 05:14:25 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 23, 2017, 05:07:03 AM
One of the eye witnesses reported seeing a C130  following AA77,  did you make anything of that?

Yeah I read that account.

There were alot of things "seen" that day. A prop driven bomber would have stood out to more than one person that day, the look, sound, speed and attitude stands out.

Though who knows...It's a possible I suppose. Everyone hones in on different aspects depending on their knowledge and experience. If I was in a live panic, situation I would look at certain things natural to me and certain things would stick out. A pilot would pick up something different, a firefighter something different...Etc etc
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 23, 2017, 05:14:45 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 23, 2017, 03:34:28 AM
Any specifics I talk are easily verified...From design to the buildings, to shared load reaction, to basic physics etc etc etc..If you are too lazy to put in the required research and time, then don't bother arguing from any point of other than opinion and what you want to think.
No, I'm too lazy to prove your claims. If it's so easy, you should just be able to do it right? Your claims, your responsibility.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 23, 2017, 03:34:28 AM
As for your plane parts...You are incorrect, the FAA did not do an investigation, broke their own protocol (121 for example which would be criminal in any other scenario), not one single part number has been recorded, BTM logs do not exist for that day, etc etc etc.

As for the pictures they released of a few random parts, they weren't even to a 767/757....Again, do your research, this isn't even complicated stuff.
Rayzor took care of that

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 23, 2017, 03:34:28 AM
Also, please find me a pilot that says you can run a commercial airliner a couple feet off the ground at 530 mph at 40 feet above sea level...Smdh...

Are you listening to yourself?
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html)
Quote
My conclusion is, the manever looks possible
Are you that ignorant? I'm starting to think you're just afraid to be proven wrong at this point. Well, all humans are.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 23, 2017, 05:27:04 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on February 23, 2017, 05:14:45 AM
rayzor took care of that

Of what? Talking about the FDR? The one that refutes the official story? The one they took 6 years to release the data? The one they didn't even provide the part number of records on..They just said "we found"...Nor where or when?

Get out of here with that crap...

Also for your "maneuver" that is "possible" read it in context as well as what exact maneuver they were talking about. Certainly not a couple feet off the ground at 500+mph at 40 feet above sea level.


Get out of here with your shit...There are people who actually are looking for truth and information. Now be gone...You are highly disappointing...

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 23, 2017, 05:29:58 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 23, 2017, 05:14:25 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 23, 2017, 05:07:03 AM
One of the eye witnesses reported seeing a C130  following AA77,  did you make anything of that?

Yeah I read that account.

There were alot of things "seen" that day. A prop driven bomber would have stood out to more than one person that day, the look, sound, speed and attitude stands out.

Though who knows...It's a possible I suppose. Everyone hones in on different aspects depending on their knowledge and experience. If I was in a live panic, situation I would look at certain things natural to me and certain things would stick out. A pilot would pick up something different, a firefighter something different...Etc etc

I picked up on it from the eye witness accounts.  But it turns out it was probably this guy.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 23, 2017, 05:33:16 AM
I moderately apologize for the harsh words but only moderately master.

You misrepresent data, you have no background in anything pertinent to this subject, you are to lazy to do any of your own research, you are too lazy to even read the thread before you jumped in, you just want people to say things so you can say "No I don't think so" with any backing what so every. Any real evidence that is nothing even "spectacular" you skate around without addressing.


We can believe anything we want, you are entitled to your opinion.

Just don't try and pass your "beliefs" as facts, also don't come shitting up a thread when you have nothing to provide
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 23, 2017, 05:35:46 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 23, 2017, 05:29:58 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 23, 2017, 05:14:25 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 23, 2017, 05:07:03 AM
One of the eye witnesses reported seeing a C130  following AA77,  did you make anything of that?

Yeah I read that account.

There were alot of things "seen" that day. A prop driven bomber would have stood out to more than one person that day, the look, sound, speed and attitude stands out.

Though who knows...It's a possible I suppose. Everyone hones in on different aspects depending on their knowledge and experience. If I was in a live panic, situation I would look at certain things natural to me and certain things would stick out. A pilot would pick up something different, a firefighter something different...Etc etc

I picked up on it from the eye witness accounts.  But it turns out it was probably this guy.

There really is no point for a "tag along" plane, especially something as slow and obvious as a c130. It makes no sense just with known available tech...Doesn't even include tech the public doesn't know about.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 23, 2017, 05:38:15 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 23, 2017, 05:27:04 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on February 23, 2017, 05:14:45 AM
rayzor took care of that

Of what? Talking about the FDR? The one that refutes the official story? The one they took 6 years to release the data? The one they didn't even provide the part number of records on..They just said "we found"...Nor where or when?

Get out of here with that crap...

Also for your "maneuver" that is "possible" read it in context as well as what exact maneuver they were talking about. Certainly not a couple feet off the ground at 500+mph at 40 feet above sea level.


Get out of here with your shit...There are people who actually are looking for truth and information. Now be gone...You are highly disappointing...

Sorry,  I got sidetracked by dispute and his free-fall stuff.  We never finished that discussion,   the FDR data wasn't faked.   



Skip to 57:38, for discussion of the FDR data,  unless you've got an hour to kill and want to watch the whole thing.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 23, 2017, 05:41:28 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 23, 2017, 05:27:04 AM
Also for your "maneuver" that is "possible" read it in context as well as what exact maneuver they were talking about. Certainly not a couple feet off the ground at 500+mph at 40 feet above sea level.
They are speaking of the whole maneuver, from descending until impacting, including the cruise at low alts. But just keep ignoring it, I guess it doesn't match your predefined truth. I see that you just need your own safespace, where you can perpetuate the same idea with other people and without outside "lies" to make you discomfortable...

I'll be waiting for the day you can support your claims.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 23, 2017, 05:44:10 AM
Faked was the wrong word...Just easier.

I am sure it was a flight of something. The flight path didn't match the official report. Which I am sure why they waited 6 years to release the info. Also they didn't provide evidence it was from that actual plane. Also it stops between 1-2 seconds before the impact.

I don't find any of that creditable. As I always say, the truth is easy to prove...Lies, not so much
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 23, 2017, 05:47:22 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 23, 2017, 05:33:16 AM
You misrepresent data, you have no background in anything pertinent to this subject, you are to lazy to do any of your own research, you are too lazy to even read the thread before you jumped in, you just want people to say things so you can say "No I don't think so" with any backing what so every. Any real evidence that is nothing even "spectacular" you skate around without addressing.
No, I'm not misrepresenting anything. Stop lying already.
Yes, I'm doing research. Stop lying.
Yes, I'm too lazy to read 16 pages of what is mostly going to be the same stuff repeated.
You have not cited a single source of information, unlike me or disputeone.


Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 23, 2017, 05:33:16 AM
We can believe anything we want, you are entitled to your opinion.

Just don't try and pass your "beliefs" as facts, also don't come shitting up a thread when you have nothing to provide
I have never in this thread tried to pass my opinions as facts, if you think so you should quote me. If you don't quote me, I'll assume you just lied.

Yes, I am loosing patience with you.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 23, 2017, 06:08:16 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 23, 2017, 05:44:10 AM
Faked was the wrong word...Just easier.

I am sure it was a flight of something. The flight path didn't match the official report. Which I am sure why they waited 6 years to release the info. Also they didn't provide evidence it was from that actual plane. Also it stops between 1-2 seconds before the impact.

I don't find any of that creditable. As I always say, the truth is easy to prove...Lies, not so much

You didn't pick up the fact that the last few frames have now been recovered from the raw data by Warren Stutt?   he noticed that the software truncated the raw data because of corrupted checksums.

I'll give you the link again.  http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/Calibration%20of%20altimeter_92.pdf

I don't agree with David Chandler on the conspiracy side,  but I do mostly agree with his analysis of AAL 77


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 23, 2017, 06:17:40 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 23, 2017, 06:08:16 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 23, 2017, 05:44:10 AM
Faked was the wrong word...Just easier.

I am sure it was a flight of something. The flight path didn't match the official report. Which I am sure why they waited 6 years to release the info. Also they didn't provide evidence it was from that actual plane. Also it stops between 1-2 seconds before the impact.

I don't find any of that creditable. As I always say, the truth is easy to prove...Lies, not so much

You didn't pick up the fact that the last few frames have now been recovered from the raw data by Warren Stutt?   he noticed that the software truncated the raw data because of corrupted checksums.

I'll give you the link again.  http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/Calibration%20of%20altimeter_92.pdf

I don't agree with David Chandler on the conspiracy side,  but I do mostly agree with his analysis of AAL 77

This doesn't remove what is said about the authenticity of the FDR itself and it's conflicting data.

Though I will address the missing second or two. When was this discovered, was it recent? I have been out for a few years. I will readily admit if I am wrong about something if proven.

I would also like to study the data, and pass it on to people whom I council with on matters I don't have an expertise on. I will look at your video at one point today, just don't have time currently. Remember other side of the world ;)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 23, 2017, 06:24:21 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 23, 2017, 06:17:40 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 23, 2017, 06:08:16 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 23, 2017, 05:44:10 AM
Faked was the wrong word...Just easier.

I am sure it was a flight of something. The flight path didn't match the official report. Which I am sure why they waited 6 years to release the info. Also they didn't provide evidence it was from that actual plane. Also it stops between 1-2 seconds before the impact.

I don't find any of that creditable. As I always say, the truth is easy to prove...Lies, not so much

You didn't pick up the fact that the last few frames have now been recovered from the raw data by Warren Stutt?   he noticed that the software truncated the raw data because of corrupted checksums.

I'll give you the link again.  http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/Calibration%20of%20altimeter_92.pdf

I don't agree with David Chandler on the conspiracy side,  but I do mostly agree with his analysis of AAL 77

This doesn't remove what is said about the authenticity of the FDR itself and it's conflicting data.

Though I will address the missing second or two. When was this discovered, was it recent? I have been out for a few years. I will readily admit if I am wrong about something if proven.

I would also like to study the data, and pass it on to people whom I council with on matters I don't have an expertise on. I will look at your video at one point today, just don't have time currently. Remember other side of the world ;)

The paper was published in January 2011,  the last frame of FDR data shows an altitude of 4 ft and large longitudinal deceleration. 

If you don't read the paper,  at least watch that David Chandler presentation from 57:38

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 23, 2017, 06:33:14 AM
To be honest, I would rather read the paper. Not a big fan of YouTube videos. I may watch it though
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 23, 2017, 06:46:15 AM
Let's entertain for a moment (since I haven't looked at it yet) this could be a record from whatever hit the Pentagon.

Since they it didn't match the official story flight records, and they never released part numbers or any other form of proof for the FDR.... Could this be the actual data for whatever hit the Pentagon?

There is a reason they waited so long to release it...And never would have if it wasn't for pressure
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 23, 2017, 03:27:47 PM
Hi Rayzor, since your "mates" "first hand account" is valid, so is mine.

Quote
>>114010468 #
I'm a professional pilot. There are systems that enunciate, for example they will say "TERRAIN PULL UP" and "SINK RATE" and things like that, But there's nothing to actually move the controls. You would have to either physically move the flight controls yourself or reprogram the autopilot

http://boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/114004740#p114016821

We are legion.
We don not forgive.
We do not forget.
Expect us.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 23, 2017, 03:46:00 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 23, 2017, 03:45:18 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 23, 2017, 03:27:47 PM
Hi Rayzor, since your "mates" "first hand account" is valid, so is mine.

Quote
>>114010468 #
I'm a professional pilot. There are systems that enunciate, for example they will say "TERRAIN PULL UP" and "SINK RATE" and things like that, But there's nothing to actually move the controls. You would have to either physically move the flight controls yourself or reprogram the autopilot

http://boards.4chan.org/pol/thread/114004740#p114016821

We are legion.
We do not forgive.
We do not forget.
Expect us.

Quote
>>114004740 (OP) #
I was IN NY at that time, watching from Brooklyn, so close that you can see the people jumping out of the windows and burnt ashes were flying over. It looked like it was a bomb, or demolished from the bottom up. There is no way in hell a plane caused it. I saw it with my very own eyes. The "conspiracy" of what happened is far more LOGICAL in comparison to the bullshit plane story they tell

Have another first hand account.

Truth will always win.

Here, have some more truth.

Quote
>>114019062 #
I don't doubt something hit the building. I doubt it was a civilian 767

Welcome to my wheelhouse. Is it your first day?

#Trumpfor911truth

And some more.

This is like a nuclear reaction, there is no stopping it until it sees it's end.

Quote
I am a 33 year old New Yorker.
20/20 vision. CLOSE, from a Brooklyn rooftop. Also, not a kike.
I SAW the plane hit.
It hit the building.
The building was still demolished via bomb - your "explosion through building" is confirmed by me, another eyewitness. It was absolutely demolished from the bottom up. Plane was just garnish

We will get the truth and the truth will set us free.

Pow.

Quote
>>114016257 #
So you're telling me soft aluminum and composite materials penetrated several layers of reinforced concrete but the engines vaporized?

There is no stopping us.

Quote
>>114017306 #
>aluminium wingtips can cut through steel easily

this is what shills and retards believe

Looks like the consensus is something hit tower 2.

Quote
You retards are fucking the actual truth up with your stupid bullshit. I SAW IT HIT THE BUILDING WITH MY OWN EYES. HOWEVER, it was fucking BOMBED from the BOTTOM. The plane was a prop setup to make it appear to not be a bomb. But the plane WAS fucking real. Source: MY EYEBALLS. I am a Native New Yorker.

Abrahadabra

Quote
>>114018812 #
>I mean, I would expect the wings to partially damage the outer wall due to the plane's velocity. But the plane melts into the building with no resistance. This is a direct violation of Newton's Third Law: every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
>Why doesn't the plane break apart after impact? Why don't the gas tanks explode after the wings strike the building? Where's the wake vortex?

The plane definitely "hit", I saw it happen. But it was seriously just for added effect. That shit was ABSOLUTELY bombed from the bottom up. I saw it. I was there

#Trumpfor911truth

This sounds really familiar.

Quote
>>114018468 #
>This is what happens when you tell the truth on 4chan about 9/11.
you are attempting to derail the thread by attacking me, saying that I said something when I clearly did not

(https://s15.postimg.org/phxgu7xaj/1487897057323.jpg)

Quote
I was at 9-11 beside Wtc on broadway and liberty park .... it sounded to me like an explosion then one woman screaming and glass falling..... burning paper ... financial docs ...then fell from the air. The next one, i was in a building on broadway, basically a block in front of it, and it sounded like a bomb explosion from deep within the ground, the glass windows where i was kind of sucked in strangly .... anyway. I never heard a plane. That close, it seems I should have.

Quote
>>114027553 #
Fire lasted for months, didn't it? The thermite theory makes more sense

Quote
>>114004740 (OP) #
A skyscraper? Sure. Run a passenger jet ten feet off the ground and slam it into the Pentagon, leaving no plane debris and a neat hole made by explosives or a cruise missile? Of course, goy. Stop asking questions.

Quote
There is only One explanation for a near free fall speed, and it's not the official "Pancake" theory.

Quote
My problem with this theory is radiation.

I know they lied about the air quality, but the report seemed pretty based, they just lied about the report.

Reminder, that bitch should be in jail. How she avoided jail is fucked.

geiger counters are pretty common. I have one for a piece of equipment that measures ground compaction. I would assume MANY people have such a device, that is common in construction. Fire Dept. would have many.

I am more than open to opinion. I will give it a chance. I may not be educated on such a small nuclear device. Any actual radiation data? or just a theory? (Talking about the Doc.)

BTW. My company (Engineering/Surveying) 43 employees. 32 on list for Engineers and Architects for 9/11.

We all know 9/11 official story is impossible.

Quote
I just say bare minimum because it's harder to argue. I'm a old fag, was 19 when 9/11 happened. I researched the shit out of it at the time. So much info is gone now, only a few older movies still have some of the shit we found out then.

Quote
But lets not pretend that the government at bare minimum at least know it was going to happen.

The fact that they had a drill, EXACTLY simulating such an attack, that threw air traffic control for a loop means some involvement.

The fact that these planes were so far off course, some in the air off course for over an hour, without a single interceptor launched, shows US involvement. Again, at bare minimum, the airforce.

Quote
How it went through the building like butter is a better question.

Both buildings outside shell was nearly all massive steel shells. The reason they had such tiny windows. How did a "normal" aluminum plane, pierce solid construction grade steel like butter?

You could fire a coke can at a ridiculous velocity at a 1/8th thick plate of steel all you want... maybe a dent at best.

Don't forget the 45 degree angle on the cut beams. (100% thermite), and of course, building 7.

Quote
there was also higher tritium levels at ground zero.

Quote
With small nukes there isn't much fallout, it's limited to the site.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device)
A lot of people died of cancer after 9/11, and there was even radiation glow

Quote
>767 reaching impossible speeds at sealevel
>not understanding how air density works
>believes aluminium can cut through solid grade A steel

Behind this mask is more than a man, behind this mask is an idea, and ideas, are bulletproof.

(https://s8.postimg.org/v4enu7245/Anonymous2_1.jpg)

But on this most auspicious of nights, permit me then, in lieu of the more commonplace soubriquet, to suggest the character of this dramatis persona. Voila! In view humble vaudevillian veteran, cast vicariously as both victim and villain by the vicissitudes of fate. This visage, no mere veneer of vanity, is a vestige of the “vox populi” now vacant, vanished. However, this valorous visitation of a bygone vexation stands vivified, and has vowed to vanquish these venal and virulent vermin, van guarding vice and vouchsafing the violently vicious and voracious violation of volition.
The only verdict is vengeance; a vendetta, held as a votive not in vain, for the value and veracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 23, 2017, 04:54:47 PM
Daily reminder this hasn't been debunked.

Instead of expressing structural resistance in units we can use a percentage.

Say 100% structural resistance will hold the building up exactly, any more weight and it will start to collapse. Most working loads are two to four times (corrected, 30 to 100 times) the fail point.
So we can safely assume building 7 had over 100% structural resistance before it fell.

So we have gravitational acceleration - percentage of structural resistance = fall acceleration.

9.8m/s2×75%=7.35m/s2

9.8 m/s2 - 7.35m/s2 = 2.45 m/s2

At 75% structural resistance I would predict a 2.45m/s2 fall acceleration.

Obviously this doesnt calculate change and inertia, however it doesn't need to.

We can clearly see building 7 go from over 100% structural resistance to 0% pretty much instantly.

To go from totally upright and intact to free fall (gravitational acceleration) for 2.25 seconds violates the laws of physics.

The only way building 7 could do this is to have nearly all of its structural resistance removed nearly instantly.

The only way this is possible is a controlled demolition.

So, G- %S = F
Gravitational acceleration - percentage of structural resistance = fall acceleration.

Video for reference.


Rayzor enough with your dishonesty.

Quote from: Rayzor on February 23, 2017, 12:59:05 AM
I'll say it again,  the free fall of the bowling ball, doesn't tell you why the plank broke,  only that it did.

Quote from: disputeone on February 23, 2017, 01:00:08 AM
But theres not just one plank Rayzor.

I can't belive you are this dumb.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 23, 2017, 11:56:35 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 23, 2017, 04:54:47 PM
Daily reminder this hasn't been debunked.

Instead of expressing structural resistance in units we can use a percentage.

Say 100% structural resistance will hold the building up exactly, any more weight and it will start to collapse. Most working loads are two to four times (corrected, 30 to 100 times) the fail point.
So we can safely assume building 7 had over 100% structural resistance before it fell.

So we have gravitational acceleration - percentage of structural resistance = fall acceleration.

9.8m/s2×75%=7.35m/s2

9.8 m/s2 - 7.35m/s2 = 2.45 m/s2

At 75% structural resistance I would predict a 2.45m/s2 fall acceleration.

Obviously this doesnt calculate change and inertia, however it doesn't need to.

We can clearly see building 7 go from over 100% structural resistance to 0% pretty much instantly.

To go from totally upright and intact to free fall (gravitational acceleration) for 2.25 seconds violates the laws of physics.

The only way building 7 could do this is to have nearly all of its structural resistance removed nearly instantly.

The only way this is possible is a controlled demolition.

So, G- %S = F
Gravitational acceleration - percentage of structural resistance = fall acceleration.

Video for reference.


There is nothing to debunk, because:
1. It didn't start at freefall, YOUR OWN SOURCE states that it took 1.75 seconds before entering freefall. This means that the supporting columns had time to fail.
2. You only have footage of the facade, the interior was collapsing long before the facade fell causing internal damage.

By now I'm getting a bit pissed, because it seems that you're just completely ignoring the discussions that we have had discussing this.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 12:08:05 AM
This video shows that the first 1.75 seconds of collapse didn't really happen.



You can do it yourself with video editing software.

Please, do your own research.



I am also getting frustrated.
My point stands.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 12:22:00 AM
I made this clear on page one, anyone who wants the truth and is willing to do the research can see for building 7, the only hypothesis that matches observation is controlled demolition.

(https://s13.postimg.org/o0ythsx1j/banepost.jpg)

All it takes is a few months of engineering study, some very basic calculus and a decent computer to irrefutably prove that building 7 was pulled.

Rayzor has been dodging this for over 30 pages but you seem to want to take it head on.

I do respect that.

The rest of my opinions came after the actuality of the realization building 7 was a CD.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 01:06:54 AM
(https://s32.postimg.org/4tgrzyj2t/main_qimg_9d84acc7a568aeb6f891054df9cb3546_c.jpg)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 01:56:45 AM
Here's some more math, this is my simplified version of any reasonable buildings collapse due to fire.

So structural resistance and collapse acceleration.

100% = 0m/s2
99  % = .098m/s2
98  % = .196m/s2
97  % = .294m/s2
96  % = .392m/s2
95  % = .49m/s2
94  % = .588m/s2
93  % = .686m/s2
92  % = .784m/s2
91  % = .882m/s2
90  % = .98m/s2

Based on my very simple equation this is my prediction for the onset of collapse for a large building losing structural resistance due to an intense fire.

Please note, that as has been stated before all structural components would have to fail simultaneously for a free-fall to ever occur.

In reality usually one structural component breaks which leads to the initial compromise of structural integrity, which then leads in to more and more structural components failing faster and faster as the collapse gains energy.

This is clearly not what we saw that day, I have shown multiple times that WTC7 stayed perfectly upright until its collapse at gravitational acceleration.

NIST's three stage collapse model is scientific fraud and clearly dry labbing.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 24, 2017, 02:25:21 AM
*sigh*, that video ignores how NIST calculated the collapse to begin, and it also assumes that the start of the collapse is counted as the time when the whole building descends visibly, and how each stage was defined.

Source for the rest of my post is "Structural Fire Response and Probable Collapse Sequence of World Trade Center Building 7, Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation of the World Trade Center Disaster (NIST NCSTAR 1-9) VOLUMES 1 and 2", section 12.5.3 "Timing of Collapse Initiation and Progression":
http://ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861611 (http://ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861611)
Sadly I can't copy bits of text from the report to quote.

NIST defined the start of the collapse by looking at the brightness of a single pixel right at the roof, bordering the sky. Time = 0 was defined as the visible start of the penthouse collapse. At first, the pixel oscillated around 60%, +- no more than 5%. At T = 6.9s to T = 7.6s, the pixel's brightness increased irreversibly to 100%. This means that the building, at 7.6s, had become 1 pixel shorter, maybe a bit less, on the footage NIST analysed. NIST counts T = 6.9s, when the brightening started, as the start of the collapse of the facade, and at T = 12.3s seconds, when the building disappears out of view, they stop the analysis.

12.3s - 6.9s = 5.4s, the duration of the analysis under which the building's facade collapses.

No, T = 0s when the pixel starts to brighten. To document the collapse, NIST starts to tracks the elevation of a point at the roof near the center. The point does not move visibly until at around T = 0.7s, after which it starts to pick up acceleration until it get's to free-fall at T = 1.75s, continues until T = 4s, after which the acceleration slows down.

Stage one represents the buckling of the exterior columns.
Stage two represents total failure of the exterior columns.
Stage three represents resistance between facade and the pile of debris below.


Here's me, just making a small analysis:

T = 0s, some exterior columns start to buckle. The building shrinks less than a foot.
T = 0.7s, some exterior columns completely fail while the rest are buckling. The building flexes very slightly as the centers of each wall descends up to a foot.
T = 1.1s to T = 1.4s, majority of columns have completely failed as a huge load is shifted over to them. The center of the building flexes and descends 1-2 feet, and the building starts to accelerate
T = 1.75s, only corner columns have not completely failed. The center of the building has visibly descended around 3-4 feet, and building starts to enter freefall.
T = 2s, all columns have completely failed and the building descends in a freefall.
T = 4s, building descends so quickly that the facade has trouble breaking apart quickly enough, and the descend acceleration starts to slow down.
T = 5.4s, the building disappears out of view on footage.

The building doesn't visibly start descending at the start of the collapse, first the columns buckle as they are giving out. Once they snap, they snap quickly and the shifting of the load creates a chain-reaction. The building didn't immediately enter freefall, not until the collapse became visible as the columns had snapped and there was almost no resistance.

You and BHS are extremely rude to assert that I don't do research.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 02:29:56 AM
I can't help you man, I'm sorry.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 24, 2017, 02:30:39 AM
And stop ignoring the slow collapse of the interior, that's where your progressive collapse is.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 02:32:47 AM
It's just not, tho.

That's just not reality, I've shown it as best I can, sorry.

The buckling is the demolition charges.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 02:42:10 AM
As I have said before, the aim of a controlled demolition is free-fall although it can be quite difficult to achieve, it is what the engineers strive for.

To get 2.25 seconds of free-fall with at least the entire outside structure intact before is impossible. A few milliseconds at the onset proves nothing except the building had all its main supports cut.

You have to do mental gymnastics to believe that the circumstances leading up to building 7s collapse caused a free-fall.

Not to mention every point Bhs has brought up.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on February 24, 2017, 02:58:12 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on February 24, 2017, 02:25:21 AM
*sigh*, that video ignores how NIST calculated the collapse to begin...

NIST "ignores," how the calculations were done...

Why should we, the people, perform any different?

We, the people, cannot replicate, nor can we falsify, the NIST conclusions, for the NIST refuses to release the inputs/results data used for the modeling.

Hell, with any old inputs/results data, I could arrive at the conclusion you were responsible for the events of 9/11, having ridden your flying unicorn through WTC 1 and 2, then flying to Arlington, crashing through the Pentagon, and then circling around to Shanksville, shooting down the last plane with your trusty air-to-air missile launcher...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 02:58:49 AM
Just try to think rationally for a minute, let's put the truth of the issue aside.

Why would a supposedly perfectly intact building collapse at free-fall for 2.25 seconds due to fires on a few floors.

Why would the building collapse plumb into its own footprint?

Why would the building fires, supposedly from office fires be burning for months after the towers fell?

Why didn't NIST include building 7 on their official report?

Why did it take NIST 7 years to release their report on building 7?

WHY DOES IT LOOK NOTHING LIKE REALITY????

Why didn't NIST release the inputs from their model?

Why, after sixteen long years, have they still not released the data, in regards to "public safety' from knowing how a building fire caused a plumb collapse at free-fall?

Why are there so many coincidences?

This is only for building 7.

Edit. Total lackey is right, they showed no real evidence why they used that model. They weren't even going to admit free-fall until it was pointed out by everyone.

Do you really think that many PhD's couldn't measure the free-fall???????????????
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bullwinkle on February 24, 2017, 03:06:42 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 02:42:10 AM
As I have said before, the aim of a controlled demolition is free-fall although it can be quite difficult to achieve, it is what the engineers strive for.

The goal of explosive deconstruction is not free fall.
The goal is to put the structure down in a manor and direction to cause the least amount of damage and make cleanup as easy as possible.

Great discussion, keep going.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 24, 2017, 03:08:02 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 02:29:56 AM
I can't help you man, I'm sorry.
Maybe I shouldn't write this, but OH was I relieved when you wrote that. You know this is literally what pretty much every conspiracy theorist says when they're in a corner and can't actually defend themselves with real arguments or facts? As if I'm some sick person with an incurable disease, but you add a tone of sympathy to make you look better. Maybe you should have instead formulated a counterargument? Maybe you should have pointed out where I'm wrong, supporting it with facts (including sources)? But no, it's obvious that you are right, you do care about truth after all. I'm better off listening to you gullibly, instead of to the government, right? Don't listen to them, they are eeevil and have no shame at all, absolutely no remorse or conscience, they only thing in the world that matters to them is that they can become richer and more powerful. Isn't that right? Isn't that the truth?

Don't worry, I'm not taking this personally. I'm talking anonymously on the internet with a stranger.

Quote from: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 02:32:47 AM
It's just not, tho.

That's just not reality, I've shown it as best I can, sorry.

The buckling is the demolition charges.
Lol, you're not even trying. In all the footage, it's clear that the penthouse collapses many seconds before the facade, it's clear the interior is more damaged than the exterior.

"But no, demolition charges is da truth. I know that the interior collapsed before the exterior, but if you ignore that then the collapse was impossible, thus it was done by explosives. Truth!"

Quote from: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 02:42:10 AM
As I have said before, the aim of a controlled demolition is free-fall although it can be quite difficult to achieve, it is what the engineers strive for.

To get 2.25 seconds of free-fall with at least the entire outside structure intact before is impossible. A few milliseconds at the onset proves nothing except the building had all its main supports cut.

You have to do mental gymnastics to believe that the circumstances leading up to building 7s collapse caused a free-fall.

Not to mention every point Bhs has brought up.
No, it's easy. Just have the exterior columns experience the weight of pretty much the whole building after many seconds of the interior collapsing apart, then buckle for about a second before failing and entering freefall. I don't see the milliseconds you speak of.

And BHS... I can't even find a definition for what "cert load" is, I'm guessing it's an abbreviation of certified load? Well, I still can't find a good definition for it that is relevant to construction. Seriously, BHS is horrible at substantiating his claims (I have experience of that from another discussion, where I was the only one bringing up evidence for anything, and it had nothing to do with construction so he had no authority on the subject) and let's no forget that he's completely rejecting the statement that the pentagon-maneuver seems possible, a statement made by experienced pilots from your very own source, and he doesn't even try to back up his claim, and he admits he's not a pilot, so he's not an authority on that subject either. For every effort he makes making a claim, I have to make double the effort to interpret what he actually means by correcting the terms he's using, and then finding evidence that supports his claim. If I can't find that evidence, but he keeps insisting he's right, of course we run into a brick wall.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 03:12:08 AM
Thanks Bullwinkle I'll take that.

Master Evar.
Dude... weak...

You just copied and pasted stuff from NIST's website, with all due respect, how dare you insinuate I am in the corner.


Instead of expressing structural resistance in units we can use a percentage.

Say 100% structural resistance will hold the building up exactly, any more weight and it will start to collapse. Most working loads are two to four times (corrected, 30 to 100 times) the fail point.
So we can safely assume building 7 had over 100% structural resistance before it fell.

So we have gravitational acceleration - percentage of structural resistance = fall acceleration.

9.8m/s2×75%=7.35m/s2

9.8 m/s2 - 7.35m/s2 = 2.45 m/s2

At 75% structural resistance I would predict a 2.45m/s2 fall acceleration.

Obviously this doesnt calculate change and inertia, however it doesn't need to.

We can clearly see building 7 go from over 100% structural resistance to 0% pretty much instantly.

To go from totally upright and intact to free fall (gravitational acceleration) for 2.25 seconds violates the laws of physics.

The only way building 7 could do this is to have nearly all of its structural resistance removed nearly instantly.

The only way this is possible is a controlled demolition.

So, G- %S = F
Gravitational acceleration - percentage of structural resistance = fall acceleration.

Video for reference.



Here's some more math, this is my simplified version of any reasonable buildings collapse due to fire.

So structural resistance and collapse acceleration.

100% = 0m/s2
99  % = .098m/s2
98  % = .196m/s2
97  % = .294m/s2
96  % = .392m/s2
95  % = .49m/s2
94  % = .588m/s2
93  % = .686m/s2
92  % = .784m/s2
91  % = .882m/s2
90  % = .98m/s2

Based on my very simple equation this is my prediction for the onset of collapse for a large building losing structural resistance due to an intense fire.

Please note, that as has been stated before all structural components would have to fail simultaneously for a free-fall to ever occur.

In reality usually one structural component breaks which leads to the initial compromise of structural integrity, which then leads in to more and more structural components failing faster and faster as the collapse gains energy.

This is clearly not what we saw that day, I have shown multiple times that WTC7 stayed perfectly upright until its collapse at gravitational acceleration.

NIST's three stage collapse model is scientific fraud and clearly dry labbing.




As for Bhs saying cert load.

NIST says "thermpansion" soo.......
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 24, 2017, 03:13:12 AM
I have already stated why I am short with you master evar. I don't have patience for people who are not willing to put in the effort or looking for the truth. I used to debate with anyone many moons ago until my mentor explained to me it was useless on some people...And people that don't help themselves is one of the prime candidates to write off.

You are not willing to put in the time to study the prerequisites, you have no background in anything pertinent, you only half ass study the NIST fairy tale (nor do you have a care or even understand what it means when input numbers are not released for a model, it makes it 100 percent useless), you don't study any of the back ground, any of what the witnesses say, you research absolutely nothing and provide nothing of use to this thread besides half assed parroting of a fake report.

Well done.

There is much information in this thread to debunk if you can (which obviously you cannot)...I have already told you why a free fall (which NIST themselves said it reached free fall if you actually researched something, and during this free fall time period we saw squib markers on all corner trusses, which the ONLY thing that can cause that during free fall is shape charges or some sort of explosives). I already explained to you just a few simple reasons why the free fall collapse is impossible with just the design of the building alone. (Also, the penthouse would drop exactly as seen during a demo)

There is diagrams in the NIST report, complete books on the matter, Port authority records etc etc etc on design of these buildings... I am not speaking a secret language, nor using secret information....The physics used are AP highschool or first year college.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 03:19:03 AM
You got to get out of the "us vs them" mindset for truthers.

This isn't reptillians...
We have a substantial amount of evidence to back up our claims.

If you want to believe what NIST says then fine, but don't come at me with their official report that wasn't peer reviewed.

Bhs has proven everthing he's said about himself here as far as I know.

I will take it as a sign you are in a corner attacking his credentials, and not take offense.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 24, 2017, 03:36:34 AM
Quote from: Bullwinkle on February 24, 2017, 03:06:42 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 02:42:10 AM
As I have said before, the aim of a controlled demolition is free-fall although it can be quite difficult to achieve, it is what the engineers strive for.

The goal of explosive deconstruction is not free fall.
The goal is to put the structure down in a manor and direction to cause the least amount of damage and make cleanup as easy as possible.

Great discussion, keep going.

Ditto..

Free fall in a demo (in the right direction that is lol) just means you get more jobs later.

Quote from: totallackey on February 24, 2017, 02:58:12 AM
Hell, with any old inputs/results data, I could arrive at the conclusion you were responsible for the events of 9/11, having ridden your flying unicorn through WTC 1 and 2, then flying to Arlington, crashing through the Pentagon, and then circling around to Shanksville, shooting down the last plane with your trusty air-to-air missile launcher...

Double ditto....


master _evar Really...You claim we are in a corner while you don't even know what certification loads are?!? You haven't provided one rebuttal besides copy and pasting from a report with zero scientific credibility on a subject you know nothing about??

You are one "special cookie"...I will be nice and include one little piece of information.

"Official certification load"...Every piece of material in that building has a certification load of acceptable working stress tolerances that design inspectors will approve, city inspectors (and in this case agents from the port authority as well) would also inspector every floor as the building was built. There are 1000s of total inspections on a building such as this during its construction.

There is also combined certified stress calculations for combined joints...Each joint is certed itself, however, once a system (say the box frame for the joints under the floors of WTC 1/2) is completed it is certed for its completed form.

There is a ratio between this certified working limit, and the actual force it would take for a complete failure. Because of the lack of computer aided design, they were very generous with design then.

They would take an over built design, then multiply it a few times. It kept people from building super tall towers from the added weight. That is why now, with the accuracy of computer aided design, we have buildings getting taller everyday, using hollow tube design with CG compensation devices. These are not new ideas to designers in the 60's but something they didn't want to risk at the time.

Just random example, the full boxed truss system on wtc1 completed per floor exceeds it's loaded cert level by close to 12 times, yet if you broke the bracket down one by one, some of them were close to 50 times stronger of what the max weight they would ever support in the boxed system.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 24, 2017, 03:45:53 AM
Are we finished with AAL 77?   Maybe it's time to move on to United 93?

The obvious question is was it shot down,  or was it the passenger revolt overpowering the hijackers and subsequent  diving crash?

The evidence at first appears to support a shoot down,  but for obvious reasons,  the official story of a passenger revolt is more appealing.

The most recent example of a commercial airliner being shot down is MH17,  brought down by a Russian BUK missile,  there was plenty of wreckage,  strewn over a wide area.   Lots of forensic evidence.

Then of course is KAL 007,  shot down by the Russians in 1983,  even then there was plenty of wreckage.

For  United 93,  a few pieces were found significant distances from the impact site,  but nowhere as much as MH17. 

So, what brought down United 93?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 24, 2017, 03:47:32 AM
Quote from: Bullwinkle on February 24, 2017, 03:06:42 AM

The goal of explosive deconstruction is not free fall.
The goal is to put the structure down in a manor and direction to cause the least amount of damage and make cleanup as easy as possible.

Great discussion, keep going.

That would be mainly,  the manner, in which the manor was collapsed.   
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 24, 2017, 04:02:26 AM
Razor I had replied to you on the Pentagon flight the page before this.

As for 93..One thing we can say for sure, the scene they showed where the wreck was, that was not a plane crash or even where a plan was shot down at.

It literally was just a smoking hole lol. Same thing every person who responded there said including the mayor.

Supposedly there was wreckage consistent with being shot down the city over, however this is unsubstantiated claims. Since their BTS statistics were of course conveniently missing for only that day, then we can't even be sure the planes even flew that day.

One thing we can say for sure...The scene we saw was not a plane accident...It worked for shock value during the moment of 9/11 but faded fast...Plus.."let's roll", lol come on
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 24, 2017, 04:05:39 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 03:12:08 AM
You just copied and pasted stuff from NIST's website, with all due respect, how dare you insinuate I am in the corner.
Huh, so I'm not allowed to use NIST's report as a reference to point out the misconceptions made by a video creator interpreting NIST's report? I'm not allowed to use NIST's report to verify if someone interpreted NIST's report correctly? Goddamnit, logic.

Quote from: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 03:12:08 AM
Instead of expressing structural resistance in units we can use a percentage.

Say 100% structural resistance will hold the building up exactly, any more weight and it will start to collapse. Most working loads are two to four times (corrected, 30 to 100 times) the fail point.
So we can safely assume building 7 had over 100% structural resistance before it fell.

So we have gravitational acceleration - percentage of structural resistance = fall acceleration.

9.8m/s2×75%=7.35m/s2

9.8 m/s2 - 7.35m/s2 = 2.45 m/s2

At 75% structural resistance I would predict a 2.45m/s2 fall acceleration.

Obviously this doesnt calculate change and inertia, however it doesn't need to.

We can clearly see building 7 go from over 100% structural resistance to 0% pretty much instantly.
Once a single support snaps, the structural resistance in that single column goes from 100% to 0% pretty much instantly, so long as the force is constant. Snap a wooden branch, it goes from intact to snapped in seemingly no time at all. Building 7 does not go from 100% to 0% in no time at all, the interior collapses first. And once the exterior collapse starts, it is pretty much still for 0.7 seconds before it starts visibly falling.

Quote from: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 03:12:08 AM
To go from totally upright and intact to free fall (gravitational acceleration) for 2.25 seconds violates the laws of physics.
Well, good thing that never happened. Ever. Never ever. Do you understand that? That never happened, but you ignore it.

Quote from: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 03:12:08 AM
The only way building 7 could do this is to have nearly all of its structural resistance removed nearly instantly.

The only way this is possible is a controlled demolition.
Or maybe, just maybe, as most evidence points towards, the interior started collapsing slowly first, reducing the structural integrity of the building, until the exterior couldn't handle it anymore.

Quote from: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 03:12:08 AM
Please note, that as has been stated before all structural components would have to fail simultaneously for a free-fall to ever occur.
Please note that the interior of the building collapses before the exterior, and please note that the corners of the building actually held on for a good fraction of a second.

Quote from: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 03:12:08 AM
In reality usually one structural component breaks which leads to the initial compromise of structural integrity, which then leads in to more and more structural components failing faster and faster as the collapse gains energy.
Just like happened in the interior of the building! That's nice, right, that physics wasn't broken?

Quote from: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 03:12:08 AM
This is clearly not what we saw that day, I have shown multiple times that WTC7 stayed perfectly upright until its collapse at gravitational acceleration.
If you ignore the collapse of penthouse and the flexing of the building as the corners give out last, you are right. So basically, if we ignore some parts of reality, you are right.

Quote from: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 03:12:08 AM
As for Bhs saying cert load.

NIST says "thermpansion" soo.......
thermpansion is still easier to interpret than cert load. Can YOU tell me what cert load means, and back it up with an actual source?

BHS, so basically... You won't debate with anyone if you have to prove your position to them, they have to prove your position.

I never said the NIST report counts as evidence, that it is factual.

And your background means absolutely nothing to me, because you haven't shown that you are reliable.

Let's count the amount of times you put words in my mouth in that post or just outright lie:
1. "nor do you have a care or even understand what it means when input numbers are not released for a model, it makes it 100 percent useless"
2. "you don't study any of the back ground"
3. "you research absolutely nothing"
4. "provide nothing of use"
5. You assume I regard the NIST report as proof, evidence or truth
6. You assume I don't think the building reached a freefall acceleration (although I would say near freefall, you know air resistance and such...)

Quote
There is much information in this thread to debunk if you can (which obviously you cannot)...I have already told you why a free fall (which NIST themselves said it reached free fall if you actually researched something, and during this free fall time period we saw squib markers on all corner trusses, which the ONLY thing that can cause that during free fall is shape charges or some sort of explosives). I already explained to you just a few simple reasons why the free fall collapse is impossible with just the design of the building alone. (Also, the penthouse would drop exactly as seen during a demo)
Told, explained... Have you tried to prove? Tried to provide evidence or sources? Can you tell me what cert load is? Because no one else can.

I'm not attacking BHS's credentials, I just don't give a shit about them. He keeps arguing as if it meant anything.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 24, 2017, 04:14:49 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 24, 2017, 04:02:26 AM
Razor I had replied to you on the Pentagon flight the page before this.

No I didn't see that,  last I saw you were going to check out the paper I linked to,  did you watch David Chandler's presentation?

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 04:25:11 AM
Quote from: Master Evar
Can YOU tell me what cert load means, and back it up with an actual source?

official

relating to an authority or public body and its activities and responsibilities.
"the prime minister's official engagements"

Certification refers to the confirmation of certain characteristics of an object, person, or organization. This confirmation is often, but not always, provided by some form of external review, education, assessment, or audit. Accreditation is a specific organization's process of certification.

Load.

The overall force to which a structure is subjected in supporting a weight or mass or in resisting externally applied forces. 2. a. Something that is carried, as by a vehicle, person, or animal: a load of firewood.

www.google.com

C'mon man.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 24, 2017, 04:27:49 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on February 24, 2017, 04:05:39 AM

1. "nor do you have a care or even understand what it means when input numbers are not released for a model, it makes it 100 percent useless"
2. "you don't study any of the back ground"
3. "you research absolutely nothing"
4. "provide nothing of use"
5. You assume I regard the NIST report as proof, evidence or truth
6. You assume I don't think the building reached a freefall acceleration (although I would say near freefall, you know air resistance and such...)

I explained what cert loads were and how they work a couple posts above here.

As for your points...I stand by 2, 3 and 4 until proven otherwise.

1 and 5 is a logical assumption since that is all you parrot.

6. You said the building did not reach free fall, I simply stated NIST, the only source you use, even they admitted that (took years of people like me hounding them to say it)..

As for not caring about people's qualifications, well that is ignorant though not surprising. I myself, I choose to live in reality, away from Google warriors that are no bodies and can only parrot with zero understanding etc etc.. Simply I choose to live in the real world.

So I look at qualifications, real world experience, and motivation when someone tells me something. When a Google warrior who has zero qualifications and zero understanding parrots something someone else said they don't even understand..I am not going to listen, especially if it goes against reality.

If someone who is qualified tells me something they are paid to tell me, I will be suspect of them, especially if it goes against reality.

If someone who is qualified tells me something, they have nothing to gain or might even lose something, and it goes with reality...I will probably listen or at least investigate seriously
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 24, 2017, 04:28:29 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 24, 2017, 03:36:34 AM
master _evar Really...You claim we are in a corner while you don't even know what certification loads are?!? You haven't provided one rebuttal besides copy and pasting from a report with zero scientific credibility on a subject you know nothing about??

You are one "special cookie"...I will be nice and include one little piece of information.

"Official certification load"...Every piece of material in that building has a certification load of acceptable working stress tolerances that design inspectors will approve, city inspectors (and in this case agents from the port authority as well) would also inspector every floor as the building was built. There are 1000s of total inspections on a building such as this during its construction.

There is also combined certified stress calculations for combined joints...Each joint is certed itself, however, once a system (say the box frame for the joints under the floors of WTC 1/2) is completed it is certed for its completed form.

There is a ratio between this certified working limit, and the actual force it would take for a complete failure. Because of the lack of computer aided design, they were very generous with design then.

They would take an over built design, then multiply it a few times. It kept people from building super tall towers from the added weight. That is why now, with the accuracy of computer aided design, we have buildings getting taller everyday, using hollow tube design with CG compensation devices. These are not new ideas to designers in the 60's but something they didn't want to risk at the time.

Just random example, the full boxed truss system on wtc1 completed per floor exceeds it's loaded cert level by close to 12 times, yet if you broke the bracket down one by one, some of them were close to 50 times stronger of what the max weight they would ever support in the boxed system.
Ah, finally I got enough information out of you to find out what term you were talking about - "allowable stress" it's called: http://www.setareh.arch.vt.edu/safas/007_fdmtl_30_allowable_stress.html (http://www.setareh.arch.vt.edu/safas/007_fdmtl_30_allowable_stress.html)

See disputeone? This is what I'm talking about, BHS says he's an authority on this but I'm the one who has to correct the terms he's using.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 24, 2017, 04:29:52 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 04:25:11 AM
official

relating to an authority or public body and its activities and responsibilities.
"the prime minister's official engagements"

Certification refers to the confirmation of certain characteristics of an object, person, or organization. This confirmation is often, but not always, provided by some form of external review, education, assessment, or audit. Accreditation is a specific organization's process of certification.

Load.

The overall force to which a structure is subjected in supporting a weight or mass or in resisting externally applied forces. 2. a. Something that is carried, as by a vehicle, person, or animal: a load of firewood.

www.google.com

C'mon man.
I bet you that if you googled all three words together, you'd get nothing. But I found out what BHS is actually talking about - allowable stress.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 04:32:55 AM
Well, I knew what he was talking about...

In Australia its similar to what we used to call it a SWL safe working load.

Now we call it a WLL working load limit (cause Australians tend a little to be a little "she'll be right mate.")

Wasn't hard.

Other synonyms include Working Load Limit (WLL), which is the maximum working load designed by the manufacturer. This load represents a force that is much less than that required to make the lifting equipment fail or yield, also known as the Minimum Breaking Load (MBL).

www.google.com
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 04:40:10 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar
it is pretty much still for 0.7 seconds before it starts visibly falling.

No way man, that's what I've been saying.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 24, 2017, 04:43:26 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on February 24, 2017, 04:28:29 AM
See disputeone? This is what I'm talking about, BHS says he's an authority on this but I'm the one who has to correct the terms he's using.

Get bent (see what I did there)

If I meant allowable stress that is what I would have said. These numbers are estimates given by the manufacturer based on metallurgical qualities. Such as a992 vs A521....Then you add in thickness.

Certification loads is based on an entirely different system, will change on the design of the building, country, and region. For example a high heat area with large seismic activity will be different than an area which is cold and dry. These ratings are sometimes to the city only, other times by state, just depends on structure. There are too many laws to list and variables.

Unless you are in Tehran...Then as long as it doesn't fall in 90 days you pass lol..


Make an argument or f off master... Seriously.


*Edit* I am talking about in the states...Things could be different in other countries. Also your supposed "rebuttal" completely ignored the assembled certification which would veto your definition in the first place, and would have saved me typing.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 24, 2017, 04:50:06 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 04:32:55 AM
Well, I knew what he was talking about...

In Australia its similar to what we used to call it a SWL safe working load.

Now we call it a WLL working load limit (cause Australians tend a little to be a little "she'll be right mate.")

Wasn't hard.

Other synonyms include Working Load Limit (WLL), which is the maximum working load designed by the manufacturer. This load represents a force that is much less than that required to make the lifting equipment fail or yield, also known as the Minimum Breaking Load (MBL).

www.google.com
Yes, that's another term for it. But "Cert load" is not a real term, and even though I guessed what it meant, I don't like to just throw guess like that. And if we use either of the terms WLL or allowable stress, it eases the discussion as both are defined as yield strength (or minimum yield strength) divided by safety factor. So the safety factor decides how many times the designed maximum stress can be put unto the material. And did you realise how easy it was for us to give citations, but BHS STILL didn't give any?

But BHS has not proved anything. He's proved just about as much, as he did when he claimed that "the whole of history says that socialism is a disaster".

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 24, 2017, 04:43:26 AM
If I meant allowable stress that is what I would have said. These numbers are estimates given by the manufacturer based on metallurgical qualities. Such as a992 vs A521....Then you add in thickness.

Certification loads is based on an entirely different system, will change on the design of the building, country, and region. For example a high heat area with large seismic activity will be different than an area which is cold and dry. These ratings are sometimes to the city only, other times by state, just depends on structure. There are too many laws to list and variables.

So it isn't WLL or allowable stress, in which case both me and disputeone actually guessed wrong. See, that's why I don't want to guess. Then, can you tell me the criteria for determining certification load (i.e. a formula) and give a citation?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 24, 2017, 04:51:41 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 04:40:10 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar
it is pretty much still for 0.7 seconds before it starts visibly falling.

No way man, that's what I've been saying.
No, you've been saying it goes from totally intact to falling instantly. Footage shows that doesn't happen (if nothing else, the penthouse proves that).

Also, I really hope that both of you remember I'm not saying it's absolutely not controlled demolition.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 04:58:30 AM
The penthouse is evidence for a controlled demolition....

Edit master evar, it's still pretty much the same thing how much load something is rated to hold in a specific use or circumstance.

It is always much lower than the failing point of the material, joint, weld etc in some cases 30+ times stronger.

Geez man.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 24, 2017, 04:59:49 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 04:58:30 AM
The penthouse is evidence for a controlled demolition....
It's evidence for nothing. No, actually, it's just evidence that the interior collapsed before the exterior. But that's it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on February 24, 2017, 05:07:03 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on February 24, 2017, 03:08:02 AM
...Lol, you're not even trying. In all the footage, it's clear that the penthouse collapses many seconds before the facade, it's clear the interior is more damaged than the exterior.

And how is this possible?

How does a building suffer more INTERIOR DAMAGE than OUTSIDE DAMAGE?

All of the damage on WTC 7 was blamed on the collapse of WTC 1 and 2.

So, parts from 1 and 2 make their way inside the building and do more damage to the INTERIOR than EXTERIOR!?!?

WTH do you smoke prior to posting?

I mean, I agree there was more interior damage, but it was due to explosives planted rather than material ejected from the demolitions of 1 and 2.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 05:08:25 AM
Quote from: totallackey on February 24, 2017, 05:07:03 AM
I mean, I agree there was more interior damage, but it was due to explosives planted rather than material ejected from the demolitions of 1 and 2.

Based.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on February 24, 2017, 05:11:52 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on February 24, 2017, 04:05:39 AM
Huh, so I'm not allowed to use NIST's report as a reference to point out the misconceptions made by a video creator interpreting NIST's report? I'm not allowed to use NIST's report to verify if someone interpreted NIST's report correctly?

Not unless you have the inputs/results data to verify it is done correctly or incorrectly...

You got that stuff man?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 24, 2017, 05:15:03 AM
You would have to give me a specific building, the variables are enormous... To call the equations numerous would be like saying the universe is big. Some basics.. the beginning always starts with ASTM rating of the material, which they have their equations for their own ratings. They are there to make designers jobs easier, take one step out at least.

Then you have to look at average climate, humidity, seismic activity, soil/bedrock, total mass, height, base dimensions, CG etc times 1000... The list is too long, you would have to go into design to get accurate numbers.

Quote from: totallackey on February 24, 2017, 05:11:52 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on February 24, 2017, 04:05:39 AM
Huh, so I'm not allowed to use NIST's report as a reference to point out the misconceptions made by a video creator interpreting NIST's report? I'm not allowed to use NIST's report to verify if someone interpreted NIST's report correctly?

Not unless you have the inputs/results data to verify it is done correctly or incorrectly...

You got that stuff man?

That would be great...I along with many others would pay a tidy some for such info.

Quote from: totallackey on February 24, 2017, 05:07:03 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on February 24, 2017, 03:08:02 AM
...Lol, you're not even trying. In all the footage, it's clear that the penthouse collapses many seconds before the facade, it's clear the interior is more damaged than the exterior.

And how is this possible?

How does a building suffer more INTERIOR DAMAGE than OUTSIDE DAMAGE?

All of the damage on WTC 7 was blamed on the collapse of WTC 1 and 2.

So, parts from 1 and 2 make their way inside the building and do more damage to the INTERIOR than EXTERIOR!?!?

WTH do you smoke prior to posting?

I mean, I agree there was more interior damage, but it was due to explosives planted rather than material ejected from the demolitions of 1 and 2.

Ditto... with emphasis being on the bold section
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 24, 2017, 05:20:44 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 04:58:30 AM

It is always much lower than the failing point of the material, joint, weld etc in some cases 30+ times stronger.



Ditto...

A weld is always stronger than the material being welded (of course a proper weld, an improper weld is a different story).. Thus, why in the states there are 1000s of inspections on a high rise being built...Usually running about 280-400 dollars a pop. Yikes.

Also, some of the joints, can approach up to 80 times over on fail rate, especially on older buildings before computer aided design. Once the math keeps multiplying on itself, if you look at the total weight allowed on certain joints after the completed certification, it is child's play to what it could handle before complete failure if you broke it down to individual pieces again
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rama Set on February 24, 2017, 05:24:49 AM
Babyhighspeed-I also looked for references to "certification load" and "certified load" and can't find anything except in reference to lifting and hoisting equipment. You must know of an engineering governing body that gives clear Mathematica definitions for these terms. Can you give a link to one of those?

Also, the sheer volume of Ad Homs you and TL toss out are really shameful. Rayzor and ME are not taking the bait guys. I don't really know TL but you are better than this. Even if you are right, you are behaving like a conspiracy theorist. If you don't want to take the time to present your case here maybe you should let it go? 

There is tons of interesting stuff in this thread but what is gained by saying ME is on drugs? It's an ego stroke, nothing else.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rama Set on February 24, 2017, 05:26:25 AM
A link to a link to WTC blueprints:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/blueprints.html
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 24, 2017, 05:30:50 AM
Quote from: totallackey on February 24, 2017, 05:11:52 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on February 24, 2017, 04:05:39 AM
Huh, so I'm not allowed to use NIST's report as a reference to point out the misconceptions made by a video creator interpreting NIST's report? I'm not allowed to use NIST's report to verify if someone interpreted NIST's report correctly?

Not unless you have the inputs/results data to verify it is done correctly or incorrectly...

You got that stuff man?
This has nothing to do with the input or result.

If I write here on the forum that I have a pen, then someone else writes that I wrote that I have an apple, I can quote my own post to show them that I did not claim I have an apple but a pen. By your logic I first have to prove I have a pen in order to prove I claimed I have a pen.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on February 24, 2017, 05:33:42 AM
Quote from: Rama Set on February 24, 2017, 05:24:49 AM
Babyhighspeed-I also looked for references to "certification load" and "certified load" and can't find anything except in reference to lifting and hoisting equipment. You must know of an engineering governing body that gives clear Mathematica definitions for these terms. Can you give a link to one of those?

Also, the sheer volume of Ad Homs you and TL toss out are really shameful. Rayzor and ME are not taking the bait guys. I don't really know TL but you are better than this. Even if you are right, you are behaving like a conspiracy theorist. If you don't want to take the time to present your case here maybe you should let it go? 

There is tons of interesting stuff in this thread but what is gained by saying ME is on drugs? It's an ego stroke, nothing else.

Kindly point out where I stated Master Evar is on drugs.

I did not.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 05:33:53 AM
Quote from: Rama Set on February 24, 2017, 05:26:25 AM
A link to a link to WTC blueprints:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/blueprints.html

Thanks Rama Set.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on February 24, 2017, 05:35:21 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on February 24, 2017, 05:30:50 AM
Quote from: totallackey on February 24, 2017, 05:11:52 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on February 24, 2017, 04:05:39 AM
Huh, so I'm not allowed to use NIST's report as a reference to point out the misconceptions made by a video creator interpreting NIST's report? I'm not allowed to use NIST's report to verify if someone interpreted NIST's report correctly?

Not unless you have the inputs/results data to verify it is done correctly or incorrectly...

You got that stuff man?
This has nothing to do with the input or result.

If I write here on the forum that I have a pen, then someone else writes that I wrote that I have an apple, I can quote my own post to show them that I did not claim I have an apple but a pen. By your logic I first have to prove I have a pen in order to prove I claimed I have a pen.

When the pen is a mirage, yes.

And the NIST reports are as substantive as a mirage.

What part of that do you not understand?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 24, 2017, 05:35:50 AM
Quote from: totallackey on February 24, 2017, 05:07:03 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on February 24, 2017, 03:08:02 AM
...Lol, you're not even trying. In all the footage, it's clear that the penthouse collapses many seconds before the facade, it's clear the interior is more damaged than the exterior.

And how is this possible?

How does a building suffer more INTERIOR DAMAGE than OUTSIDE DAMAGE?

All of the damage on WTC 7 was blamed on the collapse of WTC 1 and 2.

So, parts from 1 and 2 make their way inside the building and do more damage to the INTERIOR than EXTERIOR!?!?

WTH do you smoke prior to posting?

I mean, I agree there was more interior damage, but it was due to explosives planted rather than material ejected from the demolitions of 1 and 2.
Maybe, the interior got more damaged because most of the load of the building was loaded unto the interior supports? So once something was going to fail, it was an interior column?

Why wouldn't the interior be more damaged?

P.s., marked where you state I'm on drugs.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 24, 2017, 05:36:21 AM
I give what is received like a mirror..If you want to come with nonsense that is what I put out.

Leave rayzor out of your post...Him and I are a perfect example. There was nonsense in and nonsense out at one point.

Now we have settled to a calm question answer/answer question type of communication platform. I even admitted information he presented a few pages back that I didn't know about. See what can come from a real conversation?

So nonsense in nonsense out?? Pretty easy huh... As for any sort of certification specifications you need to be more specific as I told master a few posts ago.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 24, 2017, 05:37:55 AM
Quote from: totallackey on February 24, 2017, 05:35:21 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on February 24, 2017, 05:30:50 AM
Quote from: totallackey on February 24, 2017, 05:11:52 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on February 24, 2017, 04:05:39 AM
Huh, so I'm not allowed to use NIST's report as a reference to point out the misconceptions made by a video creator interpreting NIST's report? I'm not allowed to use NIST's report to verify if someone interpreted NIST's report correctly?

Not unless you have the inputs/results data to verify it is done correctly or incorrectly...

You got that stuff man?
This has nothing to do with the input or result.

If I write here on the forum that I have a pen, then someone else writes that I wrote that I have an apple, I can quote my own post to show them that I did not claim I have an apple but a pen. By your logic I first have to prove I have a pen in order to prove I claimed I have a pen.

When the pen is a mirage, yes.

And the NIST reports are as substantive as amirage.

What part of that do you not understand?
so If I claim I have a pen, unless I prove I have a pen I haven't claimed I have a pen? Neat, that would also mean I could slander anyone, but because I don't have evidence for my slander I haven't slandered anyone.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 24, 2017, 05:41:11 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 24, 2017, 05:15:03 AM
You would have to give me a specific building, the variables are enormous... To call the equations numerous would be like saying the universe is big. Some basics.. the beginning always starts with ASTM rating of the material, which they have their equations for their own ratings. They are there to make designers jobs easier, take one step out at least.

Then you have to look at average climate, humidity, seismic activity, soil/bedrock, total mass, height, base dimensions, CG etc times 1000... The list is too long, you would have to go into design to get accurate numbers.
Maybe you could tell me it for WTC 7? That'd be great.

And still, I really REALLY hope you can cite some guidelines for it. Surely there must be some official guidelines for calculating cert load, so that people can't just build however they want?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on February 24, 2017, 05:45:27 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on February 24, 2017, 05:35:50 AM
Quote from: totallackey on February 24, 2017, 05:07:03 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on February 24, 2017, 03:08:02 AM
...Lol, you're not even trying. In all the footage, it's clear that the penthouse collapses many seconds before the facade, it's clear the interior is more damaged than the exterior.

And how is this possible?

How does a building suffer more INTERIOR DAMAGE than OUTSIDE DAMAGE?

All of the damage on WTC 7 was blamed on the collapse of WTC 1 and 2.

So, parts from 1 and 2 make their way inside the building and do more damage to the INTERIOR than EXTERIOR!?!?

WTH do you smoke prior to posting?

I mean, I agree there was more interior damage, but it was due to explosives planted rather than material ejected from the demolitions of 1 and 2.
Maybe, the interior got more damaged because most of the load of the building was loaded unto the interior supports? So once something was going to fail, it was an interior column?

Why wouldn't the interior be more damaged?

P.s., marked where you state I'm on drugs.

I asked what you smoke prior to posting.

You interpret that as an accusation of drug use?

Explains your reliance on the OS.

Nobody denies the interior of WTC 7 suffered damage.

It is why and how the damage was inflicted we disagree about.

You forget the building served as the Emergency Center for NYC.

You forget entire floors were built to withstand coordinated bombing attacks.

There is no proof presented in the OS concerning the causes of interior column collapse in WTC 7, leading to what witnesses can only call a perfect example of a controlled demolition.   
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on February 24, 2017, 05:48:51 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on February 24, 2017, 05:37:55 AM
Quote from: totallackey on February 24, 2017, 05:35:21 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on February 24, 2017, 05:30:50 AM
Quote from: totallackey on February 24, 2017, 05:11:52 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on February 24, 2017, 04:05:39 AM
Huh, so I'm not allowed to use NIST's report as a reference to point out the misconceptions made by a video creator interpreting NIST's report? I'm not allowed to use NIST's report to verify if someone interpreted NIST's report correctly?

Not unless you have the inputs/results data to verify it is done correctly or incorrectly...

You got that stuff man?
This has nothing to do with the input or result.

If I write here on the forum that I have a pen, then someone else writes that I wrote that I have an apple, I can quote my own post to show them that I did not claim I have an apple but a pen. By your logic I first have to prove I have a pen in order to prove I claimed I have a pen.

When the pen is a mirage, yes.

And the NIST reports are as substantive as amirage.

What part of that do you not understand?
so If I claim I have a pen, unless I prove I have a pen I haven't claimed I have a pen? Neat, that would also mean I could slander anyone, but because I don't have evidence for my slander I haven't slandered anyone.

You would deny that slander, and cling to that denial much the same as you cling to a non-scientific (therefore useless as tits on a penguin) NIST report.

Linus.

Quit engaging in such equivocation.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 24, 2017, 05:50:47 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on February 24, 2017, 05:41:11 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 24, 2017, 05:15:03 AM
You would have to give me a specific building, the variables are enormous... To call the equations numerous would be like saying the universe is big. Some basics.. the beginning always starts with ASTM rating of the material, which they have their equations for their own ratings. They are there to make designers jobs easier, take one step out at least.

Then you have to look at average climate, humidity, seismic activity, soil/bedrock, total mass, height, base dimensions, CG etc times 1000... The list is too long, you would have to go into design to get accurate numbers.
Maybe you could tell me it for WTC 7? That'd be great.

And still, I really REALLY hope you can cite some guidelines for it. Surely there must be some official guidelines for calculating cert load, so that people can't just build however they want?

Re read what I wrote...it is obvious people don't just build what they want (unless you are in Tehran lol)...I was very clear on how many facets there are in the determination of such factors. I have also explained other areas of this as well.

This is exactly the shit I am talking about which is why I speak to you with disrespect...I say something in clear written language and you completely ignore it and say what you want.

So before I waste another second of my time with you please observe what Rama set posted.

Quote from: Rama Set on February 24, 2017, 05:26:25 AM
A link to a link to WTC blueprints:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/blueprints.html

I hate copy and paste or just posting links, but don't want to waste any more time with you, at least currently.

This is only a small fraction of information...More specific can be had, but it would take a minimum of an hour, more than likely more since I hate communicating through text. There is no quick way to present information like that.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 24, 2017, 05:55:48 AM
Quote from: totallackey on February 24, 2017, 05:45:27 AM
I asked what you smoke prior to posting.

You interpret that as an accusation of drug use?
Actually, Rama Set did it. However, it certainly implies that I smoke, and smokable substances are considered drugs.

Quote from: totallackey on February 24, 2017, 05:45:27 AM
Nobody denies the interior of WTC 7 suffered damage.
Disputeone seems to think that the building went from completely intact to suddenly freefalling, implying that this includes the interior.

The rest is nothing I directly disagree with, except for that you imply that I'm forgetting things, as if I've ever claimed otherwise. And it wouldn't be a "perfect" example of a controlled demolition, as it did damage neighbouring buildings. A perfect controlled demolition would not do that.

Quote from: totallackey on February 24, 2017, 05:48:51 AM
You would deny that slander, and cling to that denial much the same as you cling to a non-scientific (therefore useless as tits on a penguin) NIST report.
Would I deny the slander? How do you know?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 24, 2017, 06:00:45 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 24, 2017, 05:50:47 AM
Re read what I wrote...it is obvious people don't just build what they want (unless you are in Tehran lol)...I was very clear on how many facets there are in the determination of such factors. I have also explained other areas of this as well.

This is exactly the shit I am talking about which is why I speak to you with disrespect...I say something in clear written language and you completely ignore it and say what you want.
You said:
"You would have to give me a specific building, the variables are enormous... To call the equations numerous would be like saying the universe is big. Some basics.. the beginning always starts with ASTM rating of the material, which they have their equations for their own ratings. They are there to make designers jobs easier, take one step out at least."

So I responded:
"Maybe you could tell me it for WTC 7? That'd be great."

Ergo, I did what you ask me for. Then you accuse me of ignoring it. Pathetic. Put up or shut up.

And you don't want to do the work? Fine, there's an easy solution: Cite a source that agrees with you.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 24, 2017, 05:50:47 AM
So before I waste another second of my time with you please observe what Rama set posted.

Quote from: Rama Set on February 24, 2017, 05:26:25 AM
A link to a link to WTC blueprints:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/blueprints.html

I hate copy and paste or just posting links, but don't want to waste any more time with you, at least currently.

This is only a small fraction of information...More specific can be had, but it would take a minimum of an hour, more than likely more since I hate communicating through text. There is no quick way to present information like that.
If only it contained the elusive "Cert load"... But it doesn't, so you still have to provide your own citation.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 06:07:58 AM
Quote from: Master Evar
Disputeone seems to think that the building went from completely intact to suddenly freefalling

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 24, 2017, 06:10:57 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 06:07:58 AM
Quote from: Master Evar
Disputeone seems to think that the building went from completely intact to suddenly freefalling


In 100% of shots, the penthouse collapses multiple seconds before the rest of the building. Ergo, building does not go from intact to freefalling instantly.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on February 24, 2017, 06:12:53 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on February 24, 2017, 05:55:48 AM
Actually, Rama Set did it. However, it certainly implies that I smoke, and smokable substances are considered drugs.

Okay, you smoke nothing.

Drug use is not an explanation for why you cling to fairy tales.

Do you have an explanation?

I could keep guessing, but I do not want to be accused of faulty conjecture.

Quote from: Master_Evar on February 24, 2017, 05:55:48 AM
Disputeone seems to think that the building went from completely intact to suddenly freefalling, implying that this includes the interior.

I did not see this claim by disputeone.

Maybe I missed it.

Quote from: Master_Evar on February 24, 2017, 05:55:48 AM
The rest is nothing I directly disagree with, except for that you imply that I'm forgetting things, as if I've ever claimed otherwise. And it wouldn't be a "perfect" example of a controlled demolition, as it did damage neighbouring buildings. A perfect controlled demolition would not do that.

You do realize when a building is slated for a controlled demolition, announcements are made and precautionary measures are taken, correct?

Large areas of the neighboring areas are cordoned off, traffic re-routed, fences erected, surrounding buildings are boarded up, etc.?

Even then, there is collateral damage.

Unpreventable.

Only distance away from the site is fool-proof.

By "perfect," I meant the building dropped the very same way any building would drop when a building is purposefully demoed.

When it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, that goddamn thing is fucking duck.

WTC 7 was most definitely a controlled demolition.

Quote from: Master_Evar on February 24, 2017, 05:55:48 AM
Would I deny the slander? How do you know?

Part of the conjecture I referenced earlier.

No definitive proof, but with you tossing around the NIST like it is the Bible, I figured you would not mind me doing the same shit.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 24, 2017, 06:14:17 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on February 24, 2017, 06:00:45 AM

"You would have to give me a specific building, the variables are enormous... To call the equations numerous would be like saying the universe is big. Some basics.. the beginning always starts with ASTM rating of the material, which they have their equations for their own ratings. They are there to make designers jobs easier, take one step out at least."

So I responded:
"Maybe you could tell me it for WTC 7? That'd be great."


Core ASTM a36

Trusses and other supports mixture of ASTM a/36/242. Fire e119
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Heiwa on February 24, 2017, 06:15:02 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on February 24, 2017, 06:10:57 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 06:07:58 AM
Quote from: Master Evar
Disputeone seems to think that the building went from completely intact to suddenly freefalling


In 100% of shots, the penthouse collapses multiple seconds before the rest of the building. Ergo, building does not go from intact to freefalling instantly.
? So the WTC7 penthouse up on the roof collapsed ... and then the whole building below collapsed. I have other ideas - http://heiwaco.com/nist.htm . Please tell me what you think is wrong!
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 06:17:18 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 06:07:58 AM
Quote from: Master Evar
Disputeone seems to think that the building went from completely intact to suddenly freefalling


In 100% of shots, the penthouse collapses multiple seconds before the rest of the building. Ergo, building does not go from intact to freefalling instantly.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed page one
Though it is funny, he uses the center collapse of a roof as "proof" when he is really shooting himself in the foot. It is typical of a steel framed skeleton designed building when demolished for the roof to sink briefly. This of course will happen when you hit the first charges, cuts in a 45 degree angle the upper parts of the main I beams first about 20 feet from the roof (depending on total height). They then slide down from gravity equally....causing...Drum roll...The roof to drop about 10 feet, then everything begins to follow.

I mean the roof line was perfectly intact then freefall.

So, central supports cut, building just holding on, remaining supports cut, free-fall.

this is my simplified version of any reasonable buildings collapse due to fire.

So structural resistance and fall acceleration.

G-%S=F

100% = 0m/s2
99  % = .098m/s2
98  % = .196m/s2
97  % = .294m/s2
96  % = .392m/s2
95  % = .49m/s2
94  % = .588m/s2
93  % = .686m/s2
92  % = .784m/s2
91  % = .882m/s2
90  % = .98m/s2

Based on my very simple equation this is my prediction for the onset of collapse for a large building losing structural resistance due to an intense fire.

Please note, that as has been stated before all structural components would have to fail simultaneously for a plumb free-fall collapse to ever occur.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rama Set on February 24, 2017, 06:30:24 AM
Quote from: totallackey on February 24, 2017, 05:33:42 AM
Quote from: Rama Set on February 24, 2017, 05:24:49 AM
Babyhighspeed-I also looked for references to "certification load" and "certified load" and can't find anything except in reference to lifting and hoisting equipment. You must know of an engineering governing body that gives clear Mathematica definitions for these terms. Can you give a link to one of those?

Also, the sheer volume of Ad Homs you and TL toss out are really shameful. Rayzor and ME are not taking the bait guys. I don't really know TL but you are better than this. Even if you are right, you are behaving like a conspiracy theorist. If you don't want to take the time to present your case here maybe you should let it go? 

There is tons of interesting stuff in this thread but what is gained by saying ME is on drugs? It's an ego stroke, nothing else.

Kindly point out where I stated Master Evar is on drugs.

I did not.

That is precisely what is implied when you say "WTH do you smoke prior to posting?". You can childishly try to use semantics to say otherwise, but everyone knows better.  It makes you look defensive, which is something you needn't be if the truth is really on your side. Your facts and reason should be overwhelming. Keep pressing those and you will be fine.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 06:33:31 AM
I think he was more referring to that he doesn't think weed is a drug.

But I agree we should stick to facts and reason.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on February 24, 2017, 06:37:03 AM
Quote from: Rama Set on February 24, 2017, 06:30:24 AM
That is precisely what is implied when you say "WTH do you smoke prior to posting?". You can childishly try to use semantics to say otherwise, but everyone knows better.  It makes you look defensive, which is something you needn't be if the truth is really on your side. Your facts and reason should be overwhelming. Keep pressing those and you will be fine.
And had you written I made an implication, then you would have been correct.

I did engage in conjecture and made an implication.

But you wrote I accused ME of using drugs when I did not.

He has subsequently denied smoking.

Look at this analogy:

ME relies on the NIST for his version of 9/11 events, implying they are indeed correct.

Without the inputs/results data, all of the NIST reports are nothing more than conjecture.

Well written conjecture, but conjecture nonetheless.

I will no longer engage in conjecture, so it is now up to him to provide a reasonable explanation for his clinging to the OS fairy tale.

I will stop with the personal attacks and send them in to AR.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 24, 2017, 06:48:33 AM
Quote from: totallackey on February 24, 2017, 06:37:03 AM

I will no longer engage in conjecture, so it is now up to him to provide a reasonable explanation for his clinging to the OS fairy tale.


I agree.. and will try myself, though I can't promise not having any slip ups with constant presented nonsense.

Master_evar

I presented what you wanted (which is why you said you wouldn't read what link Rama set posted)

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 24, 2017, 06:14:17 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on February 24, 2017, 06:00:45 AM

"You would have to give me a specific building, the variables are enormous... To call the equations numerous would be like saying the universe is big. Some basics.. the beginning always starts with ASTM rating of the material, which they have their equations for their own ratings. They are there to make designers jobs easier, take one step out at least."

So I responded:
"Maybe you could tell me it for WTC 7? That'd be great."


Core ASTM a36

Trusses and other supports mixture of ASTM a/36/242. Fire e119

If you can make it past the link and provide any sort of rebuttal that has substance I will post up more complex information. Otherwise I am not wasting hours of my time.

It takes time to transcribe hard paper into electronic form.
Quote from: Rama Set on February 24, 2017, 05:26:25 AM
A link to a link to WTC blueprints:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/blueprints.html

Edited for link
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rama Set on February 24, 2017, 07:00:59 AM
Quote from: totallackey on February 24, 2017, 06:37:03 AM
Quote from: Rama Set on February 24, 2017, 06:30:24 AM
That is precisely what is implied when you say "WTH do you smoke prior to posting?". You can childishly try to use semantics to say otherwise, but everyone knows better.  It makes you look defensive, which is something you needn't be if the truth is really on your side. Your facts and reason should be overwhelming. Keep pressing those and you will be fine.
And had you written I made an implication, then you would have been correct.

I did engage in conjecture and made an implication.

But you wrote I accused ME of using drugs when I did not.

Semantics.  You know what you did, and it was immature.

Quote
He has subsequently denied smoking.

Irrelevant, he could have been high as a kite.  What matters is substance.

Quote
I will no longer engage in conjecture, so it is now up to him to provide a reasonable explanation for his clinging to the OS fairy tale.

He has been, sorry to say.  The interpretation of collapse time that ME has presented is reasonable, if you can properly debunk his actual argument, you should.

Quote
But I still do not know why people can toss about the OS for 9/11 (all based on conjecture) and I cannot engage in conjecture concerning members' reasoning or behavior.

Well good.  You shouldn't worry about why people believe what they believe, you should concentrate on their arguments.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on February 24, 2017, 07:11:30 AM
Quote from: Rama Set on February 24, 2017, 07:00:59 AM
Semantics.  You know what you did, and it was immature.

Okay.

I think it is more wrong to keep trumpeting the NIST conjecture, but it does not matter.

Quote from: Rama Set on February 24, 2017, 07:00:59 AM
What matters is substance.

Precisely why the NIST needs to be dropped as a reference when discussing the demolitions of 9/11.

Quote from: Rama Set on February 24, 2017, 07:00:59 AM
He has been, sorry to say.  The interpretation of collapse time that ME has presented is reasonable, if you can properly debunk his actual argument, you should.

It is based on the reports provided by the NIST and is therefore UNREASONABLE and does not deserve to be addressed.

Quote from: Rama Set on February 24, 2017, 07:00:59 AM
Well good.  You shouldn't worry about why people believe what they believe, you should concentrate on their arguments.

When they have no argument, I get distracted and my focus tends to shift.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 24, 2017, 07:25:52 AM
Quote from: totallackey on February 24, 2017, 07:11:30 AM


Okay.

I think it is more wrong to keep trumpeting the NIST conjecture, but it does not matter.



When they have no argument, I get distracted and my focus tends to shift.

Agreed.

Rama set, we have both said we would try and be better. But if it continues to only be nonsense, I myself make no promises.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 24, 2017, 08:09:06 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 06:17:18 AM
I mean the roof line was perfectly intact then freefall.

So, central supports cut, building just holding on, remaining supports cut, free-fall.
That, or progressive interior collapse -> weakening of whole structure -> rapid failure of exterior columns.

Remember, not saying you are absolutely wrong. But it is wrong to say that it is impossible that it happened due to damage from fire.

Quote from: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 06:17:18 AM
this is my simplified version of any reasonable buildings collapse due to fire.

So structural resistance and fall acceleration.

G-%S=F

100% = 0m/s2
99  % = .098m/s2
98  % = .196m/s2
97  % = .294m/s2
96  % = .392m/s2
95  % = .49m/s2
94  % = .588m/s2
93  % = .686m/s2
92  % = .784m/s2
91  % = .882m/s2
90  % = .98m/s2

Based on my very simple equation this is my prediction for the onset of collapse for a large building losing structural resistance due to an intense fire.
So, does your equation take into account the time it takes for a column to go from 100% to 0%? Does your equation take into account how quickly loads are shifted? Does it take into account extra loads from the interior?

Quote from: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 06:17:18 AM
Please note, that as has been stated before all structural components would have to fail simultaneously for a plumb free-fall collapse to ever occur.
It is visible that the fail began at the center of the walls, and spread towards the corners.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 24, 2017, 06:48:33 AM
Core ASTM a36

Trusses and other supports mixture of ASTM a/36/242. Fire e119
What? Why are you answering by giving me some steel? I've looked into it, I can't find any "cert load" specifications for it.


Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 24, 2017, 06:48:33 AM
If you can make it past the link and provide any sort of rebuttal that has substance I will post up more complex information. Otherwise I am not wasting hours of my time.

It takes time to transcribe hard paper into electronic form.
Quote from: Rama Set on February 24, 2017, 05:26:25 AM
A link to a link to WTC blueprints:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/blueprints.html

Edited for link

I've looked at those blueprints long before Rama linked to them. I stand by what I said: They specify NOTHING regarding "cert load".

I think you're trying to make me do all the maths here, I guess that's why you gave me that steel. Well first of all, I'm having a hard time reading those schematics in the original (highest) resolution. Second of all, I'm not used to the US measurement system. Third of all, you claimed the "cert load" of the building, you back it up with calculations. Fourth of all, you STILL haven't adequately specified how "cert load" is calculated. Fifth of all, rebuttal to what exactly? You haven't made any arguments.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on February 24, 2017, 09:36:06 AM
"This evidence strengthens previous evidence uncovered by Pilots For 9/11 Truth that a standard 767 cannot remain in control, stable or hold together at the speeds reported by the NTSB for the South Tower aircraft(6). So, if UA175 was somewhere out in Pennsylvania when an aircraft was observed to strike the south tower, and a standard 767 cannot perform at such excessive speeds as reported, then where did the airplane come from which was observed to strike the South Tower? That is a great question and the reason we are still here after 10 years attempting to get answers for the day that changed our world, and will never go away until those questions are answered."

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/ACARS-CONFIRMED-911-AIRCRAFT-AIRBORNE-LONG-AFTER-CRASH.html (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/ACARS-CONFIRMED-911-AIRCRAFT-AIRBORNE-LONG-AFTER-CRASH.html)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 24, 2017, 10:33:56 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on February 24, 2017, 08:09:06 AM

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 24, 2017, 06:48:33 AM
Core ASTM a36

Trusses and other supports mixture of ASTM a/36/242. Fire e119
What? Why are you answering by giving me some steel? I've looked into it, I can't find any "cert load" specifications for it.

Because that is what you asked for. (fyi, it is also the fire rating for the steel as well)

Quote from: Master_Evar on February 24, 2017, 06:00:45 AM

"You would have to give me a specific building, the variables are enormous... To call the equations numerous would be like saying the universe is big. Some basics.. the beginning always starts with ASTM rating of the material, which they have their equations for their own ratings. They are there to make designers jobs easier, take one step out at least."

So I responded:
"Maybe you could tell me it for WTC 7? That'd be great."


So there are your ASTM standards right there as you asked.

Quote
I think you're trying to make me do all the maths here, I guess that's why you gave me that steel. Well first of all, I'm having a hard time reading those schematics in the original (highest) resolution. Second of all, I'm not used to the US measurement system. Third of all, you claimed the "cert load" of the building, you back it up with calculations. Fourth of all, you STILL haven't adequately specified how "cert load" is calculated. Fifth of all, rebuttal to what exactly? You haven't made any arguments.

This is why I show you disrespect, because of shit like this. Of course there is no "cert load" character for character you will find. This is obviously an abbreviation to save time, abbreviations are even worse when talking from engineer to engineer. I already explained to you, that you need to be more specific on exactly what you want. There are 100s upon 100s of different certifications by a 100 different names composed of 1000s of factors. I already explained how some of these factors come into play when determining these certifications. I know you read this, because you replied to it and asked for the metal standards to start off with. I also explained the combination of agencies that issue these certifications. I also never said "cert load of the whole building"...that is just stupid...you know I never said that... ::)

I have met many like you, and will meet many more. Can only argue trivial dumb little things, such as semantics, instead of arguing with substance or addressing the actual content. You also say no one has presented an actual argument which is just bold face stupid...I know I have introduced rebuttals you side step (such as this dumb little stunt) and never address, so have others you have done the same with.

You wont even address a simple website link where the information is designed to appeal to a large group of people, not just engineers or architects...

Nor will you provide any rebuttals besides copying and pasting a report that has already proven to be false as well as completely non scientific and not provable from their own hiding of inputs and other data.

You rely on word twisting and general omission, i wont say lies because I am trying to be nice as promised.

However, with all your actions stated above, you want me to spend an hour or two posting stuff up that you will ignore? Especially when you wont even address a simple website link (also, nothing is easy to read in the original material, I have to use a magnifying glass at times to see certificate numbers and other fine details. It was the 60s, before the cool zoom in and out of electronic data, it was all thrown together page by page...god speed. You should see their wiring diagrams, I am glad i was not an electrical engineer at the time...or even now).

Just in case we ever get to the point of communicating and sharing information (doubtful)...Full disclosure, some records have been lost, as details was spread from the city to the port authority..(including some certification standards and other design aspects) Though I don't find this suspicious because of the age and changing of hands. Though, we have found enough to be able to piece together the random missing pieces of info.

So...again...please form a rebuttal...to something...if not, please do not stink up the thread.

I find your search for the truth disingenuous for a polite term, as I am attempting to be nicer.

Quote from: totallackey on February 24, 2017, 09:36:06 AM
and will never go away until those questions are answered


Ditto....These and 1000s more.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on February 24, 2017, 10:39:56 AM
Someone should count the number of frames in the videos of planes striking the towers.

I would wager the amount of frames from first appearance to point of impact and total disappearance (i.e. the amount of time a plane takes on film to fly its own length) demonstrate ZERO DECELERATION!!!

How is that physically possible?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Heiwa on February 24, 2017, 11:22:27 AM
Quote from: totallackey on February 24, 2017, 10:39:56 AM
Someone should count the number of frames in the videos of planes striking the towers.

I would wager the amount of frames from first appearance to point of impact and total disappearance (i.e. the amount of time a plane takes on film to fly its own length) demonstrate ZERO DECELERATION!!!

How is that physically possible?

CGI
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rama Set on February 24, 2017, 12:05:00 PM
Quote from: totallackey on February 24, 2017, 10:39:56 AM
Someone should count the number of frames in the videos of planes striking the towers.

I nominate you.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 24, 2017, 01:04:15 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 24, 2017, 10:33:56 AM
Because that is what you asked for. (fyi, it is also the fire rating for the steel as well)
No, I explicitly asked for how the cert load would be calculated on the WTC 7, I did not ask you to give me the steel used.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 24, 2017, 10:33:56 AM
So there are your ASTM standards right there as you asked.
Quote me on that. I'm am 100% that I asked for calculation of cert load, not ASTM standards (which, as far as I can tell, do NOT include "cert load").

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 24, 2017, 10:33:56 AM
This is why I show you disrespect, because of shit like this. Of course there is no "cert load" character for character you will find. This is obviously an abbreviation to save time, abbreviations are even worse when talking from engineer to engineer. I already explained to you, that you need to be more specific on exactly what you want. There are 100s upon 100s of different certifications by a 100 different names composed of 1000s of factors. I already explained how some of these factors come into play when determining these certifications. I know you read this, because you replied to it and asked for the metal standards to start off with. I also explained the combination of agencies that issue these certifications. I also never said "cert load of the whole building"...that is just stupid...you know I never said that... ::)
Abbreviation for what? What kind of certification? Me and disputeone listed two standards for loads, but apparently you were not speaking of that. So what were you speaking of? You claim that the strength of x structural component has a strength of y cert loads... Since you can specify an actual value, you must be able to know which value you're talking of right? And how it's calculated? Surely you're not just claiming thigns about something you don't know? There is no evidence that it's an actual abbreviation engineers use (at least not on a large scale), in which case it's incredibly dishonest of you to expect anyone else to understand what you're talking about.

And I know you never said "cert load of whole building", but you have claimed the cert load of structural components of the building. You'll have to back that up.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 24, 2017, 10:33:56 AM
I have met many like you, and will meet many more. Can only argue trivial dumb little things, such as semantics, instead of arguing with substance or addressing the actual content. You also say no one has presented an actual argument which is just bold face stupid...I know I have introduced rebuttals you side step (such as this dumb little stunt) and never address, so have others you have done the same with.
I'm not even sure if cert load is a real thing or some bull you just made up or picked up somewhere. I am arguing substance, such as: Please prove your claims regarding the structural strength of the WTC buildings. You say I have to look it up, but facts that support you are literally non-existent it seems like. I CAN'T find what you're claiming, and I shouldn't have to. Your claim, your responsibility.

Oh, did I say no one has presented an argument? Well, I didn't know that. I certainly can't find me saying that in this thread. Can you quote me, or is this just one more of the many lies you come up with?

You're the one sidestepping, you hypocrite. You're the one who can't give a straight answer to a simple question - what is cert load, and how is it calculated? Your only rebuttals so far are "look it up yourself".

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 24, 2017, 10:33:56 AM
You wont even address a simple website link where the information is designed to appeal to a large group of people, not just engineers or architects...
How am I supposed to "adress a website link"? Do you expect me to cite the whole website and analyse all of it? I'm discussing this with YOU, if YOU have anything you think is supported by the website YOU have to point it out for me. Again, you're making ME do YOUR job.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 24, 2017, 10:33:56 AM
Nor will you provide any rebuttals besides copying and pasting a report that has already proven to be false as well as completely non scientific and not provable from their own hiding of inputs and other data.
For the N:th time, I'M NOT USING IT AS EVIDENCE. Stop lying.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 24, 2017, 10:33:56 AM
You rely on word twisting and general omission, i wont say lies because I am trying to be nice as promised.
Word twisting? I've challenged you multiple times to quote me on thigns you claim I say, but you just silently let it pass you hypocrite. You're the one twisting my words.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 24, 2017, 10:33:56 AM
However, with all your actions stated above, you want me to spend an hour or two posting stuff up that you will ignore? Especially when you wont even address a simple website link (also, nothing is easy to read in the original material, I have to use a magnifying glass at times to see certificate numbers and other fine details. It was the 60s, before the cool zoom in and out of electronic data, it was all thrown together page by page...god speed. You should see their wiring diagrams, I am glad i was not an electrical engineer at the time...or even now).
What should I adress? Again, I'm discussing this with YOU, not the creators of that website. Don't you know how a discussion works?

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 24, 2017, 10:33:56 AM
Just in case we ever get to the point of communicating and sharing information (doubtful)...Full disclosure, some records have been lost, as details was spread from the city to the port authority..(including some certification standards and other design aspects) Though I don't find this suspicious because of the age and changing of hands. Though, we have found enough to be able to piece together the random missing pieces of info.
Yes, it's really doubtful that we'll ever get to the point when you're ready to share your sources with me, despite me sharing my sources with you.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 24, 2017, 10:33:56 AM
So...again...please form a rebuttal...to something...if not, please do not stink up the thread.
Rebuttal to what? You're responding to twisted versions of my arguments, how am I supposed to adress that?

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 24, 2017, 10:33:56 AM
I find your search for the truth disingenuous for a polite term, as I am attempting to be nicer.
What a world we live in, when lying about what others claim is considered "nice".
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 02:39:59 PM
I think it's entirely unfair to say we haven't presented an argument.

My equation is simplified please read it, I don't claim it to factor in everything but it's enough to prove that building 7 wouldn't have suddenly underwent 2.25 seconds of free-fall.

As I have said before nearly every structural component would have to fail before providing any structural resistance to allow a free-fall.

Take the blue pill, it's fine... however don't take the blue pill, wake up and start a campaign saying the matrix doesn't exist...

If you don't claim the NIST copy pasta as "evidence" then all you have presented is a desire to believe the official narrative, it's been said before, that's fine, it's your choice. Just don't pretend you have evidence to back it up.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 24, 2017, 03:06:46 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 02:39:59 PM
I think it's entirely unfair to say we haven't presented an argument.

My equation is simplified please read it, I don't claim it to factor in everything but it's enough to prove that building 7 wouldn't have suddenly underwent 2.25 seconds of free-fall.

As I have said before nearly every structural component would have to fail before providing any structural resistance to allow a free-fall.

Take the blue pill, it's fine... however don't take the blue pill, wake up and start a campaign saying the matrix doesn't exist...

You assume that free fall is a fool proof indicator of controlled demolition,   it isn't.   It is however  proof of complete loss of structural support.  You need to prove that controlled demolition was the cause of that loss of support.  The NIST report claims it was uncontrolled fires followed by complete internal collapse.   Neither possibility can be proven to the extent required for absolute certainty.

So what evidence is there, that can be agreed on?
There is clear evidence of internal structural failure preceeding the main collapse,  the  left to right collapse of the penthouse suggests a progressive failure of the internal structure.   
The walls bowed inwards rather than the roof line dropping. The droop in the roof line is not there in video taken from further away.
The FDNY measured the walls bulging as early as 2 in the afternoon, and concluded it was going to collapse some 3 hours before it actually came down.

So what caused WTC7 to collapse,   If you want to conclude controlled demolition,  you need more evidence than "Well it looks like controlled demolition"  That's not strong enough to support a conspiracy argument.
Was it uncontrolled fires?  The only way to prove or disprove that is to do a proper independent analysis, and that means a new 911 commission.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 03:09:32 PM
Why not show some better math than mine, if I'm incorrect.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 24, 2017, 03:21:37 PM
Quote from: totallackey on February 24, 2017, 10:39:56 AM
Someone should count the number of frames in the videos of planes striking the towers.

I would wager the amount of frames from first appearance to point of impact and total disappearance (i.e. the amount of time a plane takes on film to fly its own length) demonstrate ZERO DECELERATION!!!

How is that physically possible?

To save you going frame by frame,  someone has already done it.   If you don't want to read the analysis,  I'll give you the short version.  Yes it did decelerate during impact.

https://911tap.org/557-news-releases/470-observed-deceleration-of-ua-175-during-the-impact-at-the-south-tower

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 03:22:55 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 03:09:32 PM
Why not show some better math than mine, if I'm incorrect.

????
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 24, 2017, 03:25:08 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 03:09:32 PM
Why not show some better math than mine, if I'm incorrect.

Sigh....   controlled demolition is not the only cause of loss of structural support.   Your free fall calculations apply equally well to a fire initiated total loss of structural support.

Re-read what I posted. 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 03:28:47 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 03:09:32 PM
Why not show some better math than mine, if I'm incorrect.

You can't?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 24, 2017, 03:49:30 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 03:28:47 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 03:09:32 PM
Why not show some better math than mine, if I'm incorrect.

You can't?

Do you think your maths is wrong?    I got the impression it was simply saying that unsupported things fall at free fall rates.  While it's correct, it's hardly a revolutionary idea.

Maybe you need to do some reading on the mathematics of structural collapse.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 03:53:24 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 24, 2017, 03:25:08 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 03:09:32 PM
Why not show some better math than mine, if I'm incorrect.

Sigh....   controlled demolition is not the only cause of loss of structural support.   Your free fall calculations apply equally well to a fire initiated total loss of structural support.

Re-read what I posted.

Note I show all my working and the logic I use, this is already more than NIST has done.

This hasn't been debunked except to copy and post NIST's scientific forgery.

If anyone wants to use their own words and math then please, I'd really like to see it.

Rayzor this equation is for fire induced progressive collapse, not a CD... thats why my fall acceleration prediction doesn't nearly match reality...

Instead of expressing structural resistance in units we can use a percentage.

Say 100% structural resistance will hold the building up exactly, any more weight and it will start to collapse. Most working loads are two to four times (corrected, 30 to 100 times) the fail point.
So we can safely assume building 7 had over 100% structural resistance before it fell.

So we have gravitational acceleration - percentage of structural resistance = fall acceleration.

9.8m/s2×75%=7.35m/s2

9.8 m/s2 - 7.35m/s2 = 2.45 m/s2

At 75% structural resistance I would predict a 2.45m/s2 fall acceleration.

Obviously this doesnt calculate change and inertia, however it doesn't need to.

We can clearly see building 7 go from over 100% structural resistance to 0% pretty much instantly.

To go from totally upright and intact to free fall (gravitational acceleration) for 2.25 seconds violates the laws of physics.

The only way building 7 could do this is to have nearly all of its structural resistance removed nearly instantly.

The only way this is possible is a controlled demolition.

So, G- %S = F
Gravitational acceleration - percentage of structural resistance = fall acceleration.

Video for reference.



Here's some more math, this is my simplified version of any reasonable buildings collapse due to fire.

So structural resistance and collapse acceleration.

100% = 0m/s2
99  % = .098m/s2
98  % = .196m/s2
97  % = .294m/s2
96  % = .392m/s2
95  % = .49m/s2
94  % = .588m/s2
93  % = .686m/s2
92  % = .784m/s2
91  % = .882m/s2
90  % = .98m/s2

Based on my very simple equation this is my prediction for the onset of collapse for a large building losing structural resistance due to an intense fire.

Please note, that as has been stated before all structural components would have to fail simultaneously for a free-fall to ever occur.

In reality usually one structural component breaks which leads to the initial compromise of structural integrity, which then leads in to more and more structural components failing faster and faster as the collapse gains energy.

This is clearly not what we saw that day, I have shown multiple times that WTC7 stayed perfectly upright until its collapse at gravitational acceleration.

NIST's three stage collapse model is scientific fraud and clearly dry labbing.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 04:05:25 PM
Lol.

No evidence.

Lol.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 24, 2017, 04:12:20 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 03:53:24 PM
Note I show all my working and the logic I use, this is already more than NIST has done.

Except your logic contains a fatal flaw.  Which I've been at pains to politely point out.

Quote from: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 03:53:24 PM
We can clearly see building 7 go from over 100% structural resistance to 0% pretty much instantly.
Preceeded by internal collapse.

Quote from: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 03:53:24 PM
To go from totally upright and intact to free fall (gravitational acceleration) for 2.25 seconds violates the laws of physics.

No it doesn't, unless you have your own laws of physics.   

Quote from: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 03:53:24 PM
The only way building 7 could do this is to have nearly all of its structural resistance removed nearly instantly.
You are ignoring the fact that it was evident 3 hours before hand that it was going to collapse.

Quote from: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 03:53:24 PM
The only way this is possible is a controlled demolition.

You can't conclude that with any degree of certainty,  you need more supporting evidence if you want to leap to that conclusion.

Quote from: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 03:53:24 PM
NIST's three stage collapse model is scientific fraud and clearly dry labbing.
I can quote Chandler as well if you like. 

Here's a more detailed chronology of the collapse of WTC7


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 04:14:56 PM
So, still absolutely no math from Rayzor.

Got it.

Lol.

There is no "fatal flaw" in my logic.

Quote from: TotesReptilian on February 21, 2017, 09:53:52 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 21, 2017, 07:22:41 PM
I know, thanks. ;D

It's more to make people think than a working equation.

Theres a much better thread if you want to join in.

You have to admit my logic is sound.

Edit, I think I addressed it in the tech and alt thread. Thanks for pulling me up.

Here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1872602#msg1872602

26 pages... ugh. I might join in if I can work up the motivation to skim through it all.

Yes, your logic is sound, but a bit over simplified. Stresses can be transmitted through the structure at roughly the speed of sound (depends on elastic/shear modulus), which would complicate things.

It's very simplified I have been clear on this from the start.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 24, 2017, 04:21:29 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 04:14:56 PM
So, still absolutely no math from Rayzor.

Got it.

Lol.

There is no "fatal flaw" in my logic.

Quote from: TotesReptilian on February 21, 2017, 09:53:52 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 21, 2017, 07:22:41 PM
I know, thanks. ;D

It's more to make people think than a working equation.

Theres a much better thread if you want to join in.

You have to admit my logic is sound.

Edit, I think I addressed it in the tech and alt thread. Thanks for pulling me up.

Here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1872602#msg1872602

26 pages... ugh. I might join in if I can work up the motivation to skim through it all.

Yes, your logic is sound, but a bit over simplified. Stresses can be transmitted through the structure at roughly the speed of sound (depends on elastic/shear modulus), which would complicate things.

It's very simplified I have been clear on this from the start.

You surprise me,  I was expecting that you would defend your argument,  since you seem so certain that free fall is a necessary and sufficient condition for proving controlled demolition.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 24, 2017, 04:22:53 PM
Master evar
I am not going to say much to your post... as I asked you to present a actual rebuttal and again, once more, you did not. Just focused on trivial nonsense. Though this is typical of those without an argument

My only comments.. all you have presented is NIST copy and paste, so again, it is obvious you are using this as evidence.  Otherwise all you have presented is..

Quote from: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 02:39:59 PM
If you don't claim the NIST copy pasta as "evidence" then all you have presented is a desire to believe the official narrative, it's been said before, that's fine, it's your choice. Just don't pretend you have evidence to back it up.

As for your "cert load" that you have such a large boner for..I already explained I was attempting to shorten this for a conversation. I have already explained there are a 100 different exact terms for determining the working load of an specific item (it could be a completed component or individual...they all have different approved certifications, it depends on if its the city, state, regulatory agency, where it is...actually I am not repeating any of this shit to you, go read what I already told you. I also told you some basic formulas on how these are determined. Something that is certified for Texas more than likely will not for California just as a brief example ) it is not my fault you cannot or will not understand the very basic words I am using.

This is all the time I am wasting with you until you actually provide an argument...I am certainly not going to spend hours writing specs for your amusement. There are people actually searching for the truth I want to help.

You provide an actual argument and try...then I will change my tune.


I will actually provide a down payment in good faith.

Bolts used for the box flooring were a490 connection bolts, the box supports were a325. The a490 was certified in that design of the box floor support to have a working load of no more than 80 ksi, the a325 52ksi. At that time, the a490 would fail at 170 ksi, the a325 about 120 ksi. The actual estimated load of each bolt was 30-45 ksi for the 490s, 20-28 for the a325 with the floor at weight comp (depending on wind conditions and other variables).

If you actually care, PATH records before 1980 is a good place to start for information. It isn't fun though.

Ball is in your court, present an argument and show me you actually care about finding truth and I will speak to you in a mature manor, keep how you have been and GTFO.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 04:38:50 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 24, 2017, 04:21:29 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 04:14:56 PM
So, still absolutely no math from Rayzor.

Got it.

Lol.

There is no "fatal flaw" in my logic.

Quote from: TotesReptilian on February 21, 2017, 09:53:52 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 21, 2017, 07:22:41 PM
I know, thanks. ;D

It's more to make people think than a working equation.

Theres a much better thread if you want to join in.

You have to admit my logic is sound.

Edit, I think I addressed it in the tech and alt thread. Thanks for pulling me up.

Here.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1872602#msg1872602

26 pages... ugh. I might join in if I can work up the motivation to skim through it all.

Yes, your logic is sound, but a bit over simplified. Stresses can be transmitted through the structure at roughly the speed of sound (depends on elastic/shear modulus), which would complicate things.

It's very simplified I have been clear on this from the start.

You surprise me,  I was expecting that you would defend your argument,  since you seem so certain that free fall is a necessary and sufficient condition for proving controlled demolition.

Once again, absolutely no maths or physics from Rayzor, is anyone surprised anymore at this point?

Let's all rip on him when he makes fun of flat earthers for not using math.

Quote
Bolts used for the box flooring were a490 connection bolts, the box supports were a325. The a490 was certified in that design of the box floor support to have a working load of no more than 80 ksi, the a325 52ksi. At that time, the a490 would fail at 170 ksi, the a325 about 120 ksi. The actual estimated load of each bolt was 30-45 ksi for the 490s, 20-28 for the a325 with the floor at weight comp (depending on wind conditions and other variables).

Geeeeeezzzzzzz......
Sounds like he knows what he's talking about hey......
Master Evar.......
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 24, 2017, 04:46:02 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 04:38:50 PM
Quote from: Rayzor
You surprise me,  I was expecting that you would defend your argument,  since you seem so certain that free fall is a necessary and sufficient condition for proving controlled demolition.

Once again, absolutely no maths or physics from Rayzor, is anyone surprised anymore at this point?

Let's all rip on him when he makes fun of flat earthers for not using math.


You missed the deliberate strawman argument I put forward.   That was a wasted effort.  Maybe you don't understand logic?     Let me explain it one last time.

Controlled demolition is not the only possible cause of loss of structural support.   

Quote from: Rayzor
You assume that free fall is a fool proof indicator of controlled demolition,   it isn't.   It is however  proof of complete loss of structural support.  You need to prove that controlled demolition was the cause of that loss of support.  The NIST report claims it was uncontrolled fires followed by complete internal collapse.   Neither possibility can be proven to the extent required for absolute certainty.

So what evidence is there, that can be agreed on?
There is clear evidence of internal structural failure preceeding the main collapse,  the  left to right collapse of the penthouse suggests a progressive failure of the internal structure.   
The walls bowed inwards rather than the roof line dropping. The droop in the roof line is not there in video taken from further away.
The FDNY measured the walls bulging as early as 2 in the afternoon, and concluded it was going to collapse some 3 hours before it actually came down.

So what caused WTC7 to collapse,   If you want to conclude controlled demolition,  you need more evidence than "Well it looks like controlled demolition"  That's not strong enough to support a conspiracy argument.
Was it uncontrolled fires?  The only way to prove or disprove that is to do a proper independent analysis, and that means a new 911 commission.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 04:53:03 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 24, 2017, 04:46:02 PM
You missed the deliberate strawman argument I put forward.   That was a wasted effort.


I knew it was deliberate, and it was an obvious strawman, everyone can see it.

The person you are trying to shill is unavailable, please try again later.

cite a building that fell at free-fall for over two seconds due to office fires, I dare you.
You seem to think it happens all the time.

Quote from: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 03:53:24 PM
Note I show all my working and the logic I use, this is already more than NIST has done.

This hasn't been debunked except to copy and post NIST's scientific forgery.

If anyone wants to use their own words and math then please, I'd really like to see it.

Rayzor this equation is for fire induced progressive collapse, not a CD... thats why my fall acceleration prediction doesn't nearly match reality...

Instead of expressing structural resistance in units we can use a percentage.

Say 100% structural resistance will hold the building up exactly, any more weight and it will start to collapse. Most working loads are two to four times (corrected, 30 to 100 times) the fail point.
So we can safely assume building 7 had over 100% structural resistance before it fell.

So we have gravitational acceleration - percentage of structural resistance = fall acceleration.

9.8m/s2×75%=7.35m/s2

9.8 m/s2 - 7.35m/s2 = 2.45 m/s2

At 75% structural resistance I would predict a 2.45m/s2 fall acceleration.

Obviously this doesnt calculate change and inertia, however it doesn't need to.

We can clearly see building 7 go from over 100% structural resistance to 0% pretty much instantly.

To go from totally upright and intact to free fall (gravitational acceleration) for 2.25 seconds violates the laws of physics.

The only way building 7 could do this is to have nearly all of its structural resistance removed nearly instantly.

The only way this is possible is a controlled demolition.

So, G- %S = F
Gravitational acceleration - percentage of structural resistance = fall acceleration.

Video for reference.



Here's some more math, this is my simplified version of any reasonable buildings collapse due to fire.

So structural resistance and collapse acceleration.

100% = 0m/s2
99  % = .098m/s2
98  % = .196m/s2
97  % = .294m/s2
96  % = .392m/s2
95  % = .49m/s2
94  % = .588m/s2
93  % = .686m/s2
92  % = .784m/s2
91  % = .882m/s2
90  % = .98m/s2

Based on my very simple equation this is my prediction for the onset of collapse for a large building losing structural resistance due to an intense fire.

Please note, that as has been stated before all structural components would have to fail simultaneously for a free-fall to ever occur.

In reality usually one structural component breaks which leads to the initial compromise of structural integrity, which then leads in to more and more structural components failing faster and faster as the collapse gains energy.

This is clearly not what we saw that day, I have shown multiple times that WTC7 stayed perfectly upright until its collapse at gravitational acceleration.

NIST's three stage collapse model is scientific fraud and clearly dry labbing.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 24, 2017, 04:56:57 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 04:53:03 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 24, 2017, 04:46:02 PM
You missed the deliberate strawman argument I put forward.   That was a wasted effort.
I knew it was deliberate, and it was an obvious strawman, everyone can see it.

So explain why was it a strawman argument.   I am curious to see if you really understood.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 04:57:49 PM
Exactly what you are doing, now,
cite a building that fell at free-fall for over two seconds due to office fires, I dare you.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 24, 2017, 04:58:58 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 04:57:49 PM
Exactly what you are doing, now,
cite a building that fell at free-fall for over two seconds due to office fires, I dare you.

WTC7,  I have a video if you want to watch.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 24, 2017, 05:11:08 PM

Rayzor... I don't think he is saying free fall is needed for a controlled demo. As most demos are not a free fall to begin with. If you happen to reach free fall at a point or two (in the right direction lol) then you look like a bad ass if it was your company...a glaring success, you will get more jobs for sure.

Even if you hit timing perfect, with a perfect design you still need a little dumb luck to get the "pretty demo"...(such as WT7, if it wasn't so damned evil I would love to shake the hand of whom ever was the DS on that. A work of art, especially for the design of the building.

I think the whole point dispute is making, with the free fall, that removes the idea of a "natural" collapse from weakening of the steel. Especially from one support beam they lied about the design off in a floor the fires were already out on.

Plus, a119 fire certs are pretty beefy man...


Edited to literally just say what the fuck...I was even just giving you credit. I hate fucking being wrong rayzor..thanks for that ::) ::)
Quote from: Rayzor on February 24, 2017, 04:58:58 PM

WTC7,  I have a video if you want to watch.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 05:13:52 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 24, 2017, 05:11:08 PM

Rayzor... I don't think he is saying free fall is needed for a controlled demo. As most demos are not a free fall to begin with. If you happen to reach free fall at a point or two (in the right direction lol) then you look like a bad ass if it was your company...a glaring success, you will get more jobs for sure.

Even if you hit timing perfect, with a perfect design you still need a little dumb luck to get the "pretty demo"...(such as WT7, if it wasn't so damned evil I would love to shake the hand of whom ever was the DS on that. A work of art, especially for the design of the building.

I think the whole point dispute is making, with the free fall, that removes the idea of a "natural" collapse from weakening of the steel. Especially from one support beam they lied about the design off in a floor the fires were already out on.

Plus, a119 fire certs are pretty beefy man...

Hallelujah.



Thanks man.

You really shouldn't need a doctorate to get the point Rayzor.

This is the root of my frustration with you and Master_Evar...

Quote from: Rayzor on February 24, 2017, 04:58:58 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 04:57:49 PM
Exactly what you are doing, now,
cite a building that fell at free-fall for over two seconds due to office fires, I dare you.

WTC7,  I have a video if you want to watch.

The person you are trying to shill, is unavailable, please try again later.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 05:21:45 PM
Once again, absolutely no maths or physics from Rayzor, is anyone surprised anymore at this point?

let's all rip on him when he makes fun of flat earthers for not using math.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 24, 2017, 05:27:10 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 24, 2017, 05:11:08 PM

Rayzor... I don't think he is saying free fall is needed for a controlled demo. As most demos are not a free fall to begin with. If you happen to reach free fall at a point or two (in the right direction lol) then you look like a bad ass if it was your company...a glaring success, you will get more jobs for sure.

Even if you hit timing perfect, with a perfect design you still need a little dumb luck to get the "pretty demo"...(such as WT7, if it wasn't so damned evil I would love to shake the hand of whom ever was the DS on that. A work of art, especially for the design of the building.

I think the whole point dispute is making, with the free fall, that removes the idea of a "natural" collapse from weakening of the steel. Especially from one support beam they lied about the design off in a floor the fires were already out on.

Plus, a119 fire certs are pretty beefy man...


Edited to literally just say what the fuck...I was even just giving you credit. I hate fucking being wrong rayzor..thanks for that ::) ::)
Quote from: Rayzor on February 24, 2017, 04:58:58 PM

WTC7,  I have a video if you want to watch.

Yeah that was tongue in cheek.    Controlled demolition is a possibility,   probably not with conventional demolition charges.  But you need more proof that  just blindly saying free fall == controlled demolition.

I've been looking for video footage from the south side during the collapse, since there is strong indications that the south west side went first.  But most video's are from the other side.

I did find one from the south west,  before collapse,  and it shows something of the extent of the fires, and that the FDNY knew hours in advance it was coming down.



If you know of a video showing the collapse as seen from the south side,  that would be interesting.

A helicopter view of the damage on the South side of WTC7


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 24, 2017, 05:49:39 PM
Another data point regarding WTC7,   it was widely known hours beforehand that WTC7 was about to collapse.   This is confirmed by numerous reports. From FDNY as well as a number of media outlets.



Still haven't found a video of the actual collapse as seen from the south side.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 05:50:48 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 05:21:45 PM
Once again, absolutely no maths or physics from Rayzor, is anyone surprised anymore at this point?

let's all rip on him when he makes fun of flat earthers for not using math.

Ok so the building was on fire.

Confirmed.

Why not debunk what myself or Bhs has said about the impossibility of free-fall in building 7 due to fire?

Quote from: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 04:53:03 PM

cite a building that fell at free-fall for over two seconds due to office fires, I dare you.

You seem to think it happens all the time.

Note I show all my working and the logic I use, this is already more than NIST has done.

This hasn't been debunked except to copy and post NIST's scientific forgery.

If anyone wants to use their own words and math then please, I'd really like to see it.

Rayzor this equation is for fire induced progressive collapse, not a CD... thats why my fall acceleration prediction doesn't nearly match reality...

Instead of expressing structural resistance in units we can use a percentage.

Say 100% structural resistance will hold the building up exactly, any more weight and it will start to collapse. Most working loads are two to four times (corrected, 30 to 100 times) the fail point.
So we can safely assume building 7 had over 100% structural resistance before it fell.

So we have gravitational acceleration - percentage of structural resistance = fall acceleration.

9.8m/s2×75%=7.35m/s2

9.8 m/s2 - 7.35m/s2 = 2.45 m/s2

At 75% structural resistance I would predict a 2.45m/s2 fall acceleration.

Obviously this doesnt calculate change and inertia, however it doesn't need to.

We can clearly see building 7 go from over 100% structural resistance to 0% pretty much instantly.

To go from totally upright and intact to free fall (gravitational acceleration) for 2.25 seconds violates the laws of physics.

The only way building 7 could do this is to have nearly all of its structural resistance removed nearly instantly.

The only way this is possible is a controlled demolition.

So, G- %S = F
Gravitational acceleration - percentage of structural resistance = fall acceleration.

Video for reference.



Here's some more math, this is my simplified version of any reasonable buildings collapse due to fire.

So structural resistance and collapse acceleration.

100% = 0m/s2
99  % = .098m/s2
98  % = .196m/s2
97  % = .294m/s2
96  % = .392m/s2
95  % = .49m/s2
94  % = .588m/s2
93  % = .686m/s2
92  % = .784m/s2
91  % = .882m/s2
90  % = .98m/s2

Based on my very simple equation this is my prediction for the onset of collapse for a large building losing structural resistance due to an intense fire.

Please note, that as has been stated before all structural components would have to fail simultaneously for a free-fall to ever occur.

In reality usually one structural component breaks which leads to the initial compromise of structural integrity, which then leads in to more and more structural components failing faster and faster as the collapse gains energy.

This is clearly not what we saw that day, I have shown multiple times that WTC7 stayed perfectly upright until its collapse at gravitational acceleration.

NIST's three stage collapse model is scientific fraud and clearly dry labbing.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 24, 2017, 05:11:08 PM

Rayzor... I don't think he is saying free fall is needed for a controlled demo. As most demos are not a free fall to begin with. If you happen to reach free fall at a point or two (in the right direction lol) then you look like a bad ass if it was your company...a glaring success, you will get more jobs for sure.

Even if you hit timing perfect, with a perfect design you still need a little dumb luck to get the "pretty demo"...(such as WT7, if it wasn't so damned evil I would love to shake the hand of whom ever was the DS on that. A work of art, especially for the design of the building.

I think the whole point dispute is making, with the free fall, that removes the idea of a "natural" collapse from weakening of the steel. Especially from one support beam they lied about the design off in a floor the fires were already out on.

Plus, a119 fire certs are pretty beefy man...


Edited to literally just say what the fuck...I was even just giving you credit. I hate fucking being wrong rayzor..thanks for that ::) ::)
Quote from: Rayzor on February 24, 2017, 04:58:58 PM

WTC7,  I have a video if you want to watch.

Just give up.

Or shill harder.

Edit, one point I agree on, they knew the building was going to come down before it did.

Here is a news report that confirms it.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 24, 2017, 06:05:06 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 05:50:48 PM

Just give up.

Or shill harder.


If I ask nicely will you stop pasting that over and over,  you are just cluttering the thread.    If you have something new to say,  that's fine.

As far as proving it collapsed due to fire,  that's only one possibility,  the other is it was controlled demolition,   but that doesn't make sense either,  why wait 7 hours? 

The only way to find out more is to have a new 911 enquiry.    Unfortunately the 911 truthers seem to shoot themselves in the foot all the time. Which leads to them all being classified as loonies.



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rama Set on February 24, 2017, 06:19:25 PM
Well I guess you guys went back to your old tricks pretty fast.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 24, 2017, 06:23:15 PM
Quote from: Rama Set on February 24, 2017, 06:19:25 PM
Well I guess you guys went back to your old tricks pretty fast.

Are you just trying to stir the pot??

Also...

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 24, 2017, 04:22:53 PM
Master evar
I am not going to say much to your post... as I asked you to present a actual rebuttal and again, once more, you did not. Just focused on trivial nonsense. Though this is typical of those without an argument

My only comments.. all you have presented is NIST copy and paste, so again, it is obvious you are using this as evidence.  Otherwise all you have presented is..

Quote from: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 02:39:59 PM
If you don't claim the NIST copy pasta as "evidence" then all you have presented is a desire to believe the official narrative, it's been said before, that's fine, it's your choice. Just don't pretend you have evidence to back it up.

As for your "cert load" that you have such a large boner for..I already explained I was attempting to shorten this for a conversation. I have already explained there are a 100 different exact terms for determining the working load of an specific item (it could be a completed component or individual...they all have different approved certifications, it depends on if its the city, state, regulatory agency, where it is...actually I am not repeating any of this shit to you, go read what I already told you. I also told you some basic formulas on how these are determined. Something that is certified for Texas more than likely will not for California just as a brief example ) it is not my fault you cannot or will not understand the very basic words I am using.

This is all the time I am wasting with you until you actually provide an argument...I am certainly not going to spend hours writing specs for your amusement. There are people actually searching for the truth I want to help.

You provide an actual argument and try...then I will change my tune.


I will actually provide a down payment in good faith.

Bolts used for the box flooring were a490 connection bolts, the box supports were a325. The a490 was certified in that design of the box floor support to have a working load of no more than 80 ksi, the a325 52ksi. At that time, the a490 would fail at 170 ksi, the a325 about 120 ksi. The actual estimated load of each bolt was 30-45 ksi for the 490s, 20-28 for the a325 with the floor at weight comp (depending on wind conditions and other variables).

If you actually care, PATH records before 1980 is a good place to start for information. It isn't fun though.

Ball is in your court, present an argument and show me you actually care about finding truth and I will speak to you in a mature manor, keep how you have been and GTFO.

I extended a good word and even donated a bit as an example of good faith...

So I don't know what you are talking about?? As for rayzor that has been amicable for a while, unless you don't know what you are talking about and just stirring the pot...in that case I say quit.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 06:29:14 PM
Quote from: Rama Set on February 24, 2017, 06:19:25 PM
Well I guess you guys went back to your old tricks pretty fast.

I'm not sure you are referring to me, however.

Do you dispute my equation or logic Rama Set? I know you are an engineer.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 06:31:53 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 24, 2017, 06:05:06 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 05:50:48 PM

Just give up.

Or shill harder.


If I ask nicely will you stop pasting that over and over,  you are just cluttering the thread.    If you have something new to say,  that's fine.

As far as proving it collapsed due to fire,  that's only one possibility,  the other is it was controlled demolition,   but that doesn't make sense either,  why wait 7 hours? 

The only way to find out more is to have a new 911 enquiry.    Unfortunately the 911 truthers seem to shoot themselves in the foot all the time. Which leads to them all being classified as loonies.

Quote from: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 05:21:45 PM
Once again, absolutely no maths or physics from Rayzor, is anyone surprised anymore at this point?

let's all rip on him when he makes fun of flat earthers for not using math.

I think, you are in a lot of trouble and really regret starting this thread.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 24, 2017, 06:38:35 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 06:31:53 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 24, 2017, 06:05:06 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 05:50:48 PM

Just give up.

Or shill harder.


If I ask nicely will you stop pasting that over and over,  you are just cluttering the thread.    If you have something new to say,  that's fine.

As far as proving it collapsed due to fire,  that's only one possibility,  the other is it was controlled demolition,   but that doesn't make sense either,  why wait 7 hours? 

The only way to find out more is to have a new 911 enquiry.    Unfortunately the 911 truthers seem to shoot themselves in the foot all the time. Which leads to them all being classified as loonies.

Quote from: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 05:21:45 PM
Once again, absolutely no maths or physics from Rayzor, is anyone surprised anymore at this point?

let's all rip on him when he makes fun of flat earthers for not using math.

I think, you are in a lot of trouble and really regret starting this thread.

There's that reality disconnect again.  I notice that's your fall back position whenever you are stuck or proven wrong.

In your expert opinion does free fall always indicate controlled demolition?


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 24, 2017, 06:43:16 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 24, 2017, 06:38:35 PM
In your expert opinion does free fall always indicate controlled demolition?

Lol...its that rayzor boot loop again.

I cleared that up and he agreed with me, so I think your answer to this question has already been stated
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 06:51:37 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 24, 2017, 06:43:16 PM
I think your answer to this question has already been stated

Many many times, remember Bullwinkle pulled me up for saying it and Bhs confirmed, I should've said free-fall is an added bonus for style in a CD, the main objective is to use its own energy to cause a neat collapse into its footprint minimizing debris and outside damage.

Which, is exactly what happened.

You haven't touched my math showing a fire induced progressive collapse can't attain free-fall.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 24, 2017, 07:00:15 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 06:51:37 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 24, 2017, 06:43:16 PM
I think your answer to this question has already been stated

Many many times, remember Bullwinkle pulled me up for saying it and Bhs confirmed, I should've said free-fall is an added bonus for style in a CD, the main objective is to use its own energy to cause a neat collapse into its footprint minimizing debris and outside damage.

Which, is exactly what happened.

You haven't touched my math showing a fire induced progressive collapse can't attain free-fall.

Since you keep asking.   Your maths is simplistic and childish and not relevant to the reality of the collapse.   

Let me put it more directly,  since you are being evasive.

You falsely assume that a free fall collapse can only happen in a controlled demolition.   Failure to recognize that destroys your credibility,  and your argument.

Is that the ONLY evidence you have for a controlled demolition of WTC7? 

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 24, 2017, 07:02:05 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 24, 2017, 06:43:16 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 24, 2017, 06:38:35 PM
In your expert opinion does free fall always indicate controlled demolition?

Lol...its that rayzor boot loop again.

I cleared that up and he agreed with me, so I think your answer to this question has already been stated

No you only answered the first half, and that is controlled demolition is not always free fall,  this is the other half of the logic.   
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 07:04:02 PM
I think my maths is well thought out and well presented, especially in comparison to NIST's, or yours, (which is non existent) now, debunk it.

Quote from: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 05:21:45 PM
Once again, absolutely no maths or physics from Rayzor, is anyone surprised anymore at this point?

let's all rip on him when he makes fun of flat earthers for not using math.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 24, 2017, 07:06:30 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 24, 2017, 07:02:05 PM
No you only answered the first half, and that is controlled demolition is not always free fall,  this is the other half of the logic.

Whats the other half of the logic?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 24, 2017, 07:14:36 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 24, 2017, 07:06:30 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 24, 2017, 07:02:05 PM
No you only answered the first half, and that is controlled demolition is not always free fall,  this is the other half of the logic.

Whats the other half of the logic?

Does free fall always indicate a controlled demolition?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 07:16:17 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 24, 2017, 07:14:36 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 24, 2017, 07:06:30 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 24, 2017, 07:02:05 PM
No you only answered the first half, and that is controlled demolition is not always free fall,  this is the other half of the logic.

Whats the other half of the logic?

Does free fall always indicate a controlled demolition?

Free-fall illustrates that for all intents and purposes the building has 0% structural resistance at the time of free-fall.

Shill harder.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 24, 2017, 07:19:44 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 24, 2017, 07:14:36 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 24, 2017, 07:06:30 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 24, 2017, 07:02:05 PM
No you only answered the first half, and that is controlled demolition is not always free fall,  this is the other half of the logic.

Whats the other half of the logic?

Does free fall always indicate a controlled demolition?

No, not at all.

However...

Free fall through the path of greatest resistance?? Now things change...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 07:26:08 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 24, 2017, 07:19:44 PM
Free fall through the path of greatest resistance?? Now things change...

It just doesn't take 8 years of study to get this. Its nearly like.......you're intentionally trying to misrepresent my point........

Now, why would someone do this for over thirty pages????
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 24, 2017, 07:29:27 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 24, 2017, 07:19:44 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 24, 2017, 07:14:36 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 24, 2017, 07:06:30 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 24, 2017, 07:02:05 PM
No you only answered the first half, and that is controlled demolition is not always free fall,  this is the other half of the logic.

Whats the other half of the logic?

Does free fall always indicate a controlled demolition?

No, not at all.

However...

Free fall through the path of greatest resistance?? Now things change...

Thanks for being honest.

Ok,  the collapse of WTC7,  which had been teetering on the brink of collapse for hours beforehand,  it looks like collapse of the south side and the center  preceeds the collapse of the north side,  so that by the time the north side comes down all structural support is gone.

The cause of the collapse might be controlled demolition, or it might be the collapse of the center and south side caused by structural damage and long exposure to the fire.

If it was controlled demolition,  why would you wait 7 hours? 

There is evidence that FDNY was talking about needing to bring it down,  but for safety reasons.  If it hadn't collapsed when it did,  I think they would have demoed it anyway.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 07:38:39 PM
Here's some math estimating the collapse rate of building 7 as its structural resistance drops below 100% if it was caused by loss of structural resistance due to fire.

I don't know how much you know about hot steel, but it has a tendency to bend, before it shears. Please note how much the towers were engineered to flex and move in the wind or earthquakes etc.

Saying every support snapped at the same time causing a freefall, is simply lunacy.

Here's some more math, this is my simplified version of any reasonable buildings collapse due to fire.

So structural resistance and collapse acceleration.

100% = 0m/s2
99  % = .098m/s2
98  % = .196m/s2
97  % = .294m/s2
96  % = .392m/s2
95  % = .49m/s2
94  % = .588m/s2
93  % = .686m/s2
92  % = .784m/s2
91  % = .882m/s2
90  % = .98m/s2

Based on my very simple equation this is my prediction for the onset of collapse for a large building losing structural resistance due to an intense fire.

Please note, that as has been stated before all structural components would have to fail simultaneously for a free-fall to ever occur.

In reality usually one structural component breaks which leads to the initial compromise of structural integrity, which then leads in to more and more structural components failing faster and faster as the collapse gains energy.

This is clearly not what we saw that day, I have shown multiple times that WTC7 stayed perfectly upright until its collapse at gravitational acceleration.

NIST's three stage collapse model is scientific fraud and clearly dry labbing.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 07:49:46 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 24, 2017, 07:29:27 PM
There is evidence that FDNY was talking about needing to bring it down,  but for safety reasons.  If it hadn't collapsed when it did,  I think they would have demoed it anyway.

Perhaps, but as has been said before, it takes weeks or months to prep a large building for demo.

I think we can 100% safely assume there was no plans to prep the building for demolition while it was still on fire.

First put the fire out.

Assess the damage.

If the damage is too great once the fires are out, prep it then pull it...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 24, 2017, 07:50:07 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 24, 2017, 07:29:27 PM

Thanks for being honest.

Ok,  the collapse of WTC7,  which had been teetering on the brink of collapse for hours beforehand,  it looks like collapse of the south side and the center  preceeds the collapse of the north side,  so that by the time the north side comes down all structural support is gone.

The cause of the collapse might be controlled demolition, or it might be the collapse of the center and south side caused by structural damage and long exposure to the fire.

If it was controlled demolition,  why would you wait 7 hours? 

There is evidence that FDNY was talking about needing to bring it down,  but for safety reasons.  If it hadn't collapsed when it did,  I think they would have demoed it anyway.

I would like to clear up some misconceptions here..I am not sure why people think firemen have this ability to call or perform a demo. They have not the knowledge, man power, nor equipment. Sure they can knock through a wall to get someone, or chase a fire, they will knock holes in roofs etc etc..This is to chase the fire...nothing to do with demoing a building. They wouldn't even demo a standard residential house..may look like shit after the fire and them doing what is needed to fight the fire...but they are not a demo crew...ESPECIALLY a building like 7.

The building was not "teetering on the brink of collapse", sure there were some firefighters scared of those buildings falling...(not just 7, buildings like 6 they were saying the same thing) but as I explained before...well no shit they were scared. 1 and 2 came down, they have never seen that before because it never happened...they just lost a lot of men, and they were confused and scared. I would be too, no matter how tough you are. Anybody who says they wouldn't is a liar. Not to mention with them hearing bombs going off, this only added to the nervousness.

Quote
it looks like collapse of the south side and the center  preceeds the collapse of the north side,  so that by the time the north side comes down all structural support is gone.

This is not accurate from what we saw...nor would it equal free fall through the path of greatest resistance

The final thing I will say is there is some sort of strange thought a team could come in and rig it real quick for a demo. This is impossible...It would take weeks of planning and months of prep (remember demos yes you place shape charges and movers, but you also remove mass and weaken it structurally manually), not to mention on a building with a current burning fire...no...It would take a week just to do a record search through PATH.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 24, 2017, 07:51:42 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 07:38:39 PM
Here's some math estimating the collapse rate of building 7 as its structural resistance drops below 100% if it was caused by loss of structural resistance due to fire.
I don't know how much you know about hot steel, but it has a tendency to bend, before it shears. Please note how much the towers were engineered to flex and move in the wind or earthquakes etc.

Ok so far.

Quote from: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 07:38:39 PM
Saying every support snapped at the same time causing a freefall, is simply lunacy.

Doesn't have to be all the same time,   look at the way the internal collapse progressed across the building,  it wasn't instantaneous.

Quote from: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 07:38:39 PM
Here's some more math, this is my simplified version of any reasonable buildings collapse due to fire.

Structural failure is a little more complex than you suppose.  You say nothing about the material properties or forces involved.  Or inherent stability of the structure.   

Quote from: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 07:38:39 PM
Please note, that as has been stated before all structural components would have to fail simultaneously for a free-fall to ever occur.
Not true.  taking away the support gradually can lead to an unstable structure which subsequently collapses.

Quote from: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 07:38:39 PM
In reality usually one structural component breaks which leads to the initial compromise of structural integrity, which then leads in to more and more structural components failing faster and faster as the collapse gains energy.

This is clearly not what we saw that day, I have shown multiple times that WTC7 stayed perfectly upright until its collapse at gravitational acceleration.
Actually wrong again,  it  tilted towards the south as it came down.  It had been leaning dangerously for hours prior.

Quote from: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 07:38:39 PM
NIST's three stage collapse model is scientific fraud and clearly dry labbing.
If you are going to quote Chandler,  at least attribute the quote.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 07:54:49 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 03:28:47 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 03:09:32 PM
Why not show some better math than mine, if I'm incorrect.
You can't?

?????????

Quote
Not true.  taking away the support gradually can lead to an unstable structure which subsequently collapses.

Although not at free-fall.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 24, 2017, 07:50:07 PM
This is not accurate from what we saw...nor would it equal free fall through the path of greatest resistance

The people you are trying to shill, are unavailable, please try again later.

Edit, find me the quote where Chandler says "NIST's three stage collapse model is scientific fraud and clearly dry labbing." Pretty sure he doesn't.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 24, 2017, 07:58:18 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 24, 2017, 07:50:07 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 24, 2017, 07:29:27 PM

Thanks for being honest.

Ok,  the collapse of WTC7,  which had been teetering on the brink of collapse for hours beforehand,  it looks like collapse of the south side and the center  preceeds the collapse of the north side,  so that by the time the north side comes down all structural support is gone.

The cause of the collapse might be controlled demolition, or it might be the collapse of the center and south side caused by structural damage and long exposure to the fire.

If it was controlled demolition,  why would you wait 7 hours? 

There is evidence that FDNY was talking about needing to bring it down,  but for safety reasons.  If it hadn't collapsed when it did,  I think they would have demoed it anyway.

I would like to clear up some misconceptions here..I am not sure why people think firemen have this ability to call or perform a demo. They have not the knowledge, man power, nor equipment. Sure they can knock through a wall to get someone, or chase a fire, they will knock holes in roofs etc etc..This is to chase the fire...nothing to do with demoing a building. They wouldn't even demo a standard residential house..may look like shit after the fire and them doing what is needed to fight the fire...but they are not a demo crew...ESPECIALLY a building like 7.

The building was not "teetering on the brink of collapse", sure there were some firefighters scared of those buildings falling...(not just 7, buildings like 6 they were saying the same thing) but as I explained before...well no shit they were scared. 1 and 2 came down, they have never seen that before because it never happened...they just lost a lot of men, and they were confused and scared. I would be too, no matter how tough you are. Anybody who says they wouldn't is a liar. Not to mention with them hearing bombs going off, this only added to the nervousness.

Quote
it looks like collapse of the south side and the center  preceeds the collapse of the north side,  so that by the time the north side comes down all structural support is gone.

This is not accurate from what we saw...nor would it equal free fall through the path of greatest resistance

The final thing I will say is there is some sort of strange thought a team could come in and rig it real quick for a demo. This is impossible...It would take weeks of planning and months of prep (remember demos yes you place shape charges and movers, but you also remove mass and weaken it structurally manually), not to mention on a building with a current burning fire...no...It would take a week just to do a record search through PATH.

I know you don't like videos,  but this is relevant to the talk about the imminent collapse of WTC7  You can see the extent of the fires on the south side.



I'd expect that FDNY would bring some other agency to do the demo,  they were definitely talking about it being unsafe. 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 08:03:16 PM
YOU DON'T PREP A BUILDING FOR DEMO WHILE IT IS ON FIRE!!!

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY!!!

IF IT WAS PREPPED IT WAS PREPPED WEEKS IN ADVANCE!!!

NOT BY FIREMAN IN HOURS WHILE THE BUILDING WAS ON FIRE!!!

shill harder.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 24, 2017, 08:15:14 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 08:03:16 PM
YOU DON'T PREP A BUILDING FOR DEMO WHILE IT IS ON FIRE!!!

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY!!!

IF IT WAS PREPPED IT WAS PREPPED WEEKS IN ADVANCE!!!

NOT BY FIREMAN IN HOURS WHILE THE BUILDING WAS ON FIRE!!!

shill harder.

I know you have difficulty following the discussion,   but  there is zero evidence that they deliberately demoed it,  just that  the building was so unstable, they were talking about having to do it.

I like your shift to caps lock,  maybe you could do it in bold,  red,  and larger font,  it might make up for your lack of content.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 08:19:02 PM
The person you are trying to shill, is unavailable, please check the number and try again.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 24, 2017, 08:23:46 PM
And the point of the video??

It kinda goes against the point you are trying to make. You have people talking about shock waves and bombs. Also..how did the fires get there anyways?? In those spots, that as always seemed suspect to me. Then you have people talking about all the dead bodies in the lobby already, explosions, fire balls etc in 7 before hand. Accounts from people like Rodriguez, johanneman, jennings (blacklisted, suicide, dead unknown causes) of the same things.

Then you have the penthouse dropping as it did, free fall in the path of greatest resistance, as well as squib markers during free fall (makes compression or anything else the cause) and many other things...I am afraid these videos hurt your cause not help it.

Quote from: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 08:03:16 PM
YOU DON'T PREP A BUILDING FOR DEMO WHILE IT IS ON FIRE!!!

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY!!!

IF IT WAS PREPPED IT WAS PREPPED WEEKSmonths IN ADVANCE!!!

NOT BY FIREMAN IN HOURS WHILE THE BUILDING WAS ON FIRE!!!

shill harder.

It would take about 2.5 months (without any set backs) to prep that building..the size, the structural mass, and the close proximity of the other buildings..This is legit. Having to be moderately stealth would certainly take longer. I would estimate around the time silverstein bought them is when the prep work started.


edit* I don't know what point you are trying to make rayzor. Firefighters would not have anything to do with demoing that building, nor could it be done that day by the best team on the planet. They wouldn't even get records from PATH for a week. Plus no one in their right mind would prep a building for demo while its on fire lmao
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 24, 2017, 08:37:11 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 24, 2017, 08:23:46 PM
And the point of the video??

The point is that everyone said WTC7  was on the verge of collapse.   It  didn't need a controlled demolition.    Although I've repeatedly said I don't rule it out as a possibility.

If it was a controlled demolition,  why wait 7 hours. 

Sigh,  I never said the FDNY would be involved in demoing the building right there and then,  only that they were talking about it.

If it hadn't collapsed,  I'd expect that they would bring in some other agency in the days or weeks that followed.  Plenty of examples of this happening where a building is damaged by fire or earthquakes etc.








Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 09:02:14 PM
I would wait seven hours so that people like you could try to argue against the controlled demolition hypothesis.

If it was me doing it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 24, 2017, 09:02:55 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 07:54:49 PM
Edit, find me the quote where Chandler says "NIST's three stage collapse model is scientific fraud and clearly dry labbing." Pretty sure he doesn't.

It was in a video presentation relating to WTC7,    I remember it because he went on to say that in a case like WTC7 it should be considered criminal.

If I come across it again,  I'll make a note of it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 24, 2017, 09:05:00 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 09:02:14 PM
I would wait seven hours so that people like you could try to argue against the controlled demolition hypothesis.

If it was me doing it.

So you agree it's an argument against controlled demolition?

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 09:08:32 PM
Personally I believe it is circumstantial evidence for foul play and CD. But it is circumstantial and speculation.

When will you actually use maths or physics? I have. You claim to be much better at it than I do.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 09:12:10 PM
The quick rundown.

Bhs and Myself, "Building 7 couldn't have underwent a period of free-fall given the story we were told due to physics, maths and engineering."

NIST, Rayzor and Master Evar "NUH-UH"

In case anyone needed a quick catchup on the subject matter.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 24, 2017, 09:21:10 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 24, 2017, 08:23:46 PM
Then you have the penthouse dropping as it did, free fall in the path of greatest resistance, as well as squib markers during free fall (makes compression or anything else the cause) and many other things...I am afraid these videos hurt your cause not help it.

Actually the penthouse didn't collapse in free fall, it collapsed  slowly left to right ,   

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 24, 2017, 08:23:46 PM
You have people talking about shock waves and bombs. Also..how did the fires get there anyways??

The debris from WTC1 did a lot of structural damage and started the fires.    When you have massive fires and buildings collapsing,  it's hardly surprising you'd hear bangs and shock waves.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 09:26:48 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 09:08:32 PM
When will you actually use maths or physics? I have. You claim to be much better at it than I do.

Just to be 100% explicitly clear

Thought / Actual experiment

Take a bowling ball and put it on a box framed structure, weaken the structure until it starts to collapse, does the tower collapse at free-fall? Or does some of the towers gravitational potential energy get used crushing the remaining structural resistance?

Equation and method

Instead of expressing structural resistance in units we can use a percentage.

Say 100% structural resistance will hold the building up exactly, any more weight and it will start to collapse. Most working loads are two to four times (corrected, 30 to 100 times) the fail point.
So we can safely assume building 7 had over 100% structural resistance before it fell.

So we have gravitational acceleration - percentage of structural resistance = fall acceleration.

9.8m/s2×75%=7.35m/s2

9.8 m/s2 - 7.35m/s2 = 2.45 m/s2

At 75% structural resistance I would predict a 2.45m/s2 fall acceleration.

Obviously this doesnt calculate change and inertia, however it doesn't need to.

We can clearly see building 7 go from over 100% structural resistance to 0% pretty much instantly.

To go from (what we saw) totally upright and standing to free fall, (gravitational acceleration) for 2.25 seconds violates the laws of physics.

The only way building 7 could do this is to have nearly all of its structural resistance removed nearly instantly.

The only way this is possible is a controlled demolition.

So, G- %S = F
Gravitational acceleration - percentage of structural resistance = fall acceleration.

Video for reference.


Results and conclusion.

Here's some more math, this is my simplified version of any reasonable buildings collapse due to fire.

So structural resistance and collapse acceleration.

100% = 0m/s2
99  % = .098m/s2
98  % = .196m/s2
97  % = .294m/s2
96  % = .392m/s2
95  % = .49m/s2
94  % = .588m/s2
93  % = .686m/s2
92  % = .784m/s2
91  % = .882m/s2
90  % = .98m/s2

Based on my very simple equation this is my prediction for the onset of collapse for a large building losing structural resistance due to an intense fire.

Please note, that as has been stated before all structural components would have to fail close to simultaneously for a free-fall to ever occur.

In reality usually one structural component breaks which leads to the initial compromise of structural integrity, which then leads in to more and more structural components failing faster and faster as the collapse gains energy.

This is clearly not what we saw that day, I have shown multiple times that WTC7's roofline stayes perfectly upright and level until its collapse at gravitational acceleration.

NIST's three stage collapse model is scientific fraud and clearly dry labbing.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 24, 2017, 09:26:52 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 09:08:32 PM
Personally I believe it is circumstantial evidence for foul play and CD. But it is circumstantial and speculation.
Actually, I agree with you.

Quote from: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 09:08:32 PM
When will you actually use maths or physics? I have. You claim to be much better at it than I do.
To do it properly you'd need more resources than I have.   The correct way to answer the question is to have a proper independent enquiry.
Maybe if Trump orders NIST to release the 70,000 files they have withheld.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 24, 2017, 09:27:58 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 24, 2017, 08:37:11 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 24, 2017, 08:23:46 PM
And the point of the video??

The point is that everyone said WTC7  was on the verge of collapse.   It  didn't need a controlled demolition.    Although I've repeatedly said I don't rule it out as a possibility.

If it was a controlled demolition,  why wait 7 hours. 

Sigh,  I never said the FDNY would be involved in demoing the building right there and then,  only that they were talking about it.

If it hadn't collapsed,  I'd expect that they would bring in some other agency in the days or weeks that followed.  Plenty of examples of this happening where a building is damaged by fire or earthquakes etc.

If this was legitimate...I would imagine they would have demoed it after this. The building was worthless and a money pit. Though it makes me wonder why Rudy Giuliani decided to build his 60 million dollar control room there when it was highly recommended not to be there.

Not "everyone" said it was going to fall or on the verge of collapse... Actually not many said that, mainly just news speculation, which I already find them suspect. As I said many times, fire fighters were afraid something might happen for obvious reasons. Also, as I have said many times, if it did collapse by fire, it wouldn't have as we seen. And.. as I have said this building's steel was fire certed to e119...That is no wuss.

"Leaning forward" is an impossibility if we are to believe NIST.

As for why wait 7 hours?  Just part of the show, the story was already written. It would be even more impossible to say a building collapsed as we saw from fire if it fell in an hour or less. There are other options as well.

Never said penthouse fell at free fall, nor would it in a controlled demo.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 09:31:10 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 24, 2017, 09:21:10 PM
The debris from WTC1 did a lot of structural damage and started the fires.    When you have massive fires and buildings collapsing,  it's hardly surprising you'd hear bangs and shock waves.

The people you are trying to shill, are unavailable, please check the number, and shill again.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 24, 2017, 09:39:45 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 24, 2017, 09:27:58 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 24, 2017, 08:37:11 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 24, 2017, 08:23:46 PM
And the point of the video??

The point is that everyone said WTC7  was on the verge of collapse.   It  didn't need a controlled demolition.    Although I've repeatedly said I don't rule it out as a possibility.

If it was a controlled demolition,  why wait 7 hours. 

Sigh,  I never said the FDNY would be involved in demoing the building right there and then,  only that they were talking about it.

If it hadn't collapsed,  I'd expect that they would bring in some other agency in the days or weeks that followed.  Plenty of examples of this happening where a building is damaged by fire or earthquakes etc.

If this was legitimate...I would imagine they would have demoed it after this. The building was worthless and a money pit. Though it makes me wonder why Rudy Giuliani decided to build his 60 million dollar control room there when it was highly recommended not to be there.

Not "everyone" said it was going to fall or on the verge of collapse... Actually not many said that, mainly just news speculation, which I already find them suspect. As I said many times, fire fighters were afraid something might happen for obvious reasons. Also, as I have said many times, if it did collapse by fire, it wouldn't have as we seen. And.. as I have said this building's steel was fire certed to e119...That is no wuss.

"Leaning forward" is an impossibility if we are to believe NIST.

As for why wait 7 hours?  Just part of the show, the story was already written. It would be even more impossible to say a building collapsed as we saw from fire if it fell in an hour or less. There are other options as well.

Never said penthouse fell at free fall, nor would it in a controlled demo.

No it was BHS said the penthouse fell at freefall

Quote from: BHS
Then you have the penthouse dropping as it did, free fall in the path of greatest resistance, as well as squib markers during free fall (makes compression or anything else the cause) and many other things...I am afraid these videos hurt your cause not help it.

The FDNY measured the bulging on the south west corner,  and there is video showing it leaning towards to south as it collapsed,  looking from the north you can't see it clearly,   the bow in the roof line is not in fact the roof line bowing down,  it's bowing inward,  because of the low camera angle it looks like it's bowing down.  Video taken from further away show that it was fairly straight, and  looks like the north facade is being pulled towards the south  ( I can thank David Chandler for that observation)

One unknown is the amount of damage done to the structure on the south side caused when WTC1 collapsed.  There are some huge gashes in the south side, you can see on some videos.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 09:44:31 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 24, 2017, 09:39:45 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 24, 2017, 09:27:58 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 24, 2017, 08:37:11 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 24, 2017, 08:23:46 PM
And the point of the video??

The point is that everyone said WTC7  was on the verge of collapse.   It  didn't need a controlled demolition.    Although I've repeatedly said I don't rule it out as a possibility.

If it was a controlled demolition,  why wait 7 hours. 

Sigh,  I never said the FDNY would be involved in demoing the building right there and then,  only that they were talking about it.

If it hadn't collapsed,  I'd expect that they would bring in some other agency in the days or weeks that followed.  Plenty of examples of this happening where a building is damaged by fire or earthquakes etc.

If this was legitimate...I would imagine they would have demoed it after this. The building was worthless and a money pit. Though it makes me wonder why Rudy Giuliani decided to build his 60 million dollar control room there when it was highly recommended not to be there.

Not "everyone" said it was going to fall or on the verge of collapse... Actually not many said that, mainly just news speculation, which I already find them suspect. As I said many times, fire fighters were afraid something might happen for obvious reasons. Also, as I have said many times, if it did collapse by fire, it wouldn't have as we seen. And.. as I have said this building's steel was fire certed to e119...That is no wuss.

"Leaning forward" is an impossibility if we are to believe NIST.

As for why wait 7 hours?  Just part of the show, the story was already written. It would be even more impossible to say a building collapsed as we saw from fire if it fell in an hour or less. There are other options as well.

Never said penthouse fell at free fall, nor would it in a controlled demo.

No it was BHS said the penthouse fell at freefall

What?

If you're trying to twist it into me saying it, I haven't. I have agreed with Bhs since page one that the penthouse dropping before the collapse is circumstantial evidence for a CD.

This is even shown in my maths if you actually read it.

When the penthouse drops the structure might have say 150% structural resistance left holding it up. Like you said, it then stays perfectly still for a few moments..... then the roof line free-falls.....

Not what my maths predicts for a natural collapse. You haven't proven it wrong yet, you have just said it is simplified.

Which I have explained from the first post working on it
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 09:58:13 PM
As for your comment of, you can't make any predictive math because you don't have the inputs.

NONE OF US HAVE THE INPUTS RAAWWWRRRR

Thanks I took your advice.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 24, 2017, 09:59:46 PM
Oh what the fuck.... I never said the penthouse fell at free fall...Don't twist my words.

Twist words and don't address the other issues stated such as squib markers just for starters... I'm glad I am buzzed right now.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 24, 2017, 09:59:52 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 09:58:13 PM
As for your comment of, you can't make any predictive math because you don't have the inputs.

NONE OF US HAVE THE INPUTS RAAWWWRRRR

Thanks I took your advice.

LOL  cute.

But you are in fact correct.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 24, 2017, 10:02:41 PM
Big red caps....It is true, now and FOREVER!
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 24, 2017, 10:04:17 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 24, 2017, 09:59:46 PM
Oh what the fuck.... I never said the penthouse fell at free fall...Don't twist my words.

Twist words and don't address the other issues stated such as squib markers just for starters... I'm glad I am buzzed right now.

Actually you did and I  was surprised by the comment.   But I can let it pass as a genuine mistake,  just don't accuse me of twisting your words.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 24, 2017, 10:10:32 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 24, 2017, 10:04:17 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 24, 2017, 09:59:46 PM
Oh what the fuck.... I never said the penthouse fell at free fall...Don't twist my words.

Twist words and don't address the other issues stated such as squib markers just for starters... I'm glad I am buzzed right now.

Actually you did and I  was surprised by the comment.   But I can let it pass as a genuine mistake,  just don't accuse me of twisting your words.

The quote you presented was mis represented, talking about the penthouse was separate from the talk of free fall. Nor have I said about once this entire thread about the penthouse being in a free fall.

Fake news....


Sad.

*Edit-Spelling
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 10:10:42 PM
Still twisting words.

Asks us not to accuse him of twisting words.

Seems legit.

Quote from: Bhs
Fake news....
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 10:33:40 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 24, 2017, 09:05:00 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 09:02:14 PM
I would wait seven hours so that people like you could try to argue against the controlled demolition hypothesis.

If it was me doing it.

So you agree it's an argument against controlled demolition?

Quote from: Rayzor on February 24, 2017, 09:26:52 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 09:08:32 PM
Personally I believe it is circumstantial evidence for foul play and CD. But it is circumstantial and speculation.
Actually, I agree with you.

Twenty minutes apart.

Cough, shill harder, cough.

Don't play mind games with me you are so far out of your league...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 10:53:51 PM
To try and address speculation, one more time.

If the physics and engineering of the 9/11 official story was watertight, as it well should've been, you could put us in the "loony" basket. However as it stands we have in my opinion a very good amount of real evidence and points that are yet to be addressed and questions that are yet to be answered.

Your OP was,

Quote from: Rayzor on February 13, 2017, 10:36:59 PM
What real evidence is there for a conspiracy about 911?   Innuendo and speculation don't count as evidence.

My reply.

Quote from: disputeone on February 13, 2017, 10:49:57 PM
Fall acceleration of building 7.

Now look where we are.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Twerp on February 24, 2017, 10:59:19 PM
Apparently 9 out of 11 people accept the official explanation. Coincidence? I think not!  ;D
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 11:08:48 PM
Quote
After seeing video footage of Building 7′s collapse:
46% are sure or suspect it was caused by controlled demolition, compared to 28% who are sure or suspect fires caused it, and 27% who don’t know;
By a margin of nearly two to one, 41% support a new investigation of Building 7′s collapse, compared to 21% who oppose it.

One in Two Surveyed Have Doubts About Government’s Account of 9/11.

 46% Suspect Controlled Demolition of World Trade Center Building 7 after Viewing Video Footage of Collapse.

Imagine if the 27% who "don't know" said something.

http://rethink911.org/news/new-poll-finds-most-americans-open-to-alternative-911-theories/

Edit.
This is also just in America, watch some Russian news videos on it around the time for context of some global opinion on the event.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 24, 2017, 11:11:32 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 10:33:40 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 24, 2017, 09:05:00 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 09:02:14 PM
I would wait seven hours so that people like you could try to argue against the controlled demolition hypothesis.

If it was me doing it.

So you agree it's an argument against controlled demolition?

Quote from: Rayzor on February 24, 2017, 09:26:52 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 09:08:32 PM
Personally I believe it is circumstantial evidence for foul play and CD. But it is circumstantial and speculation.
Actually, I agree with you.

Twenty minutes apart.

Cough, shill harder, cough.

Don't play mind games with me you are so far out of your league...

Huh?  Are you still having trouble with the written word?
 





Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 11:15:28 PM
I liked you better when you ignored me Rayzor.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 24, 2017, 11:16:02 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 10:53:51 PM
To try and address speculation, one more time.

If the physics and engineering of the 9/11 official story was watertight, as it well should've been, you could put us in the "loony" basket. However as it stands we have in my opinion a very good amount of real evidence and points that are yet to be addressed and questions that are yet to be answered.

Your OP was,

Quote from: Rayzor on February 13, 2017, 10:36:59 PM
What real evidence is there for a conspiracy about 911?   Innuendo and speculation don't count as evidence.

Correct,  and all we have supporting conspiracy after so many pages in innuendo and speculation.   But there is doubt about NIST, simply because their models raise more questions,  but that, in and of itself isn't a case to conclude conspiracy.

Quote from: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 10:53:51 PM
My reply.

Quote from: disputeone on February 13, 2017, 10:49:57 PM
Fall acceleration of building 7.

Which you finally admitted is not conclusive evidence for controlled demolition.

Quote from: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 10:53:51 PM
Now look where we are.

The no-plane argument has failed to stand up,  the case for controlled demolition remains unproven.  And we agree a new enquiry is required.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Heiwa on February 24, 2017, 11:18:06 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 24, 2017, 07:14:36 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 24, 2017, 07:06:30 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 24, 2017, 07:02:05 PM
No you only answered the first half, and that is controlled demolition is not always free fall,  this is the other half of the logic.

Whats the other half of the logic?

Does free fall always indicate a controlled demolition?

It is very easy to see free fall in action! Take any structure! Disconnect the 10% top of that structure! Raise the top 3 meters! Drop the top on the bottom part!

The top will free fall and impact the bottom with about 7.6 m/s speed after about 0.8 seconds. BANG!

And then the top bounces on the bottom! The bottom remains intact!! If it doesn't, I pay you €1M at http://heiwaco.com/chall1.htm
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Twerp on February 24, 2017, 11:18:28 PM
(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSfFB_LS2UafzfqJAy2kS4r2KhtHfQr_0Te_hpKZdjH0nYRqZlQSg)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 24, 2017, 11:19:30 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 11:15:28 PM
I liked you better when you ignored me Rayzor.

I'm shattered.   
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Twerp on February 24, 2017, 11:20:50 PM
More like Manflattened!
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 11:21:09 PM
Edit, I must admit I'm a sucker for a good meme that one was really funny.

(https://s28.postimg.org/wp2imm47x/sevenelevenisaparttimejob.jpg)

Quote
Which you finally admitted is not conclusive evidence for controlled demolition.

I never admitted that Rayzor enough with your lying.

I don't care if people hate me for it.

The only hypothesis that matches observation for building 7 is controlled demolition.

What we saw that day was impossible given the official stories.

Enough with your dishonesty.
Shadilay.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 24, 2017, 11:22:23 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 24, 2017, 10:10:32 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 24, 2017, 10:04:17 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 24, 2017, 09:59:46 PM
Oh what the fuck.... I never said the penthouse fell at free fall...Don't twist my words.

Twist words and don't address the other issues stated such as squib markers just for starters... I'm glad I am buzzed right now.

Actually you did and I  was surprised by the comment.   But I can let it pass as a genuine mistake,  just don't accuse me of twisting your words.

The quote you presented was mis represented, talking about the penthouse was separate from the talk of free fall. Nor have I said about once this entire thread about the penthouse being in a free fall.

Fake news....


Sad.

*Edit-Spelling

I really don't care to be called a liar.  Here is the entire post.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 24, 2017, 08:23:46 PM
And the point of the video??

It kinda goes against the point you are trying to make. You have people talking about shock waves and bombs. Also..how did the fires get there anyways?? In those spots, that as always seemed suspect to me. Then you have people talking about all the dead bodies in the lobby already, explosions, fire balls etc in 7 before hand. Accounts from people like Rodriguez, johanneman, jennings (blacklisted, suicide, dead unknown causes) of the same things.

Then you have the penthouse dropping as it did, free fall in the path of greatest resistance, as well as squib markers during free fall (makes compression or anything else the cause) and many other things...I am afraid these videos hurt your cause not help it.

Quote from: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 08:03:16 PM
YOU DON'T PREP A BUILDING FOR DEMO WHILE IT IS ON FIRE!!!

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY!!!

IF IT WAS PREPPED IT WAS PREPPED WEEKSmonths IN ADVANCE!!!

NOT BY FIREMAN IN HOURS WHILE THE BUILDING WAS ON FIRE!!!

shill harder.

It would take about 2.5 months (without any set backs) to prep that building..the size, the structural mass, and the close proximity of the other buildings..This is legit. Having to be moderately stealth would certainly take longer. I would estimate around the time silverstein bought them is when the prep work started.


edit* I don't know what point you are trying to make rayzor. Firefighters would not have anything to do with demoing that building, nor could it be done that day by the best team on the planet. They wouldn't even get records from PATH for a week. Plus no one in their right mind would prep a building for demo while its on fire lmao
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Twerp on February 24, 2017, 11:22:49 PM
What's the favorite game in Afghanistan?

JENGA
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 11:23:39 PM
Boots come on man, serious thread.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Twerp on February 24, 2017, 11:25:47 PM
Way too serious!

But I'll stop.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 11:28:06 PM
Sorry man I feel really strongly about this. Didn't mean any disrespect.

Quote from: Rayzor on February 24, 2017, 11:22:23 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 24, 2017, 10:10:32 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 24, 2017, 10:04:17 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 24, 2017, 09:59:46 PM
Oh what the fuck.... I never said the penthouse fell at free fall...Don't twist my words.

Twist words and don't address the other issues stated such as squib markers just for starters... I'm glad I am buzzed right now.

Actually you did and I  was surprised by the comment.   But I can let it pass as a genuine mistake,  just don't accuse me of twisting your words.

The quote you presented was mis represented, talking about the penthouse was separate from the talk of free fall. Nor have I said about once this entire thread about the penthouse being in a free fall.

Fake news....


Sad.

*Edit-Spelling

I really don't care to be called a liar.  Here is the entire post.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 24, 2017, 08:23:46 PM
And the point of the video??

It kinda goes against the point you are trying to make. You have people talking about shock waves and bombs. Also..how did the fires get there anyways?? In those spots, that as always seemed suspect to me. Then you have people talking about all the dead bodies in the lobby already, explosions, fire balls etc in 7 before hand. Accounts from people like Rodriguez, johanneman, jennings (blacklisted, suicide, dead unknown causes) of the same things.

Then you have the penthouse dropping as it did, free fall in the path of greatest resistance, as well as squib markers during free fall (makes compression or anything else the cause) and many other things...I am afraid these videos hurt your cause not help it.

Quote from: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 08:03:16 PM
YOU DON'T PREP A BUILDING FOR DEMO WHILE IT IS ON FIRE!!!

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY!!!

IF IT WAS PREPPED IT WAS PREPPED WEEKSmonths IN ADVANCE!!!

NOT BY FIREMAN IN HOURS WHILE THE BUILDING WAS ON FIRE!!!

shill harder.

It would take about 2.5 months (without any set backs) to prep that building..the size, the structural mass, and the close proximity of the other buildings..This is legit. Having to be moderately stealth would certainly take longer. I would estimate around the time silverstein bought them is when the prep work started.


edit* I don't know what point you are trying to make rayzor. Firefighters would not have anything to do with demoing that building, nor could it be done that day by the best team on the planet. They wouldn't even get records from PATH for a week. Plus no one in their right mind would prep a building for demo while its on fire lmao

Theres a comma, Rayzor....

So it reads, the penthouse dropping as it did.

Then.

free-fall.

You disingenuous ____
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 25, 2017, 12:04:08 AM
I already gave him a pass,  but he cancelled the pass  when he called me a liar. 

"Then you have the penthouse dropping as it did, free fall in the path of greatest resistance"

The comma doesn't change shit,  he said exactly what he meant,  he's a fraud.   Sorry but at some point the free passes run out.

He could have just said,  sorry it's a mistake,  he chose the wrong option.





Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 25, 2017, 12:42:45 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 25, 2017, 12:04:08 AM
The comma doesn't change shit,  he said exactly what he meant,  he's a fraud.

Quote from: disputeone on February 13, 2017, 10:49:57 PM
You are going to end this a jibbering mess of failed insults and logic.

But you asked for it.

You are in so much trouble, aren't you.
I try not to laugh at your personal misfortune as much as the irony of the situation.

Quote from: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 09:26:48 PM

When will you actually use maths or physics? I have. You claim to be much better at it than I do.

Just to be 100% explicitly clear

Thought / Actual experiment

Take a bowling ball and put it on a box framed structure, weaken the structure until it starts to collapse, does the tower collapse at free-fall? Or does some of the towers gravitational potential energy get used crushing the remaining structural resistance?

Equation and method

Instead of expressing structural resistance in units we can use a percentage.

Say 100% structural resistance will hold the building up exactly, any more weight and it will start to collapse. Most working loads are two to four times (corrected, 30 to 100 times) the fail point.
So we can safely assume building 7 had over 100% structural resistance before it fell.

So we have gravitational acceleration - percentage of structural resistance = fall acceleration.

9.8m/s2×75%=7.35m/s2

9.8 m/s2 - 7.35m/s2 = 2.45 m/s2

At 75% structural resistance I would predict a 2.45m/s2 fall acceleration.

Obviously this doesnt calculate change and inertia, however it doesn't need to.

We can clearly see building 7 go from over 100% structural resistance to 0% pretty much instantly.

To go from (what we saw) totally upright and standing to free fall, (gravitational acceleration) for 2.25 seconds violates the laws of physics.

The only way building 7 could do this is to have nearly all of its structural resistance removed nearly instantly.

The only way this is possible is a controlled demolition.

So, G- %S = F
Gravitational acceleration - percentage of structural resistance = fall acceleration.

Results and conclusion.

Here's some more math, this is my simplified version of any reasonable buildings collapse due to fire.

So structural resistance and collapse acceleration.

100% = 0m/s2
99  % = .098m/s2
98  % = .196m/s2
97  % = .294m/s2
96  % = .392m/s2
95  % = .49m/s2
94  % = .588m/s2
93  % = .686m/s2
92  % = .784m/s2
91  % = .882m/s2
90  % = .98m/s2

Based on my very simple equation this is my prediction for the onset of collapse for a large building losing structural resistance due to an intense fire.

Please note, that as has been stated before all structural components would have to fail close to simultaneously for a free-fall to ever occur.

In reality usually one structural component breaks which leads to the initial compromise of structural integrity, which then leads in to more and more structural components failing faster and faster as the collapse gains energy.

This is clearly not what we saw that day, I have shown multiple times that WTC7's roofline stayes perfectly upright and level until its collapse at gravitational acceleration.

NIST's three stage collapse model is scientific fraud and clearly dry labbing.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 25, 2017, 12:55:40 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 25, 2017, 12:42:45 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 25, 2017, 12:04:08 AM
The comma doesn't change shit,  he said exactly what he meant,  he's a fraud.

Quote from: disputeone on February 13, 2017, 10:49:57 PM
You are going to end this a jibbering mess of failed insults and logic.

But you asked for it.

You are in so much trouble, aren't you.
I try not to laugh at your personal misfortune as much as the irony of the situation.


Huh?  what's ironic is you pretending you understand the word irony.

But you never quite grasped the strawman argument either,  so I shouldn't be too critical.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 25, 2017, 02:15:41 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 24, 2017, 04:22:53 PM
Master evar
I am not going to say much to your post... as I asked you to present a actual rebuttal and again, once more, you did not. Just focused on trivial nonsense. Though this is typical of those without an argument
I asked you to provide something to make a rebuttal against, because all you did was give me some types of steel and a link, which didn't contain any of the information you asked for.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 24, 2017, 04:22:53 PM
My only comments.. all you have presented is NIST copy and paste, so again, it is obvious you are using this as evidence.  Otherwise all you have presented is..
Actually, I have provided copypasta from first someone I thought explained it well (but I explicitly stated it is not evidence), later disputeone provided copypasta of the report, and I also did, once again because I think it explained the collapse well and I wasn't pointing it out to be evidence. Then, I DID provide copypasta from pilotsfor911truth.org, especially their conclusion to wether the maneuver was possible or not. Since disputeone was providing the source as reliable one, I pointed that out as evidence. Still alter disputeone provided a video which analyses NIST's three stages of collapse, however the creator of the video failed to understand how the stages were defined and I used NIST's report to point out which parts of NIST's report they had misread or misunderstood, not passing anything off as evidence, or even trying to prove anything but that the video creator misunderstood the three stages.

But yeah, keep on reading what YOU want to read, only the stuff that makes me a gullible idiot.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 24, 2017, 04:22:53 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 02:39:59 PM
If you don't claim the NIST copy pasta as "evidence" then all you have presented is a desire to believe the official narrative, it's been said before, that's fine, it's your choice. Just don't pretend you have evidence to back it up.
YES! This is what I've been saying all along, none of us can prove our stance. There's not enough evidence. You two claiming that it is absolutely impossible and physics-breaking, what happened on 9/11 according to the OS, is just idiotic. You don't have evidence, you only assert what you tihnk is logical. Well guess what, humans are wrong in their logic sometimes.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 24, 2017, 04:22:53 PM
I already explained I was attempting to shorten this for a conversation.
After that I asked what it's abbreviation was.
I asked for examples.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 24, 2017, 04:22:53 PM
I have already explained there are a 100 different exact terms for determining the working load of an specific item (it could be a completed component or individual...they all have different approved certifications, it depends on if its the city, state, regulatory agency, where it is...
I asked you for a very specific building
I asked you for some specific values you claimed for specific parts of that building.
I asked you to link, or give some examples.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 24, 2017, 04:22:53 PM
actually I am not repeating any of this shit to you, go read what I already told you.
You haven't told me what to read, you simply tell me, "to read". Read what? Cert load is an imaginary term, so it's really hard to find it. And I gues it has nothing to do with WLL or allowable stress, or other same standards for working loads.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 24, 2017, 04:22:53 PM
I also told you some basic formulas on how these are determined.
HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahhahahahaha....
Fuck, that was a good joke.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 24, 2017, 04:22:53 PM
Something that is certified for Texas more than likely will not for California just as a brief example ) it is not my fault you cannot or will not understand the very basic words I am using.
Well, I don't think WTC complex was both in texas and california, or either.

I'm starting to think you suffer from a combined case of dyslexia and dementia. You seem to forget parts of what I say, and completely misinterpret others.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 24, 2017, 04:22:53 PM
Bolts used for the box flooring were a490 connection bolts, the box supports were a325. The a490 was certified in that design of the box floor support to have a working load of no more than 80 ksi, the a325 52ksi. At that time, the a490 would fail at 170 ksi, the a325 about 120 ksi. The actual estimated load of each bolt was 30-45 ksi for the 490s, 20-28 for the a325 with the floor at weight comp (depending on wind conditions and other variables).
So you are literally talking about WLL/allowable stress? Also, aren't workloads usually given in force, not pressure? And if I'm really going to be nitpicky - you're just listing the yield strength, ultimate strength, and estimated load in pressure. So the safety number was about 2, then? Not too much. They would be able to take about twice the designed load, beyond that they would deform horribly until the load a little more then doubled again, at which point they would break. So at best, it's a little more than twice their "cert load".
Seriously, was it really that hard?

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 24, 2017, 04:22:53 PM
If you actually care, PATH records before 1980 is a good place to start for information. It isn't fun though.
I don't know what PATH is, and I get all sorts of things when googling it. I don't think any of the google results have anything to do with what you're referring to.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 25, 2017, 02:17:49 AM
So we're just personally attacking Bhs now, I'm done, the evidence speaks for itself, you guys have fun.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 25, 2017, 02:20:53 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 25, 2017, 02:17:49 AM
So we're just personally attacking Bhs now, I'm done, the evidence speaks for itself, you guys have fun.
I left otu the bit where he attacked me first... And he's been continuosly twisting my words. Also, I'm actually serious about the whole post except for the dyslexia/dementia, none of the rest was an attack.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 25, 2017, 02:23:21 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on February 25, 2017, 02:15:41 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 24, 2017, 04:22:53 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 02:39:59 PM
If you don't claim the NIST copy pasta as "evidence" then all you have presented is a desire to believe the official narrative, it's been said before, that's fine, it's your choice. Just don't pretend you have evidence to back it up.
YES! This is what I've been saying all along,

Truth.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 25, 2017, 02:26:47 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 25, 2017, 02:23:21 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on February 25, 2017, 02:15:41 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 24, 2017, 04:22:53 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 02:39:59 PM
If you don't claim the NIST copy pasta as "evidence" then all you have presented is a desire to believe the official narrative, it's been said before, that's fine, it's your choice. Just don't pretend you have evidence to back it up.
YES! This is what I've been saying all along,

Truth.
Then why were you acting as if I presented it as the truth?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 25, 2017, 02:27:59 AM
I wasn't, I didn't mean to anyway, I just wanted a logical debate.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 25, 2017, 02:36:08 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 25, 2017, 02:27:59 AM
I wasn't, I didn't mean to anyway, I just wanted a logical debate.
Well, is it logical to say that I am not allowed to use NIST's report to correct someone who misinterpreted NIST's report?
Is it logical to ignore the fact that WTC 7 did not enter freefall instantaneously?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 25, 2017, 02:49:34 AM
I'm not ignoring the fact wtc7 didn't enter free-fall instantly. I think the AE911truth video I've posted is a good analysis of the collapse. I have explained what I think as best as I can, we can agree to disagree, it's fine.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 25, 2017, 02:52:43 AM
The truth for me isn't necessarily the truth for you, I can respect that.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 25, 2017, 12:49:13 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 11:36:19 PM
Does truth matter?
I think it depends on the circumstances to each person in each life situation whether it matters or not.
Basically one mans lie can be another mans truth.
I think it's about knowing a truth or fathoming the truth of a lie.

Would a child prefer the truth of no Santa and forsake presents or the lie of Santa and many exciting presents.
Nobody wants the truth if it means bad.
People would prefer to be lied to.
People only don't want to be lied to if it means they lose out in some way, but would be quite happy to be lied to if there is gain to be made and quite happy to lie in the same vein.

The issue is, is a person telling lies if they parrot the lies of another, unknowingly?
Does it make them an accessory to the lie?

Knowing a truth or accepting an unknowing lie or knowing a lie and pushing it as a truth. Which one's good or bad?
When is a lie a good lie or a bad lie?
What is an acceptable lie or are all lies, lies with no give or take?

Would a world full of truths be a better world?
Could a world operate on truth alone?

A lot of things to ponder in the real sense.

I don't care what anyone says Scepti is really smart.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 25, 2017, 03:04:43 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 25, 2017, 02:49:34 AM
I'm not ignoring the fact wtc7 didn't enter free-fall instantly. I think the AE911truth video I've posted is a good analysis of the collapse. I have explained what I think as best as I can, we can agree to disagree, it's fine.
Well, the way you write it suggests so strongly:
Quote from: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 03:53:24 PM
We can clearly see building 7 go from over 100% structural resistance to 0% pretty much instantly.

To go from totally upright and intact to free fall (gravitational acceleration) for 2.25 seconds violates the laws of physics.

The only way building 7 could do this is to have nearly all of its structural resistance removed nearly instantly.

The only way this is possible is a controlled demolition.
Yes, you're free to have your opinion, and it's a logical position. But then claiming it's the only possible way, without providing hard evidence, just doesn't hold up. your calculations aren't wrong, but they are near useless. They just don't represent the whole picture, nowhere close.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 25, 2017, 03:10:35 AM
Alright I can take that.

I have presented a logical hypothesis for controlled demolition for building 7.

I believe that it is the only hypothesis that matches observation but others are free to have their beliefs.

I need access to actual numbers materials and inputs to properly test it.

Which is impossible, so like you say, I am stuck.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 25, 2017, 03:20:31 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 25, 2017, 03:10:35 AM
Alright I can take that.

I have presented a logical hypothesis for controlled demolition for building 7.

I believe that it is the only hypothesis that matches observation but others are free to have their beliefs.

I need access to actual numbers materials and inputs to properly test it.

Which is impossible, so like you say, I am stuck.
Yes, that is a reasonable position. Because of the bad NIST analysis, all of us are stuck.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 25, 2017, 03:24:56 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on February 25, 2017, 03:04:43 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 25, 2017, 02:49:34 AM
I'm not ignoring the fact wtc7 didn't enter free-fall instantly. I think the AE911truth video I've posted is a good analysis of the collapse. I have explained what I think as best as I can, we can agree to disagree, it's fine.
Well, the way you write it suggests so strongly:
Quote from: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 03:53:24 PM
We can clearly see building 7 go from over 100% structural resistance to 0% pretty much instantly.

To go from totally upright and intact to free fall (gravitational acceleration) for 2.25 seconds violates the laws of physics.

The only way building 7 could do this is to have nearly all of its structural resistance removed nearly instantly.

The only way this is possible is a controlled demolition.
Yes, you're free to have your opinion, and it's a logical position. But then claiming it's the only possible way, without providing hard evidence, just doesn't hold up. your calculations aren't wrong, but they are near useless. They just don't represent the whole picture, nowhere close.

When you read it in context of the equation it makes perfect sense, 100% structural resistance isn't 100% of the structural integrity.

I make it clear that 100% structural resistance is the building at breaking point and show my prediction for the rate of collapse based on the information I have access to.

I haven't seen anyone (including NIST) try to make a predictive model of how a building like wtc7 would fall due to fire. The models are as I said useless because for all we know they didn't even use math.

Thanks I appreciate your reasonable position with me also, no hard feelings. I strongly agree that NIST did a bad analysis.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 25, 2017, 03:43:23 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 25, 2017, 03:24:56 AM
When you read it in context of the equation it makes perfect sense, 100% structural resistance isn't 100% of the structural integrity.

I make it clear that 100% structural resistance is the building at breaking point and show my prediction for the rate of collapse based on the information I have access to.

I haven't seen anyone (including NIST) try to make a predictive model of how a building like wtc7 would fall due to fire. The models are as I said useless because for all we know they didn't even use math.

Thanks I appreciate your reasonable position with me also, no hard feelings. I strongly agree that NIST did a bad analysis.
I also read it in that context. I was referring to the fact that parts of the roofline sinks a good chunk of a second before the rest, while the whole building flexes, suggesting that parts of the structure held on for that chunk of a second. I guess this might be where we have different definitions of what instantly means. And yeah, no hard feelings.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 25, 2017, 03:52:08 AM
The penthouse sinks before the rest, I'll agree with that, the roofline I think the videos of wtc7 speak for themselves.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Heiwa on February 25, 2017, 04:07:26 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 11:21:09 PM
Edit, I must admit I'm a sucker for a good meme that one was really funny.

(https://s28.postimg.org/wp2imm47x/sevenelevenisaparttimejob.jpg)

Quote
Which you finally admitted is not conclusive evidence for controlled demolition.

I never admitted that Rayzor enough with your lying.

I don't care if people hate me for it.

The only hypothesis that matches observation for building 7 is controlled demolition.

What we saw that day was impossible given the official stories.

Enough with your dishonesty.
Shadilay.
Don't forget the FLOORS!

It was only one wall but six FLOORS to slice.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 25, 2017, 07:18:12 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on February 25, 2017, 02:15:41 AM
Ad hominems, non sense, no argument

Typical master response. I have no idea why I expected something more. The expected disingenuous, nonsensical dribble you have been shitting this thread up with. Lies, twists, omission and ignorance. Anyways, there are people who are looking for genuine truth that are worth putting time into.

Only things I will say, I gave you some input factors of how you determine certifications

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 24, 2017, 05:15:03 AM
You would have to give me a specific building, the variables are enormous... To call the equations numerous would be like saying the universe is big. Some basics.. the beginning always starts with ASTM rating of the material, which they have their equations for their own ratings. They are there to make designers jobs easier, take one step out at least.

Then you have to look at average climate, humidity, seismic activity, soil/bedrock, total mass, height, base dimensions, CG etc times 1000... The list is too long, you would have to go into design to get accurate numbers.

I have already stated I am not going to do all the work for you and waste hours of my time. It is much more that just listing numbers out of a book.. I would explain the process but don't care at the moment with you. As I said many times, present an argument besides NIST or beliefs, show me you are actually looking for the truth then things will change.

I even provided you with a little bit of info as a down payment on a quality discussion. You of course shitted that up as well...go figure. This also shows you have no idea how to extrapolate information on this subject, as well as lacking even the most basic prerequisites.

I supplied simple information about bolts used on the floors. You of course only said they were double as strong as they should (which is a big deal when we are talking about individual fasteners)...Yes individually they are a little more than double the needed strength (4 times the average working load) of what?? The floor at max comp... That means 20 percent over capacity and maximum allowable stress in the building itself (such as hurricane force winds outside)...

Not to mention you think just doubling the load on the floor will cause failure. Not how it works, that is the whole point of the box system and the way it distributes/shares load (this isn't just the box support system, any sort of load distribution)...

If you have 100 people on the floor, then went to 200...The load on each fastener would not double, but only increase a percentage (this of course determines on design, how many etc etc etc)..


Now GTFO with your nonsense or change your ways.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: hoppy on February 25, 2017, 07:51:26 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 19, 2017, 12:11:00 AM
Onebigmonkey.
Onebigmarkjo ::)   Ftfy.
Quote from: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 11:01:11 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 09:39:27 PM
Quote from: markjo on February 18, 2017, 09:27:40 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed
This is how robust buildings are (this didn't fall fyi, not even a bit)
(http://i68.tinypic.com/297rtj.jpg)
Umm...  You do realize that building was only about 1/3 as tall as the towers and had a reinforced concrete core, don't you?  Kinda apples and oranges.

Fair point markjo, That wasn't claimed as evidence, just comparison.

I have said it before, my issue is the 2.25 seconds of gravitational acceleration for building 7, I kept bringing it up to Rayzor and now he's ignored me.

Would you like to explain how you think building 7 fell at gravitational acceleration for 2.25 seconds given the official story?

My position is that the official position is untrue as any structure providing any mechanical resistance will not fall at gravitational acceleration as the towers energy is taken up by the mechanical resistance crushing the tower underneath it.

An easy experiment is to put a bowling ball on any structure you like, weaken the structure until the bowling ball crushes the tower, does the tower and bowling ball fall at free fall or is it more a matter of gravitational acceleration - structural resistance = fall acceleration?

My hypothesis is for a controlled demolition, where all the structural support was removed and all the towers potential energy was converted into acceleration by gravity. None of the towers potential energy was taken by the towers structural resistance.

Quote from: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 10:35:50 PM
Quote from: sokarul on February 18, 2017, 10:22:53 PM
How much chromium was in the steel of those buildings?

Sokarul, come on now.

I like you and markjo, it's clear you are both intelligent and critical, I don't disrespect you for a difference of opinion here. However you are very late and I think you need to address some previous points raised.

Quote from: disputeone on February 18, 2017, 10:11:08 PM
We are trying to keep the debate focussed on physics, engineering and logic, the incidences you talk about I believe are highly relevant, but not necessary to prove our main two points.

1. The planes could not have penetrated and passed through the buildings given the official story.

2. The buildings fall acceleration and pretty much plumb, neat collapse could not of been caused by an event as chaotic as a plane impact.

Entropy always increases, that is to say with time a system becomes less ordered and more chaotic.

If you think I haven't read everything on the official report at least twice you are being silly.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 25, 2017, 09:13:36 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 25, 2017, 07:18:12 AM
Typical Babyhighspeed response. I have no idea why I expected something more. The expected disingenuous, nonsensical dribble I have been shitting this thread up with. Lies, twists, omission and ignorance. Anyways, there are people who are looking for genuine truth that are worth putting time into.
Fixed it for you.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 25, 2017, 07:18:12 AM
Only things I will say, I gave you some input factors of how you determine certifications
Random factors doesn't tell me how to calculate them. It's like saying "Well, gravity depends on mass and distance, and some other factor. Now, surely I've told you how to calculate the force of gravity?"

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 25, 2017, 07:18:12 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 24, 2017, 05:15:03 AM
You would have to give me a specific building, the variables are enormous... To call the equations numerous would be like saying the universe is big. Some basics.. the beginning always starts with ASTM rating of the material, which they have their equations for their own ratings. They are there to make designers jobs easier, take one step out at least.

Then you have to look at average climate, humidity, seismic activity, soil/bedrock, total mass, height, base dimensions, CG etc times 1000... The list is too long, you would have to go into design to get accurate numbers.
Or you could, you know, just admit that most of that is just part of deciding the safety factor for a WLL or allowable stress calculation, and the rest is literally just the material properties.
You could also stop forgetting completely ignoring the fact that I have multiple times specified exactly what I'm talking about - the WTC buildings, specifically the values you claim.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 25, 2017, 07:18:12 AM
I have already stated I am not going to do all the work for you and waste hours of my time. It is much more that just listing numbers out of a book.. I would explain the process but don't care at the moment with you. As I said many times, present an argument besides NIST or beliefs, show me you are actually looking for the truth then things will change.
You wouldn't have to, if you could just cite a source. That's the fantastic thing with sources - they do a lot of the work for you. Imagine if we had to re-invent the wheel everytime someone wanted the specifics for a certain wheel. Luckily, we humans are smarter than that. Well, most of us are.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 25, 2017, 07:18:12 AM
I even provided you with a little bit of info as a down payment on a quality discussion. You of course shitted that up as well...go figure. This also shows you have no idea how to extrapolate information on this subject, as well as lacking even the most basic prerequisites.
Shitted it up? I responded in a serious manner, if something I said was wrong you should have just pointed it out. Since you choose not to, but instead insult me, I'll just assume you had no response to what I said. Either you know I am right, or you yourself didn't understand me.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 25, 2017, 07:18:12 AM
I supplied simple information about bolts used on the floors. You of course only said they were double as strong as they should (which is a big deal when we are talking about individual fasteners)...Yes individually they are a little more than double the needed strength (4 times the average working load) of what?? The floor at max comp... That means 20 percent over capacity and maximum allowable stress in the building itself (such as hurricane force winds outside)...
What, where did you get the 20% from? And over capacity of... what? But yeah, they are twice as strong as the expected load, before deformation occurs.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 25, 2017, 07:18:12 AM
Not to mention you think just doubling the load on the floor will cause failure. Not how it works, that is the whole point of the box system and the way it distributes/shares load (this isn't just the box support system, any sort of load distribution)...
If you double the force pressing down on something, the force is doubled. The point of the box is to make it flexible, to allow multiple joints to share the stress. If you double the total stress, you still double the total stress. And I never said that doubling the load ont he floor would make it give out. I said that doubling the load on one of the bolts would make it give out.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 25, 2017, 07:18:12 AM
If you have 100 people on the floor, then went to 200...The load on each fastener would not double, but only increase a percentage (this of course determines on design, how many etc etc etc)..
Maybe, just maybe, because the people don't make up 100% of the load on the floor? The floor itself weighs more than the people. And the building above. What if we added another whole building on top of the other? Would that hold up? Let's assume that the rate at which the steel in the columns got thinner halved, so that it's uniform. Would it hold up?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 25, 2017, 03:28:36 PM
Master, This will be put as short as possible.

Again attacking the wrong things. Not debating on subject.
I already said I wouldn't do your work for you unless you actually want to hold a conversation and looking for the truth. You have nothing to lose, I have hours to lose. I don't like wasting my time..Do you? Also PATH (port authority)
Whole point with people analogy, simple attempted way to show how increased floor weight does not follow suite in the same ratio per joint. (Double floor weight will not double the stress on each bolt of the floor) (remember I am not a teacher, I work in the field, not teach it)
Also 20 percent from city certifications and PATH certs.

There...Done, under 2 minutes..Post. Now actual rebuttals or just say you wanna believe
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 25, 2017, 04:48:27 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 25, 2017, 03:10:35 AM
Alright I can take that.

I have presented a logical hypothesis for controlled demolition for building 7.

I believe that it is the only hypothesis that matches observation but others are free to have their beliefs.

I need access to actual numbers materials and inputs to properly test it.

Which is impossible, so like you say, I am stuck.

The collapse of WTC7 was not a surprise to anybody on the ground that day,  there are numerous eye witness reports testifying to the damage on the south side,  and significant structural damage,   apart from the uncontrolled fires that burnt throughout the day. 

FDNY had pulled everyone out of the area hours before because of the imminent collapse. 

The building construction had an unusual cantilever construction to accomodate the existing power station underneath.   Failure at that point could trigger the collapse.

The first NIST report didn't even cover WTC7,  it wasn't considered suspicious in comparison with WTC1 and WTC2,  after all there was no detailed study of the collapse of the other WTC buildings,  and in the end it was covered by a half assed report that didn't go deep enough in the collapse mechanism. 

The video footage of the collapse almost always shows the north face of the building,  but by the time that it came down, it was about all that was left.  A video of the collapse take from the south side would be good.

There is no logical reason to delay 7 hours,  if it was a controlled demolition.   

Finally,  if  it was part of a conspiracy to claim insurance money and rebuild,  why demo it,  all you would have to do is wait and the authorities would do it for you.  No charge.

Conclusion:  Only hardened conspiracy nutters will continue to insist WTC7 was controlled demolition.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 25, 2017, 04:52:56 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 25, 2017, 04:48:27 PM
Assertions based on speculation

Quote from: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 07:04:02 PM
I think my maths is well thought out and well presented, especially in comparison to NIST's, or yours, (which is non existent) now, debunk it.

Quote from: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 05:21:45 PM
Once again, absolutely no maths or physics from Rayzor, is anyone surprised anymore at this point?

let's all rip on him when he makes fun of flat earthers for not using math.

I'm done with you Rayzor.

Quote from: Rayzor on February 25, 2017, 04:48:27 PM
The first NIST report didn't even cover WTC7,  it wasn't considered suspicious in comparison with WTC1 and WTC2.

I'd say shill harder, but this is clearly your limit.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 25, 2017, 05:06:32 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 25, 2017, 04:52:56 PM
I'm done with you Rayzor.

Saved your best argument till last?   


Moving on from WTC7,   

The hijacked American Airlines AAL 77  that crashed into the pentagon,  surprisingly is covered comprehensively by a conspiracy theorist  David Chandler



Skip to around 56:00 if you just want the proof that AAL 77 hit the pentagon.

The only area of doubt about AAL 77 is whether an inexperienced pilot could have pulled off the low level approach,   I'm told that with the 757 control systems it wouldn't be impossible.

Conclusion:  No conspiracy.   
 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 25, 2017, 05:08:06 PM
Quote from: Master_Evar on February 25, 2017, 03:20:31 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 25, 2017, 03:10:35 AM
Alright I can take that.

I have presented a logical hypothesis for controlled demolition for building 7.

I believe that it is the only hypothesis that matches observation but others are free to have their beliefs.

I need access to actual numbers materials and inputs to properly test it.

Which is impossible, so like you say, I am stuck.
Yes, that is a reasonable position. Because of the bad NIST analysis, all of us are stuck.

Rayzor.

Notice that was for Master Evar.

We both respect and understand why we believe what we believe.

Absolutely no reason to jump on it with your personal brand of opinion control.

(https://s12.postimg.org/mcbhhox7h/images_34.jpg)

What you are trying to do now is low.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Twerp on February 25, 2017, 05:09:12 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 25, 2017, 05:08:06 PM
(https://s12.postimg.org/mcbhhox7h/images_34.jpg)

Good one! LOL
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 25, 2017, 05:11:35 PM
Quote from: Boots on February 25, 2017, 05:09:12 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 25, 2017, 05:08:06 PM
(https://s12.postimg.org/mcbhhox7h/images_34.jpg)

Good one! LOL

Thanks mate. Sorry I was rude to you before.

I was losing patience with Rayzor I didn't mean to be a dick.

Regardless of what's happening between himself and Bhs I have great respect for Master Evar and where we left our debate.

Edit. Oh, and look at that.

Quote from: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 05:21:45 PM
Once again, absolutely no maths or physics from Rayzor, is anyone surprised anymore at this point?

let's all rip on him when he makes fun of flat earthers for not using math.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Twerp on February 25, 2017, 05:15:05 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 25, 2017, 05:11:35 PM
Quote from: Boots on February 25, 2017, 05:09:12 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 25, 2017, 05:08:06 PM
(https://s12.postimg.org/mcbhhox7h/images_34.jpg)

Good one! LOL

Thanks mate. Sorry I was rude to you before.

I was losing patience with Rayzor I didn't mean to be a dick.

Regardless of what's happening between himself and Bhs I have great respect for Master Evar and where we left our debate.

Saul Goodman.  :D
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 25, 2017, 05:25:44 PM
So far WTC7 and AAL77 no compelling reasons to assume a conspiracy. 

WTC1 and WTC2.

The evidence that both were hit by AA11 and UA175 is  conclusive,  the structural damage caused by the impacts and the subsequent fires led to the collapse initiation,  but NIST modelling doesn't go far enough,  so a new enquiry should be established to determine the unexplained detail of the collapse.

The underlying cause is that both towers were hit by  175,000 kg's travelling at 500 or so mph.   The buildings survived the impacts,  but failed subsequently due to fires or demolition it's not possible to be 100% sure either way,   the evidence for demolition is sketchy and not really credible,  the evidence for fires being the cause is better.

What caused the molten metal seen pouring out the side?     

If it was demolition,  why choose those particular floors?   Makes no sense,  also why wait before firing the charges? 

I don't rule out demolition,  but  only  hard core conspiracy loonies will insist it's the only possibility. 

Conclusion:  The primary cause was impact by hijacked aircraft,   subsequent collapse needs further investigation.

As for planes flying through buildings without leaving a mark.   Pure bullshit.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 25, 2017, 05:26:44 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 25, 2017, 04:52:56 PM
I'd say shill harder, but this is clearly your limit.

Quote from: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 05:21:45 PM
Once again, absolutely no maths or physics from Rayzor, is anyone surprised anymore at this point?

let's all rip on him when he makes fun of flat earthers for not using math.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 25, 2017, 05:49:44 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 13, 2017, 10:36:59 PM
Quote
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on Today at 07:27:01 AM
So by this I assume he is an official story guy? If that is the case you can't expect too much from him ;D....Also, he should never give any crap about their views or believing in fairy tales.

I'll  take that challenge.   What real evidence is there for a conspiracy about 911?   Innuendo and speculation don't count as evidence.
So over to Babyhighspeed for the fairy tales.   :)

The fairy tales turned out to be all from the conspiracy theorists.   

To be honest I'm disappointed,  I had expected better.  Especially from someone who claims formal training. 

The only argument put up by disputeone was a logical fallacy,  that even at the end he still failed to understand.   Free fall collapse is not always an indicator of controlled demolition.
 
The arguments put up by BHS,  were non existent,  consisting of repeatedly telling everyone who would listen as to how he had done a decade of research.  But zero content.

His claim of disappearing planes was the strangest,  perhaps only slightly ahead of his claim that no wreckage had ever been found at any of the crash sites.   Then complete silence when proven wrong.


There is in spite of all of that, there is actually a good case for conspiracy,  but it's not about the engineering and physics.

The Bush Whitehouse obstructed the 911 commission,  and restricted their access to witnesses,  refused to detail what was known beforehand.  To the extent that leading people resigned and complained the 911 commission was compromised.

The suspicion is that the intelligence community actually had enough information before the attack to have acted and prevented it,  but inter agency communications difficulties and rivalries stopped them from joining the dots.   The Bush administration covered up the failure.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 25, 2017, 05:54:32 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 25, 2017, 05:26:44 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 25, 2017, 04:52:56 PM
I'd say shill harder, but this is clearly your limit.

Quote from: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 05:21:45 PM
Once again, absolutely no maths or physics from Rayzor, is anyone surprised anymore at this point?

let's all rip on him when he makes fun of flat earthers for not using math.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 25, 2017, 05:56:36 PM
What are you trying to do, Rayzor? Make your own summary of the thread, it's all here. For anyone who likes to read and consider.

By all means keep bumping it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 25, 2017, 06:00:25 PM
Just to be 100% explicitly clear... again...

Thought / Actual experiment

Take a bowling ball and put it on a box framed structure, weaken the structure until it starts to collapse, does the tower collapse at free-fall? Or does some of the towers gravitational potential energy get used crushing the remaining structural resistance?

Equation and method

Instead of expressing structural resistance in units we can use a percentage.

Say 100% structural resistance will hold the building up exactly, any more weight and it will start to collapse. Most working loads are two to four times (corrected, 30 to 100 times) the fail point.
So we can safely assume building 7 had over 100% structural resistance before it fell.

So we have gravitational acceleration - percentage of structural resistance = fall acceleration.

9.8m/s2×75%=7.35m/s2

9.8 m/s2 - 7.35m/s2 = 2.45 m/s2

At 75% structural resistance I would predict a 2.45m/s2 fall acceleration.

Obviously this doesnt calculate change and inertia, however it doesn't need to.

We can clearly see building 7 go from over 100% structural resistance to 0% pretty much instantly.

To go from (what we saw) totally upright and standing to free fall, (gravitational acceleration) for 2.25 seconds violates the laws of physics.

The only way building 7 could do this is to have nearly all of its structural resistance removed nearly instantly.

The only way this is possible is a controlled demolition.

So, G- %S = F
Gravitational acceleration - percentage of structural resistance = fall acceleration.

Video for reference.


Results and conclusion.

Here's some more math, this is my simplified version of any reasonable buildings collapse due to fire.

So structural resistance and collapse acceleration.

100% = 0m/s2
99  % = .098m/s2
98  % = .196m/s2
97  % = .294m/s2
96  % = .392m/s2
95  % = .49m/s2
94  % = .588m/s2
93  % = .686m/s2
92  % = .784m/s2
91  % = .882m/s2
90  % = .98m/s2

Based on my very simple equation this is my prediction for the onset of collapse for a large building losing structural resistance due to an intense fire.

Please note, that as has been stated before all structural components would have to fail close to simultaneously for a free-fall to ever occur.

In reality usually one structural component breaks which leads to the initial compromise of structural integrity, which then leads in to more and more structural components failing faster and faster as the collapse gains energy.

This is clearly not what we saw that day, I have shown multiple times that WTC7's roofline stayes perfectly upright and level until its collapse at gravitational acceleration.


Just because it clearly bothers you.

Note there is no "logical fallacy" you are making that up.

This is what I believe and why I believe it. More than you have contributed to this thread.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 25, 2017, 06:08:03 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 25, 2017, 03:28:36 PM
Master, This will be put as short as possible.

Again attacking the wrong things. Not debating on subject.
I already said I wouldn't do your work for you unless you actually want to hold a conversation and looking for the truth. You have nothing to lose, I have hours to lose. I don't like wasting my time..Do you? Also PATH (port authority)
Whole point with people analogy, simple attempted way to show how increased floor weight does not follow suite in the same ratio per joint. (Double floor weight will not double the stress on each bolt of the floor) (remember I am not a teacher, I work in the field, not teach it)
Also 20 percent from city certifications and PATH certs.

There...Done, under 2 minutes..Post. Now actual rebuttals or just say you wanna believe
The sum of all loads on all joints on a floor must equal the load on that floor. If the load on the floor doubles, the sum of the load on all joints must also double. You didn't show anything, you just claimed something. You didn't make any calculations, and didn't refer to any sources.

And you were the one making claims about the loads on certain parts of the structure, so I'm extremely sure that it is exactly your job to substantiate it, not mine.

And don't you think I've spent hours researching before posting here? Not that all of it requires that much research, to be honest.

I'll check the city certifications (or, as I'm sure they are actually called, building codes) later, I don't have time right now. Do you mean that the designed load was 20% lower or higher than regulations allow?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 25, 2017, 06:40:51 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 25, 2017, 05:49:44 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 13, 2017, 10:36:59 PM
Quote
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on Today at 07:27:01 AM
So by this I assume he is an official story guy? If that is the case you can't expect too much from him ;D....Also, he should never give any crap about their views or believing in fairy tales.

I'll  take that challenge.   What real evidence is there for a conspiracy about 911?   Innuendo and speculation don't count as evidence.
So over to Babyhighspeed for the fairy tales.   :)

The fairy tales turned out to be all from the conspiracy theorists.   

To be honest I'm disappointed,  I had expected better.  Especially from someone who claims formal training. 

The only argument put up by disputeone was a logical fallacy,  that even at the end he still failed to understand.   Free fall collapse is not always an indicator of controlled demolition.
 
The arguments put up by BHS,  were non existent,  consisting of repeatedly telling everyone who would listen as to how he had done a decade of research.  But zero content.

His claim of disappearing planes was the strangest,  perhaps only slightly ahead of his claim that no wreckage had ever been found at any of the crash sites.   Then complete silence when proven wrong.


There is in spite of all of that, there is actually a good case for conspiracy,  but it's not about the engineering and physics.

The Bush Whitehouse obstructed the 911 commission,  and restricted their access to witnesses,  refused to detail what was known beforehand.  To the extent that leading people resigned and complained the 911 commission was compromised.

The suspicion is that the intelligence community actually had enough information before the attack to have acted and prevented it,  but inter agency communications difficulties and rivalries stopped them from joining the dots.   The Bush administration covered up the failure.

What is this chicken shit bullshit???

That's enough for me..

We have been having nice conversations as of late..But I knew this is who you were, wasn't falling for it. Even with that said, I am slightly disappointed still, I always have hope. I have answered all your questions you ask me directly. Then you say "All I do is talk about my research"...You are a chicken shit liar...

I am the only person who actually answers questions here... Directly...No bullshit.

You haven't even put forth one argument except for "look at NIST" yet you have the fucking balls to say I haven't said anything?

It fully sums up how pathetic you are as well the fact you have zero argument you have to post up a quote from me on false pretenses...

Toodle-pip loser...

Quote from: Master_Evar on February 25, 2017, 06:08:03 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 25, 2017, 03:28:36 PM
Master, This will be put as short as possible.

Again attacking the wrong things. Not debating on subject.
I already said I wouldn't do your work for you unless you actually want to hold a conversation and looking for the truth. You have nothing to lose, I have hours to lose. I don't like wasting my time..Do you? Also PATH (port authority)
Whole point with people analogy, simple attempted way to show how increased floor weight does not follow suite in the same ratio per joint. (Double floor weight will not double the stress on each bolt of the floor) (remember I am not a teacher, I work in the field, not teach it)
Also 20 percent from city certifications and PATH certs.

There...Done, under 2 minutes..Post. Now actual rebuttals or just say you wanna believe
The sum of all loads on all joints on a floor must equal the load on that floor. If the load on the floor doubles, the sum of the load on all joints must also double. You didn't show anything, you just claimed something. You didn't make any calculations, and didn't refer to any sources.

And you were the one making claims about the loads on certain parts of the structure, so I'm extremely sure that it is exactly your job to substantiate it, not mine.

And don't you think I've spent hours researching before posting here? Not that all of it requires that much research, to be honest.

I'll check the city certifications (or, as I'm sure they are actually called, building codes) later, I don't have time right now. Do you mean that the designed load was 20% lower or higher than regulations allow?

Building codes is one thing, there are many other certifications.. If you present an argument I would be glad to show you.

Though all signs you are wasting my time like the chicken shit rayzor.

Also, research?? What research? You sure haven't shown a damn thing yet besides shit post NIST material, say "no no no", argue semantics and other trivial nonsense..

Chicken shit rayzor is dead to me... Should I just call this one as well?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 25, 2017, 07:42:09 PM
Quote from: Master_Evar on February 25, 2017, 06:08:03 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 25, 2017, 03:28:36 PM
Master, This will be put as short as possible.

Again attacking the wrong things. Not debating on subject.
I already said I wouldn't do your work for you unless you actually want to hold a conversation and looking for the truth. You have nothing to lose, I have hours to lose. I don't like wasting my time..Do you? Also PATH (port authority)
Whole point with people analogy, simple attempted way to show how increased floor weight does not follow suite in the same ratio per joint. (Double floor weight will not double the stress on each bolt of the floor) (remember I am not a teacher, I work in the field, not teach it)
Also 20 percent from city certifications and PATH certs.

There...Done, under 2 minutes..Post. Now actual rebuttals or just say you wanna believe
The sum of all loads on all joints on a floor must equal the load on that floor. If the load on the floor doubles, the sum of the load on all joints must also double.

Just a quick real life example.

Lets use an elevator for example.

The "sling" of an elevator can be rated for say, one tonne.

The sling is bolted together with say sixteen × m12, 8.8, high tensile bolts.
Each of these has a shear strength of over one tonne. Sixteen bolts receiving an equal load would take well over sixteen tonnes of force to shear all of them.

Yet the elevator platform is rated for a tonne.

In this regard we can double the load on the elevator platform.

Certified load 1000kg × 2 = 2000kg

With one tonne on the elevator platform the sling bolts are experiencing one sixteenth of their shear strength.

16,000 kg shear strength taking 1000 kg load.

Doubling the load on the platform equals the bolts taking double the load. However they are now experiencing one eighth of the load they can handle before they will shear.

This is a real world example of how we can double the load of a building or structure while the joints only experience a small increase of the load they can handle.

Quote
If the load on the floor doubles, the sum of the load on all joints must also double.

This, in a literal sense is true, however we can see, when we compare side by side that load on a floor isn't exactly proportional to the load on the joints.

Edit. Reference.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shear_force

(https://s17.postimg.org/neuuru55b/images_2.png)

Heiwa please keep arguments from incredulity in the other threads.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Heiwa on February 25, 2017, 07:52:38 PM
Imagine that this was the result of small navigation errors by airplane pilots colliding with the tops of two skyscrapers - seven buildings completely destroyed!

(http://heiwaco.com/wtca.gif)

And it was all the fault of bad building codes and fire protection. And the insurances paid! LOL!
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 25, 2017, 08:07:51 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 25, 2017, 06:40:51 PM

What is this chicken shit bullshit???

That's enough for me..

We have been having nice conversations as of late..But I knew this is who you were, wasn't falling for it. Even with that said, I am slightly disappointed still, I always have hope. I have answered all your questions you ask me directly. Then you say "All I do is talk about my research"...You are a chicken shit liar...

I am the only person who actually answers questions here... Directly...No bullshit.

You haven't even put forth one argument except for "look at NIST" yet you have the fucking balls to say I haven't said anything?

It fully sums up how pathetic you are as well the fact you have zero argument you have to post up a quote from me on false pretenses...

Toodle-pip loser...

Well,  let's recap.   I proved you were full of shit about the disappearing planes,   you lied about video evidence you claimed to have but couldn't produce.

You didn't know what volatile meant,  till I corrected you. 

You didn't know what ground effect was,  you called it down burst.

You went quiet when I proved you wrong about the FDR for AA77,    you still haven't responded,  which tells me again, you don't have a clue about the toptic.

You claimed that there was no aircraft debris from any of the impact sites,   proven wrong yet again.

You claimed the penthouse fell at free fall,  then pretended it wasn't what you meant.

You pretend not to be a "Quadruple No Planer"  but that's what you have repeatedly implied.   Even the 911 truth movement reckons you QNP'ers are an embarrasment.

In your case I think they got it right. 

Bottom line is that not one single claim you've made has stood up to the most basic scrutiny.




Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 25, 2017, 08:15:06 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 25, 2017, 07:42:09 PM
Quote from: Master_Evar on February 25, 2017, 06:08:03 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 25, 2017, 03:28:36 PM
Master, This will be put as short as possible.

Again attacking the wrong things. Not debating on subject.
I already said I wouldn't do your work for you unless you actually want to hold a conversation and looking for the truth. You have nothing to lose, I have hours to lose. I don't like wasting my time..Do you? Also PATH (port authority)
Whole point with people analogy, simple attempted way to show how increased floor weight does not follow suite in the same ratio per joint. (Double floor weight will not double the stress on each bolt of the floor) (remember I am not a teacher, I work in the field, not teach it)
Also 20 percent from city certifications and PATH certs.

There...Done, under 2 minutes..Post. Now actual rebuttals or just say you wanna believe
The sum of all loads on all joints on a floor must equal the load on that floor. If the load on the floor doubles, the sum of the load on all joints must also double.

Just a quick real life example.

Lets use an elevator for example.

The "sling" of an elevator can be rated for say, one tonne.

The sling is bolted together with say sixteen × m12, 8.8, high tensile bolts.
Each of these has a shear strength of over one tonne. Sixteen bolts receiving an equal load would take well over sixteen tonnes of force to shear all of them.

Yet the elevator platform is rated for a tonne.

In this regard we can double the load on the elevator platform.

Certified load 1000kg × 2 = 2000kg

With one tonne on the elevator platform the sling bolts are experiencing one sixteenth of their shear strength.

16,000 kg shear strength taking 1000 kg load.

Doubling the load on the platform equals the bolts taking double the load. However they are now experiencing one eighth of the load they can handle before they will shear.

This is a real world example of how we can double the load of a building or structure while the joints only experience a small increase of the load they can handle.

Quote
If the load on the floor doubles, the sum of the load on all joints must also double.

This, in a literal sense is true, however we can see, when we compare side by side that load on a floor isn't exactly proportional to the load on the joints.

Edit. Reference.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shear_force

(https://s17.postimg.org/neuuru55b/images_2.png)

Heiwa please keep arguments from incredulity in the other threads.

If we had the inputs and data we could make a model predicting which part/s of building 7 would fail first, then using the energy and location / direction of the initial failure make a model of what we predict would fail in which order and lay out exactly the damage we would predict would occur. Whether the building would collapse totally, if so, at what speed and manner or at what point we would expect the collapse to stop naturally due to structural resistance.

However this is impossible to do as NIST's unsubstantiated report has us in a stalemate.

I respect the right for everyone to have their own opinions.

I very much disapprove of Rayzor calling us "Nutters" or "Loonies"

It's lazy, repugnant, and indicative of an inferior mind.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 25, 2017, 08:18:25 PM
This is not hard stuff to do, we had a man on the moon in '69, predicting the exact way a building would be damaged due to specific circumstances in 2017 is childsplay.

Edit, I'm still in 2016 :P
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 25, 2017, 08:37:12 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 25, 2017, 08:15:06 PM
I very much disapprove of Rayzor calling us "Nutters" or "Loonies"
It's lazy, repugnant, and indicative of an inferior mind.

Actually it's the rest of the 911 truth movement that think you QNP'ers are nutters and loonies,  giving the "genuine" conspiracy theorists a bad name.   

By denying reality,  you fall into the conspiracy mindset,  once you are into that mode where you deny reality and claim all the evidence is faked,  you'll never break out.



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 25, 2017, 08:38:16 PM
Quote from: Rayzor
hard core conspiracy loonies

Quote from: disputeone on February 25, 2017, 05:54:32 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 25, 2017, 05:26:44 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 25, 2017, 04:52:56 PM
I'd say shill harder, but this is clearly your limit.

Quote from: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 05:21:45 PM
Once again, absolutely no maths or physics from Rayzor, is anyone surprised anymore at this point?

let's all rip on him when he makes fun of flat earthers for not using math.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 25, 2017, 10:08:30 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 25, 2017, 08:07:51 PM

Well,  let's recap.   I proved you were full of shit about the disappearing planes,   you lied about video evidence you claimed to have but couldn't produce.

You didn't know what volatile meant,  till I corrected you. 

You didn't know what ground effect was,  you called it down burst.

You went quiet when I proved you wrong about the FDR for AA77,    you still haven't responded,  which tells me again, you don't have a clue about the toptic.

You claimed that there was no aircraft debris from any of the impact sites,   proven wrong yet again.

You claimed the penthouse fell at free fall,  then pretended it wasn't what you meant.

You pretend not to be a "Quadruple No Planer"  but that's what you have repeatedly implied.   Even the 911 truth movement reckons you QNP'ers are an embarrasment.

In your case I think they got it right. 

Bottom line is that not one single claim you've made has stood up to the most basic scrutiny.

Every fucking thing you just said here is a lie. You just can't stop yourself when you start can you? I would go down the list of how pathetic it is...But I am going to shorten it to .

"That's so rayzor"


Such a chicken shit...

Sad.

I see you still have that bullshit quote up...If I were you I would lie too...About the only option huh?

If someone is a worm in an internet conversation, just imagine what they are in the flesh...Yikes.

Toodle-pip....Wait for it....

Loser




Quote from: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 05:21:45 PM
Once again, absolutely no maths or physics from Rayzor, is anyone surprised anymore at this point?

let's all rip on him when he makes fun of flat earthers for not using math.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Twerp on February 25, 2017, 10:23:18 PM
Here is my summary of this thread.

I don't really know enough about the engineering and physics to be easily convinced one way or the other by technical arguments. My bias would be toward believing the official story because I believe that on average, the official version is usually more accurate and reliable than conspiracy theories.

However, the people arguing for the official version of events did not seem to be able to make a clear case IMO. Because, like I admitted, I have a bias toward the official version I would like to see it clearly shown that this version is the most likely to be correct. So far it doesn't seem like this has happened - at least not in a way that I could grasp.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: onebigmonkey on February 25, 2017, 10:28:01 PM
Quote from: Boots on February 25, 2017, 10:23:18 PM
Here is my summary of this thread.

I don't really know enough about the engineering and physics to be easily convinced one way or the other by technical arguments. My bias would be toward believing the official story because I believe that on average, the official version is usually more accurate and reliable than conspiracy theories.

However, the people arguing for the official version of events did not seem to be able to make a clear case IMO. Because, like I admitted, I have a bias toward the official version I would like to see it clearly shown that this version is the most likely to be correct. So far it doesn't seem like this has happened - at least not in a way that I could grasp.

I can precis it even more:

"Because reasons I have a distrust of authority, to the extent that even when 2+2 = 4 I will do anything I can to try and make it 5, or 3."
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 25, 2017, 10:33:30 PM
Quote from: onebigmonkey on February 25, 2017, 10:28:01 PM
Quote from: Boots on February 25, 2017, 10:23:18 PM
Here is my summary of this thread.

I don't really know enough about the engineering and physics to be easily convinced one way or the other by technical arguments. My bias would be toward believing the official story because I believe that on average, the official version is usually more accurate and reliable than conspiracy theories.

However, the people arguing for the official version of events did not seem to be able to make a clear case IMO. Because, like I admitted, I have a bias toward the official version I would like to see it clearly shown that this version is the most likely to be correct. So far it doesn't seem like this has happened - at least not in a way that I could grasp.

I can precis it even more:

"Because reasons I have a distrust of authority, to the extent that even when 2+2 = 4 I will do anything I can to try and make it 5, or 3."

Did you even read what Boots posted...

He said he believes the official story but the guys arguing for the official story couldn't put together a clear case.

Lurk moar,
Moran.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 25, 2017, 10:43:14 PM
As for 2+2=4

Quote from: disputeone on February 25, 2017, 06:00:25 PM
Just to be 100% explicitly clear... again...

Thought / Actual experiment

Take a bowling ball and put it on a box framed structure, weaken the structure until it starts to collapse, does the tower collapse at free-fall? Or does some of the towers gravitational potential energy get used crushing the remaining structural resistance?

Equation and method

Instead of expressing structural resistance in units we can use a percentage.

Say 100% structural resistance will hold the building up exactly, any more weight and it will start to collapse. Most working loads are two to four times (corrected, 30 to 100 times) the fail point.
So we can safely assume building 7 had over 100% structural resistance before it fell.

So we have gravitational acceleration - percentage of structural resistance = fall acceleration.

9.8m/s2×75%=7.35m/s2

9.8 m/s2 - 7.35m/s2 = 2.45 m/s2

At 75% structural resistance I would predict a 2.45m/s2 fall acceleration.

Obviously this doesnt calculate change and inertia, however it doesn't need to.

We can clearly see building 7 go from over 100% structural resistance to 0% pretty much instantly.

To go from (what we saw) totally upright and standing to free fall, (gravitational acceleration) for 2.25 seconds violates the laws of physics.

The only way building 7 could do this is to have nearly all of its structural resistance removed nearly instantly.

The only way this is possible is a controlled demolition.

So, G- %S = F
Gravitational acceleration - percentage of structural resistance = fall acceleration.

Video for reference.


Results and conclusion.

Here's some more math, this is my simplified version of any reasonable buildings collapse due to fire.

So structural resistance and collapse acceleration.

100% = 0m/s2
99  % = .098m/s2
98  % = .196m/s2
97  % = .294m/s2
96  % = .392m/s2
95  % = .49m/s2
94  % = .588m/s2
93  % = .686m/s2
92  % = .784m/s2
91  % = .882m/s2
90  % = .98m/s2

Based on my very simple equation this is my prediction for the onset of collapse for a large building losing structural resistance due to an intense fire.

Please note, that as has been stated before all structural components would have to fail close to simultaneously for a free-fall to ever occur.

In reality usually one structural component breaks which leads to the initial compromise of structural integrity, which then leads in to more and more structural components failing faster and faster as the collapse gains energy.

This is clearly not what we saw that day, I have shown multiple times that WTC7's roofline stayes perfectly upright and level until its collapse at gravitational acceleration.


Just because it clearly bothers you.

Note there is no "logical fallacy" you are making that up.

This is what I believe and why I believe it. More than you have contributed to this thread.

Quote from: disputeone on February 25, 2017, 07:42:09 PM
Quote from: Master_Evar on February 25, 2017, 06:08:03 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 25, 2017, 03:28:36 PM
Master, This will be put as short as possible.

Again attacking the wrong things. Not debating on subject.
I already said I wouldn't do your work for you unless you actually want to hold a conversation and looking for the truth. You have nothing to lose, I have hours to lose. I don't like wasting my time..Do you? Also PATH (port authority)
Whole point with people analogy, simple attempted way to show how increased floor weight does not follow suite in the same ratio per joint. (Double floor weight will not double the stress on each bolt of the floor) (remember I am not a teacher, I work in the field, not teach it)
Also 20 percent from city certifications and PATH certs.

There...Done, under 2 minutes..Post. Now actual rebuttals or just say you wanna believe
The sum of all loads on all joints on a floor must equal the load on that floor. If the load on the floor doubles, the sum of the load on all joints must also double.

Just a quick real life example.

Lets use an elevator for example.

The "sling" of an elevator can be rated for say, one tonne.

The sling is bolted together with say sixteen × m12, 8.8, high tensile bolts.
Each of these has a shear strength of over one tonne. Sixteen bolts receiving an equal load would take well over sixteen tonnes of force to shear all of them.

Yet the elevator platform is rated for a tonne.

In this regard we can double the load on the elevator platform.

Certified load 1000kg × 2 = 2000kg

With one tonne on the elevator platform the sling bolts are experiencing one sixteenth of their shear strength.

16,000 kg shear strength taking 1000 kg load.

Doubling the load on the platform equals the bolts taking double the load. However they are now experiencing one eighth of the load they can handle before they will shear.

This is a real world example of how we can double the load of a building or structure while the joints only experience a small increase of the load they can handle.

Quote
If the load on the floor doubles, the sum of the load on all joints must also double.

This, in a literal sense is true, however we can see, when we compare side by side that load on a floor isn't exactly proportional to the load on the joints.

Edit. Reference.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shear_force

(https://s17.postimg.org/neuuru55b/images_2.png)

Heiwa please keep arguments from incredulity in the other threads.
Quote
If we had the inputs and data we could make a model predicting which part/s of building 7 would fail first, then using the energy and location / direction of the initial failure make a model of what we predict would fail in which order and lay out exactly the damage we would predict would occur. Whether the building would collapse totally, if so, at what speed and manner or at what point we would expect the collapse to stop naturally due to structural resistance.

However this is impossible to do as NIST's unsubstantiated report has us in a stalemate.

I respect the right for everyone to have their own opinions.

I very much disapprove of Rayzor calling us "Nutters" or "Loonies"

It's lazy, repugnant, and indicative of an inferior mind.

Why not have a go onebigmonkey.

This isn't Apollohoax and I am not Heiwa.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 25, 2017, 10:58:05 PM
Quote from: Boots on February 25, 2017, 10:23:18 PM
Here is my summary of this thread.

I don't really know enough about the engineering and physics to be easily convinced one way or the other by technical arguments. My bias would be toward believing the official story because I believe that on average, the official version is usually more accurate and reliable than conspiracy theories.

However, the people arguing for the official version of events did not seem to be able to make a clear case IMO. Because, like I admitted, I have a bias toward the official version I would like to see it clearly shown that this version is the most likely to be correct. So far it doesn't seem like this has happened - at least not in a way that I could grasp.

Do you really think I want to believe the official story is not accurate? No way....I would much rather terrorists attacked us and we went and wrecked shop for it.

Not US makes up a lie, kills millions and destabilizes the Middle East for their selfish reasons...It makes me ashamed to claim I am American, this isn't what America started as.

However, as I got older, wiser and more educated the impossibilities of the official story became impossible to ignore (I wanted to kill bin Laden at one point too)... This is only coming from areas I am qualified to speak. Then hearing trusted colleagues of different expertise have their issues, that only solidified my position.

There is a reason why there are 1000s upon 1000s of people like me and better who feel the same way. Who have dumped millions and millions towards this with 10s of thousands of years of education and 100,000s of experience...Not just a bunch of tin foil hat wearing slack jawed yokels.

I know I have been rude to a few here, but that is only after much patience. Only getting ad hominems, lies, diversion and twisted words...Not one single piece of actual "debunked" debate or whatever you want to call it. Especially when I always answer a direct question with a direct answer.

Example..

Quote from: onebigmonkey on February 25, 2017, 10:28:01 PM
I can precis it even more:

"Because reasons I have a distrust of authority, to the extent that even when 2+2 = 4 I will do anything I can to try and make it 5, or 3."

To fuck heads like this I tell them to continue to keep jerking..Something may work eventually.


The truth is easy...Lies are hard...Thus why people can't actually defend the official story.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Heiwa on February 25, 2017, 11:13:37 PM
Quote from: Boots on February 25, 2017, 10:23:18 PM
Here is my summary of this thread.

I don't really know enough about the engineering and physics to be easily convinced one way or the other by technical arguments. My bias would be toward believing the official story because I believe that on average, the official version is usually more accurate and reliable than conspiracy theories.

However, the people arguing for the official version of events did not seem to be able to make a clear case IMO. Because, like I admitted, I have a bias toward the official version I would like to see it clearly shown that this version is the most likely to be correct. So far it doesn't seem like this has happened - at least not in a way that I could grasp.

The Official Version of 9/11 goes something like this courtesy of PaulCraigRoberts.org.:

Directed by a beardy-guy from a cave in Afghanistan, nineteen hard-drinking, coke-snorting, devout Muslims enjoy lap dances before their mission to meet Allah. Using nothing more than craft knifes, they overpower cabin crew, passengers and pilots on four planes.
And hangover or not, they manage to give the world's most sophisticated air defence system the slip.
Unfazed by leaving their "How to Fly a Passenger Jet" guide in the car at the airport, they master the controls in no-time and score direct hits on two towers, causing THREE to collapse completely.
The laws of physics fail, and the world watches in awe as asymmetrical damage and scattered low temperature fires cause steel-framed buildings to collapse symmetrically through their own mass at free-fall speed, for the first time in history.
Despite their dastardly cunning and superb planning, they give their identity away by using explosion-proof passports, which survive the destruction of steel and concrete and fall to the ground where they are quickly discovered lying on top of the mass of debris.
Meanwhile in Washington
Hani Hanjour, having previously flunked Cessna flying school, gets carried away with all the success of the day and suddenly finds incredible abilities behind the controls of a jet airliner. Instead of flying straight down into the large roof area of the Pentagon, he decides to show off a little. Executing an incredible 270 degree downward spiral, he levels off to hit the low facade of the Pentagon. Without ruining the nicely mowed lawn and at a speed just too fast to capture on video.
In the skies above Pennsylvania
Desperate to talk to loved ones before their death, some passengers use sheer willpower to connect mobile calls that would not be possible until several years later.
And following a heroic attempt by some to retake control of Flight 93, the airliner crashes into a Pennsylvania field leaving no trace of engines, fuselage or occupants except for the standard issue Muslim terrorist bandana.
During these events
President Bush continues to read "My Pet Goat" to a class of primary school children.
In New York
World Trade Center leaseholder Larry Silverstein blesses his own foresight in insuring the buildings against terrorist attack only six weeks previously.
In Washington
The Neoconservatives are overjoyed by the arrival of the "New Pearl Harbor," the necessary catalyst for launching their pre-planned wars.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 25, 2017, 11:16:10 PM
It's actually really ironic (Rayzor still doesn't understand irony) that both Bhs' and Rayzor's sigs represent this entire debate.

Bhs' sig shows Rayzor not being able to put an argument into his own words.

And Rayzor's sig shows Rayzors desperate attempts to twist words in the hope of covering up his lack of arguments.

Zing.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 25, 2017, 11:21:41 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 25, 2017, 10:08:30 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 25, 2017, 08:07:51 PM

Well,  let's recap.   I proved you were full of shit about the disappearing planes,   you lied about video evidence you claimed to have but couldn't produce.

You didn't know what volatile meant,  till I corrected you. 

You didn't know what ground effect was,  you called it down burst.

You went quiet when I proved you wrong about the FDR for AA77,    you still haven't responded,  which tells me again, you don't have a clue about the toptic.

You claimed that there was no aircraft debris from any of the impact sites,   proven wrong yet again.

You claimed the penthouse fell at free fall,  then pretended it wasn't what you meant.

You pretend not to be a "Quadruple No Planer"  but that's what you have repeatedly implied.   Even the 911 truth movement reckons you QNP'ers are an embarrasment.

In your case I think they got it right. 

Bottom line is that not one single claim you've made has stood up to the most basic scrutiny.

Every fucking thing you just said here is a lie. You just can't stop yourself when you start can you? I would go down the list of how pathetic it is...But I am going to shorten it to .

"That's so rayzor"


Such a chicken shit...

Sad.

I see you still have that bullshit quote up...If I were you I would lie too...About the only option huh?

If someone is a worm in an internet conversation, just imagine what they are in the flesh...Yikes.

Toodle-pip....Wait for it....

Loser




Quote from: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 05:21:45 PM
Once again, absolutely no maths or physics from Rayzor, is anyone surprised anymore at this point?

let's all rip on him when he makes fun of flat earthers for not using math.

Sadly for you everything I wrote is true,  you can read back and check yourself.   

I'm sorry that you are a fraud and a know nothing blowhard.   Initially I thought you were at least honest,   not any more.   

One last time, are you a "quadruple no planer" or not?     This time try and answer honestly.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 25, 2017, 11:26:35 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 05:21:45 PM
Once again, absolutely no maths or physics from Rayzor, is anyone surprised anymore at this point?

let's all rip on him when he makes fun of flat earthers for not using math.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 25, 2017, 11:26:40 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 25, 2017, 10:08:30 PM
I see you still have that bullshit quote up...If I were you I would lie too...About the only option huh?

I'll take that quote down,  if you admit that's exactly what you said.  And it was an honest mistake.   

If you look back through the thread,  I had already given you a pass,  but then you blew it.

You lied through your teeth and denied saying it.   Wrong choice.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Heiwa on February 25, 2017, 11:27:02 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 25, 2017, 11:21:41 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 25, 2017, 10:08:30 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 25, 2017, 08:07:51 PM

Well,  let's recap.   I proved you were full of shit about the disappearing planes,   you lied about video evidence you claimed to have but couldn't produce.

You didn't know what volatile meant,  till I corrected you. 

You didn't know what ground effect was,  you called it down burst.

You went quiet when I proved you wrong about the FDR for AA77,    you still haven't responded,  which tells me again, you don't have a clue about the toptic.

You claimed that there was no aircraft debris from any of the impact sites,   proven wrong yet again.

You claimed the penthouse fell at free fall,  then pretended it wasn't what you meant.

You pretend not to be a "Quadruple No Planer"  but that's what you have repeatedly implied.   Even the 911 truth movement reckons you QNP'ers are an embarrasment.

In your case I think they got it right. 

Bottom line is that not one single claim you've made has stood up to the most basic scrutiny.

Every fucking thing you just said here is a lie. You just can't stop yourself when you start can you? I would go down the list of how pathetic it is...But I am going to shorten it to .

"That's so rayzor"


Such a chicken shit...

Sad.

I see you still have that bullshit quote up...If I were you I would lie too...About the only option huh?

If someone is a worm in an internet conversation, just imagine what they are in the flesh...Yikes.

Toodle-pip....Wait for it....

Loser




Quote from: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 05:21:45 PM
Once again, absolutely no maths or physics from Rayzor, is anyone surprised anymore at this point?

let's all rip on him when he makes fun of flat earthers for not using math.

Sadly for you everything I wrote is true,  you can read back and check yourself.   

I'm sorry that you are a fraud and a know nothing blowhard.   Initially I thought you were at least honest,   not any more.   

One last time, are you a "quadruple no planer" or not?     This time try and answer honestly.

I am a QNP and consider you ridiculous.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 25, 2017, 11:29:10 PM
Quote from: Heiwa on February 25, 2017, 11:27:02 PM
I am a QNP and consider you ridiculous.

LOL,   I know you are,   and you are at least honest about it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 25, 2017, 11:29:53 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 25, 2017, 11:26:35 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 05:21:45 PM
Once again, absolutely no maths or physics from Rayzor, is anyone surprised anymore at this point?

let's all rip on him when he makes fun of flat earthers for not using math.

To be fair Heiwa has been entirely more rational on this thread than Rayzor.

I'm willing to bet we're not the only ones thinking it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 25, 2017, 11:59:57 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 23, 2017, 12:32:27 AM
(http://www.rense.com/general32/trou1moyenne.jpg)

What happened to the wings? Not even a scratch? I am no pilot, I'm not an idiot however.

One of disputeone's top posts.

Yep.   Not an idiot,  just an ignorant sycophant   ...   Oh,  the wings were way back in the opposite direction.  LOL

Would you believe this was actually used on the cover of a 911 conspiracy book claiming it was caused by a missile,   the 911 truther, didn't see the aircraft wreckage in the picture

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 26, 2017, 12:03:59 AM
Shill, harder, Rayzor.

Ignore me again, stop quoting me out of context.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 26, 2017, 12:06:42 AM
Quote from: Boots on February 25, 2017, 10:23:18 PM
Here is my summary of this thread.

I don't really know enough about the engineering and physics to be easily convinced one way or the other by technical arguments. My bias would be toward believing the official story because I believe that on average, the official version is usually more accurate and reliable than conspiracy theories.

However, the people arguing for the official version of events did not seem to be able to make a clear case IMO. Because, like I admitted, I have a bias toward the official version I would like to see it clearly shown that this version is the most likely to be correct. So far it doesn't seem like this has happened - at least not in a way that I could grasp.

Why don't you actually try presenting an argument, Rayzor, so the honest readers can feel better about the OS.

I could do a way better job if I had no integrity. What's your excuse?

Edit.

Here, have another one.

ad hominem
ad ˈhɒmɪnɛm/
adverb & adjective

1.
(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
"an ad hominem response"

2.
relating to or associated with a particular person.
"the office was created ad hominem for Fenton"

The weight of your arguments does not accurately represent the arrogance of your tone.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 26, 2017, 12:22:06 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 26, 2017, 12:03:59 AM
Shill, harder, Rayzor.

Ignore me again, stop quoting me out of context.

LOL,  sorry,  yes I should have said,  the context was that you thought this was the impact point.    Pretty much says it all really.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 26, 2017, 12:25:15 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 25, 2017, 11:26:35 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 05:21:45 PM
Once again, absolutely no maths or physics from Rayzor, is anyone surprised anymore at this point?

let's all rip on him when he makes fun of flat earthers for not using math.

I was comparing it to the planes that hit the towers.

Don't you dare try to twist that into holographic planes.

I am going to ignore you, please do the same to me.

Why not present an argument.



Shill harder, Rayzor, go, my son, you are an hero.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 26, 2017, 12:33:59 AM
Quote from: Boots on February 25, 2017, 10:23:18 PM
Here is my summary of this thread.

I don't really know enough about the engineering and physics to be easily convinced one way or the other by technical arguments. My bias would be toward believing the official story because I believe that on average, the official version is usually more accurate and reliable than conspiracy theories.

However, the people arguing for the official version of events did not seem to be able to make a clear case IMO. Because, like I admitted, I have a bias toward the official version I would like to see it clearly shown that this version is the most likely to be correct. So far it doesn't seem like this has happened - at least not in a way that I could grasp.

The majority of the thread has been devoted to debunking the various conspiracy theories, rather than supporting the official version directly.   If you read it in that context it will make more sense.

Taking WTC7 as an example,  no one on the ground that day was at all surprised it collapsed,  and there was a number of sources reported discussing that it would have to be brought down because it was teetering on the brink of collapse. 



disputeone has been pushing the conspiracy line that this was controlled demolition,  performed some 7 hours after the inital attack

Babyhighspeed claims that no aircraft hit either WTC1 and WTC2 or the pentagon.    I don't think that really needs to be debunked.

But the best evidence for the detail of the pentagon attack comes from a conspiracy theorist,  but one of the more rational ones.

You can watch the whole thing,  or you can skip to 56:00 for the summary of AA77 and the pentagon attack




Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 26, 2017, 12:34:37 AM
Quote from: disputepageone on February 14, 2017, 12:03:19 AM
Good luck I hope you actually try to present an argument.

40 pages later.

We are very disappointed.

Here, have another one.

ad hominem
ad ˈhɒmɪnɛm/
adverb & adjective

1.
(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
"an ad hominem response"

2.
relating to or associated with a particular person.
"the office was created ad hominem for Fenton"

The weight of your arguments does not accurately represent the arrogance of your tone.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 26, 2017, 05:07:01 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 25, 2017, 07:42:09 PM
Just a quick real life example.

Lets use an elevator for example.

The "sling" of an elevator can be rated for say, one tonne.

The sling is bolted together with say sixteen × m12, 8.8, high tensile bolts.
Each of these has a shear strength of over one tonne. Sixteen bolts receiving an equal load would take well over sixteen tonnes of force to shear all of them.

Yet the elevator platform is rated for a tonne.

In this regard we can double the load on the elevator platform.

Certified load 1000kg × 2 = 2000kg

With one tonne on the elevator platform the sling bolts are experiencing one sixteenth of their shear strength.

16,000 kg shear strength taking 1000 kg load.

Doubling the load on the platform equals the bolts taking double the load. However they are now experiencing one eighth of the load they can handle before they will shear.

This is a real world example of how we can double the load of a building or structure while the joints only experience a small increase of the load they can handle.
None of the bolts experienced an increase in the load they can handle, they only experienced an increase the load they are subjected to (I assume you also mean that). But even if it's small, they are still subjected to double the load they were subjected to before: As you say yourself, it went from 1/16 of their shear strength to 1/8 of their shear strength, an increase factor of 2. Which means that I am right. If the bolts were only rated for 1/8th of a tonne, they would experience half their shear strength in load at 1 tonne total load, and shear if the load doubled. For some reason, BHS seems to suggest that If I doubled the load on the platform, the load on each bolt wouldn't double. Which wouldn't make sense due to newtons third law - each action has an equal and opposite reaction.

Quote from: disputeone on February 25, 2017, 07:42:09 PM
Quote
If the load on the floor doubles, the sum of the load on all joints must also double.

This, in a literal sense is true, however we can see, when we compare side by side that load on a floor isn't exactly proportional to the load on the joints.
But it is proportional? If the load on the floor doubles, the load on each bolt doubles (assuming even distribution, so sum of all bolt-loads are doubled). The load on each bolt isn't equal to the load on the floor, that'd be outrageous. And it's something I've never claimed, and I hope neither you nor BHS thinks that or something similar.

Assuming equal load distribution on a bolted floor, the load on each bolt can be described as Loadbolts = Loadfloor/Amountbolts
That's a proportional relationship.
For an uneven load distribution, the sum of all indivudal bolt loads equals the load on the whole floor.

Quote from: disputeone on February 25, 2017, 07:42:09 PM
Edit. Reference.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shear_force

(https://s17.postimg.org/neuuru55b/images_2.png)
Thank you for giving a source.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 26, 2017, 05:46:05 AM
Sure, yeah it is proportional I know.

I said not exactly proportional, probably a bad word choice, in the sense that having a load that exceeds the floors fail point would not necessarily exceed all the joints fail points which to me precludes the plumb collapse at free-fall,

Just because one joint or structural point has failed it really shouldn't mean all the structural components should then fail in close enough proximity to cause a free-fall collapse, we would expect structural resistance and deformation of the structure during collapse if it was truly a fire induced collapse.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 26, 2017, 05:54:17 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 25, 2017, 06:40:51 PM
Building codes is one thing, there are many other certifications.. If you present an argument I would be glad to show you.

Though all signs you are wasting my time like the chicken shit rayzor.

Also, research?? What research? You sure haven't shown a damn thing yet besides shit post NIST material, say "no no no", argue semantics and other trivial nonsense..

Trivial nonsense like asking you to back up your claims, explaining what the term you were using means (since literally noone else could, and you weren't using an official term), backing my claims up using sources like pilotsfor911truth  ;), not using NIST's report as evidence of what happened at all, and calling you out on this kind of dishonesty.

Why are you expecting me to make an argument? You made claims, you back them up. For all your talk about personal accountability in other threads, you show absolutely no sign of letting yourself be held accountable for your own claims.

I have found the NYC buildind codes of 1968 in two volumes, but I'm having a hard time finding regulations for steel bolts. And the second volume won't load, so I really hope it isn't in there. If it's not too much trouble, do you think you could tell me where you found out the allowable load for steel bolts for the WTC? I'm not going to read through 500 pages for the sake of a random debate on the internet.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 26, 2017, 06:01:40 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 26, 2017, 05:46:05 AM
Sure, yeah it is proportional I know.

I said not exactly proportional, probably a bad word choice, in the sense that having a load that exceeds the floors fail point would not necessarily exceed all the joints fail points which to me precludes the plumb collapse at free-fall,

Just because one joint or structural point has failed it really shouldn't mean all the structural components should then fail in close enough proximity to cause a free-fall collapse, we would expect structural resistance and deformation of the structure during collapse if it was truly a fire induced collapse.
If there's enough load to shear one of the bolts, it shears, but then that load is almost immediately shifted over to a neighbouring bolt whihc is already under high load, what do you think would happen? Would it shear slowly or quickly?

If we compare it to a wooden branch - it is made up of loads of fibers, that we can compare to the columns in a building. If we try to snap it, two things can happen:
It shears apart slowly as the fibers snap one after another, if it's a soft/flexible branch.
It snaps quickly as all the fibers give out at pretty much the same time, if it's a hard/rigid branch.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 26, 2017, 06:11:00 AM
Sure but there's more than one branch.

Edit. You could imagine each joint as a branch.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 26, 2017, 06:39:25 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 26, 2017, 06:11:00 AM
Sure but there's more than one branch.

Edit. You could imagine each joint as a branch.
I can easily snap a few branches at the same time, if they are of the right wood.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Heiwa on February 26, 2017, 07:31:46 AM
A simple structural analysis of a skyscraper global collapse is at http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm . I was invited to present at Chicago 2013!

(http://www.emi2013.northwestern.edu/images/nu_arch_emi2013_header_2.jpg)

It is a very simple model! Only 6 105 structural members (springs) to start with of which only 13 are suddenly broken so that the top drops down. The floors are just points with mass between the springs.

When the top 13 masses hits the 97 masses below held together by 6 014 spring, believe it or not, the 97 masses do not become dust and the 6 014 springs are not broken.

No. The 6 014 springs just deform and the 13 masses up top held together by 78 springs BOUNCES!

This paper of mine upset CIA/FBI that informed US diplomats that refused me a visa to visit USA. Imagine that!

Anyway - it is not easy to break 6 014 springs by dropping 13 masses held together by 78 springs on them! Maybe only the 78 springs break? And the 13 masses just drop at the side.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rama Set on February 26, 2017, 08:18:44 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 26, 2017, 05:46:05 AM
Sure, yeah it is proportional I know.

I said not exactly proportional, probably a bad word choice, in the sense that having a load that exceeds the floors fail point would not necessarily exceed all the joints fail points which to me precludes the plumb collapse at free-fall,

Just because one joint or structural point has failed it really shouldn't mean all the structural components should then fail in close enough proximity to cause a free-fall collapse, we would expect structural resistance and deformation of the structure during collapse if it was truly a fire induced collapse.

Wouldn't the floor load incorporate the load that the joints can take?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Heiwa on February 26, 2017, 08:43:10 AM
Quote from: Rama Set on February 26, 2017, 08:18:44 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 26, 2017, 05:46:05 AM
Sure, yeah it is proportional I know.

I said not exactly proportional, probably a bad word choice, in the sense that having a load that exceeds the floors fail point would not necessarily exceed all the joints fail points which to me precludes the plumb collapse at free-fall,

Just because one joint or structural point has failed it really shouldn't mean all the structural components should then fail in close enough proximity to cause a free-fall collapse, we would expect structural resistance and deformation of the structure during collapse if it was truly a fire induced collapse.

Wouldn't the floor load incorporate the load that the joints can take?

A structure consists of members and joints.

Static and dynamic loads/forces are put on the members and joints.

All loads/forces on a structure are always in balance.

The members become subject to static and dynamic deformations of all kind by the loads.

The joints just displace due to the loads.

The analysis of loaded structure is straightforward and taught at engineering schools.

It is not difficult.

If a member or joint of a structure breaks or disconnects due to load, the structure is modified and must be re-analyzed. A broken member or joint cannot transmit any load or force.

A collapse of a structure is a sequence of failures of members/joints and each stage must be analyzed to establish the next member to fail, if any.

I have great doubts that the US National Institute of Standards and Technology knews how to do structural analysis.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 26, 2017, 12:24:46 PM
Quote from: Heiwa on February 25, 2017, 11:13:37 PM
The Official Version of 9/11 goes something like this courtesy of PaulCraigRoberts.org.:

Directed by a beardy-guy from a cave in Afghanistan, nineteen hard-drinking, coke-snorting, devout Muslims enjoy lap dances before their mission to meet Allah. Using nothing more than craft knifes, they overpower cabin crew, passengers and pilots on four planes.
And hangover or not, they manage to give the world's most sophisticated air defence system the slip.
Unfazed by leaving their "How to Fly a Passenger Jet" guide in the car at the airport, they master the controls in no-time and score direct hits on two towers, causing THREE to collapse completely.
The laws of physics fail, and the world watches in awe as asymmetrical damage and scattered low temperature fires cause steel-framed buildings to collapse symmetrically through their own mass at free-fall speed, for the first time in history.
Despite their dastardly cunning and superb planning, they give their identity away by using explosion-proof passports, which survive the destruction of steel and concrete and fall to the ground where they are quickly discovered lying on top of the mass of debris.
Meanwhile in Washington
Hani Hanjour, having previously flunked Cessna flying school, gets carried away with all the success of the day and suddenly finds incredible abilities behind the controls of a jet airliner. Instead of flying straight down into the large roof area of the Pentagon, he decides to show off a little. Executing an incredible 270 degree downward spiral, he levels off to hit the low facade of the Pentagon. Without ruining the nicely mowed lawn and at a speed just too fast to capture on video.
In the skies above Pennsylvania
Desperate to talk to loved ones before their death, some passengers use sheer willpower to connect mobile calls that would not be possible until several years later.
And following a heroic attempt by some to retake control of Flight 93, the airliner crashes into a Pennsylvania field leaving no trace of engines, fuselage or occupants except for the standard issue Muslim terrorist bandana.
During these events
President Bush continues to read "My Pet Goat" to a class of primary school children.
In New York
World Trade Center leaseholder Larry Silverstein blesses his own foresight in insuring the buildings against terrorist attack only six weeks previously.
In Washington
The Neoconservatives are overjoyed by the arrival of the "New Pearl Harbor," the necessary catalyst for launching their pre-planned wars.

This is the best post I have seen heiwa make....And we are the crazy ones ???

Even Hollywood would reject this nonsense.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 26, 2017, 12:43:57 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 25, 2017, 11:26:40 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 25, 2017, 10:08:30 PM
I see you still have that bullshit quote up...If I were you I would lie too...About the only option huh?

I'll take that quote down,  if you admit that's exactly what you said.  And it was an honest mistake.   

If you look back through the thread,  I had already given you a pass,  but then you blew it.

You lied through your teeth and denied saying it.   Wrong choice.

I already explained pages ago. You know damn well I was talking about multiple things at once, I listing things out in order and using commas to separate. Even the post after that when you made your ridiculous claim, I corrected you and said you read it incorrectly, and explained what I meant.

You know this, yet you use this obvious lie....Which is something a chicken shit liar would do. I can't get mad at a snake for biting me just like I can't get mad at a chicken shit liar telling chicken shit lies.

Also, 40 pages and still no argument. Fiction is hard to argue against truth isn't it?

Also want to call me a fraud??? Cool, back it up...I told you I would go tit for tat with you, truth is easy...I have already done that before on this site...I can do it again..Easy. Something tells me you won't want to do that though.

Toodle-pip loser..


Master_evar
Why is there only debate on the most trivial stuff?

Also, the only reason I said anything about load sharing to you in your response about the bolts was to show the degree of their strength in the overall design. Also to explain, say if you have have the weight of the floor and that is putting a load of 40 ksi on a bolt, you double the weight on the floor, that does not mean you will have 80 ksi of force on each bolt. This is all

Also PATH 1976 is a good start for you if you care.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 26, 2017, 02:16:39 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 26, 2017, 12:43:57 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 25, 2017, 11:26:40 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 25, 2017, 10:08:30 PM
I see you still have that bullshit quote up...If I were you I would lie too...About the only option huh?

I'll take that quote down,  if you admit that's exactly what you said.  And it was an honest mistake.   

If you look back through the thread,  I had already given you a pass,  but then you blew it.

You lied through your teeth and denied saying it.   Wrong choice.

I already explained pages ago. You know damn well I was talking about multiple things at once, I listing things out in order and using commas to separate. Even the post after that when you made your ridiculous claim, I corrected you and said you read it incorrectly, and explained what I meant.

You know this, yet you use this obvious lie....Which is something a chicken shit liar would do. I can't get mad at a snake for biting me just like I can't get mad at a chicken shit liar telling chicken shit lies.

Also, 40 pages and still no argument. Fiction is hard to argue against truth isn't it?

Also want to call me a fraud??? Cool, back it up...I told you I would go tit for tat with you, truth is easy...I have already done that before on this site...I can do it again..Easy. Something tells me you won't want to do that though.

Toodle-pip loser..


Ok,  I'v taken the quote down,   but  next time you deny saying something,  and start calling me a liar, you might want to check the facts first,   

Now you still haven't answered the one question I asked to test your honesty.

One last time, are you a "quadruple no planer" or not?     This time try and answer honestly,  so far you've ducked the question everytime.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 26, 2017, 02:56:19 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 26, 2017, 12:43:57 PM

Master_evar
Why is there only debate on the most trivial stuff?

Also, the only reason I said anything about load sharing to you in your response about the bolts was to show the degree of their strength in the overall design. Also to explain, say if you have have the weight of the floor and that is putting a load of 40 ksi on a bolt, you double the weight on the floor, that does not mean you will have 80 ksi of force on each bolt. This is all

Thanks, tried to use an easy example to explain it.

Hope you understand what we were trying to say Master Evar.

Razor, give up.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 26, 2017, 03:32:12 PM
No, doubling the load on the floor definitely increases the load on the bolt to 80 ksi, unless you're trying to say that bolts don't have to follow newtons third law.

Let's make a thought experiment - a circular floor that is 10 meters in diameter is suspended by 4 evenly spaced bolts. The floor weighs 100kg.

What is the load on each bolt?
Let's put a 100kg weight in the middle of the floor. What is the new load on each bolt?
Bonus question - what is the load on each individual bolt, if the bolts are positioned in all cardinal directions and the 100kg weight is put 3 meters north an 2 meters west?

I'd be intrigued to see your answers to this.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 26, 2017, 03:35:15 PM
Quote from: Heiwa on February 26, 2017, 08:43:10 AM
Wouldn't the floor load incorporate the load that the joints can take?

It does incorporate it, correct, however  the strength of the floor doesn't equal the combined strength of all the joints.

Each joint can be rated for one tonne while the whole floor might only be rated for one tonne.

Original load is 25kg per bolt, after doubling the load on the platform each bolt is under 50kg of load.

In this way strength of joints doesn't directly equal the strength of the floor.

It is proportional and incorporated however. I'll accept that.

Quote from: Master_Evar on February 26, 2017, 03:32:12 PM
No, doubling the load on the floor definitely increases the load on the bolt to 80 ksi, unless you're trying to say that bolts don't have to follow newtons third law.

Let's make a thought experiment - a circular floor that is 10 meters in diameter is suspended by 4 evenly spaced bolts. The floor weighs 100kg.

What is the load on each bolt?
Let's put a 100kg weight in the middle of the floor. What is the new load on each bolt?
Bonus question - what is the load on each individual bolt, if the bolts are positioned in all cardinal directions and the 100kg weight is put 3 meters north an 2 meters west?

I'd be intrigued to see your answers to this.

It's more complicated than this, but in your thought experiment, the load doubles, as in my example.

I have to get out a calculator for your bonus question, I'll get to it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 26, 2017, 03:43:38 PM
Quote from: Master_Evar on February 26, 2017, 03:32:12 PM
No, doubling the load on the floor definitely increases the load on the bolt to 80 ksi, unless you're trying to say that bolts don't have to follow newtons third law.

Let's make a thought experiment - a circular floor that is 10 meters in diameter is suspended by 4 evenly spaced bolts. The floor weighs 100kg.

What is the load on each bolt?
Let's put a 100kg weight in the middle of the floor. What is the new load on each bolt?
Bonus question - what is the load on each individual bolt, if the bolts are positioned in all cardinal directions and the 100kg weight is put 3 meters north an 2 meters west?

I'd be intrigued to see your answers to this.

I think what he means is if four bolts are sharing a load, for a one hundred percent increase in load the individual bolts will only experience a 25% increase in load.

Obviously looking at all four bolts together, double the load on a platform equals double the load on the bolts. However as individual parts each bolt experiences a 25% increase in load.

Sorta make sense?

Edit, I am glad we are having a technical discussion.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 26, 2017, 03:55:05 PM
But that would ignore the fact that the bolts already only had a load of 25% of the total load. If the total load doubles, each bolt get a load increase equal to 25% of the total load increase, but they were already only experiencing 25% of total load. So in the end, the load on each bolt still doubled.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 26, 2017, 04:07:46 PM
Quote from: Master_Evar on February 26, 2017, 03:55:05 PM
But that would ignore the fact that the bolts already only had a load of 25% of the total load. If the total load doubles, each bolt get a load increase equal to 25% of the total load increase, but they were already only experiencing 25% of total load. So in the end, the load on each bolt still doubled.

Yep agreed. By doubling the load on the structure each bolt experiences double the load it was originally under.

Assuming the load is evenly distributed as you showed well in your thought experiment.

N3 can't get around it.

But it's not as simple as 1 tonne platform load = 1 tonne bolt load.

Is all I'm saying.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 26, 2017, 05:10:33 PM
No this would be true if there was a weight hanging from one bolt. Like a tire swing for a random example.

If you had a platform with 500 bolts/boxed cross braces etc..There are numerous variables you must take into account such as design, directional load, design of the structure you are attached to and so on (Just random example, a popular design of floor trusses, if a truss is 40 feet in total length, it will be ever so slightly bowed dead center, and is then press fitted in, so when a load is placed on the floor it flattens out a hair and shares the load with friction to the structure it is connected to. It also helps with controlling directional load on each individual fastener and flex/sway of the structure it is attached to.)

Long story short, if you had a weight on the floor, doubled it, that would not equal in an increase in each individual fastener of the same proportion.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 26, 2017, 05:14:27 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 26, 2017, 05:10:33 PM
No this would be true if there was a weight hanging from one bolt. Like a tire swing for a random example.

If you had a platform with 500 bolts/boxed cross braces etc..There are numerous variables you must take into account such as design, directional load, design of the structure you are attached to and so on (Just random example, a popular design of floor trusses, if a truss is 40 feet in total length, it will be ever so slightly bowed dead center, and is then press fitted in, so when a load is placed on the floor it flattens out a hair and shares the load with friction to the structure it is connected to. It also helps with controlling directional load on each individual fastener and flex/sway of the structure it is attached to.)

Long story short, if you had a weight on the floor, doubled it, that would not equal in an increase in each individual fastener of the same proportion.


This.

Coming from a guy that knows a tiny bit of engineering, it's obvious he knows a whole lot.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 26, 2017, 05:51:00 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 26, 2017, 02:16:39 PM
Ok,  I'v taken the quote down,   but  next time you deny saying something,  and start calling me a liar, you might want to check the facts first,   

Now you still haven't answered the one question I asked to test your honesty.

One last time, are you a "quadruple no planer" or not?     This time try and answer honestly,  so far you've ducked the question everytime.

No answer?

BTW,   If you want to talk structural mechanics,  you need to be talking about FEA.   No-one does stick models anymore.  If you want to talk structural analysis on WTC7 you should start with that weird cantilever.  But who gives a shit about WTC7,  everyone knew it was going to collapse.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Heiwa on February 26, 2017, 06:09:52 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 26, 2017, 05:51:00 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 26, 2017, 02:16:39 PM
Ok,  I'v taken the quote down,   but  next time you deny saying something,  and start calling me a liar, you might want to check the facts first,   

Now you still haven't answered the one question I asked to test your honesty.

One last time, are you a "quadruple no planer" or not?     This time try and answer honestly,  so far you've ducked the question everytime.

No answer?

BTW,   If you want to talk structural mechanics,  you need to be talking about FEA.   No-one does stick models anymore.  If you want to talk structural analysis on WTC7 you should start with that weird cantilever.  But who gives a shit about WTC7,  everyone knew it was going to collapse.

? I am a QNP and expert at FEA and I have done structural analysis of big structures since 1969. It is very simple to demonstrate that no structure can collapse from top, i.e. the weak top crushes the bottom by gravity. Haven't you read my posts above?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 26, 2017, 06:10:12 PM
Give up, Rayzor.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 26, 2017, 06:18:01 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 26, 2017, 02:16:39 PM
Ok,  I'v taken the quote down,   but  next time you deny saying something,  and start calling me a liar, you might want to check the facts first,   

Now you still haven't answered the one question I asked to test your honesty.

One last time, are you a "quadruple no planer" or not?     This time try and answer honestly,  so far you've ducked the question everytime.

Clap trap...

The only honest thing in that post was you took the quote down. The rest was just more rubbish...

That's so rayzor.

You know I have answered you many times on this starting by the first page of this thread. I will repeat this one more time but not for your benefit.

There are hundreds of issues with the video evidence along with the 1000s of issues in the entire story...All I can do is state those, the rest is speculation... It's dumb to rule anything out until rules itself out.
Quote from: Rayzor on February 26, 2017, 05:51:00 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 26, 2017, 02:16:39 PM
Ok,  I'v taken the quote down,   but  next time you deny saying something,  and start calling me a liar, you might want to check the facts first,   

Now you still haven't answered the one question I asked to test your honesty.

One last time, are you a "quadruple no planer" or not?     This time try and answer honestly,  so far you've ducked the question everytime.

No answer?

BTW,   If you want to talk structural mechanics,  you need to be talking about FEA.   No-one does stick models anymore.  If you want to talk structural analysis on WTC7 you should start with that weird cantilever.  But who gives a shit about WTC7,  everyone knew it was going to collapse.


Edited for this... I was in middle of typing the above when you posted this non sense.

I already have spoken about modeling so another nonsensical claim. I couldn't get it to recreate as shown even with adding embellished inputs. We don't have their magic numbers so??? (Also, these buildings along with countless others were designed without computer modeling...Could even make predictions without..Amazing huh?)

And I want to talk about structural mechanics, apparently no one else does?? Would rather dip, duck, dodge, twist and lie??

Sad...

(Oh and yes...Many people did know 7 was going to collapse months in advance ;) )

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 26, 2017, 06:18:25 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 26, 2017, 05:51:00 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 26, 2017, 02:16:39 PM
Ok,  I'v taken the quote down,   but  next time you deny saying something,  and start calling me a liar, you might want to check the facts first,   

Now you still haven't answered the one question I asked to test your honesty.

One last time, are you a "quadruple no planer" or not?     This time try and answer honestly,  so far you've ducked the question everytime.

No answer?

BTW,   If you want to talk structural mechanics,  you need to be talking about FEA.   No-one does stick models anymore.  If you want to talk structural analysis on WTC7 you should start with that weird cantilever.  But who gives a shit about WTC7,  everyone knew it was going to collapse.

LOL.

So defeated.

LOL.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 26, 2017, 06:18:01 PM
(Oh and yes...Many people did know 7 was going to collapse months in advance ;) )

Agreed.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 26, 2017, 06:22:58 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 26, 2017, 06:18:01 PM
Would rather dip, duck, dodge, twist and lie??



Don't forget the 5 d's Rayzor.

Edit. This link shows quite clearly the opinion my generation and gen z have on 9/11.

https://encyclopediadramatica.se/9/11

Quote
This page contains spoilers — important plot secrets and/or conclusions may be revealed. For example,
HOLY SHIT WTC7 WAS HOLDING OFFICES OF THE CIA, DOD, IRS, SECRET SERVICE, CON EDISON, AND BIG BANKS. IT "BURNED TO THE GROUND" WAS DEMOLISHED... AND NO ONE TALKS ABOUT IT!!!!!1
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 26, 2017, 07:29:56 PM
One thing to not forget dispute...Building 6. You will never hear it mentioned either. It had many government agencies in it including US customs. It had fires much worse than any other building, was never investigated by FEMA or any other agency and was demoed without a mention. (Didn't collapse either)

It may be nothing, or could be something, I have just always found it suspect the way this building was treated... Though to be fair, they have attempted to not speak of building 7 either.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 26, 2017, 07:42:41 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 26, 2017, 07:29:56 PM
One thing to not forget dispute...Building 6. You will never hear it mentioned either. It had many government agencies in it including US customs. It had fires much worse than any other building, was never investigated by FEMA or any other agency and was demoed without a mention. (Didn't collapse either)

It may be nothing, or could be something, I have just always found it suspect the way this building was treated... Though to be fair, they have attempted to not speak of building 7 either.

Thanks, I've only heard passing mention of building 6, I'll look into it.

Their play there obviously worked.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 26, 2017, 08:09:33 PM


I don't like youtube videos...But this is a prime example of the "witnesses"...Forget the men in black statements (though I can't fault him on his perceived logic and cannot find a reason to disagree, at least not with the first "man in black", the second I don't really see an issue with)...But just listening and watching the "witness" alone lol.

Not to mention, that Fox news crew was the ones that caught the landing gear "appear" blocks away after an FBI van appeared...All that is left of that video is a few frames of the van sadly.

Edit* I actually watched it twice and caught something very very tiny....

Despite the bad acting, lack of emotion, answers waiting on the tip of his tongue, over exaggerated hand movements, using buzz words that appeared later on, offering too much information, using exact lines from the "official story" when not even known yet, clearly being controlled by the "FBI" agent etc etc etc....Despite all of this...There is one tiny thing that stuck out to me.

He said "finally" collapse...The second tower "finally" collapsed.


Double edit The son of a bitch actor gives the guy in black a sly thumbs up at 2:55. Then directly afterwards the black guy ends the interview. How much more do you people want?!?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 26, 2017, 09:25:54 PM
They want the mainstream media to tell us it was an inside job.

Actually no, they don't want it to be an inside job, because, after all, the mainstream media said the buildings all fell due to fire and not foul play.

Rayzor wants us to stop posting so he can claim victory without presenting an argument.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 26, 2017, 10:55:20 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 26, 2017, 05:10:33 PM
No this would be true if there was a weight hanging from one bolt. Like a tire swing for a random example.

If you had a platform with 500 bolts/boxed cross braces etc..There are numerous variables you must take into account such as design, directional load, design of the structure you are attached to and so on (Just random example, a popular design of floor trusses, if a truss is 40 feet in total length, it will be ever so slightly bowed dead center, and is then press fitted in, so when a load is placed on the floor it flattens out a hair and shares the load with friction to the structure it is connected to. It also helps with controlling directional load on each individual fastener and flex/sway of the structure it is attached to.)

Long story short, if you had a weight on the floor, doubled it, that would not equal in an increase in each individual fastener of the same proportion.
Of course, if some bolts aren't for dealing with gravitational load but horizontal displacement/deformation/plasticity due to gravitational load, the load on them aren't necessarily going to increase proportionally. However, load on each bolt that is directly related to the load on the floor is going to increase proportionally (in general). And since we were talking about bolted floors and only dealt with the bolts and not pillars or other things, I'm pretty sure we assumed that the floor was suspended only by those bolts.

You're starting to talk about a situation that's different from the one we began with, which is a bit dishonest.
And it doesn't change the fact, that the bolts you were talking about would only require a little more than half their expected workload to begin irreversible deformation, which is the only thing I claimed from the beginning.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 26, 2017, 11:01:11 PM
And I'd also like you to answer my questions on that thought experiment, especially the bonus question. It shouldn't be hard.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 26, 2017, 11:02:46 PM
Quote from: Master_Evar on February 26, 2017, 11:01:11 PM
And I'd also like you to answer my questions on that thought experiment, especially the bonus question. It shouldn't be hard.

On my way home, I answered your first two, will answer the bonus question with a calculator.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 26, 2017, 11:55:55 PM
Yeah, appreciated. But I also want BHS to answer it, as it would clarify if he understands how distribution of loads work the same way I understand them.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 12:25:33 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on February 26, 2017, 03:32:12 PM
No, doubling the load on the floor definitely increases the load on the bolt to 80 ksi, unless you're trying to say that bolts don't have to follow newtons third law.

Let's make a thought experiment - a circular floor that is 10 meters in diameter is suspended by 4 evenly spaced bolts. The floor weighs 100kg.

What is the load on each bolt?
Let's put a 100kg weight in the middle of the floor. What is the new load on each bolt?
Bonus question - what is the load on each individual bolt, if the bolts are positioned in all cardinal directions and the 100kg weight is put 3 meters north an 2 meters west?

I'd be intrigued to see your answers to this.

Alright so I would predict the loads on the bolts to be as follows.

We will use N,W,S,E to define the bolts and assume a perfectly built and balanced structure.

Bolt N holds 57.5kg
Bolt W holds 55kg
Bolt S holds 42.5kg
Bolt E holds 45kg

Giving us a combined  load on all four bolts of 200kg.

Pretty sure that's right for your thought experiment. Things become much more complicated in practice.

pdf (https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://web.iit.edu/sites/web/files/departments/academic-affairs/academic-resource-center/pdfs/Distributed_Loading.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjzi_G47a_SAhUow1QKHUe-AKgQFggZMAA&usg=AFQjCNEm3d3iODaJjFnMzoSIlZlAQJN6gA&sig2=UKuWzgUxNu3k0d7piJ4U1A)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 27, 2017, 12:33:31 AM
That is wrong. I'll give BHS a chance to respond, before I post the answer.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 27, 2017, 12:35:41 AM
And I'd be intrigued to know your chain of reasoning, it's an interesting answer.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 12:35:54 AM
Damnit really lol.

Oh well never claimed to be an engineer.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 27, 2017, 12:40:37 AM
Last one is a bit tricky, it requires the use of moment of inertia.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 12:44:48 AM
One more go, I'm never afraid of being wrong. I messed up with my logic... I think...

N = 67.5kg
W = 65kg
S = 32.5kg
E = 35kg

Ok its probably just over my head.

Wait are we factoring in movement? Why do we need to factor in inertia for a static load?

Quote
moment of inertia
nounPHYSICS
a quantity expressing a body's tendency to resist angular acceleration, which is the sum of the products of the mass of each particle in the body with the square of its distance from the axis of rotation.

Yeah nah, just over my head lol, well thanks, I'm learnding.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 12:48:54 AM
If you assume the platform is hanging off chains and not fixed then this complicates things immensely imo.

It will have a tendency to spin with an unbalanced load.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Heiwa on February 27, 2017, 12:55:08 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 12:25:33 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on February 26, 2017, 03:32:12 PM
No, doubling the load on the floor definitely increases the load on the bolt to 80 ksi, unless you're trying to say that bolts don't have to follow newtons third law.

Let's make a thought experiment - a circular floor that is 10 meters in diameter is suspended by 4 evenly spaced bolts. The floor weighs 100kg.

What is the load on each bolt?
Let's put a 100kg weight in the middle of the floor. What is the new load on each bolt?
Bonus question - what is the load on each individual bolt, if the bolts are positioned in all cardinal directions and the 100kg weight is put 3 meters north an 2 meters west?

I'd be intrigued to see your answers to this.

Alright so I would predict the loads on the bolts to be as follows.

We will use N,W,S,E to define the bolts and assume a perfectly built and balanced structure.

Bolt N holds 57.5kg
Bolt W holds 55kg
Bolt S holds 42.5kg
Bolt E holds 45kg

Giving us a combined  load on all four bolts of 200kg.

Pretty sure that's right for your thought experiment. Things become much more complicated in practice.

pdf (https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://web.iit.edu/sites/web/files/departments/academic-affairs/academic-resource-center/pdfs/Distributed_Loading.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjzi_G47a_SAhUow1QKHUe-AKgQFggZMAA&usg=AFQjCNEm3d3iODaJjFnMzoSIlZlAQJN6gA&sig2=UKuWzgUxNu3k0d7piJ4U1A)

Well, if I put a 100 kg point load on a dia 10 m 100 kg round floor held by four connections at the edges, I must first ensure that the 100 kg point load does not punch a hole in the floor and disappears.
Let's assume that the point load can be transmitted by the floor to edge connections.
But how? As pure shear. Yes, most of the load will be transmitted as shear, but as the floor also deforms by the load, the load will also be transmitted as axial stresses in the floor - compressive at the top level, tensile at the bottom level.

It is actually the combined stresses in the floor that decide what happens! The floor may be ripped apart below the point load or at the highest stressed connection.

NIST assumes that the WTC1/2 weak tops became solid/rigid, when the supports below failed due to fire ... and then the solid/rigid top could crush the bottom members into dust. It has only happened twice in historic times.

Re WTC7 NIST suggests that a bolt failed due to thermal expansion, so that this floor connection could not transmit the local load. Therefore the total load on the floor had to be taken by other bolts ... that all  suddenly failed at the same time. It resulted in the top of WTC dropping at free fall speed for >2 seconds ... and that the whole building was destroyed. It has also only happened once in historic times.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 12:58:53 AM
Yes, yes, I was wrong. It happens a lot you know.

Do you know the answer? I am getting lost in equations currently.

Quote
Re WTC7 NIST suggests that a bolt failed due to thermal expansion, so that this floor connection could not transmit the local load. Therefore the total load on the floor had to be taken by other bolts ... that all  suddenly failed at the same time. It resulted in the top of WTC dropping at free fall speed for >2 seconds ... and that the whole building was destroyed. It has also only happened once in historic times.

Yes that's absolutely ridiculous. You don't need an engineering degree to know that's not reality. However I need help with some maths tho atm, the suspense is killing me. Looks like this will take more than an hour of reading to get.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 27, 2017, 01:01:42 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 12:44:48 AM
One more go, I'm never afraid of being wrong. I messed up with my logic... I think...

N = 67.5kg
W = 65kg
S = 32.5kg
E = 35kg

Ok its probably just over my head.

Wait are we factoring in movement? Why do we need to factor in inertia for a static load?

Quote
moment of inertia
nounPHYSICS
a quantity expressing a body's tendency to resist angular acceleration, which is the sum of the products of the mass of each particle in the body with the square of its distance from the axis of rotation.

Yeah nah, just over my head lol, well thanks, I'm learnding.
I'll explain more in depth when I give the answer, but basically we can take advantage of the fact that we know all forces have to cancel each other out to result in 0 movement.

The question can be described as a problem with 4 unsolved variables. In order to solve for all variables, we have to find 4 different relationships between them.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 01:02:26 AM
Cool ok, you defo know your stuff maths wise.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 01:08:52 AM
I never complain about learning but I can't see how this really relates to wtc 7.

We have shown that all structural points would have to fail instantly (preferably before) as the energy of the collapse met the structural resistance to collapse at free-fall.

You are demonstrating now that if the loads or damage was uneven or the collapse started or became uneven we would never have had a plumb collapse.



Not taking away from your maths, I'm looking forward to seeing how you calculate the loads properly.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 27, 2017, 01:12:47 AM
Well, this is more in response to BHS's claims about joint strengths and how increased loads would affect the joints.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 01:14:09 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on February 27, 2017, 01:12:47 AM
Well, this is more in response to BHS's claims about joint strengths and how increased loads would affect the joints.

Paid, thanks for schooling me ;D ;D
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 01:37:22 AM
(https://s23.postimg.org/r34f9tr2j/Screenshot_20170227_173532.png)

I'm getting closer. Maths was always a weak point of mine.

Quote
Moment of Inertia

Moment of inertia is the name given to rotational inertia, the rotational analog of mass for linear motion. It appears in the relationships for the dynamics of rotational motion. The moment of inertia must be specified with respect to a chosen axis of rotation. For a point mass the moment of inertia is just the mass times the square of perpendicular distance to the rotation axis, I = mr2. That point mass relationship becomes the basis for all other moments of inertia since any object can be built up from a collection of point masses.

Are you absolutely sure this is applicable to a static load? I knew I'd seen it before when I was reading about gyroscopes...

Quote
Moment of inertia is the measure of an object's resistance to changes in its rotation rate.

This is why I asked for clarification for a fixed or hanging load.

Ok calling it, the only reference to moment of inertia I can find is on moving parts specifically rotating objects like engine parts.

I do not believe it applies to a static platform fixed to a structure with four bolts.

It would only apply if the platform was rotating.

I think this is quite close to the real loads on the bolts we would measure.

N = 67.5kg
W = 65kg
S = 32.5kg
E = 35kg

Total load on all four bolts 200kg

I think I under-thought it and you over-thought it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 27, 2017, 01:59:13 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 26, 2017, 06:18:01 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 26, 2017, 02:16:39 PM
Ok,  I'v taken the quote down,   but  next time you deny saying something,  and start calling me a liar, you might want to check the facts first,   

Now you still haven't answered the one question I asked to test your honesty.

One last time, are you a "quadruple no planer" or not?     This time try and answer honestly,  so far you've ducked the question everytime.

Clap trap...

The only honest thing in that post was you took the quote down. The rest was just more rubbish...

That's so rayzor.

You know I have answered you many times on this starting by the first page of this thread. I will repeat this one more time but not for your benefit.

There are hundreds of issues with the video evidence along with the 1000s of issues in the entire story...All I can do is state those, the rest is speculation... It's dumb to rule anything out until rules itself out.
Quote from: Rayzor on February 26, 2017, 05:51:00 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 26, 2017, 02:16:39 PM
Ok,  I'v taken the quote down,   but  next time you deny saying something,  and start calling me a liar, you might want to check the facts first,   

Now you still haven't answered the one question I asked to test your honesty.

One last time, are you a "quadruple no planer" or not?     This time try and answer honestly,  so far you've ducked the question everytime.

No answer?

BTW,   If you want to talk structural mechanics,  you need to be talking about FEA.   No-one does stick models anymore.  If you want to talk structural analysis on WTC7 you should start with that weird cantilever.  But who gives a shit about WTC7,  everyone knew it was going to collapse.


Edited for this... I was in middle of typing the above when you posted this non sense.

I already have spoken about modeling so another nonsensical claim. I couldn't get it to recreate as shown even with adding embellished inputs. We don't have their magic numbers so??? (Also, these buildings along with countless others were designed without computer modeling...Could even make predictions without..Amazing huh?)

And I want to talk about structural mechanics, apparently no one else does?? Would rather dip, duck, dodge, twist and lie??

Sad...

(Oh and yes...Many people did know 7 was going to collapse months in advance ;) )

I think you should re-connect with the 911 truth movement,  and make your case,   the "no planes" theory has been pretty comprehensively debunked by the 911 truth movement itself.   I could just continue to beat you up about the masses of undeniable evidence,  which you'd just call faked. 

There is one area that remains unexplained,  that is the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2,   controlled demolition just doesn't make sense to me.   Why did the collapse start on the impact floors,  why the delay before collapse,   neither of these facts can be easily explained by controlled demolition,  neither are they adequately addressed in the NIST reports. Only the collapse initiation.  The subsequent collapse mechanism is what's a mystery.

Last time I asked for discussion on structural mechanics,  you backed off claiming that decades of experienced were required to understand your analysis.   

WTC7 wasn't even on the radar for NIST, it was simply viewed as a consequence of the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2,  it was only belatedly added as a separate half assed report. The arguments for WTC7 being controlled demolition are even weaker than WTC1 and WTC2.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 02:00:00 AM
Go away Rayzor we are having a technical discussion.

Quote
Last time I asked for discussion,  you backed off claiming that decades of experienced were required to understand your analysis.   

Obvious lie is obvious.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 27, 2017, 02:05:18 AM
Ah, I used the wrong term. I meant torque, not moment of inertia. They are really similar in my language, rotationsmoment vs vridmoment, both "rotation" and "vrid" can translate to rotation.

But you are still wrong with your answers.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 02:09:08 AM
Sweet haha thanks. Makes sense now. Back to google.

Quote
Torque, moment, or moment of force (see the terminology below) is the tendency of a force to rotate an object around an axis, fulcrum, or pivot. Just as a force is a push or a pull, a torque can be thought of as a twist to an object.

I get it, they are similar, you are talking about the tendency of a circular platform to spin when you put an unbalanced load on it (if it wasn't fixed). So we are not just dealing with vertical loads but also angular loads.

More complicated than I thought.

I haven't factored this in at all, touchè.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 27, 2017, 02:14:07 AM
Torque applies regardless if an object is hanging free and dynamic or rigid and static.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 02:16:36 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on February 27, 2017, 02:14:07 AM
Torque applies regardless if an object is hanging free and dynamic or rigid and static.

Yeah gotcha now, thanks.

How do you know this much and think the official story makes more physical sense lmao...

Sorry not a cheap shot haha, this is great I love learning new shit.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 02:27:11 AM
You are explaining now (far better than I could) why the plumb neat collapse of building 7 couldn't have been caused by fire. ;D ;D ;D

You do clearly know a lot about physics, no doubt about that.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 27, 2017, 02:28:02 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 02:00:00 AM
Go away Rayzor we are having a technical discussion.

Quote
Last time I asked for discussion,  you backed off claiming that decades of experienced were required to understand your analysis.   

Obvious lie is obvious.

Well at least you are finally talking about forces.   That's to be applauded.

And BHS did refuse to discuss his structural analysis claiming two decades of experience was required to understand it.  I can find the post if you care to disagree and call me a liar.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 02:29:17 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 02:00:00 AM
Go away Rayzor we are having a technical discussion.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 27, 2017, 02:30:42 AM
Maybe I don't find the OS suspicious because I understand the physics?  ;) ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡° )
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 02:33:43 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on February 27, 2017, 02:30:42 AM
Maybe I don't find the OS suspicious because I understand the physics?  ;)

How do you explain that building 7 experienced a plumb neat collapse.

You showed us very well what an unbalanced load can do to a structure which is not properly supported.

As the tower became damaged the loads became unbalanced, why didn't the unbalanced loads lead to an unbalanced collapse?

Why didn't the structural resistance of the tower slow down the fall acceleration?


**that was a cheap shot but I probably deserved it.**
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 27, 2017, 02:37:29 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 02:33:43 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on February 27, 2017, 02:30:42 AM
Maybe I don't find the OS suspicious because I understand the physics?  ;)

How do you explain that building 7 experienced a plumb neat collapse.

You showed us very well what an unbalanced load can do to a structure which is not properly supported.

As the tower became damaged the loads became unbalanced, why didn't the unbalanced loads lead to an unbalanced collapse?

Why didn't the structural resistance of the tower slow down the fall acceleration?


**that was a cheap shot but I probably deserved it.**
Probably because WTC 7 wasn't a pile of steel and concrete. It was a rigid building, even if one column failed it would be connected to nearby columns, and put all of it's load on them at about the speed of sound in the material (which is also the speed of forces).
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 02:43:10 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on February 27, 2017, 02:37:29 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 02:33:43 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on February 27, 2017, 02:30:42 AM
Maybe I don't find the OS suspicious because I understand the physics?  ;)

How do you explain that building 7 experienced a plumb neat collapse.

You showed us very well what an unbalanced load can do to a structure which is not properly supported.

As the tower became damaged the loads became unbalanced, why didn't the unbalanced loads lead to an unbalanced collapse?

Why didn't the structural resistance of the tower slow down the fall acceleration?


**that was a cheap shot but I probably deserved it.**
Probably because WTC 7 wasn't a pile of steel and concrete. It was a rigid building, even if one column failed it would be connected to nearby columns, and put all of it's load on them at about the speed of sound in the material (which is also the speed of forces).

Sure ok, well screw controlled demolitions, I can demolish a skyscraper at a plumb free fall with two 24mm spanners.

Come on man your other answers were so good, don't be afraid to think about this objectively.

As for the comment about people not understanding the physics, what do you think about the thousands of PhDs that have put their name down for AE911truth. I think it is a little unfair to push the narrative that we only argue from incredulity.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 27, 2017, 02:49:29 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 02:43:10 AM
Sure ok, well screw controlled demolitions, I can demolish a skyscraper at a plumb free fall with two 24mm spanners.

Come on man your other answers were so good, don't be afraid to think about this objectively.

As for the comment about people not understanding the physics, what do you think about the thousands of PhDs that have put their name down for AE911truth. I think it is a little unfair to push the narrative that we only argue from incredulity.
I am thinking objectively.

And Yes, I know lots of people with good understanding of physics and other areas are analysing it well, but on for example pilotsfor911truth.org they did a miss by not differentiating between airspeed and groundspeed. I think a lot of other conclusions also come from small misses like that, and that at some point in their analysis there's not enough evidence to make an objective conclusion.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 02:57:37 AM
Also for that (wtc 7) to work remember all the internal structure failed at the speed of sound. Then the building teetered like when a disney character runs of a cliff and then fell... like when a disney character runs off a cliff....

This is completely neglecting the intimate structural links the external and internal structure share. For the inside to fail the outside would fail with it. If not they would have to be two independent structures. You've pretty much said it yourself.

No, from one initial fail point our physics will not predict a plumb collapse at free-fall for a building anything like wtc7.

One initial fail point would lead to an unbalanced collapse (as you kindly demonstrated more accurately than I could) at a rate far slower than free-fall as the loads shifted and broke structures during the collapse.


I am not a Pilot, However the Engineering PhDs for that movement show that it is not as simple as a misunderstanding of physics.

Would you brush it off if we had "Astrophysicists for flat earth truth"
I certainly wouldn't.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 03:06:26 AM
As for the underlying, "one structural point failed which equals a plumb collapse at free-fall" Argument.

These buildings have had a lot more than one structural point fail.



Wheres muh free-fall?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 27, 2017, 03:12:14 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 02:57:37 AM
Also for that (wtc 7) to work remember all the internal structure failed at the speed of sound. Then the building teetered like when a disney character runs of a cliff and then fell... like when a disney character runs off a cliff....

This is completely neglecting the intimate structural links the external and internal structure share. For the inside to fail the outside would fail with it. If not they would have to be two independent structures. You've pretty much said it yourself.
The internal's didn't fail separately from the externals. Once the collapse of the internals reached a rate at which the fails spread at the speed of sound, the externals quickly followed.

Quote from: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 02:57:37 AM
No, from one initial fail point our physics will not predict a plumb collapse at free-fall for a building anything like wtc7.
Claim, not fact.

Quote from: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 02:57:37 AM
One initial fail point would lead to an unbalanced collapse (as you kindly demonstrated more accurately than I could) at a rate far slower than free-fall as the loads shifted and broke structures during the collapse.
I have only demonstrated how load distribution works, which leads to unbalanced loads. And I DEFINITELY have not touched the rate of collapse, other than that the shifting of loads happen at the speed of sound, which would be far faster than freefall.

Quote from: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 02:57:37 AM
I am not a Pilot, However the Engineering PhDs for that movement show that it is not as simple as a misunderstanding of physics.

Would you brush it off if we had "Astrophysicists for flat earth truth"
I certainly wouldn't.
I was referring to small mistakes that anyone could easily do, regardless of knowledge, but that would require the right knowledge to spot and some courage to admit and accept, especially looking at how sensitive of a subject it is and the fact that they make themselves public.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 27, 2017, 03:13:47 AM
Also, I'm pretty sure those are all example of times when buildings collapses in weird ways that you'd never expect. Not all buildings are created equally, or destroyed equally.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 03:22:49 AM
Quote
I was referring to small mistakes that anyone could easily do, regardless of knowledge, but that would require the right knowledge to spot and some courage to admit and accept, especially looking at how sensitive of a subject it is and the fact that they make themselves public.

I understand that, Look at what Rayzor has tried to do to Bhs twisting his words, for one of them to admit a mistake would amount to the "debunkers" literally trying to burn them at a stake.

They should still admit if they were wrong, I hope I would. Like you said it's difficult with the situation.

Like I've said before, I respect you, we can agree to disagree.
As long as you don't claim the official story is airtight and you guys have won the debate.

I will promise to do the same with the CD hypothesis and already admit I don't have all the answers.

I understand some tempers have been tried during this thread, I think you composed yourself well for the most part. Better than I did anyway.

Quote from: Master_Evar on February 27, 2017, 03:13:47 AM
Also, I'm pretty sure those are all example of times when buildings collapses in weird ways that you'd never expect. Not all buildings are created equally, or destroyed equally.

Did you watch it? A lot just failed to be "demolished" lol even after the charges detonated.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 03:34:22 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on February 27, 2017, 03:12:14 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 02:57:37 AM
No, from one initial fail point our physics will not predict a plumb collapse at free-fall for a building anything like wtc7.
Claim, not fact.

Fact.

Quote from: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 02:57:37 AM
One initial fail point would lead to an unbalanced collapse (as you kindly demonstrated more accurately than I could) at a rate far slower than free-fall as the loads shifted and broke structures during the collapse.





Unless someone can show otherwise.

Sorry, quality bantz  ;D
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 03:40:41 AM
Official story officially and eternally btfo.

Edit. I don't expect anyone to even say anything about a conspiracy. After 43 pages I have, at the very least, shown that building 7s collapse was very unlikely and NIST's report doesn't even attempt to cover it.

That's just truth sorry.

Quote from: disputeone on February 13, 2017, 10:49:57 PM
Fall acceleration of building 7.

You are going to end this a jibbering mess of failed insults and logic.

But you asked for it.

Mods can we move to tech and alt please. ty.

 :-* :-* :-*
Call me Rayzor.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 04:16:38 AM


Watching it you know what this model looks pretty similar to? (Hint. Not what we saw that day)

Edit. Models if you count the second one that doesn't collapse, I'm not joking, I wish I was.

Thought / Actual experiment

Take a bowling ball and put it on a box framed structure, weaken the structure until it starts to collapse, does the tower collapse at free-fall? Or does some of the towers gravitational potential energy get used crushing the remaining structural resistance?

Equation and method

Instead of expressing structural resistance in units we can use a percentage.

Say 100% structural resistance will hold the building up exactly, any more weight and it will start to collapse. Most working loads are two to four times (corrected, 30 to 100 times) the fail point.
So we can safely assume building 7 had over 100% structural resistance before it fell.

So we have gravitational acceleration - percentage of structural resistance = fall acceleration.

9.8m/s2×75%=7.35m/s2

9.8 m/s2 - 7.35m/s2 = 2.45 m/s2

At 75% structural resistance I would predict a 2.45m/s2 fall acceleration.

Obviously this doesnt calculate change and inertia, however it doesn't need to.

We can clearly see building 7 go from over 100% structural resistance to 0% pretty much instantly.

To go from (what we saw) totally upright and standing to free fall, (gravitational acceleration) for 2.25 seconds violates the laws of physics.

The only way building 7 could do this is to have nearly all of its structural resistance removed nearly instantly.

The only way this is possible is a controlled demolition.

So, G- %S = F
Gravitational acceleration - percentage of structural resistance = fall acceleration.

Results and conclusion.

Here's some more math, this is my simplified version of any reasonable buildings collapse due to fire.

So structural resistance and collapse acceleration.

100% = 0m/s2
99  % = .098m/s2
98  % = .196m/s2
97  % = .294m/s2
96  % = .392m/s2
95  % = .49m/s2
94  % = .588m/s2
93  % = .686m/s2
92  % = .784m/s2
91  % = .882m/s2
90  % = .98m/s2

Based on my very simple equation this is my prediction for the onset of collapse for a large building losing structural resistance due to an intense fire.



No way right?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 27, 2017, 04:26:27 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 03:22:49 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on February 27, 2017, 03:13:47 AM
Also, I'm pretty sure those are all example of times when buildings collapses in weird ways that you'd never expect. Not all buildings are created equally, or destroyed equally.

Did you watch it? A lot just failed to be "demolished" lol even after the charges detonated.

Yeah, I've watched it before as well.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Heiwa on February 27, 2017, 05:53:43 AM
The destruction of WTC7 is very easy to explain:
(http://heiwaco.com/WTC7ABC.jpg)

If the WTC 7 roof/penthouse drops 32.77 m in 2.25 seconds - free fall - the vertical support members over 8 stories down below must have suddenly been removed or knocked off.

It is called controlled demolition and a very simple way to destroy buildings.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 27, 2017, 06:21:02 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 27, 2017, 02:28:02 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 02:00:00 AM
Go away Rayzor we are having a technical discussion.

Quote
Last time I asked for discussion,  you backed off claiming that decades of experienced were required to understand your analysis.   

Obvious lie is obvious.

Well at least you are finally talking about forces.   That's to be applauded.

And BHS did refuse to discuss his structural analysis claiming two decades of experience was required to understand it.  I can find the post if you care to disagree and call me a liar.

The usual fucking clap trap....

You have not once discussed anything of significance engineering wise/structural/or anything of the sort. I only spoke about the " prerequisites" that come with almost 2 decades of study and experience because of your constant refusal to discuss anything except for "well NIST said". I even said it is understandable, as I wouldn't want to explain to a M.D. why something was not possible in their profession.

It was your refusal to discuss these things that spawned that comment....

Keep twisting rayzor.

Toodle-pip
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 27, 2017, 06:35:53 AM
Are you going to answer the questions to my thought experiment or not, BHS?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 27, 2017, 06:47:12 AM
The statement that what we saw of building 7 is explainable from the failing of column 79 is impossible, it would have caused an internal sag as the exoskeleton, the floors, and the rest of the intact Central core supported the extra load (they had enough head room to support the extra load, along with the buildings low occupancy) (not to mention the fire was already extinguished there). The penthouse dropping for just the failure of column 79 as we saw is impossible, this would take multiple failures at once (I along with many others have tried numerous model designs to get this to happen, even fudging the inputs in many different ways, even if you can get a failure, it never fully collapses and not into its own footprint at free fall. Only NIST can do this with their "magic" inputs)

The temps presented of metal temps is not possible from the fires present, all steel framed buildings share the load of heat just like a skillet and it's handle. The firing proofing was not damaged like the supposed excuse of one and two. Nor would any of these buildings reach free fall or anything of the sort. Even giving credit they could collapse as they did up top, once they reached the intact and more than double the mass and strength core of any of the towers, that would end it's decent..Or slow it to the point the upper section is going to look for another point of less resistance (such as toppling forward) I have shown videos on this thread if examples.

Not to mention the squib markers on 7 as it fell at free fall, only at the prime locations of the core supports of the largest mass, which is exactly what you would see during a controlled demo...They got sloppy with 7.

There is much more , but this is just a few things


Edit*
Quote from: Master_Evar on February 27, 2017, 06:35:53 AM
Are you going to answer the questions to my thought experiment or not, BHS?

I don't know what "thought experiment" you are talking about. If it is actually on topic and relevant then I will answer. As I said I am not going to be continued to be distracted by irrelevant nonsense
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 27, 2017, 07:15:50 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 27, 2017, 06:47:12 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on February 27, 2017, 06:35:53 AM
Are you going to answer the questions to my thought experiment or not, BHS?
I don't know what "thought experiment" you are talking about. If it is actually on topic and relevant then I will answer. As I said I am not going to be continued to be distracted by irrelevant nonsense

Quote from: Master_Evar on February 26, 2017, 03:32:12 PM
Let's make a thought experiment - a circular floor that is 10 meters in diameter is suspended by 4 evenly spaced bolts. The floor weighs 100kg.

What is the load on each bolt?
Let's put a 100kg weight in the middle of the floor. What is the new load on each bolt?
Bonus question - what is the load on each individual bolt, if the bolts are positioned in all cardinal directions and the 100kg weight is put 3 meters north an 2 meters west?

I'd be intrigued to see your answers to this.

I really want you to answer the bonus question, as it would verify wether we think alike on the process of load distribution, regarding our discussion on the bolts used and their strength.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 27, 2017, 08:00:04 AM
There is not enough information here. This reminds me of college, questions made to trick you up and the purpose is to find that. People would come up with answers that were incorrect, not just because the actual answer was wrong, but the whole point was to show the question was wrong.

Anyways, I need more information. I need the design of the support structure and the flooring. Though it sounds you are trying to simplify it by using 4 bolts, this actually complicates it further. Is support structure on the inside and the circle is around it? If that is the case, then we have entirely new set of variables to work with as we have the issue if leverage to deal with..100kg is multiplied tremendously.

Or if it is suspended from the outside of the circle, how? Is the support structure underneath it? If so how is it designed? Is circle sitting on the supports bolted down? Is the circle on the inside of the supports and the bolts are holding it horizontally? If so is there channel plates or just bolts? What angle is the bolts and or chamber plates? What is the mass and details of the supporting structure..How much mass/sway/flex is the flooring going to be responsible for?

What is the design of the flooring itself? Is it just 4 beams? Is it structurally reinforced with a box design/spider/mapped? A chamber design for supporting each connection that attaches to the structure or are they individual? What load do you want on the bolt? The bearing? Shank? Threads?

I could keep rambling on...But I need a model with complete information to give you an accurate answer.


Though, this seems a bit off topic, and more of a dance... At least it is actual communication, but I don't find it conducive two searching for truth.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 27, 2017, 08:20:32 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 27, 2017, 08:00:04 AM
There is not enough information here. This reminds me of college, questions made to trick you up and the purpose is to find that. People would come up with answers that were incorrect, not just because the actual answer was wrong, but the whole point was to show the question was wrong.

Anyways, I need more information. I need the design of the support structure and the flooring. Though it sounds you are trying to simplify it by using 4 bolts, this actually complicates it further. Is support structure on the inside and the circle is around it? If that is the case, then we have entirely new set of variables to work with as we have the issue if leverage to deal with..100kg is multiplied tremendously.

Or if it is suspended from the outside of the circle, how? Is the support structure underneath it? If so how is it designed? Is circle sitting on the supports bolted down? Is the circle on the inside of the supports and the bolts are holding it horizontally? If so is there channel plates or just bolts? What angle is the bolts and or chamber plates? What is the mass and details of the supporting structure..How much mass/sway/flex is the flooring going to be responsible for?

What is the design of the flooring itself? Is it just 4 beams? Is it structurally reinforced with a box design/spider/mapped? A chamber design for supporting each connection that attaches to the structure or are they individual? What load do you want on the bolt? The bearing? Shank? Threads?

I could keep rambling on...But I need a model with complete information to give you an accurate answer.


Though, this seems a bit off topic, and more of a dance... At least it is actual communication, but I don't find it conducive two searching for truth.
Yeah, you don't know the answer to the question. Just admit it. I have presented just enough information. If you want to be nitpicky: the floor is just some homogenous material.

The 4 bolts are there precisely because it makes it just hard enough that it's very unlikely someone can guess their way to the right answer, but also to tempt people into thinking it's unsolvable, just like you seem to think.

A circular, homogenous floor weighing 100kg, suspended by only 4 evenly spaced bolts in all cardinal directions, and a point-load of 100kg. You need no more information, and if you don't give an answer with your next post I'll assume you can't calculate it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 27, 2017, 12:22:00 PM
I didn't ask about the material make up of the floor master, I asked for information of its structural design, ..stop being like rayzor. I actually read through some of your posts talking about this nonsense...I don't think you can even make up your mind. You want someone to use moment of inertia as a factor with the information you gave?? Not a chance.

Writing off all the actual items that would be needed in reality that I stated in the post before this...writing all that off, just assuming a perfect UDL after calculating the PSF (which is how this question should have been listed to begin with) I would still need the size of the mating surface for the bolts, and size of the bolt. Just at a minimum.

Then for your bonus question...you want me to figure out fastener load with this object you give no dimensions on? Please...I need that as a bare minimum along with its ECL to even come close to its point load so I can even come close to the individual fastener load.


Don't bite dispute....The question is bogus, he is either doing it on purpose or has no idea what he is talking about. Either case, it is just another form of deflection, distraction, confusion and twisting. My personal opinion is he knows just enough to know nothing at all....or he could be intentional doing so...I would much rather it be the former than latter.


Edit I am adding this because I don't feel like master running his mouth and I typed that very quickly in-between meetings.

If I wanted to calculate something this simple (which I have stated there is not enough information to get an accurate answer), just to get an answer for the floor alone I would do something like this..Though very basic and just like the question, it is too simple and not enough info.

Find the bolt group centroid
Determine directional vectors for each bolt with distance Rn
Calculate direct shear load for both the weight and applied load(Fv)
Calculate Reaction Moment (M) at the bolt group centroid.
Calculate torsional shear force (Fm)
vector addition of direct and torsional shear for total shear load

Ra=distance from group centroid to bolt A
Rb=distance from group centroid to bolt B
Rc=follow the pattern....

Roughly something like this.

Fv = F/A ; Fm = M*Rn/(Ra^2+Rb^2+Rc^2....)


This doesn't matter though, as I said, the question is bogus.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 02:56:41 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 27, 2017, 12:22:00 PM

If I wanted to calculate something this simple (which I have stated there is not enough information to get an accurate answer), just to get an answer for the floor alone I would do something like this..Though very basic and just like the question, it is too simple and not enough info.

Find the bolt group centroid
Determine directional vectors for each bolt with distance Rn
Calculate direct shear load for both the weight and applied load(Fv)
Calculate Reaction Moment (M) at the bolt group centroid.
Calculate torsional shear force (Fm)
vector addition of direct and torsional shear for total shear load

Ra=distance from group centroid to bolt A
Rb=distance from group centroid to bolt B
Rc=follow the pattern....

Roughly something like this.

Fv = F/A ; Fm = M*Rn/(Ra^2+Rb^2+Rc^2....)

I came to the same conclusion, kept me up last night, I didn't have enough info to make a proper prediction.

@Bhs he meant torque not "moment of inertia" lol language barrier, I freaked out too.

What was your working and answer Master Evar?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 27, 2017, 03:27:32 PM
The answer to the bonus question is:
North bolt: 85 kg of load.
West bolt: 65 kg of load.
South bolt: 25 kg of load.
East bolt: 25 kg of load.

It's really late here and I'm on the phone, so I'll post my calculations tomorrow.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 03:34:35 PM
I wasn't that far off lol.

How did you work with the load without a specific size of the weight?

Or do we assume a 100kg point mass?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 27, 2017, 04:12:53 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 27, 2017, 06:21:02 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 27, 2017, 02:28:02 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 02:00:00 AM
Go away Rayzor we are having a technical discussion.

Quote
Last time I asked for discussion,  you backed off claiming that decades of experienced were required to understand your analysis.   

Obvious lie is obvious.

Well at least you are finally talking about forces.   That's to be applauded.

And BHS did refuse to discuss his structural analysis claiming two decades of experience was required to understand it.  I can find the post if you care to disagree and call me a liar.

The usual fucking clap trap....

You have not once discussed anything of significance engineering wise/structural/or anything of the sort. I only spoke about the " prerequisites" that come with almost 2 decades of study and experience because of your constant refusal to discuss anything except for "well NIST said". I even said it is understandable, as I wouldn't want to explain to a M.D. why something was not possible in their profession.

It was your refusal to discuss these things that spawned that comment....

Keep twisting rayzor.

Toodle-pip


I have opened discussion of the collapse mechanism  dozens of times,  you just weren't listening.    So here is the problem once more.

This is a complex collapse with many unknowns,  not the least of which is the fire temperatures,   there is clear unambiguous evidence of temperatures around the 1000C,  The structural steel loses 90% of its strength at those sort of temperatures,  even at 600C it's down to about half,  I posted a graph,  which you ignored.

The damage caused by the aircraft impact needs to be modelled as well, which means detailed structural models of the aircraft as well as the building itself,   That's where we got stuck last time around,  you refused to acknowledge that any aircraft at all hit the towers,  and my response to you was we can't progress beyond that point to discuss collapse without starting from the impact.

My conclusion is simply,  that unless you accept the structural damage done by the aircraft impact and the structural weakening done by the fires,  you simply can't progress to discuss collapse initiation. 
There is plenty of room for doubt about NIST's analysis, but not enough to jump up and down shouting "controlled demolition".    More than enough for another enquiry,  which I've said many times.

If you recall my first two questions to you were about evidence of demolition and the FEA models you had done back at UNT.

When asked for direct evidence,  you replied.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed
As for smoking gun piece of evidence?? Well I have 1000s....I really don't know where to start.

Where do you want to start?

Here we are a thousand posts later,  still no "smoking gun",    It's getting close to time to call BS.  on BHS.

For ME's bonus question,   the total reactive load must always equal 200 kg,  so it's just basic trig to calculate the distances from each bolt to the center of mass, then calculate the torque reaction at each point which must add to 200 Kg, 
You can assume the center of mass of the combined disc and weight is half way between the center of the disk and the point load.  Assuming the disk is uniform thickness and homogeneous,


I'm surprised BHS didn't rise to the challenge?


If the forces are ever unbalanced,  the structure will redistribute in such as way as to rebalance the forces.  That is loads shift until the forces rebalance.  Or something breaks.

If you were doing it for real,  you would just draw it up in a modelling package,  input the material properties and specs for the bolts,  then run FEA.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 04:18:05 PM
Rayzor the adults are having a technical discussion.

Quote from: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 03:34:22 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on February 27, 2017, 03:12:14 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 02:57:37 AM
No, from one initial fail point our physics will not predict a plumb collapse at free-fall for a building anything like wtc7.
Claim, not fact.

Fact.

Quote from: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 02:57:37 AM
One initial fail point would lead to an unbalanced collapse (as you kindly demonstrated more accurately than I could) at a rate far slower than free-fall as the loads shifted and broke structures during the collapse.





Unless someone can show otherwise.

Sorry, quality bantz  ;D
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 04:27:41 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 27, 2017, 04:12:53 PM
For ME's bonus question,   the total reactive load must always equal 200 kg,  so it's just basic trig to calculate the distances from each bolt to the center of mass, then calculate the torque reaction at each point which must add to 200 Kg, 

Incorrect as both ME and Bhs have shown, it is not just simple trig.

This doesnt factor in torque, angular loads etc.

See my fails.

Also we weren't given the size and shape of the object so we can't really make a prediction for something that doesn't actually take up any physical space.

Notice I had a go and wasn't afraid to be wrong, while Rayzor refuses to give numbers and claims superiority without the possibility of being wrong.

Pity you messed it up anyway and forgot about actual torque calculations.

You are truly an hero.

As for your lies.

Quote from: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 02:56:41 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 27, 2017, 12:22:00 PM

If I wanted to calculate something this simple (which I have stated there is not enough information to get an accurate answer), just to get an answer for the floor alone I would do something like this..Though very basic and just like the question, it is too simple and not enough info.

Find the bolt group centroid
Determine directional vectors for each bolt with distance Rn
Calculate direct shear load for both the weight and applied load(Fv)
Calculate Reaction Moment (M) at the bolt group centroid.
Calculate torsional shear force (Fm)
vector addition of direct and torsional shear for total shear load

Ra=distance from group centroid to bolt A
Rb=distance from group centroid to bolt B
Rc=follow the pattern....

Roughly something like this.

Fv = F/A ; Fm = M*Rn/(Ra^2+Rb^2+Rc^2....)

I came to the same conclusion, kept me up last night, I didn't have enough info to make a proper prediction.

@Bhs he meant torque not "moment of inertia" lol language barrier, I freaked out too.

What was your working and answer Master Evar?

Lie moar.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 27, 2017, 04:43:25 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 04:18:05 PM
Rayzor the adults are having a technical discussion.

LOL,  that's funny.     Why do you keep posting that interim NIST analysis,  why don't you post the real NIST analysis of WTC7?    Just lying  to make a point I guess.   

Just another data point.   Here is some different collapse modelling of WTC7  with varying assumptions.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 05:03:18 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 25, 2017, 11:26:35 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 24, 2017, 05:21:45 PM
Once again, absolutely no maths or physics from Rayzor, is anyone surprised anymore at this point?

let's all rip on him when he makes fun of flat earthers for not using math.

That model looks even less like reality than the one that doesn't collapse.

You really are an hero.




Watch for a good laugh and to see my points illustrated.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 27, 2017, 05:05:53 PM
Rayzor You really are a sad case aren't you.. As always, your entire post is one disgusting lie. You must be proud.

Addressing only a few points as I don't want to waste much time on you.

I made multiple models throughout the years, my first one was at UNT. I addressed your fire claim and all of your other issues...You had no rebuttals besides "well look at NIST"..Piss..Why did I say that? I couldn't tell you, I just thought of your conversation and that came to mind.

Quote from: Rayzor on February 27, 2017, 04:12:53 PM
I'm surprised BHS didn't rise to the challenge?

Lie more!!

Number one you are absolutely incorrect on how to figure the "answer"...Number two I addressed his "challenge" with pertinent questions so I could get a "real life" answer, I then explained why the answer could not be had with then given information.

Even saying that, I gave important information and a quick equation on how to find the answer he was seeking.


You really are a hero
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 05:12:58 PM
Quote from: Rayzors vid
Changed threshold mapping to enforce desired result.

LMAO!!

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 27, 2017, 05:05:53 PM
You really are a an hero

Ftfy (google it :-))
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 27, 2017, 05:14:00 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 27, 2017, 04:43:25 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 04:18:05 PM
Rayzor the adults are having a technical discussion.

LOL,  that's funny.     Why do you keep posting that interim NIST analysis,  why don't you post the real NIST analysis of WTC7?    Just lying  to make a point I guess.   

Just another data point.   Here is some different collapse modelling of WTC7  with varying assumptions.



Lmao!!! Now I have seen everything...You just used BLENDER  as evidence of something lmao!! That cannot simulate anything in reality...Nor is that model even designed (or could it be on this program) like 7. Smdh...

Stick to your day job, rayzor....

(Still more accurate than NIST though...That is the sad thing)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 05:16:42 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 05:12:58 PM
Quote from: Rayzors vid
Changed threshold mapping to enforce desired result.

LMAO!!

LMAO!!!!
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 27, 2017, 05:30:14 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 27, 2017, 05:14:00 PM
Lmao!!! Now I have seen everything...You just used BLENDER  as evidence of something lmao!! That cannot simulate anything in reality...Nor is that model even designed (or could it be on this program) like 7. Smdh...

Stick to your day job, rayzor....

(Still more accurate than NIST though...That is the sad thing)

The sad thing is that you failed to appreciate that something as simple (?)  as blender fracture analysis proves that controlled demolition is not a pre-requisite for WTC7  collapse.   

But given all the other strange things you say,  I shouldn't be surprised.   
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 27, 2017, 05:33:47 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 27, 2017, 05:05:53 PM
Rayzor You really are a sad case aren't you.. As always, your entire post is one disgusting lie. You must be proud.

Ok,  point out where you think I've lied,  I've just about had it with your false accusations.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 05:40:32 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 27, 2017, 05:33:47 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 27, 2017, 05:05:53 PM
Rayzor You really are a sad case aren't you.. As always, your entire post is one disgusting lie. You must be proud.

Ok,  point out where you think I've lied,  I've just about had it with your false accusations.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?action=profile;area=showposts;u=1074303

stop posting here, then. You are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

If not, toodle-pip.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 27, 2017, 05:51:36 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 04:27:41 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 27, 2017, 04:12:53 PM
For ME's bonus question,   the total reactive load must always equal 200 kg,  so it's just basic trig to calculate the distances from each bolt to the center of mass, then calculate the torque reaction at each point which must add to 200 Kg, 

Incorrect as both ME and Bhs have shown, it is not just simple trig.

This doesnt factor in torque, angular loads etc.

See my fails.

Also we weren't given the size and shape of the object so we can't really make a prediction for something that doesn't actually take up any physical space.

Notice I had a go and wasn't afraid to be wrong, while Rayzor refuses to give numbers and claims superiority without the possibility of being wrong.

Pity you messed it up anyway and forgot about actual torque calculations.

You are truly an hero.

As for your lies.

Quote from: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 02:56:41 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 27, 2017, 12:22:00 PM

If I wanted to calculate something this simple (which I have stated there is not enough information to get an accurate answer), just to get an answer for the floor alone I would do something like this..Though very basic and just like the question, it is too simple and not enough info.

Find the bolt group centroid
Determine directional vectors for each bolt with distance Rn
Calculate direct shear load for both the weight and applied load(Fv)
Calculate Reaction Moment (M) at the bolt group centroid.
Calculate torsional shear force (Fm)
vector addition of direct and torsional shear for total shear load

Ra=distance from group centroid to bolt A
Rb=distance from group centroid to bolt B
Rc=follow the pattern....

Roughly something like this.

Fv = F/A ; Fm = M*Rn/(Ra^2+Rb^2+Rc^2....)

I came to the same conclusion, kept me up last night, I didn't have enough info to make a proper prediction.

@Bhs he meant torque not "moment of inertia" lol language barrier, I freaked out too.

What was your working and answer Master Evar?

Lie moar.

You only quoted half of what I said,   that's dishonest. 

Quote from: Rayzor
For ME's bonus question,   the total reactive load must always equal 200 kg,  so it's just basic trig to calculate the distances from each bolt to the center of mass, then calculate the torque reaction at each point which must add to 200 Kg, 
You can assume the center of mass of the combined disc and weight is half way between the center of the disk and the point load.  Assuming the disk is uniform thickness and homogeneous,


I'm surprised BHS didn't rise to the challenge?


If the forces are ever unbalanced,  the structure will redistribute in such as way as to rebalance the forces.  That is loads shift until the forces rebalance.  Or something breaks.

If you were doing it for real,  you would just draw it up in a modelling package,  input the material properties and specs for the bolts,  then run FEA.


What part about rebalancing forces did you not understand?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 05:56:13 PM
Shill, harder, Rayzor.

Quote from: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 05:40:32 PM
stop posting here, then. You are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

If not, toodle-pip.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 05:56:56 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 03:40:41 AM
Official story officially and eternally btfo.

Edit. I don't expect anyone to even say anything about a conspiracy. After 43 pages I have, at the very least, shown that building 7s collapse was very unlikely and NIST's report doesn't even attempt to cover it.

That's just truth sorry.

Quote from: disputeone on February 13, 2017, 10:49:57 PM
Fall acceleration of building 7.

You are going to end this a jibbering mess of failed insults and logic.

But you asked for it.

Mods can we move to tech and alt please. ty.

 :-* :-* :-*
Call me Rayzor.

Quote from: Rayzor on February 27, 2017, 05:51:36 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 04:27:41 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 27, 2017, 04:12:53 PM
For ME's bonus question,   the total reactive load must always equal 200 kg,  so it's just basic trig to calculate the distances from each bolt to the center of mass, then calculate the torque reaction at each point which must add to 200 Kg, 

Incorrect as both ME and Bhs have shown, it is not just simple trig.

This doesnt factor in torque, angular loads etc.

See my fails.

Also we weren't given the size and shape of the object so we can't really make a prediction for something that doesn't actually take up any physical space.

Notice I had a go and wasn't afraid to be wrong, while Rayzor refuses to give numbers and claims superiority without the possibility of being wrong.

Pity you messed it up anyway and forgot about actual torque calculations.

You are truly an hero.

As for your lies.

Quote from: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 02:56:41 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 27, 2017, 12:22:00 PM

If I wanted to calculate something this simple (which I have stated there is not enough information to get an accurate answer), just to get an answer for the floor alone I would do something like this..Though very basic and just like the question, it is too simple and not enough info.

Find the bolt group centroid
Determine directional vectors for each bolt with distance Rn
Calculate direct shear load for both the weight and applied load(Fv)
Calculate Reaction Moment (M) at the bolt group centroid.
Calculate torsional shear force (Fm)
vector addition of direct and torsional shear for total shear load

Ra=distance from group centroid to bolt A
Rb=distance from group centroid to bolt B
Rc=follow the pattern....

Roughly something like this.

Fv = F/A ; Fm = M*Rn/(Ra^2+Rb^2+Rc^2....)

I came to the same conclusion, kept me up last night, I didn't have enough info to make a proper prediction.

@Bhs he meant torque not "moment of inertia" lol language barrier, I freaked out too.

What was your working and answer Master Evar?

Lie moar.

You only quoted half of what I said,   that's dishonest. 

Quote from: Rayzor
For ME's bonus question,   the total reactive load must always equal 200 kg,  so it's just basic trig to calculate the distances from each bolt to the center of mass, then calculate the torque reaction at each point which must add to 200 Kg, 
You can assume the center of mass of the combined disc and weight is half way between the center of the disk and the point load.  Assuming the disk is uniform thickness and homogeneous,


I'm surprised BHS didn't rise to the challenge?


If the forces are ever unbalanced,  the structure will redistribute in such as way as to rebalance the forces.  That is loads shift until the forces rebalance.  Or something breaks.

If you were doing it for real,  you would just draw it up in a modelling package,  input the material properties and specs for the bolts,  then run FEA.


What part about rebalancing forces did you not understand?

Show us your answers and working, then.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 06:10:15 PM
Quote
Show us your answers and working, then.

You can't and are too afraid of failure to try?

Noted.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 27, 2017, 06:10:35 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 05:56:56 PM
Show us your answers and working, then.

I didn't  and I don't intend to,  I'm just refuting that BHS said it wasn't possible with the data provided,  I disagree,   I describe the method,  you get 4 linear equations with 4 unknowns.   Balance torque in two orthogonal directions. 
Solving simultaneous linear equations is just matrix inversion.    In this case it's inverting a 4x4 matrix.  But just algebraic manipulation will get you there as well.

I'm interested to see if that's the method ME uses,  beyond that.  He was challenging BHS and you to solve it not me.   




Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 06:10:54 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 06:10:15 PM
Quote
Show us your answers and working, then.

You can't and are too afraid of failure to try?

Noted.

I refuse to believe you are Aussie

(https://s8.postimg.org/jqjwi3d05/1485772313885.jpg)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 27, 2017, 06:23:32 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 06:10:54 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 06:10:15 PM
Quote
Show us your answers and working, then.

You can't and are too afraid of failure to try?

Noted.

I refuse to believe you are Aussie

(https://s8.postimg.org/jqjwi3d05/1485772313885.jpg)

Another attempted insult.   That's your substitute for rational thought is it?
 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 06:26:28 PM
This is my rational thought.

Our physics will not, and are unable to model building 7s collapse using the official story.

Truth.

Quote from: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 04:16:38 AM


Watching it you know what this model looks pretty similar to? (Hint. Not what we saw that day)

Edit. Models if you count the second one that doesn't collapse, I'm not joking, I wish I was.

Thought / Actual experiment

Take a bowling ball and put it on a box framed structure, weaken the structure until it starts to collapse, does the tower collapse at free-fall? Or does some of the towers gravitational potential energy get used crushing the remaining structural resistance?

Equation and method

Instead of expressing structural resistance in units we can use a percentage.

Say 100% structural resistance will hold the building up exactly, any more weight and it will start to collapse. Most working loads are two to four times (corrected, 30 to 100 times) the fail point.
So we can safely assume building 7 had over 100% structural resistance before it fell.

So we have gravitational acceleration - percentage of structural resistance = fall acceleration.

9.8m/s2×75%=7.35m/s2

9.8 m/s2 - 7.35m/s2 = 2.45 m/s2

At 75% structural resistance I would predict a 2.45m/s2 fall acceleration.

Obviously this doesnt calculate change and inertia, however it doesn't need to.

We can clearly see building 7 go from over 100% structural resistance to 0% pretty much instantly.

To go from (what we saw) totally upright and standing to free fall, (gravitational acceleration) for 2.25 seconds violates the laws of physics.

The only way building 7 could do this is to have nearly all of its structural resistance removed nearly instantly.

The only way this is possible is a controlled demolition.

So, G- %S = F
Gravitational acceleration - percentage of structural resistance = fall acceleration.

Results and conclusion.

Here's some more math, this is my simplified version of any reasonable buildings collapse due to fire.

So structural resistance and collapse acceleration.

100% = 0m/s2
99  % = .098m/s2
98  % = .196m/s2
97  % = .294m/s2
96  % = .392m/s2
95  % = .49m/s2
94  % = .588m/s2
93  % = .686m/s2
92  % = .784m/s2
91  % = .882m/s2
90  % = .98m/s2

Based on my very simple equation this is my prediction for the onset of collapse for a large building losing structural resistance due to an intense fire.



No way right?

My insults and memes are the dankest, with the exception of maybe Totes.

Also, this.

Quote from: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 06:10:54 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 06:10:15 PM
Quote
Show us your answers and working, then.

You can't and are too afraid of failure to try?

Noted.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 27, 2017, 06:31:17 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 27, 2017, 05:05:53 PM
I made multiple models throughout the years, my first one was at UNT. I addressed your fire claim and all of your other issues...You had no rebuttals besides "well look at NIST"..Piss..Why did I say that? I couldn't tell you, I just thought of your conversation and that came to mind.

Not true,  I proved to you that the temperatures had reached well past the point where steel was weakened,  you even claimed the fuel would have vapourized on the outside of the building,  and you even claimed that aluminium  could not damage the steel structure.  I also pointed out the glowing steel removed from the rubble as proof of the temperatures reached.

I also pointed out that the fire burned for weeks,  after you claimed the fire was almost out when the collapse occurred.

Don't misquote what I said.   I keep giving you a pass for all your false claims.  Keep it up and I'll go for the nuclear option.



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 06:32:16 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 06:10:15 PM
Quote
Show us your answers and working, then.

You can't and are too afraid of failure to try?

Noted.

Begone.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rama Set on February 27, 2017, 07:13:04 PM
Did ya'll notice you switched debating partners a few pages back like a goddamn square dance?  Yee haw!
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 07:15:38 PM
Quote from: Rama Set on February 27, 2017, 07:13:04 PM
Did ya'll notice you switched debating partners a few pages back like a goddamn square dance?  Yee haw!

Yeah, I noticed.

Your powers of observation continue to serve you well.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 27, 2017, 08:57:32 PM
 
Quote from: Master_Evar on February 27, 2017, 03:27:32 PM
The answer to the bonus question is:
North bolt: 85 kg of load.
West bolt: 65 kg of load.
South bolt: 25 kg of load.
East bolt: 25 kg of load.

It's really late here and I'm on the phone, so I'll post my calculations tomorrow.

I have been really trying to decide what to say to this... Still not sure. I suppose I will start by I am in shock you had even an ounce of nerve to criticize me for asking serious questions ANY real structural engineer would ask. To have the nerve to criticize me, implying I don't know the answer to the question because I pointed out your question was fundamentally flawed. After the nerve to do that, you post this...

An answer, which the first part is barely middle school (lol divide 100 by 4?? Right, since this is reality smdh), the second part is barely highschool (and wrong).

I am trying to be nice here as much as I humanly can with as much nonsense as you spoke...So I will just say shame on you.

I will let your divide by 4 simple arithmetic go for the moment. We shall go to your second answer. I am going to attempt to make this as short as possible so I will be only hitting a few points, there are a plethora more to address.

One... you addressed the problem completely incorrect..You are using a measurement of mass instead a measurement of weight. Any actual presentation would be presented in form such as psf...

Two..Your starting figure of 25 kg per bolt is impossible in the real world, thus why I asked you so many follow up questions. Please don't ever design a building!..But I am leaving that alone..As a simple arithmetic it works.

Three..Your calculations with the added load is not correct even using a hypothetical equation ignoring all other real world variables such examples include sheer, deflection, etc etc. Even bypassing all real world variables...You did not provide the dimensions of the point load. However, I do not need that to say the equation is wrong.

Let's just assume your load occupies one square meter in the position you stated on the floor. As I said, ignoring all real world variables, you are still violating UDL, UCL, and N-UDL distribution calculations (which you cannot ignore even in this hypothetical, non realistic equation) None of your load estimates are correct, especially the south and east bolts.

I could continue, there are 6 other things that come to mind off the top of my head, but would require way too much typing I am not in the mood for.

I will say this, despite all the reasons I have stated in this post and many before on why this question is bogus...I will state one more, and will actually get an actually moderately close answer (though not exact and would never fly in an actual presentation).

There is a reason I asked you every single question I did, which obviously you didn't understand so you yelled instead. We will use the structure size and frame size of the floor for the mating surfaces. We will hypothetically assume an 1 and 1/4 quarter inch wide for both, and 6 inch long for the floor mating surface. ( I am also ignoring reality just for this, as no flooring would ever pass code, or even pre design unless it has spandrels or channel plates, but again ignore reality for sake of argument)

So anyways, let's be Sammy safety and use .500 13 thread 325 bolts...So we torque them down, let's say they are the standard spray Telefon coated, that will give them about a .097 COF, so with that said they would torque to almost an even perdy 40 foot pounds.

So with all this said what would be the vertical load on the individual bolts? Almost nil...Why? Because friction of the mating surfaces with the almost 6000 pounds of clamping force per fastener (about 6400 pounds at the bolt bearing, in an eclipsed fashion, no way to figure that without more real world variables) will never be overcome by the available vertical force. So all the force on the bolt is lateral. (You start putting vertical force on bolt shanks, you have structural issues. The process I described is also how heat loads are shared rayzor)

C2 = 1.43(F/Fy)-0.93~ 0.643 for 1.05 < FjFy < 1.35

Just for kicks, if you really wanted to figure your load levels you would use..

Net=(1-0.9r+3.0rd/s) Fu<fu

Along with the equation I provided my last post about this
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 27, 2017, 12:22:00 PM
Find the bolt group centroid
Determine directional vectors for each bolt with distance Rn
Calculate direct shear load for both the weight and applied load(Fv)
Calculate Reaction Moment (M) at the bolt group centroid.
Calculate torsional shear force (Fm)
vector addition of direct and torsional shear for total shear load

Ra=distance from group centroid to bolt A
Rb=distance from group centroid to bolt B
Rc=follow the pattern....

Roughly something like this.

Fv = F/A ; Fm = M*Rn/(Ra^2+Rb^2+Rc^2....)
(though I apologize I don't know how to post the equations 100 percent correct here, but should be close enough)...Though this is still only 20 percent of the info you would need to build a real world answer.


Edit I am also leaving alone the fact the actual theoretical floor is impossible (at least with material I know)..Something that can span 31 feet diameter, 830 ish sq feet, only weight 220 pounds  yet support 220 pounds plus.....But that is another unimportant issue with an already bogus question.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 27, 2017, 09:00:43 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 27, 2017, 06:31:17 PM
Not true,  I proved to you that the temperatures had reached well past the point where steel was weakened,  you even claimed the fuel would have vapourized on the outside of the building,  and you even claimed that aluminium  could not damage the steel structure.  I also pointed out the glowing steel removed from the rubble as proof of the temperatures reached.

I also pointed out that the fire burned for weeks,  after you claimed the fire was almost out when the collapse occurred.

Don't misquote what I said.   I keep giving you a pass for all your false claims.  Keep it up and I'll go for the nuclear option.

You proved nothing... You stated incorrect variables and impossibilities..Then you yelled NIST...

So...Uh yeah..

Either provide something of value or stay in your weight class.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 09:03:31 PM
So uh, you guys gonna apologize for that disgusting "fraud" comment.

Thanks senpai.

Rayzor.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 27, 2017, 09:00:43 PM
Either provide something of value or stay in your weight class.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 27, 2017, 09:27:07 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 27, 2017, 09:00:43 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 27, 2017, 06:31:17 PM
Not true,  I proved to you that the temperatures had reached well past the point where steel was weakened,  you even claimed the fuel would have vapourized on the outside of the building,  and you even claimed that aluminium  could not damage the steel structure.  I also pointed out the glowing steel removed from the rubble as proof of the temperatures reached.

I also pointed out that the fire burned for weeks,  after you claimed the fire was almost out when the collapse occurred.

Don't misquote what I said.   I keep giving you a pass for all your false claims.  Keep it up and I'll go for the nuclear option.

You proved nothing... You stated incorrect variables and impossibilities..Then you yelled NIST...

So...Uh yeah..

Either provide something of value or stay in your weight class.

Let's focus on just one issue,  you choose the one which is the strongest of your claimed "thousands of smoking guns"  evidence.



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 09:43:04 PM
Fall acceleration of building 7.

You ended this a failed mess of insults and logic.

I called it.



I expect you to apologize to Bhs for the fraud comment, but it's your choice, I can really hold a grudge tho, just ask Aisantaros...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 27, 2017, 09:47:51 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 09:43:04 PM
Fall acceleration of building 7.

You ended this a failed mess of insults and logic.

I called it.



I expect you to apologize to Bhs for the fraud comment, but it's your choice, I can really hold a grudge tho, just ask Aisantaros...

 Free fall of WTC7 does not conclusively prove controlled demolition,   we've been over this before.  But by all means keep flogging that dead horse. 

If Insults and threats are just about all you've got left at this stage,   you should give up.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 09:51:05 PM
Rayzor we won the debate. Everyone can see it.

Now, apologise.

Quote from: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 03:34:22 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on February 27, 2017, 03:12:14 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 02:57:37 AM
No, from one initial fail point our physics will not predict a plumb collapse at free-fall for a building anything like wtc7.
Claim, not fact.

Fact.

Quote from: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 02:57:37 AM
One initial fail point would lead to an unbalanced collapse (as you kindly demonstrated more accurately than I could) at a rate far slower than free-fall as the loads shifted and broke structures during the collapse.





Unless someone can show otherwise.

Official story officially btfo eternally.

@Bhs

(https://s23.postimg.org/xeoby64ln/days_without_winning_0_0_0_0_12533386.png)

;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 27, 2017, 10:02:40 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 09:51:05 PM
Rayzor we won the debate. Everyone can see it.

Now, apologise.

There's that reality disconnect again,  none of your claims of conspiracy have stood up,  in fact they have been stupidly easy to debunk.

If you disagree,  show me an example of just ONE of your claims of conspiracy that you feel you have proven conclusively.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 27, 2017, 10:04:00 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 09:51:05 PM
(https://s23.postimg.org/xeoby64ln/days_without_winning_0_0_0_0_12533386.png)

;D ;D ;D

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!! I have no idea where you find this stuff, or maybe you made it, hell I don't know and I don't care lmao!!!

Tremendous!!!
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 27, 2017, 10:05:51 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 27, 2017, 10:04:00 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 09:51:05 PM
(https://s23.postimg.org/xeoby64ln/days_without_winning_0_0_0_0_12533386.png)

;D ;D ;D

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!! I have no idea where you find this stuff, or maybe you made it, hell I don't know and I don't care lmao!!!

Tremendous!!!

Is that your best argument,  because I'm about  to call it. 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 10:10:55 PM
I think you should call it mate.
Title: Re: 911 truthers fail completely, left with nothing but insults and threats
Post by: Rayzor on February 27, 2017, 10:12:42 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 10:10:55 PM
I think you should call it mate.

Done.

And I didn't even have to debunk the thermite bullshit.   That's an easy win.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 27, 2017, 10:20:14 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 27, 2017, 10:05:51 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 27, 2017, 10:04:00 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 09:51:05 PM
(https://s23.postimg.org/xeoby64ln/days_without_winning_0_0_0_0_12533386.png)

;D ;D ;D

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!! I have no idea where you find this stuff, or maybe you made it, hell I don't know and I don't care lmao!!!

Tremendous!!!

Is that your best argument,  because I'm about  to call it.

This has as much substance as any of your posts so far lol... So what are you yelling about?

Have you presented an argument yet? Besides look at NIST, which their testimony is invalid until they release inputs, the barred 1000s of testimonials, hundreds of pages of blocked information etc etc..

So where is your argument? Since "look at NIST" (which is an obvious fabrication, anyone IN THE BUSINESS or with the NECESSARY prerequisites sees and laughs at. Wonder how "more jet fuel " got started about 8 years ago as a play on "more cowbell" from Saturday night live with people in the field?) Is not a valid argument.

There are even plenty of things to argue on the last few pages.

Though, since you haven't presented an argument in the last 40 + pages, I suppose you won't start now...

So maybe it is...

Quote from: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 10:10:55 PM
I think you should call it mate.

Stage left
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 10:34:42 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 27, 2017, 10:12:42 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 10:10:55 PM
I think you should call it mate.

Done.

And I didn't even have to debunk the thermite bullshit.   That's an easy win.

See-ya.

If this is winning I'd hate to see you lose...

Quote from: Boots on February 25, 2017, 10:23:18 PM
Here is my summary of this thread.

I don't really know enough about the engineering and physics to be easily convinced one way or the other by technical arguments. My bias would be toward believing the official story because I believe that on average, the official version is usually more accurate and reliable than conspiracy theories.

However, the people arguing for the official version of events did not seem to be able to make a clear case IMO. Because, like I admitted, I have a bias toward the official version I would like to see it clearly shown that this version is the most likely to be correct. So far it doesn't seem like this has happened - at least not in a way that I could grasp.

Toodle pip.

If anyone else wants to jump in I'm not going anywhere soon.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 10:58:45 PM
Lmao nice poll Rayzor.

Shill harder mate.

I'll say it, you are paid opinion control, it couldn't be more obvious man, you messed up haven't they sacked you yet?

I'll ask again, was it worth your soul?

Edit, I said I'd hate to see you lose, well, I was right, it's fucking ugly.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 27, 2017, 11:00:16 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 10:58:45 PM
Lmao nice poll Rayzor.

Shill harder mate.

I'll say it, you are a paid opinion control, it couldn't be more obvious man, you messed up haven't they sacked you yet?

I'll ask again, was it worth your soul?

And, that's exactly what the flat earthers say when they lose an argument.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 11:01:14 PM
Read the thread where I destroyed you.

LOL.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 27, 2017, 11:03:32 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 11:01:14 PM
Read the thread where I destroyed you.

LOL.

There's your reality disconnect again.   You should seek treatment for that.   


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 11:04:24 PM
Stop I can't handle all this winning ;D

Use AR for cheap shots after the fact.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 27, 2017, 11:07:22 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 11:04:24 PM
Stop I can't handle all this winning ;D

Use AR for cheap shots after the fact.

I guess it was you that voted "something else",  tell me what option you would like added,  and I'll edit the poll.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 11:09:16 PM
This will suffice.

Quote from: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 04:16:38 AM


Watching it you know what this model looks pretty similar to? (Hint. Not what we saw that day)

Edit. Models if you count the second one that doesn't collapse, I'm not joking, I wish I was.

Thought / Actual experiment

Take a bowling ball and put it on a box framed structure, weaken the structure until it starts to collapse, does the tower collapse at free-fall? Or does some of the towers gravitational potential energy get used crushing the remaining structural resistance?

Equation and method

Instead of expressing structural resistance in units we can use a percentage.

Say 100% structural resistance will hold the building up exactly, any more weight and it will start to collapse. Most working loads are two to four times (corrected, 30 to 100 times) the fail point.
So we can safely assume building 7 had over 100% structural resistance before it fell.

So we have gravitational acceleration - percentage of structural resistance = fall acceleration.

9.8m/s2×75%=7.35m/s2

9.8 m/s2 - 7.35m/s2 = 2.45 m/s2

At 75% structural resistance I would predict a 2.45m/s2 fall acceleration.

Obviously this doesnt calculate change and inertia, however it doesn't need to.

We can clearly see building 7 go from over 100% structural resistance to 0% pretty much instantly.

To go from (what we saw) totally upright and standing to free fall, (gravitational acceleration) for 2.25 seconds violates the laws of physics.

The only way building 7 could do this is to have nearly all of its structural resistance removed nearly instantly.

The only way this is possible is a controlled demolition.

So, G- %S = F
Gravitational acceleration - percentage of structural resistance = fall acceleration.

Results and conclusion.

Here's some more math, this is my simplified version of any reasonable buildings collapse due to fire.

So structural resistance and collapse acceleration.

100% = 0m/s2
99  % = .098m/s2
98  % = .196m/s2
97  % = .294m/s2
96  % = .392m/s2
95  % = .49m/s2
94  % = .588m/s2
93  % = .686m/s2
92  % = .784m/s2
91  % = .882m/s2
90  % = .98m/s2

Based on my very simple equation this is my prediction for the onset of collapse for a large building losing structural resistance due to an intense fire.



No way right?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 27, 2017, 11:17:34 PM
So rayzor...Can you tell me that everything you said about the flame and heat in the building is true since you harp on that?

Though if you don't want to get into this, I understand...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 27, 2017, 11:31:02 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 27, 2017, 11:17:34 PM
So rayzor...Can you tell me that everything you said about the flame and heat in the building is true since you harp on that?

Though if you don't want to get into this, I understand...

I'm happy to engage in intelligent discussion,  start with some basic research on typical high rise office fires.   You should scan the following paper.   

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.1014.8949&rep=rep1&type=pdf

The claim I made was that temperatures around 1000C were reported,  and temperatures over 600 C were reached over significant areas of the structure.

At 600 C  the steel is down to about  half it's strength,  and at 1000C it's down to about one tenth.


The jet fuel was responsible for the initial ignition,  but not the main fuel source for the subsequent fires,   you need to remember that smoke temperatures when you see thick turbulent black smoke can approach flame temperatures.   

Conclusion is that the steel structure that was stripped of it's fireproofing by the impact  was substantially weakened by the subsequent fires. 



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 11:59:39 PM
Here's your smoking gun piece of evidence, geez, you can't handle Bhs, it's over, retire with dignity and honour.

Note that this hasn't been dubunked.

Quote from: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 03:34:22 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on February 27, 2017, 03:12:14 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 02:57:37 AM
No, from one initial fail point our physics will not predict a plumb collapse at free-fall for a building anything like wtc7.
Claim, not fact.

Fact.

Quote from: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 02:57:37 AM
One initial fail point would lead to an unbalanced collapse (as you kindly demonstrated more accurately than I could) at a rate far slower than free-fall as the loads shifted and broke structures during the collapse.





Unless someone can show otherwise.

The only way our physics can replicate the collapse of building 7 is a controlled demolition, trying to fudge numbers without a controlled demolition situation ends up with the model looking like my simple equation would predict.



Debunk it, or retire with dignity and honour.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 12:08:06 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 11:59:39 PM
Here's your smoking gun piece of evidence, geez, you can't handle Bhs, it's over, retire with dignity and honour.

Note that this hasn't been dubunked.
Debunk it, or retire with dignity and honour.

I've debunked it so many times it's getting embarrassing.   Once more. 

1.  The collapse of WTC7 was no surprise,  the FDNY knew early in the afternoon it was in danger of collapse,  did you even watch the video you keep posting?
2.  Your argument boils down to a false conclusion,  you conclude that because it looked like a controlled demolition,  therefore it must be a controlled demolition.  That's a logical fallacy

Your entire argument is premised on the assumption that ONLY a controlled demolition can explain free fall collapse.    That's  just not true.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 12:10:43 AM
>Our physics models can't simulate the collapse of wtc 7 with the official story.

>Our physics models can easily simulate the collapse of wtc 7 with a controlled demolition.

Should I believe physics? Or just take your word on everything?

Wait, don't answer that, I know.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 12:24:12 AM
Also you really have to apologize to Bhs.

Your behavior towards him was disgusting and dishonorable, you will feel better after I promise.

Once you've got past that you can apologize to me for saying you can explain how wtc 7 fell plumb at free fall.

You haven't even tried, seriously go join the circlejerk on clues, at least you might make at least one friend there.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 28, 2017, 12:39:33 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 27, 2017, 11:31:02 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 27, 2017, 11:17:34 PM
So rayzor...Can you tell me that everything you said about the flame and heat in the building is true since you harp on that?

Though if you don't want to get into this, I understand...

I'm happy to engage in intelligent discussion,  start with some basic research on typical high rise office fires.   You should scan the following paper.   

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.1014.8949&rep=rep1&type=pdf

The claim I made was that temperatures around 1000C were reported,  and temperatures over 600 C were reached over significant areas of the structure.

At 600 C  the steel is down to about  half it's strength,  and at 1000C it's down to about one tenth.


The jet fuel was responsible for the initial ignition,  but not the main fuel source for the subsequent fires,   you need to remember that smoke temperatures when you see thick turbulent black smoke can approach flame temperatures.   

Conclusion is that the steel structure that was stripped of it's fireproofing by the impact  was substantially weakened by the subsequent fires.

Well...I might agree with you if the metal got that hot and it was a wide spread event. Neither happened.

First, kerosene doesn't burn that hot in an open environment..Simple as that. It also has a high auto ignition temp as it should, it is made to protect fan jet engines from pre detonation. Compress it to 275 psi, insert oxygen stoichiometric mix of around 14.8;1 and then you might hit 1000c...Maybe...Though that is a bit hot, will raise internal temps a bit too much, so what do you do to drop them?? Add more fuel.

Anyways, enough of that, anything burning on top of kerosene is cool so that isn't to worry as well as what it is burning on. Middle of a non compressed kerosene flame is not hot enough to cause any worry..So is their any worry??? The tip...that can approach 700 in an uncompressed environment..So we have a very small area to worry about...However, there is a catch, its transfer ratio is not effective...Very low, especially with something of heavy density and mass.

I could keep rattling on, but Simple case, not worried about the jet fuel.. however, let's say it lit some carpet on fire, maybe some furniture. OK fine...So now we have a standard house fire, maybe 600c.. OK, so we have a few spots that hot..What now? Well we have the official report that says the heat protection was damaged..Well, we see how their word has been so far...

However, let's play their game...So we have some bare metal that is exposed..Uh oh?!? What happens now??? Well the fire isn't hot enough to ignite the steel as fuel...So if there is any direct fire on steel, it is because it is burning off either fuel or combustible material off it. That means the actual temp transfered to the steel is minimal (anyone ever put fuel on your arm and lit it on fire?? Not very hot to the arm...Crude example but quick)

So let's run some worst case scenarios...We have a few spots of bare metal being exposed to the hottest parts of a flame...Uh oh, well that isn't good. But wait!!! We have hope...One it is more than likely just a floor truss being exposed to this dangerous heat...However, even better, we have heat distribution and heat sharing by the entire framing of the structure. Previous posts I have described a few ways this is accomplished mechanically....So we have this distribution..

c × ρAΔx × u = cρAΔxu (x,t)

This is just one piece, whenever I figure out how to write more complex pieces here I will...

So what is the moral of the story?? Kerosene isn't hot enough, office furniture and carpet isn't hot enough..It wasn't the whole building only a few localized areas...The shared distribution would have absorbed the majority of the temp increase to only raise a minimal amount. (I have said before through modeling could only increase to 300 degrees Fahrenheit with a worst case scenario), even worst case if we could somehow get a support hot enough to fail, then it would only be localized. The 44th floor and below (which was where most of the mass was, beams a totally different boxed design, incased, more than twice as thick, cross braced etc etc...short story, a tank compared to the upper area) was still perfectly intact.

Moral of the story...Worst case adding in some luck and a bit of magic, worst you would have would be a localized collapse.


This was a mildly intoxicated post sponsored by Tito's...(sorry got bored with the "debate")
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Howie feldersnatch on February 28, 2017, 12:45:32 AM
Wtc7 fail because of denpressure!
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 28, 2017, 12:46:56 AM
Quote from: Howie feldersnatch on February 28, 2017, 12:45:32 AM
Wtc7 fail because of denpressure!

About time!!! He said what we were all afraid to say!! Brave man
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Howie feldersnatch on February 28, 2017, 12:54:00 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 28, 2017, 12:39:33 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 27, 2017, 11:31:02 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 27, 2017, 11:17:34 PM
So rayzor...Can you tell me that everything you said about the flame and heat in the building is true since you harp on that?

Though if you don't want to get into this, I understand...

I'm happy to engage in intelligent discussion,  start with some basic research on typical high rise office fires.   You should scan the following paper.   

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.1014.8949&rep=rep1&type=pdf

The claim I made was that temperatures around 1000C were reported,  and temperatures over 600 C were reached over significant areas of the structure.

At 600 C  the steel is down to about  half it's strength,  and at 1000C it's down to about one tenth.


The jet fuel was responsible for the initial ignition,  but not the main fuel source for the subsequent fires,   you need to remember that smoke temperatures when you see thick turbulent black smoke can approach flame temperatures.   

Conclusion is that the steel structure that was stripped of it's fireproofing by the impact  was substantially weakened by the subsequent fires.

Well...I might agree with you if the metal got that hot and it was a wide spread event. Neither happened.

First, kerosene doesn't burn that hot in an open environment..Simple as that. It also has a high auto ignition temp as it should, it is made to protect fan jet engines from pre detonation. Compress it to 275 psi, insert oxygen stoichiometric mix of around 14.8;1 and then you might hit 1000c...Maybe...Though that is a bit hot, will raise internal temps a bit too much, so what do you do to drop them?? Add more fuel.

Anyways, enough of that, anything burning on top of kerosene is cool so that isn't to worry as well as what it is burning on. Middle of a non compressed kerosene flame is not hot enough to cause any worry..So is their any worry??? The tip...that can approach 700 in an uncompressed environment..So we have a very small area to worry about...However, there is a catch, its transfer ratio is not effective...Very low, especially with something of heavy density and mass.

I could keep rattling on, but Simple case, not worried about the jet fuel.. however, let's say it lit some carpet on fire, maybe some furniture. OK fine...So now we have a standard house fire, maybe 600c.. OK, so we have a few spots that hot..What now? Well we have the official report that says the heat protection was damaged..Well, we see how their word has been so far...

However, let's play their game...So we have some bare metal that is exposed..Uh oh?!? What happens now??? Well the fire isn't hot enough to ignite the steel as fuel...So if there is any direct fire on steel, it is because it is burning off either fuel or combustible material off it. That means the actual temp transfered to the steel is minimal (anyone ever put fuel on your arm and lit it on fire?? Not very hot to the arm...Crude example but quick)

So let's run some worst case scenarios...We have a few spots of bare metal being exposed to the hottest parts of a flame...Uh oh, well that isn't good. But wait!!! We have hope...One it is more than likely just a floor truss being exposed to this dangerous heat...However, even better, we have heat distribution and heat sharing by the entire framing of the structure. Previous posts I have described a few ways this is accomplished mechanically....So we have this distribution..

c × ρAΔx × u = cρAΔxu (x,t)

This is just one piece, whenever I figure out how to write more complex pieces here I will...

So what is the moral of the story?? Kerosene isn't hot enough, office furniture and carpet isn't hot enough..It wasn't the whole building only a few localized areas...The shared distribution would have absorbed the majority of the temp increase to only raise a minimal amount. (I have said before through modeling could only increase to 300 degrees Fahrenheit with a worst case scenario), even worst case if we could somehow get a support hot enough to fail, then it would only be localized. The 44th floor and below (which was where most of the mass was, beams a totally different boxed design, incased, more than twice as thick, cross braced etc etc...short story, a tank compared to the upper area) was still perfectly intact.

Moral of the story...Worst case adding in some luck and a bit of magic, worst you would have would be a localized collapse.


This was a mildly intoxicated post sponsored by Tito's...(sorry got bored with the "debate")

Where did you come up with these numbers? Source?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 28, 2017, 01:00:55 AM
Quote from: Howie feldersnatch on February 28, 2017, 12:54:00 AM
Where did you come up with these numbers? Source?

More specific please...Which numbers? Numbers/equations/info is in my head because of my line of work..However, if you are more specific, I can tell you where to find them for yourself.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 01:01:10 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 28, 2017, 12:39:33 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 27, 2017, 11:31:02 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 27, 2017, 11:17:34 PM
So rayzor...Can you tell me that everything you said about the flame and heat in the building is true since you harp on that?

Though if you don't want to get into this, I understand...

I'm happy to engage in intelligent discussion,  start with some basic research on typical high rise office fires.   You should scan the following paper.   

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.1014.8949&rep=rep1&type=pdf

The claim I made was that temperatures around 1000C were reported,  and temperatures over 600 C were reached over significant areas of the structure.

At 600 C  the steel is down to about  half it's strength,  and at 1000C it's down to about one tenth.


The jet fuel was responsible for the initial ignition,  but not the main fuel source for the subsequent fires,   you need to remember that smoke temperatures when you see thick turbulent black smoke can approach flame temperatures.   

Conclusion is that the steel structure that was stripped of it's fireproofing by the impact  was substantially weakened by the subsequent fires.

Well...I might agree with you if the metal got that hot and it was a wide spread event. Neither happened.

First, kerosene doesn't burn that hot in an open environment..Simple as that. It also has a high auto ignition temp as it should, it is made to protect fan jet engines from pre detonation. Compress it to 275 psi, insert oxygen stoichiometric mix of around 14.8;1 and then you might hit 1000c...Maybe...Though that is a bit hot, will raise internal temps a bit too much, so what do you do to drop them?? Add more fuel.

Anyways, enough of that, anything burning on top of kerosene is cool so that isn't to worry as well as what it is burning on. Middle of a non compressed kerosene flame is not hot enough to cause any worry..So is their any worry??? The tip...that can approach 700 in an uncompressed environment..So we have a very small area to worry about...However, there is a catch, its transfer ratio is not effective...Very low, especially with something of heavy density and mass.

I could keep rattling on, but Simple case, not worried about the jet fuel.. however, let's say it lit some carpet on fire, maybe some furniture. OK fine...So now we have a standard house fire, maybe 600c.. OK, so we have a few spots that hot..What now? Well we have the official report that says the heat protection was damaged..Well, we see how their word has been so far...

However, let's play their game...So we have some bare metal that is exposed..Uh oh?!? What happens now??? Well the fire isn't hot enough to ignite the steel as fuel...So if there is any direct fire on steel, it is because it is burning off either fuel or combustible material off it. That means the actual temp transfered to the steel is minimal (anyone ever put fuel on your arm and lit it on fire?? Not very hot to the arm...Crude example but quick)

So let's run some worst case scenarios...We have a few spots of bare metal being exposed to the hottest parts of a flame...Uh oh, well that isn't good. But wait!!! We have hope...One it is more than likely just a floor truss being exposed to this dangerous heat...However, even better, we have heat distribution and heat sharing by the entire framing of the structure. Previous posts I have described a few ways this is accomplished mechanically....So we have this distribution..

c × ρAΔx × u = cρAΔxu (x,t)

This is just one piece, whenever I figure out how to write more complex pieces here I will...

So what is the moral of the story?? Kerosene isn't hot enough, office furniture and carpet isn't hot enough..It wasn't the whole building only a few localized areas...The shared distribution would have absorbed the majority of the temp increase to only raise a minimal amount. (I have said before through modeling could only increase to 300 degrees Fahrenheit with a worst case scenario), even worst case if we could somehow get a support hot enough to fail, then it would only be localized. The 44th floor and below (which was where most of the mass was, beams a totally different boxed design, incased, more than twice as thick, cross braced etc etc...short story, a tank compared to the upper area) was still perfectly intact.

Moral of the story...Worst case adding in some luck and a bit of magic, worst you would have would be a localized collapse.


This was a mildly intoxicated post sponsored by Tito's...(sorry got bored with the "debate")

I'm sure you didn't mean that steel burns,  so I'll give you yet another pass.

In that paper I cited the WTC fires were classed as travelling fires, and if you look at the graph in figure 6 you will see that the far field temperatures in travelling fires are a function of size ( as in area )  and time,  in less than 1 hour you can get far field temperatures in the range 600-900C   The temperature of burning jet fuel  is not a factor,  these temperatures assume normal office fuel loads.

The larger the area the faster the far field temperatures rise, in the case of a 600 sqm fire the far field temperature reaches 800C in about 1/2 an hour.   

Figure 5 gives the horizontal distribution of temperatures at ceiling height,  ( for a localized fire ) the peak temperature at ceiling height is over 900C and the zone 5 meters either side of the peak is over 600C.

You don't care to agree,  that's fine.  But the science is undeniable.  The fires were more than hot enough to weaken the steel structure,  that combined with the structural damage caused by the impact was enough to initiate collapse,  what is unexplained is the sequence of events subsequent to collapse initiation.   That's worth a new enquiry.





Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 01:01:56 AM
Quote from: Howie feldersnatch on February 28, 2017, 12:45:32 AM
Wtc7 fail because of denpressure!

Damn,  I will add that as an option to the poll.    LOL
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 01:20:58 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 01:01:10 AM
I'm sure you didn't mean that steel burns,  so I'll give you yet another pass.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1017523922778

Thought you gave up? Stay in the shallow end mate.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 01:28:12 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 01:20:58 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 01:01:10 AM
I'm sure you didn't mean that steel burns,  so I'll give you yet another pass.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1017523922778

Thought you gave up? Stay in the shallow end mate.

I can set fire to steel wool as well,  steel beams don't ignite, if it gets hot enough they melt.   

Another insult.   You just can't help yourself can you. 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 28, 2017, 01:28:26 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 01:01:10 AM

I'm sure you didn't mean that steel burns,  so I'll give you yet another pass.

In that paper I cited the WTC fires were classed as travelling fires, and if you look at the graph in figure 6 you will see that the far field temperatures in travelling fires are a function of size ( as in area )  and time,  in less than 1 hour you can get far field temperatures in the range 600-900C   The temperature of burning jet fuel  is not a factor,  these temperatures assume normal office fuel loads.

The larger the area the faster the far field temperatures rise, in the case of a 600 sqm fire the far field temperature reaches 800C in about 1/2 an hour.   

Figure 5 gives the horizontal distribution of temperatures at ceiling height,  ( for a localized fire ) the peak temperature at ceiling height is over 900C and the zone 5 meters either side of the peak is over 600C.

You don't care to agree,  that's fine.  But the science is undeniable.  The fires were more than hot enough to weaken the steel structure,  that combined with the structural damage caused by the impact was enough to initiate collapse,  what is unexplained is the sequence of events subsequent to collapse initiation.   That's worth a new enquiry.

Oh I don't need a pass, I thought it was obvious my sarcasm on steel being used as fuel. However, as I have stated before I am used to doing this type of debate with actual words I forget people can't hear a sarcastic tone.

I don't care to agree because it is incorrect. I just wanted to rule out jet fuel as the cause of collapse, as that is parroted in the official report more times than I care to recall. Kerosene is easy to rule out.

So then we look at available fuel in the building...What do we have? The areas that was hit was mostly vacant..Even the ceiling was stripped..So what do we have as fuel? Some carpet? Some floating ceiling tiles of gypsum board in a few areas? Doesn't rate that high in the combustible scale, just the paper. We can also see how empty the buildings were by the lack of actual official materials recovered after the collapse. Barely even registers as total mass...Nor does it add up to a fraction of what is should have.

So what could possibly cause melting steel we saw from the upper sections? What could cause the months of molton steel after the collapse...Fire fighters described as a "steel Foundry"...Nothing that was supposed to be there for certain.

Any heat generated by the small amount of available fuel would have been easily shared by the building framing...Plus, the only evidence that the heat shielding was damaged was from the official story, which have proven to be all lies, nor did they offer any evidence. With adding magic and some dumb luck, the worst you would have would be a localized collapse.

So the only logical conclusion is there was something there that shouldn't have been.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 01:33:46 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 28, 2017, 01:28:26 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 01:01:10 AM

I'm sure you didn't mean that steel burns,  so I'll give you yet another pass.

In that paper I cited the WTC fires were classed as travelling fires, and if you look at the graph in figure 6 you will see that the far field temperatures in travelling fires are a function of size ( as in area )  and time,  in less than 1 hour you can get far field temperatures in the range 600-900C   The temperature of burning jet fuel  is not a factor,  these temperatures assume normal office fuel loads.

The larger the area the faster the far field temperatures rise, in the case of a 600 sqm fire the far field temperature reaches 800C in about 1/2 an hour.   

Figure 5 gives the horizontal distribution of temperatures at ceiling height,  ( for a localized fire ) the peak temperature at ceiling height is over 900C and the zone 5 meters either side of the peak is over 600C.

You don't care to agree,  that's fine.  But the science is undeniable.  The fires were more than hot enough to weaken the steel structure,  that combined with the structural damage caused by the impact was enough to initiate collapse,  what is unexplained is the sequence of events subsequent to collapse initiation.   That's worth a new enquiry.

Oh I don't need a pass, I thought it was obvious my sarcasm on steel being used as fuel. However, as I have stated before I am used to doing this type of debate with actual words I forget people can't hear a sarcastic tone.

I don't care to agree because it is incorrect. I just wanted to rule out jet fuel as the cause of collapse, as that is parroted in the official report more times than I care to recall. Kerosene is easy to rule out.

So then we look at available fuel in the building...What do we have? The areas that was hit was mostly vacant..Even the ceiling was stripped..So what do we have as fuel? Some carpet? Some floating ceiling tiles of gypsum board in a few areas? Doesn't rate that high in the combustible scale, just the paper. We can also see how empty the buildings were by the lack of actual official materials recovered after the collapse. Barely even registers as total mass...Nor does it add up to what it should have.

So what could possibly cause melting steel we saw from the upper sections? What could cause the months of molton steel after the collapse...Fire fighters described as a "steel Foundry"...Nothing that was supposed to be there for certain.

Any heat generated by the small amount of available fuel would have been easily shared by the building framing...Plus, the only evidence that the heat shielding was damaged was from the official story, which have proven to be all lies, nor did they offer any evidence. With adding magic and some dumb luck, the worst you would have would be a localized collapse.

So the only logical conclusion is there was something there that shouldn't have been.

That's a pretty tenuous thread to hang an entire conspiracy from.    What was there that shouldn't have been?    Thermite?

I have looked at the evidence for thermite/nano thermite,  and it's not very convincing.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 28, 2017, 01:45:48 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 01:33:46 AM
That's a pretty tenuous thread to hang an entire conspiracy from.    What was there that shouldn't have been?    Thermite?

I have looked at the evidence for thermite/nano thermite,  and it's not very convincing.

I don't consider that a weak thread at all...It is very obvious impossibilities...So that brings to the question what was the cause? Nano thermite is a plausibility...I already explained to you how I would do it with a combo of nano thermite and c4 charges. I also stated, "that is what I know"...I also stated "there are other ways I am sure with tech i don't know about"..

I have never been sold on nano thermite... Though I know what was found in the dust from my own testing and many others. So I know there were explosive charges used somewhere.

There there is that big kicker of the months of burning, literally melting 119 fire certed steel...That is not easy and nothing in that building could have done that...Then to add for months afterwards? And these were not out of control fires, they tried to extinguish them...They just wouldn't go out.

Only thing I know that can continue generating heat hot enough like that of available known tech is a nuclear reaction. There is tritium in the dust?? What does it mean?

I don't know...I can speculate, but that doesn't matter. All I can do is destroy the official investigation and hope one day we can reach the right people and find the truth.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 01:54:39 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 28, 2017, 01:45:48 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 01:33:46 AM
That's a pretty tenuous thread to hang an entire conspiracy from.    What was there that shouldn't have been?    Thermite?

I have looked at the evidence for thermite/nano thermite,  and it's not very convincing.

I don't consider that a weak thread at all...It is very obvious impossibilities...So that brings to the question what was the cause? Nano thermite is a plausibility...I already explained to you how I would do it with a combo of nano thermite and c4 charges. I also stated, "that is what I know"...I also stated "there are other ways I am sure with tech i don't know about"..

I have never been sold on nano thermite... Though I know what was found in the dust from my own testing and many others. So I know there were explosive charges used somewhere.

There there is that big kicker of the months of burning, literally melting 119 fire certed steel...That is not easy and nothing in that building could have done that...Then to add for months afterwards? And these were not out of control fires, they tried to extinguish them...They just wouldn't go out.

Only thing I know that can continue generating heat hot enough like that of available known tech is a nuclear reaction. There is tritium in the dust?? What does it mean?

I don't know...I can speculate, but that doesn't matter. All I can do is destroy the official investigation and hope one day we can reach the right people and find the truth.

What happened to the potential energy of the structure?   Not all of it would have gone into pulverizing the structure,  a lot of that energy would have ended up as huge amounts of  heat.  Would it be enough to explain the molten steel that was seen in the rubble? 

Just an aside,  I've seen pictures of what was claimed to be nano-thermite,    iron oxide and other elements,  turned out on further investigation to be fragments of the red iron oxide paint used  on the steel as rust proofing,  and a layer of grey primer paint was still on the other side.   LOL.   

I'm inclined to leave it there and wait until a new enquiry does the modelling properly in an open and transparent manner. 

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 28, 2017, 02:05:59 AM
So, time to post my calculations:

First, the load can either be perceived to be a point mass, OR have it's center of mass at the specified position. That's where the force will be concentrated in both cases.

Secondly, I'll give the load in mass, it's not what you'd officially do (just like I very much doubt you'd give a load in pressure, like BHS does) but since we're only talking about gravitational laod, and we'll assume a homogenous gravitational field, they'll be proportional anyways. Also, disputeone did it first so I just followed their lead.

So, the load of the floor on each bolt is obviously 25 kg.

Then we add the extra 100kg load. Let's ignore the load of the floor for now. Because the load is static and we'll assume the floor doesn't give or the bolts shear, the sum of the load on all bolts must be 100 kg.

But, the sum off all torques on all bolts must equal 0 kgm (kilogram meters, officially it is Nm, Newton meters), otherwise the floor or the bolts would twist. Torque is calculated around a pivot (can be static/rigid) and an axis by multiplying a force by it's distance to the force at a right angle from the axis you want to calculate the torque around.

As an example, let us take the south bolt, and let us work in one dimension at a time. We'll position ourselves so that we are aligned with the west and east bolt. From this position we can only deal with torque around the west-east axis, or basically torque that goes in a right angle from the west-east axis. The point load is 5+3 meters away from the south bolt, or 8 meters, since we are blind to distances that go west-east. That means that the torque on the south bolt around the west-east axis is 8m*100kg, or 800kgm. The west and east bolt are both 5 meters away, and from this position they will act like a single pivot. This single pivot will add a negative torque to the south bolt of 5*(-Loadwest-Loadeast). The north bolt is 10 meters away and will add a negative torque of 10*(-Loadnorth). The full torque around the west-east axis on the south bolt can be described as:
Torquesouth = 800kgm + 5*(-Loadwest-Loadeast) + 10*(-Loadnorth),
or 800kgm + 5*(-Loadwest-Loadeast) + 10*(-Loadnorth) = 0kgm,
since the torque on the south bolt must be 0 in all axis.

If we gather a few more relationships like these, we can compare them to each other in order to solve for all loads. However, there's a way I thought would be easier. Let's position ourselves so that the south and east bolt are aligned, and the north and west bolt are aligned. They are all evenly spaced along the circumference of a circle, so it is possible. From this northeast-southwest axis, the south and east bolts acts as one pivot and the north and west bolts act as another pivot. All cardinal directions are at a 45° angle to our axis, so we can calculate distances by adding their cardinal components (distance north + distance west - distance south - distance east, in this specific coordinate system) and multiplying with cos(45°).
Let's originate from the southeast pivot. The point mass is 3 meters north and 2 meters west away from from the center of the platform, or cos(45°)*5m. The southeast pivot is also cos(45°)*5m away from the center, but in the other direction. That means that the distance between the point mass and the pivot is 2*cos(45°)*5m, or cos(45°)*10m. That means that the torque is 100kg*cos(45°)*10m, or cos(45°)*1000kgm.
The north-west pivot is also cos(45°)*10m away from the south east pivot, and it's torque would be:
cos(45°)*10m*(-Loadnorth-Loadwest)

So the torque on the southeast pivot is:
Torquesoutheast pivot = cos(45°)*1000kgm + cos(45°)*10m*(-Loadnorth-Loadwest), and because the torque must equal 0:
cos(45°)*1000kgm + cos(45°)*10m*(-Loadnorth-Loadwest) = 0
Or:
cos(45°)*10m*(-Loadnorth-Loadwest) = -cos(45°)*1000kgm
10m*(-Loadnorth-Loadwest) = -1000kgm
(-Loadnorth-Loadwest) = -100kg.
Loadnorth+Loadwest = 100kg.

In order words, the north-west pivot takes all of the load of the 100kg load, because by dumb luck I managed to put it right on top of that pivot, or rather right in between the north and west bolt. That means that the south and east doesn't take any load from the 100kg weight, only the load of the floor.

Now it's easy, we just orient us at a right angle from the north-west axis, so that we have the north bolt, west bolt and the 100kg load in between. I'll calculate torque around the north bolt. Once again, I'll have to transform all directions with cos(45°) multiplied by (distance north - distance west - distance south + distance east).

The north bolt is cos(45°)*-5m away from the center (counting positive directions as towards the west bolt), the load is cos(45°)*(-3+2)m, or cos(45°)*-1m away from the center. The distance between the load and north pivot is therefore cos(45°)*5m-cos(45°)1m, or cos(45°)(5-1)m, or cos(45°)*4m.
The torque is cos(45°)*4m*100kg = cos(45°)*400kgm.

The west bolt is cos(45°)*5m away from the center, or cos(45°)*10m away from the north bolt. the negative torque is:
cos(45°)*10m*(-Loadwest)

The torque around north bolt is therefore:
Torquenorth bolt = cos(45°)*400kgm + cos(45°)*10m*(-Loadwest)
and because torque must be 0:
cos(45°)*400kgm + cos(45°)*10m*(-Loadwest) = 0
Which means:
cos(45°)*10m*(-Loadwest) = -cos(45°)*400kgm
10m*(-Loadwest) = -400kgm
(-Loadwest) = -40kg
Loadwest = 40kg

The west bolt takes 40 kg of the load of the 100kg mass. We know that the south and east doesn't take any of that load, and we know the sum of all loads must be 100kg. So the north bolt must take 60kg of load.

If we add in the 25 kg from the floor, the total loads become:
North: 85kg
East: 65kg
South: 25kg
East: 25kg

That means that even though we doubled the load on the floor, the load on the north bolt more than tripled and the load on the east bolt largely overshot double the load.

Had I placed the load even further northwest, the south and east bolt would experience less load as the north and east bolts acts as a pivot for a lever.

You can try inputting these values from any coordinate system, and it'll hold up. The sum of all torques will be 0, and the sum of all loads are obviously 100kg.

I don't know why BHS is trying to add variable that have nothing to do with this. Probably just as an excuse. As he says, this is pretty low-level for an engineer, but he still thought it's not solvable. Maybe it tells us something of his level?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 28, 2017, 02:12:30 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 01:54:39 AM
What happened to the potential energy of the structure?   Not all of it would have gone into pulverizing the structure,  a lot of that energy would have ended up as huge amounts of  heat.

Just an aside,  I've seen pictures of what was claimed to be nano-thermite,    iron oxide and other elements,  turned out on further investigation to be fragments of the red iron oxide paint used  on the steel as rust proofing,  and a layer of grey primer paint was still on the other side.   LOL.   

I'm inclined to leave it there and wait until a new enquiry does the modelling properly in an open and transparent manner.

It had to "vaporize" the structure...That is the only way the official story could get the towers to fall at that speed. They love the word vaporize... Interchangeable with magic.

However, let's look at the heat generated through friction and compression
At x = 0 T = T1

This is beyond simple and only tells a small percentage of the story..If I could figure out how to write more complex math on this site I will. This is why I avoided equations originally because the most important ones I don't know how to type them. I just got tired of dildos running their mouths so I have been attempting.

Anyways, long story short...Compression and heat generation would not have caused the temps needed to liquify 119 certed steel period...Much less for months with fire fighters trying to stop it.

However, we can leave this alone....No problem.

You direct the conversation
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 02:18:18 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on February 28, 2017, 02:05:59 AM
So, time to post my calculations:

First, the load can either be perceived to be a point mass, OR have it's center of mass at the specified position. That's where the force will be concentrated in both cases.

Secondly, I'll give the load in mass, it's not what you'd officially do (just like I very much doubt you'd give a load in pressure, like BHS does) but since we're only talking about gravitational laod, and we'll assume a homogenous gravitational field, they'll be proportional anyways. Also, disputeone did it first so I just followed their lead.

So, the load of the floor on each bolt is obviously 25 kg.

Then we add the extra 100kg load. Let's ignore the load of the floor for now. Because the load is static and we'll assume the floor doesn't give or the bolts shear, the sum of the load on all bolts must be 100 kg.

But, the sum off all torques on all bolts must equal 0 kgm (kilogram meters, officially it is Nm, Newton meters), otherwise the floor or the bolts would twist. Torque is calculated around a pivot (can be static/rigid) and an axis by multiplying a force by it's distance to the force at a right angle from the axis you want to calculate the torque around.

As an example, let us take the south bolt, and let us work in one dimension at a time. We'll position ourselves so that we are aligned with the west and east bolt. From this position we can only deal with torque around the west-east axis, or basically torque that goes in a right angle from the west-east axis. The point load is 5+3 meters away from the south bolt, or 8 meters, since we are blind to distances that go west-east. That means that the torque on the south bolt around the west-east axis is 8m*100kg, or 800kgm. The west and east bolt are both 5 meters away, and from this position they will act like a single pivot. This single pivot will add a negative torque to the south bolt of 5*(-Loadwest-Loadeast). The north bolt is 10 meters away and will add a negative torque of 10*(-Loadnorth). The full torque around the west-east axis on the south bolt can be described as:
Torquesouth = 800kgm + 5*(-Loadwest-Loadeast) + 10*(-Loadnorth),
or 800kgm + 5*(-Loadwest-Loadeast) + 10*(-Loadnorth) = 0kgm,
since the torque on the south bolt must be 0 in all axis.

If we gather a few more relationships like these, we can compare them to each other in order to solve for all loads. However, there's a way I thought would be easier. Let's position ourselves so that the south and east bolt are aligned, and the north and west bolt are aligned. They are all evenly spaced along the circumference of a circle, so it is possible. From this northeast-southwest axis, the south and east bolts acts as one pivot and the north and west bolts act as another pivot. All cardinal directions are at a 45° angle to our axis, so we can calculate distances by adding their cardinal components (distance north + distance west - distance south - distance east, in this specific coordinate system) and multiplying with cos(45°).
Let's originate from the southeast pivot. The point mass is 3 meters north and 2 meters west away from from the center of the platform, or cos(45°)*5m. The southeast pivot is also cos(45°)*5m away from the center, but in the other direction. That means that the distance between the point mass and the pivot is 2*cos(45°)*5m, or cos(45°)*10m. That means that the torque is 100kg*cos(45°)*10m, or cos(45°)*1000kgm.
The north-west pivot is also cos(45°)*10m away from the south east pivot, and it's torque would be:
cos(45°)*10m*(-Loadnorth-Loadwest)

So the torque on the southeast pivot is:
Torquesoutheast pivot = cos(45°)*1000kgm + cos(45°)*10m*(-Loadnorth-Loadwest), and because the torque must equal 0:
cos(45°)*1000kgm + cos(45°)*10m*(-Loadnorth-Loadwest) = 0
Or:
cos(45°)*10m*(-Loadnorth-Loadwest) = -cos(45°)*1000kgm
10m*(-Loadnorth-Loadwest) = -1000kgm
(-Loadnorth-Loadwest) = -100kg.
Loadnorth+Loadwest = 100kg.

In order words, the north-west pivot takes all of the load of the 100kg load, because by dumb luck I managed to put it right on top of that pivot, or rather right in between the north and west bolt. That means that the south and east doesn't take any load from the 100kg weight, only the load of the floor.

Now it's easy, we just orient us at a right angle from the north-west axis, so that we have the north bolt, west bolt and the 100kg load in between. I'll calculate torque around the north bolt. Once again, I'll have to transform all directions with cos(45°) multiplied by (distance north - distance west - distance south + distance east).

The north bolt is cos(45°)*-5m away from the center (counting positive directions as towards the west bolt), the load is cos(45°)*(-3+2)m, or cos(45°)*-1m away from the center. The distance between the load and north pivot is therefore cos(45°)*5m-cos(45°)1m, or cos(45°)(5-1)m, or cos(45°)*4m.
The torque is cos(45°)*4m*100kg = cos(45°)*400kgm.

The west bolt is cos(45°)*5m away from the center, or cos(45°)*10m away from the north bolt. the negative torque is:
cos(45°)*10m*(-Loadwest)

The torque around north bolt is therefore:
Torquenorth bolt = cos(45°)*400kgm + cos(45°)*10m*(-Loadwest)
and because torque must be 0:
cos(45°)*400kgm + cos(45°)*10m*(-Loadwest) = 0
Which means:
cos(45°)*10m*(-Loadwest) = -cos(45°)*400kgm
10m*(-Loadwest) = -400kgm
(-Loadwest) = -40kg
Loadwest = 40kg

The west bolt takes 40 kg of the load of the 100kg mass. We know that the south and east doesn't take any of that load, and we know the sum of all loads must be 100kg. So the north bolt must take 60kg of load.

If we add in the 25 kg from the floor, the total loads become:
North: 85kg
East: 65kg
South: 25kg
East: 25kg

That means that even though we doubled the load on the floor, the load on the north bolt more than tripled and the load on the east bolt largely overshot double the load.

Had I placed the load even further northwest, the south and east bolt would experience less load as the north and east bolts acts as a pivot for a lever.

You can try inputting these values from any coordinate system, and it'll hold up. The sum of all torques will be 0, and the sum of all loads are obviously 100kg.

I don't know why BHS is trying to add variable that have nothing to do with this. Probably just as an excuse. As he says, this is pretty low-level for an engineer, but he still thought it's not solvable. Maybe it tells us something of his level?

From a pure mathematical perspective you may be correct but I think like Bhs explained you aren't factoring in nearly enough to give a realistic prediction, it's not as simple as you seem to think.

As another thought experiment, two steel structures are bolted together, is the entire load taken by the bolt under Xnm of torque or is some of the load taken by the compressive force and friction of the steel plates?

I'm kicking myself for not thinking about this earlier.

It's not nearly as simple as you like to think.

As for the personal attacks.

Bhs is who he says he is, get over it. Many very intelligent people question 9/11 just like we have here and win debates, just like we have here.

Get over it.

I was thinking you were a decent guy till now Evar, lets not poison the well.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 28, 2017, 02:20:44 AM
BHS, I clearly stated that the floor was suspended ONLY by the four bolts, no friction or anything. I'm not claiming this is how it was in the WTC, I understand that friction would increase the strength, and other things and so on. But I expressed very clearly that the floor was ONLY suspended by four bolts. Stop making excuses and strawmen arguments.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 02:22:31 AM
Well you showed the math is very simple.

The reality is nowhere near as simple.

What were you attempting except a disgusting attempt to discredit someone instead of debunk their arguments?

Honestly.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 28, 2017, 02:28:48 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 02:18:18 AM
From a pure mathematical perspective you may be correct but I think like Bhs explained you aren't factoring in nearly enough to give a realistic prediction, it's not as simple as you seem to think.
It is, as long as you don't bring in variables that have no place in the question at hand. Read my reply before this one, that was aimed towards BHS.

Quote from: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 02:18:18 AM
As another thought experiment, two steel structures are bolted together, is the entire load taken by the bolt under Xnm of torque or is some of the load taken by the compressive force and friction of the steel plates?
Again, read my response to BHS. This is just a strawman, as I clearly expressed to BHS that the floor was ONLY suspended by the bolts. And then , it depends on what is compressing. If the steel structures are only compressed because of the bolts, nothing changes, because the bolts have a load on them in order to compress the structures together, and the friction only equals that load. If the structures are pressed against each other by something else, the bolts will experience less load.

Quote from: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 02:18:18 AM
I'm kicking myself for not thinking about this earlier.

It's not nearly as simple as you like to think.
It's literally just as simple as I like to think: Really complicated when you get into actual buildings and loadsharing between hundreds of bolts, compression, friction, displacement etc. But I think I was pretty clear that had nothing to do with my question.

Quote from: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 02:18:18 AM
As for the personal attacks.

Bhs is who he says he is, get over it. Many very intelligent people question 9/11 just like we have here and win debates, just like we have here.

Get over it.

I was thinking you were a decent guy till now Evar, lets not poison the well.
I'm not saying he isn't who he is, but I know from experience he likes to overcomplicate or exaggerate in order to prove himself right. And he just proved it again.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 28, 2017, 02:30:46 AM
Master-evar I simply asked for more information on the design to get a real engineering answer (or real world). I never said it wasn't solvable as is, any moderately functional 7th grader can figure to divide 100 by 4. Just isn't reality or right (you would fail a test in school answering that shit)...As for your math of the "bonus question"...That is just wrong. No way around that. Sorry...

This is reality....Not whatever nonsense you are trying to sell...

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 27, 2017, 08:57:32 PM

Quote from: Master_Evar on February 27, 2017, 03:27:32 PM
The answer to the bonus question is:
North bolt: 85 kg of load.
West bolt: 65 kg of load.
South bolt: 25 kg of load.
East bolt: 25 kg of load.

It's really late here and I'm on the phone, so I'll post my calculations tomorrow.

I have been really trying to decide what to say to this... Still not sure. I suppose I will start by I am in shock you had even an ounce of nerve to criticize me for asking serious questions ANY real structural engineer would ask. To have the nerve to criticize me, implying I don't know the answer to the question because I pointed out your question was fundamentally flawed. After the nerve to do that, you post this...

An answer, which the first part is barely middle school (lol divide 100 by 4?? Right, since this is reality smdh), the second part is barely highschool (and wrong).

I am trying to be nice here as much as I humanly can with as much nonsense as you spoke...So I will just say shame on you.

I will let your divide by 4 simple arithmetic go for the moment. We shall go to your second answer. I am going to attempt to make this as short as possible so I will be only hitting a few points, there are a plethora more to address.

One... you addressed the problem completely incorrect..You are using a measurement of mass instead a measurement of weight. Any actual presentation would be presented in form such as psf...

Two..Your starting figure of 25 kg per bolt is impossible in the real world, thus why I asked you so many follow up questions. Please don't ever design a building!..But I am leaving that alone..As a simple arithmetic it works.

Three..Your calculations with the added load is not correct even using a hypothetical equation ignoring all other real world variables such examples include sheer, deflection, etc etc. Even bypassing all real world variables...You did not provide the dimensions of the point load. However, I do not need that to say the equation is wrong.

Let's just assume your load occupies one square meter in the position you stated on the floor. As I said, ignoring all real world variables, you are still violating UDL, UCL, and N-UDL distribution calculations (which you cannot ignore even in this hypothetical, non realistic equation) None of your load estimates are correct, especially the south and east bolts.

I could continue, there are 6 other things that come to mind off the top of my head, but would require way too much typing I am not in the mood for.

I will say this, despite all the reasons I have stated in this post and many before on why this question is bogus...I will state one more, and will actually get an actually moderately close answer (though not exact and would never fly in an actual presentation).

There is a reason I asked you every single question I did, which obviously you didn't understand so you yelled instead. We will use the structure size and frame size of the floor for the mating surfaces. We will hypothetically assume an 1 and 1/4 quarter inch wide for both, and 6 inch long for the floor mating surface. ( I am also ignoring reality just for this, as no flooring would ever pass code, or even pre design unless it has spandrels or channel plates, but again ignore reality for sake of argument)

So anyways, let's be Sammy safety and use .500 13 thread 325 bolts...So we torque them down, let's say they are the standard spray Telefon coated, that will give them about a .097 COF, so with that said they would torque to almost an even perdy 40 foot pounds.

So with all this said what would be the vertical load on the individual bolts? Almost nil...Why? Because friction of the mating surfaces with the almost 6000 pounds of clamping force per fastener (about 6400 pounds at the bolt bearing, in an eclipsed fashion, no way to figure that without more real world variables) will never be overcome by the available vertical force. So all the force on the bolt is lateral. (You start putting vertical force on bolt shanks, you have structural issues. The process I described is also how heat loads are shared rayzor)

C2 = 1.43(F/Fy)-0.93~ 0.643 for 1.05 < FjFy < 1.35

Just for kicks, if you really wanted to figure your load levels you would use..

Net=(1-0.9r+3.0rd/s) Fu<fu

Along with the equation I provided my last post about this
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 27, 2017, 12:22:00 PM
Find the bolt group centroid
Determine directional vectors for each bolt with distance Rn
Calculate direct shear load for both the weight and applied load(Fv)
Calculate Reaction Moment (M) at the bolt group centroid.
Calculate torsional shear force (Fm)
vector addition of direct and torsional shear for total shear load

Ra=distance from group centroid to bolt A
Rb=distance from group centroid to bolt B
Rc=follow the pattern....

Roughly something like this.

Fv = F/A ; Fm = M*Rn/(Ra^2+Rb^2+Rc^2....)
(though I apologize I don't know how to post the equations 100 percent correct here, but should be close enough)...Though this is still only 20 percent of the info you would need to build a real world answer.


Edit I am also leaving alone the fact the actual theoretical floor is impossible (at least with material I know)..Something that can span 31 feet diameter, 830 ish sq feet, only weight 220 pounds  yet support 220 pounds plus.....But that is another unimportant issue with an already bogus question.

I tried to do that as politely as possible...Nor did I even address half of the issues.

Yet this is how you act??

Quote from: Master_Evar on February 28, 2017, 02:05:59 AM
I don't know why BHS is trying to add variable that have nothing to do with this. Probably just as an excuse. As he says, this is pretty low-level for an engineer, but he still thought it's not solvable. Maybe it tells us something of his level?

Really gonna be a little bitch like that after getting politely schooled? Well now I drop the politeness, as well as any remaining respect lost.

Quit trying to pass off incorrect grade school horseshit as reality...

Now don't quit your day job..

Toodle-pip
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 02:35:10 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on February 28, 2017, 02:28:48 AM
Really complicated when you get into actual buildings and loadsharing between hundreds of bolts, compression, friction, displacement etc. But I think I was pretty clear that had nothing to do with my question.

No, but to be fair we've been trying to keep it on topic for 40 pages and the topic is actual buildings.


Your thought experiment succeeded in showing your competence in maths but failed to discredit Bhs as you had hoped.


He told you that you couldn't calculate the real load and there weren't enough factors for a real prediction.

He was correct, what's the big deal with this?

Quote
Maybe it tells us something of his level?

Not being intentionally offensive but that's disgusting, have some self respect.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 02:35:51 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 28, 2017, 02:12:30 AM
[However, we can leave this alone....No problem.

You direct the conversation

I can see uncertainties and inconsistencies in the official story,  but nowhere near enough to conclude conspiracy,  not because conspiracy is an impossible conclusion,  it's just not the best or only explanation for the evidence,   also,  this event has had huge far reaching implications that are still playing out around the world,  as such,  you need to be certain far far beyond any reasonable doubt that it really is a conspiracy of such evil dimensions it's beyond comprehension.     

As I've repeatedly said,  I think there was a cover up at the highest levels to hide the failure of the intelligence community to connect the dots,   the Bush white house covered up their failure to act.

A new enquiry would put some of those ghosts to rest.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 02:37:55 AM
Rayzor, honest question. If they open up a new enquiry, what do you think will be done with the way building 7 defied physics given the official story and their models?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 28, 2017, 02:38:53 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 02:22:31 AM
Well you showed the math is very simple.

The reality is nowhere near as simple.

What were you attempting except a disgusting attempt to discredit someone instead of debunk their arguments?

Honestly.
Disgusting attempt to discredit? I asked a very simple question bout a simple situation. He's the one who brought in unnecessary variables and refused to solve it with the information he had at hand.

Honestly, I'm surprised he didn't solve it. I mean that. I lost so much respect for him.

I also clearly expressed this is a thought experiment, not a super-realistic simulation. If it's not stated, we simply ignore it. I was only focused on load sharing, not actual structural integrity. I made it as simple as possible so that we wouldn't have to add in ridiculously complicated formulas that we just couldn't write out in this forum. BHS said it himself, it's would just be painful. That doesn't mean my thought experiment is totally unrealistic though: Going by it's premises, my answers shouldn't be off by more than a few percent. The biggest discrepancies would be how symmetric the floor and bolts are, and how accurately the 100kg mass can be placed and so on.

It's disgusting of you to state that this was all just to discredit him. He brought it on himself by messing up the interpretation of the thought experiment, nothing else.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 02:40:54 AM
What else was it? You admitted that our physics models will not and can not simulate the collapse of wtc 7 given the official story.

What else is left?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 28, 2017, 02:45:38 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 02:35:10 AM
He told you that you couldn't calculate the real load and there weren't enough factors for a real prediction.

He was correct, what's the big deal with this?
He also claimed that I am wrong on a completely hypothetical level, and I showed that he's wrong on that. Here, I'll quote him:
Quote
Three..Your calculations with the added load is not correct even using a hypothetical equation ignoring all other real world variables such examples include sheer, deflection, etc etc. Even bypassing all real world variables...You did not provide the dimensions of the point load. However, I do not need that to say the equation is wrong.
And I just marked another balls-up he made. The dimensions of a point load? What? The point of a point load is that it has no dimensions.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 02:49:58 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 02:37:55 AM
Rayzor, honest question. If they open up a new enquiry, what do you think will be done with the way building 7 defied physics given the official story and their models?

I'd wait till they release the 70,000 files that are withholding and see where that leads. 

With regard to ME's problem, it's normal practice in thought experiments to specify constraints so that a simpler solution is possible,   typical assumptions  in structural mechanics problems is to assume networks of light rigid  members transferring loads to joints. 

In this case a 100kg rigid disc is supported at 4 points and loaded with an off center 100kg point mass.   I don't understand the need to complicate the problem with real world material properties.

I don't see how it could be regarded as an attempt to discredit anyone.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 28, 2017, 02:51:29 AM
What lose respect because I call you out on your bullshit master??

Lose it..Please... Doesn't change reality though..

As for your thought experiment, the middle school rudimentary babble cannot be answered...

We did not have the dimensions of the point load ucl..This is adding no new variables. Just information needed...However even assuming that..

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 27, 2017, 08:57:32 PM

Let's just assume your load occupies one square meter in the position you stated on the floor. As I said, ignoring all real world variables, you are still violating UDL, UCL, and N-UDL distribution calculations (which you cannot ignore even in this hypothetical, non realistic equation) None of your load estimates are correct, especially the south and east bolts.

Even your own calculations are wrong lmao...

Don't quit your day job...

Toodle-pip

Edit for this bullshit...

Quote from: Master_Evar on February 28, 2017, 02:45:38 AM
just marked another balls-up he made. The dimensions of a point load? What? The point of a point load is that it has no dimensions.

Lol...Twist twist twist....Lie lie lie...

Read the whole thing.....Do I need to teach you about point loads and their own UCL?

Don't quit your day job....This is sad.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 28, 2017, 02:52:27 AM
I wanted BHS to give a source for his claims about the structural integrity of the WTC complex. Then I made a statement that the bolts he listed only needed to double their load to deform, he thought I said that if the load on a floor doubles the load on all bolts double. Then I pointed out that the total load on all bolts holding up a floor should equal the load ont he floor, he said it's impossible, and so I wanted to check how he would distribute loads. To keep out painfully complex equations I made it as simple as possible, but for some reason he still brings in those overly complex equations and starts complaining about them, makes some outlandish claims like the one I just quoted, and then we're here.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 02:53:06 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on February 28, 2017, 02:45:38 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 02:35:10 AM
He told you that you couldn't calculate the real load and there weren't enough factors for a real prediction.

He was correct, what's the big deal with this?


He also claimed that I am wrong on a completely hypothetical level, and I showed that he's wrong on that. Here, I'll quote him:
Quote
Three..Your calculations with the added load is not correct even using a hypothetical equation ignoring all other real world variables such examples include sheer, deflection, etc etc. Even bypassing all real world variables...You did not provide the dimensions of the point load. However, I do not need that to say the equation is wrong.
And I just marked another balls-up he made. The dimensions of a point load? What? The point of a point load is that it has no dimensions.

I understand that, it was most likely careless typing.

Heiwa did raise a good point of a 100kg object one planck length by one planck length has the tendency to cut through anything. I know, it was a thought experiment.

Still it was completely off topic, dude I could've done that math by this arvo, was doing a lot of reading, I get like that when I wanna know something, it doesn't prove anything.

Bhs didn't answer your thought experiment, I guess you can call that a win.

Quote from: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 02:49:58 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 02:37:55 AM
Rayzor, honest question. If they open up a new enquiry, what do you think will be done with the way building 7 defied physics given the official story and their models?

I'd wait till they release the 70,000 files that are withholding and see where that leads. 

That's not an answer but thanks anyway.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 28, 2017, 02:55:17 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 02:49:58 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 02:37:55 AM
Rayzor, honest question. If they open up a new enquiry, what do you think will be done with the way building 7 defied physics given the official story and their models?

I'd wait till they release the 70,000 files that are withholding and see where that leads. 

With regard to ME's problem, it's normal practice in thought experiments to specify constraints so that a simpler solution is possible,   typical assumptions  in structural mechanics problems is to assume networks of light rigid  members transferring loads to joints. 

In this case a 100kg rigid disc is supported at 4 points and loaded with an off center 100kg point mass.   I don't understand the need to complicate the problem with real world material properties.

I don't see how it could be regarded as an attempt to discredit anyone.

This was me removing all variables needed...Doesn't change the fact this was not calculated..

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 27, 2017, 08:57:32 PM

Let's just assume your load occupies one square meter in the position you stated on the floor. As I said, ignoring all real world variables, you are still violating UDL, UCL, and N-UDL distribution calculations (which you cannot ignore even in this hypothetical, non realistic equation) None of your load estimates are correct, especially the south and east bolts.

It pains me to remove all things reality would need for this but I did, and still we have this issue. His own numbers were incorrect..He did not calculate this. Calculating these things are non negotiable even with removing all real world variables..
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 28, 2017, 03:01:40 AM
See? BHS STILL says my calculations are wrong. He's making himself out to be an authority on the subject, but either he isn't as much of an authority as he claims or he's just willfully ignorant. Just read this:

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 28, 2017, 02:51:29 AM
What lose respect because I call you out on your bullshit master??

Lose it..Please... Doesn't change reality though..

As for your thought experiment, the middle school rudimentary babble cannot be answered...

We did not have the dimensions of the point load ucl..This is adding no new variables. Just information needed...However even assuming that..

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 27, 2017, 08:57:32 PM

Let's just assume your load occupies one square meter in the position you stated on the floor. As I said, ignoring all real world variables, you are still violating UDL, UCL, and N-UDL distribution calculations (which you cannot ignore even in this hypothetical, non realistic equation) None of your load estimates are correct, especially the south and east bolts.

Even your own calculations are wrong lmao...

Don't quit your day job...

Toodle-pip

Edit for this bullshit...

Quote from: Master_Evar on February 28, 2017, 02:45:38 AM
just marked another balls-up he made. The dimensions of a point load? What? The point of a point load is that it has no dimensions.

Lol...Twist twist twist....Lie lie lie...

Read the whole thing.....Do I need to teach you about point loads and their own UCL?

Don't quit your day job....This is sad.
This is Papa Legba level of a response.


And I'll leave a reference to point loads:
https://www.builder-questions.com/construction-glossary/point-load/ (https://www.builder-questions.com/construction-glossary/point-load/)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 03:03:54 AM
We all know the definition of a point load, Master Evar.

Show us why Bhs is incorrect.

I understand where you are coming from but I think Bhs has a point.

(pun intended, got me)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 03:09:44 AM
ME,   having been in the position you now find yourself many times,   facing a sort of tag-team barrage of insults from either side,   BHS  is inclined to make silly mistakes and then deny making them, when you bring it up he calls you a liar,  he's done it with me dozens of times, till I got to the point of just, either giving him a pass, or ignoring it.  disputeone sort of tags along with whatever BHS says.   

The best approach is to just argue the evidence,   and stick to making your case.  Ignore the other stuff, it's just background noise.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 28, 2017, 03:10:45 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on February 28, 2017, 03:01:40 AM
See? BHS STILL says my calculations are wrong. He's making himself out to be an authority on the subject, but either he isn't as much of an authority as he claims or he's just willfully ignorant. Just read this:

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 28, 2017, 02:51:29 AM
What lose respect because I call you out on your bullshit master??

Lose it..Please... Doesn't change reality though..

As for your thought experiment, the middle school rudimentary babble cannot be answered...

We did not have the dimensions of the point load ucl..This is adding no new variables. Just information needed...However even assuming that..

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 27, 2017, 08:57:32 PM

Let's just assume your load occupies one square meter in the position you stated on the floor. As I said, ignoring all real world variables, you are still violating UDL, UCL, and N-UDL distribution calculations (which you cannot ignore even in this hypothetical, non realistic equation) None of your load estimates are correct, especially the south and east bolts.

Even your own calculations are wrong lmao...

Don't quit your day job...

Toodle-pip

Edit for this bullshit...

Quote from: Master_Evar on February 28, 2017, 02:45:38 AM
just marked another balls-up he made. The dimensions of a point load? What? The point of a point load is that it has no dimensions.

Lol...Twist twist twist....Lie lie lie...

Read the whole thing.....Do I need to teach you about point loads and their own UCL?

Don't quit your day job....This is sad.
This is Papa Legba level of a response.


And I'll leave a reference to point loads:
https://www.builder-questions.com/construction-glossary/point-load/ (https://www.builder-questions.com/construction-glossary/point-load/)

You are right... Toodle-pip is straight from legba.. it is fitting as well.

I think I earned the right to be an authority, so yeah, I do speak as one poodle...Point being?

Twist twist and lie??? You do love that formula..

As I stated before, a point load is just that....A place where there is a load..How are is this to understand? We need to know how big that point is...This thus why they have their own UCL equations...Then you get into how the structure will act underneath it, but we need to know at a MINIMUM the UCL of the load. But none of his we can get into with this middle school bogus thought experiment.

Get it?

No...

Don't quit your day job.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 28, 2017, 03:11:30 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 03:03:54 AM
We all know the definition of a point load, Master Evar.

Show us why Bhs is incorrect.
I've already done it, to some extent. He din't actually answer the question, so theres not much that can be right or wrong. But he did claim that even hypothetically it'd be wrong, which is false as seen by my calculations (if they are wrong, he should just show it instead of simply claiming so) and now he's claiming I'm twisting his words regarding the point mass, but I quoted that statement in it's full context:
Quote
Three..Your calculations with the added load is not correct even using a hypothetical equation ignoring all other real world variables such examples include sheer, deflection, etc etc. Even bypassing all real world variables...You did not provide the dimensions of the point load. However, I do not need that to say the equation is wrong.
In any context, it's a weird claim. Point loads do not have dimensions and don't distribute their load:
Quote
An established load ( force ), located at a certain point on a supporting structure. This is opposite a uniform load, which is a force evenly distributed along a supportive structure.
https://www.builder-questions.com/construction-glossary/point-load/ (https://www.builder-questions.com/construction-glossary/point-load/)

So yes, he's made some blatantly wrong claims. Again, doesn't mean he's not who he says he is. But I don't think he is the authority on the subject that he makes himself out to be, or he's willfully ignorant.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 28, 2017, 03:16:04 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 03:03:54 AM
We all know the definition of a point load, Master Evar.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 28, 2017, 03:10:45 AM
As I stated before, a point load is just that....A place where there is a load..How are is this to understand? We need to know how big that point is...

Apparently, BHS does not. He still claims it has to have a dimension/size.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on February 28, 2017, 03:19:12 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 27, 2017, 11:31:02 PM

I'm happy to engage in intelligent discussion,  start with some basic research on typical high rise office fires.   You should scan the following paper.   

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.1014.8949&rep=rep1&type=pdf

The claim I made was that temperatures around 1000C were reported,  and temperatures over 600 C were reached over significant areas of the structure.

At 600 C  the steel is down to about  half it's strength,  and at 1000C it's down to about one tenth.


The jet fuel was responsible for the initial ignition,  but not the main fuel source for the subsequent fires,   you need to remember that smoke temperatures when you see thick turbulent black smoke can approach flame temperatures.   

Conclusion is that the steel structure that was stripped of it's fireproofing by the impact  was substantially weakened by the subsequent fires.

Okay, you claim fires were at temps of 1000 C...

Where do you think the fires were at the greatest temps?

What would temps of 1000 C do to these people?

(http://media.breitbart.com/media/2016/09/AP01091107545-1024x616.jpg)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 03:19:21 AM


Lmao...

Edit.

ROTFLMAO!!!

Guys, please stop, too much winning, I can't handle it.

Muh sides...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 28, 2017, 03:19:40 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 03:09:44 AM
ME,   having been in the position you now find yourself many times,   facing a sort of tag-team barrage of insults from either side,   BHS  is inclined to make silly mistakes and then deny making them, when you bring it up he calls you a liar,  he's done it with me dozens of times, till I got to the point of just, either giving him a pass, or ignoring it.  disputeone sort of tags along with whatever BHS says.   

The best approach is to just argue the evidence,   and stick to making your case.  Ignore the other stuff, it's just background noise.

What? Spelling mistakes?? I don't proof read, my phone autocorrects and I hate using my phone to type anyways. I am open with all of that. (Twists and blatant lies don't count)

Good for you.. The explains why you are shit at science, logic, math and all the above. Go into syntax and spelling...You might be useful there.

Again, I have attempted to have a normal conversation with you and i am let down once more. Finally learned my lesson...

Toodle-pip

Quote from: Master_Evar on February 28, 2017, 03:16:04 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 03:03:54 AM
We all know the definition of a point load, Master Evar.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 28, 2017, 03:10:45 AM
As I stated before, a point load is just that....A place where there is a load..How are is this to understand? We need to know how big that point is...

Apparently, BHS does not. He still claims it has to have a dimension/size.

It does if you want to figure out your bonus question dill weed.


This is by far some of the dumbest most dishonest conversations I have had. Congrats
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 03:22:15 AM
This isn't going away.

Quote from: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 03:19:21 AM


Lmao...

Edit.

ROTFLMAO!!!

Guys, please stop, too much winning, I can't handle it.

Muh sides...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 03:28:48 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 28, 2017, 03:19:40 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 03:09:44 AM
ME,   having been in the position you now find yourself many times,   facing a sort of tag-team barrage of insults from either side,   BHS  is inclined to make silly mistakes and then deny making them, when you bring it up he calls you a liar,  he's done it with me dozens of times, till I got to the point of just, either giving him a pass, or ignoring it.  disputeone sort of tags along with whatever BHS says.   

The best approach is to just argue the evidence,   and stick to making your case.  Ignore the other stuff, it's just background noise.

What? Spelling mistakes?? I don't proof read, my phone autocorrects and I hate using my phone to type anyways. I am open with all of that. (Twists and blatant lies don't count)

Good for you.. The explains why you are shit at science, logic, math and all the above. Go into syntax and spelling...You might be useful there.

Again, I have attempted to have a normal conversation with you and i am let down once more. Finally learned my lesson...


No, it's not spelling mistakes,  you repeatedly make factual errors and stupid mistakes,   then when you are corrected you go ballistic calling people liars for pointing the mistakes out.   Not a good attitude.

It's your problem, not mine,  I'm over it,  but by all means call me a liar if it helps you get by.   Won't faze me in the slightest.

ME's problem was simple,  I can't see any genuine reason you didn't choose to solve it.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 03:29:02 AM
What, why's everyone so quiet now... 8)

You guys both owe Bhs a massive apology, I wouldn't accept less than a carton each personally.

Rayzor check the vid it explains well that you do need a dimension if you want to answer the thought experiment.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 28, 2017, 03:30:26 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on February 28, 2017, 03:11:30 AM
In any context, it's a weird claim. Point loads do not have dimensions and don't distribute their load:

For the love of God do not build anything EVER!!!!!
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 03:30:54 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 03:22:15 AM
This isn't going away.

Quote from: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 03:19:21 AM


Lmao...

Edit.

ROTFLMAO!!!

Guys, please stop, too much winning, I can't handle it.

Muh sides...

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 28, 2017, 03:30:26 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on February 28, 2017, 03:11:30 AM
In any context, it's a weird claim. Point loads do not have dimensions and don't distribute their load:

For the love of God do not build anything EVER!!!!!

Well, actually that might be a reasonable hypothesis for wtc 7 8)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 03:34:32 AM
Quote from: totallackey on February 28, 2017, 03:19:12 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 27, 2017, 11:31:02 PM

I'm happy to engage in intelligent discussion,  start with some basic research on typical high rise office fires.   You should scan the following paper.   

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.1014.8949&rep=rep1&type=pdf

The claim I made was that temperatures around 1000C were reported,  and temperatures over 600 C were reached over significant areas of the structure.

At 600 C  the steel is down to about  half it's strength,  and at 1000C it's down to about one tenth.


The jet fuel was responsible for the initial ignition,  but not the main fuel source for the subsequent fires,   you need to remember that smoke temperatures when you see thick turbulent black smoke can approach flame temperatures.   

Conclusion is that the steel structure that was stripped of it's fireproofing by the impact  was substantially weakened by the subsequent fires.

Okay, you claim fires were at temps of 1000 C...

Where do you think the fires were at the greatest temps?

What would temps of 1000 C do to these people?

(http://media.breitbart.com/media/2016/09/AP01091107545-1024x616.jpg)

The claim was 1000 C peak,  and 600C over a reasonable area,  these temperatures are reached over time.  The heat builds up.   
If this picture was taken early on,  the temperatures could be still quite low.  Do you know when it was taken?

It's a horrible picture to contemplate, for those poor people,  what it must have been like knowing you were about to die.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 28, 2017, 03:36:09 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 03:28:48 AM
No, it's not spelling mistakes,  you repeatedly make factual errors and stupid mistakes,   then when you are corrected you go ballistic calling people liars for pointing the mistakes out.   Not a good attitude.

It's your problem, not mine,  I'm over it,  but by all means call me a liar if it helps you get by.   Won't faze me in the slightest.

ME's problem was simple,  I can't see any genuine reason you didn't choose to solve it.

Yeah...I do get pissed when people lie and twist things. I won't apologize for it...Please show me some of these errors that don't involve spelling or grammar mistakes.


Also...
One more time

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 28, 2017, 03:30:26 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on February 28, 2017, 03:11:30 AM
In any context, it's a weird claim. Point loads do not have dimensions and don't distribute their load:

For the love of God do not build anything EVER!!!!!
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 03:37:09 AM
This is the best thread evar.

/comfy/
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 03:39:49 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 03:29:02 AM
What, why's everyone so quiet now... 8)

You guys both owe Bhs a massive apology, I wouldn't accept less than a carton each personally.

Rayzor check the vid it explains well that you do need a dimension if you want to answer the thought experiment.

Really,  you don't understand that video about converting UDL and UVL to a point load,   it's already specified as a point load in ME's problem.   

Do you want to retract your assertion that a dimension is required to solve the problem as stated.   
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 03:40:29 AM
No, would you?


Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 28, 2017, 03:30:26 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on February 28, 2017, 03:11:30 AM
In any context, it's a weird claim. Point loads do not have dimensions and don't distribute their load:

For the love of God do not build anything EVER!!!!!
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 28, 2017, 03:44:33 AM
So dumb..

Quote from: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 03:39:49 AM
Really,  you don't understand that video about converting UDL and UVL to a point load,   it's already specified as a point load in ME's problem.   

Do you want to retract your assertion that a dimension is required to solve the problem as stated.


You know I had a cat named ruffles..I was only a kid when it ran away.

I was sad.

It never came back...I always thought to myself.."what could I have done different"...I still miss ruffles....

Why did ruffles leave?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 03:46:27 AM
>muh sides.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 03:46:51 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 28, 2017, 03:36:09 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 03:28:48 AM
No, it's not spelling mistakes,  you repeatedly make factual errors and stupid mistakes,   then when you are corrected you go ballistic calling people liars for pointing the mistakes out.   Not a good attitude.

It's your problem, not mine,  I'm over it,  but by all means call me a liar if it helps you get by.   Won't faze me in the slightest.

ME's problem was simple,  I can't see any genuine reason you didn't choose to solve it.

Yeah...I do get pissed when people lie and twist things. I won't apologize for it...Please show me some of these errors that don't involve spelling or grammar mistakes.


I did several times during the course of this thread,  as I said I'm over it. You can go back and find them yourself if it bothers you.  I'd rather argue the evidence.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 03:47:19 AM
Nah I'm enjoying where we're at now.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 28, 2017, 03:50:51 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 03:46:51 AM

I did several times during the course of this thread,  as I said I'm over it. You can go back and find them yourself if it bothers you.  I'd rather argue the evidence.

I know exactly what you are talking about when you tried to twist my quote because of grammar...Whomp.

Sad..

Quote from: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 03:46:51 AM
I would rather argue the evidence

Well shit there is a first time for everything isn't there? Let me know whenever you think you can do that.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 03:53:39 AM
You had 40 pages to debunk any of our points Rayzor, I'm kinda past it with you now.

One more time.

Quote from: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 03:30:54 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 03:22:15 AM
This isn't going away.

Quote from: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 03:19:21 AM


Lmao...

Edit.

ROTFLMAO!!!

Guys, please stop, too much winning, I can't handle it.

Muh sides...

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 28, 2017, 03:30:26 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on February 28, 2017, 03:11:30 AM
In any context, it's a weird claim. Point loads do not have dimensions and don't distribute their load:

For the love of God do not build anything EVER!!!!!

Well, actually that might be a reasonable hypothesis for wtc 7 8)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 03:54:55 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 28, 2017, 03:50:51 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 03:46:51 AM

I did several times during the course of this thread,  as I said I'm over it. You can go back and find them yourself if it bothers you.  I'd rather argue the evidence.

I know exactly what you are talking about when you tried to twist my quote because of grammar...Whomp.

Sad..

Quote from: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 03:46:51 AM
I would rather argue the evidence

Well shit there is a first time for everything isn't there? Let me know whenever you think you can do that.

What I find really disturbing is your ignorance about engineering fundamentals,  basic  principles and terminology  that you just keep getting wrong or confused.   Why would that be I wonder?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 28, 2017, 03:55:45 AM
Disputeone, that video is about converting a distributed load into a point load, it even says so in the title:
"How to convert UDL and UVL to a point load"
In order words, converting a distributed load into a point load. In other words, using the dimensions of the distributed load to convert it into a dimensionless concentrated load. In other words, point loads have no dimensions, and you don't need dimensions for them.

Here's a video explaining torque:
(http://)
Tell me if you find anywhere where he uses the dimensions of a point load to calculate torque.
(SPOILER: That never happens, because point loads have no dimensions. If they had, they wouldn't be called point loads).

If anything, you should be the one apologising to me and Rayzor.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 03:56:38 AM
The point is the thought experiment doesn't work with a point load, you need to specify dimensions.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 28, 2017, 03:58:46 AM
(http://i65.tinypic.com/6tpn3m.jpg)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 03:58:58 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 03:56:38 AM
The point is the thought experiment doesn't work with a point load, you need to specify dimensions.

Another classic blunder for the archives. 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 03:59:33 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 28, 2017, 03:58:46 AM
(http://i65.tinypic.com/6tpn3m.jpg)

Where did you find this!?!?!?!
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 04:00:14 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 03:58:58 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 03:56:38 AM
The point is the thought experiment doesn't work with a point load, you need to specify dimensions.

Another classic blunder for the archives.

Indeed.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 28, 2017, 04:02:18 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 03:56:38 AM
The point is the thought experiment doesn't work with a point load, you need to specify dimensions.
No, it definitely works with a point load. Hell, if it was a distributed load you would first convert it into a point load, in the way done in the video you posted. Look at the video I posted. WHERE does the creator use dimensions for the "size" of the forces to calculate torque? He doesn't! You don't need dimensions for point loads, they don't HAVE dimensions by definition. The video you posted doesn't prove anything, because it doesn't deal with turning a point load into a torque or load. Hell, does he even specify dimensions for point loads in the video you posted? NO. I doubt you even watched it yourself at this point.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 28, 2017, 04:04:15 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 03:54:55 AM

What I find really disturbing is your ignorance about engineering fundamentals,  basic  principles and terminology  that you just keep getting wrong or confused.   Why would that be I wonder?

It's because I try not to use a whole bunch of terms etc for no reason when talking to people who don't have the back ground it is a dick move and you don't reach people that way. If I was at EMI, it would be a different story.

I changed my tune for those few pages a couple pages back when dildos kept running their mouths.

Even posted up equations just for y'all. Not like it made any difference ::) so dumb
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 28, 2017, 04:07:34 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on February 28, 2017, 04:02:18 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 03:56:38 AM
The point is the thought experiment doesn't work with a point load, you need to specify dimensions.
No, it definitely works with a point load. Hell, if it was a distributed load you would first convert it into a point load, in the way done in the video you posted. Look at the video I posted. WHERE does the creator use dimensions for the "size" of the forces to calculate torque? He doesn't! You don't need dimensions for point loads, they don't HAVE dimensions by definition. The video you posted doesn't prove anything, because it doesn't deal with turning a point load into a torque or load. Hell, does he even specify dimensions for point loads in the video you posted? NO. I doubt you even watched it yourself at this point.

This literally has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

This is so fucking stupid...

Hold on...

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 28, 2017, 03:58:46 AM
(http://i65.tinypic.com/6tpn3m.jpg)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 04:08:35 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on February 28, 2017, 04:02:18 AM
Hell, does he even specify dimensions for point loads in the video you posted? NO.

Wait, are we still not past this?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 28, 2017, 04:12:10 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 04:08:35 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on February 28, 2017, 04:02:18 AM
Hell, does he even specify dimensions for point loads in the video you posted? NO.

Wait, are we still not past this?

Never will be...He would have to admit he is an idiot. (Or simply just say oops, I messed up..Which is all fine and dandy, but since he is lying and twisting as well as living in a false reality as well as attempting to insult me with lies..He is there for an idiot)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 04:14:27 AM
I'm having fun.

(http://i65.tinypic.com/6tpn3m.jpg)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 04:16:49 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 28, 2017, 04:12:10 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 04:08:35 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on February 28, 2017, 04:02:18 AM
Hell, does he even specify dimensions for point loads in the video you posted? NO.

Wait, are we still not past this?

Never will be...He would have to admit he is an idiot. (Or simply just say oops, I messed up..Which is all fine and dandy, but since he is lying and twisting as well as living in a false reality as well as attempting to insult me with lies..He is there for an idiot)

Sadly for your reputation,  Master_Evar is correct.   I'm surprised you are even debating  it.   Point loads  BY DEFINITION have no dimension.   
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 04:17:35 AM
This just doesn't get old.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 28, 2017, 04:20:44 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 04:14:27 AM
I'm having fun.

(http://i65.tinypic.com/6tpn3m.jpg)

Yes...The land where an added external force does not need to have dimensions...There for it exist yet it does not exist. Just like that hammer he used as an example. It must exist in some trans dimensional rift in reality.

Same place my horse is...

Rayzor is the forum meg.

Shut up meg.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 28, 2017, 04:21:23 AM
So you're not even going to try to admit that you were wrong about point loads, or justify your position?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 04:22:05 AM
A 100kg mass with no dimensions, think about it.


(http://i65.tinypic.com/6tpn3m.jpg)

Edit.

Muh sides.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 28, 2017, 04:23:47 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 04:22:05 AM
A 100kg mass with no dimensions, think about it.


(http://i65.tinypic.com/6tpn3m.jpg)

Edit.

Muh sides.

For reals...Don't question it..

Did you not see my cat ruffles?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 04:24:16 AM
I have not seen ruffles :(
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 04:25:10 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 04:22:05 AM
A 100kg mass with no dimensions, think about it.

You are even dumber than I thought possible.   A load of 100kg APPLIED at a point.    I hereby crown you Meg Griffin for the day,   GFTO Meg.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 04:25:39 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 03:29:02 AM
What, why's everyone so quiet now... 8)

You guys both owe Bhs a massive apology, I wouldn't accept less than a carton each personally.

Rayzor check the vid it explains well that you do need a dimension if you want to answer the thought experiment.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on February 28, 2017, 04:25:43 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 03:34:32 AM
The claim was 1000 C peak,  and 600C over a reasonable area,  these temperatures are reached over time.  The heat builds up.   

This is about as disingenuous a claim as ever has been made on this forum.

Why on Earth would you think the heat would continue to build?

We saw an explosion (massive fireball) then whoever was not killed in the initial explosion made their way to the open areas.

Ergo, a claim made without evidence.

Quote from: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 03:34:32 AM
If this picture was taken early on,  the temperatures could be still quite low.  Do you know when it was taken?

It was taken on 9/11 before the building fell.

Quote from: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 03:34:32 AM
It's a horrible picture to contemplate, for those poor people,  what it must have been like knowing you were about to die.
Yes, and continuing to trumpet a blatant lie like the OS does not honor their memory, nor does it serve bringing the cold - hearted bastards who actually committed the act to justice.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 04:29:21 AM
Quote
Bonus question - what is the load on each individual bolt, if the bolts are positioned in all cardinal directions and the 100kg weight is put 3 meters north an 2 meters west?

Do you guys like getting schooled or something?

Cause from where I'm sitting.....

/comfy/

Yes Rayzor..... I am aware..... hence our laugher and posting of this.


(http://i65.tinypic.com/6tpn3m.jpg)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 04:30:39 AM
Quote from: totallackey on February 28, 2017, 04:25:43 AM
Why on Earth would you think the heat would continue to build?

Refer to Figure 6
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.1014.8949&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 04:32:42 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 04:00:14 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 03:58:58 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 03:56:38 AM
The point is the thought experiment doesn't work with a point load, you need to specify dimensions.

Another classic blunder for the archives.

Indeed.

Now you see the funny side.  ;D ;D ;D

Edit need 5.... too much winning.....
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 04:36:01 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 12:58:53 AM
Yes, yes, I was wrong. It happens a lot you know.

I find that people actually respect you more for it if you can admit it.

We can move on if you like.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on February 28, 2017, 04:36:39 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 04:30:39 AM
Quote from: totallackey on February 28, 2017, 04:25:43 AM
Why on Earth would you think the heat would continue to build?

Refer to Figure 6
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.1014.8949&rep=rep1&type=pdf
"Figure 2. The 3-story village under study, show here with 60% ventilation on façades."

Try again.

Massive fail.

Holes in both buildings easily prove there was more than 60% ventilation.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 28, 2017, 04:37:00 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 04:29:21 AM
Quote
Bonus question - what is the load on each individual bolt, if the bolts are positioned in all cardinal directions and the 100kg weight is put 3 meters north an 2 meters west?

Do you guys like getting schooled or something?

Cause from where I'm sitting.....

/comfy/

Yes Rayzor..... I am aware..... hence our laugher and posting of this.


(http://i65.tinypic.com/6tpn3m.jpg)
Any engineer would assume that it either refers to a point load, or that the center of mass is concentrated at that point. And I already clarified this when BHS first complained.

I still don't see how this justifies the outrageous claim that a point load has dimensions, or that it would be required to calculate it's applied load.

Are you just going to keep on with these ignorant personal attacks?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 28, 2017, 04:37:09 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 04:25:10 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 04:22:05 AM
A 100kg mass with no dimensions, think about it.

You are even dumber than I thought possible.   A load of 100kg APPLIED at a point.    I hereby crown you Meg Griffin for the day,   GFTO Meg.

Not even creative enough to use your own line??? You use one I literally used my last post to you?

You are one smart cookie....

Forces don't appear out of no where spanky, even his hammer analogy there is width, length, and height as everything in our dimension...The width and length has a direct effect on the distribution.

So...Dumb...

Now shut up meg.

Quote from: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 04:29:21 AM
Quote
Bonus question - what is the load on each individual bolt, if the bolts are positioned in all cardinal directions and the 100kg weight is put 3 meters north an 2 meters west?

Do you guys like getting schooled or something?

Cause from where I'm sitting.....

/comfy/

Yes Rayzor..... I am aware..... hence our laugher and posting of this.


(http://i65.tinypic.com/6tpn3m.jpg)


It's obvious...Funny and sad all at the same time.

I never did tell evar that his little thought experiment was actually a distributed load...I figured point load was close enough.

Look what I get for being nice... ::)

I learned my lesson though with this "winners"
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 04:38:30 AM
Man I'm having fun tho, my neighbors are gonna complain about all teh lulz.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 28, 2017, 04:38:51 AM
And note that I said 100kg weight, and didn't specify a shape. Weight didn't refer to an object, but the force it applies, i.e. the load. so that's just further misinterpretation.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 28, 2017, 04:41:28 AM
I see, you don't have the guts to admit you're wrong here or you're just completely ignorant.

Actually, this just further proves the claim I made some pages back: most of the conspiracy conclusions are made by mistakes anyone could make, but only people with the right knowledge can spot, and that the people with the right knowledge that made the claims will ignore them or don't have the guts to admit them.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 04:41:35 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on February 28, 2017, 04:21:23 AM
So you're not even going to try to admit that you were wrong about point loads, or justify your position?

I don't think he will,  he's never owned up to any of his past blunders,  and there have been some rippers.  This little show he and dipstickone are putting on is just a smokescreen to hide their embarrassment.

I concluded  earlier that he was a fraud,  and a conspiracy nutter,  but  I'm inclined to add deranged to the list.   I'd hate to do business with him, he'd screw up a job then blame everyone but himself.

An engineering PhD unable to solve a simple structural engineering puzzle.   Then doesn't know what a point load is?    Really?   





Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 04:41:52 AM
I took it as an object, i was getting confused having no dimensions.

The correct wording from the start would've been a 100kg point load is applied.

You did the maths for that.

It doesn't represent the figures for a 100kg weight on a platform.

Took me ages to get it.

Let's move on, shall we?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 04:43:32 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 04:41:35 AM
I concluded  earlier that he was a fraud,  and a conspiracy nutter,  but  I'm inclined to add deranged to the list.   I'd hate to do business with him, he'd screw up a job then blame everyone but himself.

No one would miss you, honestly.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 28, 2017, 04:46:26 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on February 28, 2017, 04:41:28 AM
I see, you don't have the guts to admit you're wrong here or you're just completely ignorant.

Actually, this just further proves the claim I made some pages back: most of the conspiracy conclusions are made by mistakes anyone could make, but only people with the right knowledge can spot, and that the people with the right knowledge that made the claims will ignore them or don't have the guts to admit them.

Everything I said is correct...

Explain to me this? Perhaps I will learn something about my reality. I have a floor constructed. All is well, then suddenly on my floor, a 100kg mass appears? This can happen in reality...I even pointed out how your hammer analogy violates what you are saying...Please explain.

Teach me something wise one
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 04:47:03 AM
Quote from: totallackey on February 28, 2017, 04:36:39 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 04:30:39 AM
Quote from: totallackey on February 28, 2017, 04:25:43 AM
Why on Earth would you think the heat would continue to build?

Refer to Figure 6
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.1014.8949&rep=rep1&type=pdf
"Figure 2. The 3-story village under study, show here with 60% ventilation on façades."

Try again.

Massive fail.

Holes in both buildings easily prove there was more than 60% ventilation.

The WTC fires were "travelling fires"  that's the relevant section you should read.   All fires are ventilation limited to some degree or other.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 28, 2017, 04:51:22 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 04:41:35 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on February 28, 2017, 04:21:23 AM
So you're not even going to try to admit that you were wrong about point loads, or justify your position?

I don't think he will,  he's never owned up to any of his past blunders,  and there have been some rippers.  This little show he and dipstickone are putting on is just a smokescreen to hide their embarrassment.

I concluded  earlier that he was a fraud,  and a conspiracy nutter,  but  I'm inclined to add deranged to the list.   I'd hate to do business with him, he'd screw up a job then blame everyone but himself.

An engineering PhD unable to solve a simple structural engineering puzzle.   Then doesn't know what a point load is?    Really?   
Lol, just because you do not understand does not mean it is wrong..

But..

Right...10 years in business and was out of college at 22 and a half...You are right, such a dumb ass.

Rayzor...Just a lying nobody...Prove me wrong. I have proven everything I have said about myself here...Will do it again. Easy breezy.

Come on big guy.... Texas pissing contest?? This will be fun...

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 04:56:13 AM
Also I wanna point out it was you guys that were getting confused about the difference between point loads and distributed loads.

Then I posted that video and you still didn't get it.

Then we continued to rip on you guys until we got bored.

Read the thread Rayzor... lol...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on February 28, 2017, 04:56:55 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 04:47:03 AM
The WTC fires were "travelling fires"  that's the relevant section you should read.   All fires are ventilation limited to some degree or other.
"8. UK.Rehm, R.G., Pitts, W.M., Baum, H.R., Evans, D.D., Prasad,K., McGrattan, K.B. and Forney, G.P.
(2003) “Initial Model for Fires in the World Trade Center Towers”, NISTIR 6879. 7th IAFSS, pp. 25-
40."

This SOURCE you gave me RELIES ON THE NIST for REPORTED TEMPERATURES IN THE WTC 1, 2, and 7!

Ipso-Facto, this report IS BUPKUS!

THIS ENTIRE SOURCE IS FANTASY LAND!

Anyone, and I repeat ANYONE, who trots out the NIST reports as evidence on the one hand and then claims on the other to be interested in TRUTH needs to be, at a minimum, jeered derisively until the day the die.

And that day will not come to soon...

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 04:59:33 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 28, 2017, 04:51:22 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 04:41:35 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on February 28, 2017, 04:21:23 AM
So you're not even going to try to admit that you were wrong about point loads, or justify your position?

I don't think he will,  he's never owned up to any of his past blunders,  and there have been some rippers.  This little show he and dipstickone are putting on is just a smokescreen to hide their embarrassment.

I concluded  earlier that he was a fraud,  and a conspiracy nutter,  but  I'm inclined to add deranged to the list.   I'd hate to do business with him, he'd screw up a job then blame everyone but himself.

An engineering PhD unable to solve a simple structural engineering puzzle.   Then doesn't know what a point load is?    Really?   
Lol, just because you do not understand does not mean it is wrong..

But..

Right...10 years in business and was out of college at 22 and a half...You are right, such a dumb ass.

Rayzor...Just a lying nobody...Prove me wrong. I have proven everything I have said about myself here...Will do it again. Easy breezy.

Come on big guy.... Texas pissing contest?? This will be fun...

LOL,   Why don't you start by telling,  us why you think a point has dimensions.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Heiwa on February 28, 2017, 05:00:02 AM
I like this thread. 10 September 2001 lower Manhattan looked like:

(http://heiwaco.com/wtcb.gif)

It is of course a map. In the 1990's I actually visited an office there. Trust me! The place existed.

However, 12 September 2001 the same place looked like:

(http://heiwaco.com/wtca.gif)

The whole World Trade Center Plaza + WTC7 in the back was 100% destroyed! POUFF! Gone!

Who did it? What is the truth!

Relax. The President of the USA, the great, honorable genious GWB, could immediately tell us. It was some Saudi Arab who did it.

And another President of the USA, the great, honorable genious B Obama, later murdered this Saudi Arab (actually ordered some paid killer to do it) and dropped the body in the Indian Ocean.

So the case is solved and closed and the truth is established who did it.

The big question is how it was done.

That question is still without answer.

So go on chatting here.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 28, 2017, 05:02:09 AM
Just add more jet fuel heiwa.... That's all you have to do!
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 05:03:33 AM
Quote from: totallackey on February 28, 2017, 04:56:55 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 04:47:03 AM
The WTC fires were "travelling fires"  that's the relevant section you should read.   All fires are ventilation limited to some degree or other.
"8. UK.Rehm, R.G., Pitts, W.M., Baum, H.R., Evans, D.D., Prasad,K., McGrattan, K.B. and Forney, G.P.
(2003) “Initial Model for Fires in the World Trade Center Towers”, NISTIR 6879. 7th IAFSS, pp. 25-
40."

This SOURCE you gave me RELIES ON THE NIST for REPORTED TEMPERATURES IN THE WTC 1, 2, and 7!

Ipso-Facto, this report IS BUPKUS!

THIS ENTIRE SOURCE IS FANTASY LAND!

Anyone, and I repeat ANYONE, who trots out the NIST reports as evidence on the one hand and then claims on the other to be interested in TRUTH needs to be, at a minimum, jeered derisively until the day the die.

And that day will not come to soon...

Bzzzt.   no they did their own thermal modelling,  that's what the paper is about.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 05:04:11 AM
I wonder why they did their own thermal modelling?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 05:05:43 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 05:04:11 AM
I wonder why they did their own thermal modelling?

Perhaps because it is a paper about methodology for modelling fires in high rise buildings.   

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 28, 2017, 05:09:00 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 04:59:33 AM
LOL,   Why don't you start by telling,  us why you think a point has dimensions.

It's because it exist genius! You can't have a force without it existing..How can someone be this dense.

Everyone, even master agrees a hammer is an example of a point load. It hits the deck, you have a square inch contact patch, you know the weight of the hammer, you know how much momentum has. It hits the deck...We can figure out how much force there will be from this.

This force is directed through the the square inch foot print, so now we can determine distribution.

Fuck...So dumb!

Now you gonna wuss out of this pissing match or what? If you do, then shut your useless trap about me.


Edit* unless of course master can show me how a force can exist without "existing" or having a catalyst.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on February 28, 2017, 05:10:52 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 05:03:33 AM
Quote from: totallackey on February 28, 2017, 04:56:55 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 04:47:03 AM
The WTC fires were "travelling fires"  that's the relevant section you should read.   All fires are ventilation limited to some degree or other.
"8. UK.Rehm, R.G., Pitts, W.M., Baum, H.R., Evans, D.D., Prasad,K., McGrattan, K.B. and Forney, G.P.
(2003) “Initial Model for Fires in the World Trade Center Towers”, NISTIR 6879. 7th IAFSS, pp. 25-
40."

This SOURCE you gave me RELIES ON THE NIST for REPORTED TEMPERATURES IN THE WTC 1, 2, and 7!

Ipso-Facto, this report IS BUPKUS!

THIS ENTIRE SOURCE IS FANTASY LAND!

Anyone, and I repeat ANYONE, who trots out the NIST reports as evidence on the one hand and then claims on the other to be interested in TRUTH needs to be, at a minimum, jeered derisively until the day the die.

And that day will not come to soon...

Bzzzt.   no they did their own thermal modelling,  that's what the paper is about.
Bzzzt...

The PAPER LISTS NIST as a source.

FAIL!

Even then, the paper states a travelling fire has lower temps than a uniform fire over the floor.

NIST states the WTC fires were travelling.

Your own sources are contradictory and therefore invalid.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 05:11:49 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 28, 2017, 05:09:00 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 04:59:33 AM
LOL,   Why don't you start by telling,  us why you think a point has dimensions.

It's because it exist genius! You can't have a force without it existing..How can someone be this dense.

Everyone, even master agrees a hammer is an example of a point load. It hits the deck, you have a square inch contact patch, you know the weight of the hammer, you know how much momentum has. It hits the deck...We can figure out how much force there will be from this.

This force is directed through the the square inch foot print, so now we can determine distribution.

Fuck...So dumb!

Now you gonna wuss out of this pissing match or what? If you do, them shut your useless trap about me.

I'm just dying of mirth here.  ;D ;D ;D

Quote from: disputeone on February 13, 2017, 10:49:57 PM
Fall acceleration of building 7.

You are going to end this a jibbering mess of failed insults and logic.

But you asked for it.

Mods can we move to tech and alt please. ty.

Quote from: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 04:41:35 AM
I don't think he will,  he's never owned up to any of his past blunders,  and there have been some rippers.  This little show he and dipstickone are putting on is just a smokescreen to hide their embarrassment.

I concluded  earlier that he was a fraud,  and a conspiracy nutter,  but  I'm inclined to add deranged to the list.   I'd hate to do business with him, he'd screw up a job then blame everyone but himself.

Welp...........
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 05:13:56 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 28, 2017, 05:09:00 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 04:59:33 AM
LOL,   Why don't you start by telling,  us why you think a point has dimensions.

It's because it exist genius! You can't have a force without it existing..How can someone be this dense.

Everyone, even master agrees a hammer is an example of a point load. It hits the deck, you have a square inch contact patch, you know the weight of the hammer, you know how much momentum has. It hits the deck...We can figure out how much force there will be from this.

This force is directed through the the square inch foot print, so now we can determine distribution.

Fuck...So dumb!

Now you gonna wuss out of this pissing match or what? If you do, them shut your useless trap about me.


Edit* unless of course master can show me how a force can exist without "existing" or having a catalyst.

You ducked the question,   and offered a different answer.   You should have known that a point has no dimension.   You can back out now, admit your mistake and we can move on.  Or you can choose to continue and end up looking like a fool,  your choice.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on February 28, 2017, 05:19:06 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 05:13:56 AM
You ducked the question,   and offered a different answer.   You should have known that a point has no dimension.   You can back out now, admit your mistake and we can move on.  Or you can choose to continue and end up looking like a fool,  your choice.

Fine argumentation from someone who trots out the NIST and claims it is "scientific evidence."
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 05:20:25 AM
Quote from: totallackey on February 28, 2017, 05:10:52 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 05:03:33 AM
Quote from: totallackey on February 28, 2017, 04:56:55 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 04:47:03 AM
The WTC fires were "travelling fires"  that's the relevant section you should read.   All fires are ventilation limited to some degree or other.
"8. UK.Rehm, R.G., Pitts, W.M., Baum, H.R., Evans, D.D., Prasad,K., McGrattan, K.B. and Forney, G.P.
(2003) “Initial Model for Fires in the World Trade Center Towers”, NISTIR 6879. 7th IAFSS, pp. 25-
40."

This SOURCE you gave me RELIES ON THE NIST for REPORTED TEMPERATURES IN THE WTC 1, 2, and 7!

Ipso-Facto, this report IS BUPKUS!

THIS ENTIRE SOURCE IS FANTASY LAND!

Anyone, and I repeat ANYONE, who trots out the NIST reports as evidence on the one hand and then claims on the other to be interested in TRUTH needs to be, at a minimum, jeered derisively until the day the die.

And that day will not come to soon...

Bzzzt.   no they did their own thermal modelling,  that's what the paper is about.
Bzzzt...

The PAPER LISTS NIST as a source.

FAIL!

Even then, the paper states a travelling fire has lower temps than a uniform fire over the floor.

NIST states the WTC fires were travelling.

Your own sources are contradictory and therefore invalid.

Not really the figure 6 that I referenced is the time temperature profile for travelling fires,  and yes they are often cooler.  Still large areas over 600C and localized places up to 1000C,

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 28, 2017, 05:24:14 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 05:13:56 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 28, 2017, 05:09:00 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 04:59:33 AM
LOL,   Why don't you start by telling,  us why you think a point has dimensions.

It's because it exist genius! You can't have a force without it existing..How can someone be this dense.

Everyone, even master agrees a hammer is an example of a point load. It hits the deck, you have a square inch contact patch, you know the weight of the hammer, you know how much momentum has. It hits the deck...We can figure out how much force there will be from this.

This force is directed through the the square inch foot print, so now we can determine distribution.

Fuck...So dumb!

Now you gonna wuss out of this pissing match or what? If you do, them shut your useless trap about me.


Edit* unless of course master can show me how a force can exist without "existing" or having a catalyst.

You ducked the question,   and offered a different answer.   You should have known that a point has no dimension.   You can back out now, admit your mistake and we can move on.  Or you can choose to continue and end up looking like a fool,  your choice.

What the fuck are you talking about??

Am I speaking another language here??

You believe the official story anyways and NIST...So I have no doubt you believe in fairy tales.

You can believe in magic forces that can exist without a catalyst or anything of the such. Probably the same force that knocked down the towers.

Believe what you want... Just know it has zero basis in reality.

Even my rainbow shitting horse thinks you are nuts.

Also, obvious you aren't going to oblige in my little challenge...So in that case,

Shut up meg
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on February 28, 2017, 05:26:43 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 05:20:25 AM
Not really the figure 6 that I referenced is the time temperature profile for travelling fires,  and yes they are often cooler.  Still large areas over 600C and localized places up to 1000C,

Okay, look again at your graph.

How much area suffered a temperature of near 1000 C or over?

Compared to a total area of one floor of the WTC 1 or 2?

How did they arrive at that analysis?

What inputs did they use?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 05:28:47 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 28, 2017, 05:24:14 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 05:13:56 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 28, 2017, 05:09:00 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 04:59:33 AM
LOL,   Why don't you start by telling,  us why you think a point has dimensions.

It's because it exist genius! You can't have a force without it existing..How can someone be this dense.

Everyone, even master agrees a hammer is an example of a point load. It hits the deck, you have a square inch contact patch, you know the weight of the hammer, you know how much momentum has. It hits the deck...We can figure out how much force there will be from this.

This force is directed through the the square inch foot print, so now we can determine distribution.

Fuck...So dumb!

Now you gonna wuss out of this pissing match or what? If you do, them shut your useless trap about me.


Edit* unless of course master can show me how a force can exist without "existing" or having a catalyst.

You ducked the question,   and offered a different answer.   You should have known that a point has no dimension.   You can back out now, admit your mistake and we can move on.  Or you can choose to continue and end up looking like a fool,  your choice.

What the fuck are you talking about??

Am I speaking another language here??

You believe the official story anyways and NIST...So I have no doubt you believe in fairy tales.

You can believe in magic forces that can exist without a catalyst or anything of the such. Probably the same force that knocked down the towers.

Believe what you want... Just know it has zero basis in reality.

Even my rainbow shitting horse thinks you are nuts.

Also, obvious you aren't going to oblige in my little challenge...So in that case,

Shut up meg

Wow,  who would have believed it.   you really didn't know a point had no dimensions,  now you seem to not know what a catalyst is.

What do you think a catalyst has to do with forces existing?


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 05:33:37 AM
Quote from: totallackey on February 28, 2017, 05:26:43 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 05:20:25 AM
Not really the figure 6 that I referenced is the time temperature profile for travelling fires,  and yes they are often cooler.  Still large areas over 600C and localized places up to 1000C,

Okay, look again at your graph.

How much area suffered a temperature of near 1000 C or over?

Compared to a total area of one floor of the WTC 1 or 2?

How did they arrive at that analysis?

What inputs did they use?

There were localized fires as well,  figure 5 has horizontal temperature profile for a localized fire.

The asssumptions are detailed in the paper,  they arent for a specific building, they are generic to high rise office buildings

Assuming an average burning rate typical of office buildings of 30 g/m2s and an effective heat of combustion of 16 kJ/g11, the heat released rate per unit area is fixed to 500 kW/m2
 With the heat released  rate per unit area fixed, the size of a travelling fire is only characterized by its surface area. Several  scenarios were simulated for 500 kW/m2
 and varying the surface area of the fire from 6 to 600 m2
These  fire sizes results in heat released rates from 3 to 300 MW, respectably. The fires were located either on the
bottom or top floors. Temperatures right above the flames were observed to be in the range 1100-1300 °C
(near field) and the temperatures on the top floor away from the flames (far field) are between 200 and 800 °C. The results and have been summarized in Table 4.
 
The larger the floor area,  the quicker the far field temperatures rise. 

Not sure about this,  but WTC with it's large open floor areas might have reached higher temperatures faster than a more compartmentalized structure.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 05:37:57 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 05:28:47 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 28, 2017, 05:24:14 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 05:13:56 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 28, 2017, 05:09:00 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 04:59:33 AM
LOL,   Why don't you start by telling,  us why you think a point has dimensions.

It's because it exist genius! You can't have a force without it existing..How can someone be this dense.

Everyone, even master agrees a hammer is an example of a point load. It hits the deck, you have a square inch contact patch, you know the weight of the hammer, you know how much momentum has. It hits the deck...We can figure out how much force there will be from this.

This force is directed through the the square inch foot print, so now we can determine distribution.

Fuck...So dumb!

Now you gonna wuss out of this pissing match or what? If you do, them shut your useless trap about me.


Edit* unless of course master can show me how a force can exist without "existing" or having a catalyst.

You ducked the question,   and offered a different answer.   You should have known that a point has no dimension.   You can back out now, admit your mistake and we can move on.  Or you can choose to continue and end up looking like a fool,  your choice.

What the fuck are you talking about??

Am I speaking another language here??

You believe the official story anyways and NIST...So I have no doubt you believe in fairy tales.

You can believe in magic forces that can exist without a catalyst or anything of the such. Probably the same force that knocked down the towers.

Believe what you want... Just know it has zero basis in reality.

Even my rainbow shitting horse thinks you are nuts.

Also, obvious you aren't going to oblige in my little challenge...So in that case,

Shut up meg

Wow,  who would have believed it.   you really didn't know a point had no dimensions,  now you seem to not know what a catalyst is.

What do you think a catalyst has to do with forces existing?

Cause and effect.

catalyst
ˈkat(ə)lɪst/Submit
noun

a substance that increases the rate of a chemical reaction without itself undergoing any permanent chemical change.
"chlorine acts as a catalyst promoting the breakdown of ozone"

a person or thing that precipitates an event.
"the prime minister's speech acted as a catalyst for debate"

Are we still not past this?

Why are you still here pushing NIST's story?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 05:41:47 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 05:37:57 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 05:28:47 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 28, 2017, 05:24:14 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 05:13:56 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 28, 2017, 05:09:00 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 04:59:33 AM
LOL,   Why don't you start by telling,  us why you think a point has dimensions.

It's because it exist genius! You can't have a force without it existing..How can someone be this dense.

Everyone, even master agrees a hammer is an example of a point load. It hits the deck, you have a square inch contact patch, you know the weight of the hammer, you know how much momentum has. It hits the deck...We can figure out how much force there will be from this.

This force is directed through the the square inch foot print, so now we can determine distribution.

Fuck...So dumb!

Now you gonna wuss out of this pissing match or what? If you do, them shut your useless trap about me.


Edit* unless of course master can show me how a force can exist without "existing" or having a catalyst.

You ducked the question,   and offered a different answer.   You should have known that a point has no dimension.   You can back out now, admit your mistake and we can move on.  Or you can choose to continue and end up looking like a fool,  your choice.

What the fuck are you talking about??

Am I speaking another language here??

You believe the official story anyways and NIST...So I have no doubt you believe in fairy tales.

You can believe in magic forces that can exist without a catalyst or anything of the such. Probably the same force that knocked down the towers.

Believe what you want... Just know it has zero basis in reality.

Even my rainbow shitting horse thinks you are nuts.

Also, obvious you aren't going to oblige in my little challenge...So in that case,

Shut up meg

Wow,  who would have believed it.   you really didn't know a point had no dimensions,  now you seem to not know what a catalyst is.

What do you think a catalyst has to do with forces existing?

Cause and effect.

catalyst
ˈkat(ə)lɪst/Submit
noun

a substance that increases the rate of a chemical reaction without itself undergoing any permanent chemical change.
"chlorine acts as a catalyst promoting the breakdown of ozone"

a person or thing that precipitates an event.
"the prime minister's speech acted as a catalyst for debate"

Are we still not past this?

Why are you still here pushing NIST's story?

Found your dictionary again,  I'll warn you when some big words are coming up that way you can be ready with your cut and paste understanding.

In any event I was asking the organ grinder not the monkey.   You can chill out for a bit.

Where am I pushing NIST's story?   You still having reality disconnects?

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 28, 2017, 05:44:30 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 04:41:52 AM
I took it as an object, i was getting confused having no dimensions.

The correct wording from the start would've been a 100kg point load is applied.

You did the maths for that.

It doesn't represent the figures for a 100kg weight on a platform.

Took me ages to get it.

Let's move on, shall we?
It precisely represents the figures for a 100kg weight (including something with shape, an object) on the platform. All distributed loads acts as a point load concentrated at the center of mass when dealing with torque. You still don't get it - there is no difference between a point load or a distributed load in this example. If it's distributed, you just assume that the center of mass is at the specified location. I worded it correctly from the beginning, because it works either way.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on February 28, 2017, 08:26:03 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 05:33:37 AM
A vast amount of crap that did not even answer any specific questions.

I want to see if you actually understand what you write or if you just think the shit you post supports your position.

Repeating the original statement/questions:

Okay, look again at your graph.

How much area suffered a temperature of near 1000 C or over?

Compared to a total area of one floor of the WTC 1 or 2?

How did they arrive at that analysis?

What inputs did they use?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 28, 2017, 09:44:15 AM
This thread has turned into a giant pile of shit with evar and rayzor's hard work lackey.

It's unfortunate...Anything to avoid discussing actual facts and reality.

From rayzor just saying things he read from somewhere that he has zero understanding of (just words and loud noises)..To trying to peddle imaginary forces that don't have to exist within our reality.

ANYTHING...To avoid an actual discussion...By God anything..

It's gonna get worse...Not better..

(http://i65.tinypic.com/6tpn3m.jpg)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rama Set on February 28, 2017, 12:44:42 PM
To be fair it's been a giant orgy of shitposting and not really from Master Evar.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 28, 2017, 12:52:23 PM
Quote from: Rama Set on February 28, 2017, 12:44:42 PM
To be fair it's been a giant orgy of shitposting and not really from Master Evar.

He didn't start that way, but certainly ended that way... Rayzor is no contest.

I will take my guilt for shit posting earlier today lol. It was just so stupid I couldn't help it. Doesn't mean it's helpful though or right.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rama Set on February 28, 2017, 01:52:28 PM
Nevertheless there was a lot of interesting stuff posted. Now everyone should abandon ship lest this be mistaken for a Heiwa thread.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 01:53:31 PM
Quote from: Rama Set on February 28, 2017, 01:52:28 PM
Nevertheless there was a lot of interesting stuff posted. Now everyone should abandon ship lest this be mistaken for a Heiwa thread.

Pretty wise Rama.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 02:15:07 PM
Quote from: totallackey on February 28, 2017, 08:26:03 AM

I want to see if you actually understand what you write or if you just think the shit you post supports your position.


You don't appear to understand that the paper I referenced is generic,  that is it applies to high rise office buildings in general,  in the case of the WTC,  the only evidence I can use ( if I refer to NIST you'll just go bezerk again ),  so the best evidence is the video evidence,  which shows fires across multiple floors,  heavy black smoke from across entire floors.   After 30 minutes a 600 sqm fire would reach a far field temperature of 800C,  so the claim of temperatures of over 600C is conservative,  and more than hot enough to halve the strength of the steel.

The inputs and assumptions  are spelt out in detail in that paper.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 28, 2017, 02:17:32 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 01:53:31 PM
Quote from: Rama Set on February 28, 2017, 01:52:28 PM
Nevertheless there was a lot of interesting stuff posted. Now everyone should abandon ship lest this be mistaken for a Heiwa thread.

Pretty wise Rama.

Logic is logic
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 02:18:32 PM
Quote from: Rama Set on February 28, 2017, 12:44:42 PM
To be fair it's been a giant orgy of shitposting and not really from Master Evar.

Yep.   that's what passes for debate in conspiracy circles,   pictures of cats riding unicorns shitting rainbows instead of reasoned argument,   but maybe that's all that's left of the conspiracy theory?

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 02:20:43 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 28, 2017, 05:24:14 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 05:13:56 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 28, 2017, 05:09:00 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 04:59:33 AM
LOL,   Why don't you start by telling,  us why you think a point has dimensions.

It's because it exist genius! You can't have a force without it existing..How can someone be this dense.

Everyone, even master agrees a hammer is an example of a point load. It hits the deck, you have a square inch contact patch, you know the weight of the hammer, you know how much momentum has. It hits the deck...We can figure out how much force there will be from this.

This force is directed through the the square inch foot print, so now we can determine distribution.

Fuck...So dumb!

Now you gonna wuss out of this pissing match or what? If you do, them shut your useless trap about me.


Edit* unless of course master can show me how a force can exist without "existing" or having a catalyst.

You ducked the question,   and offered a different answer.   You should have known that a point has no dimension.   You can back out now, admit your mistake and we can move on.  Or you can choose to continue and end up looking like a fool,  your choice.

What the fuck are you talking about??

Am I speaking another language here??

You believe the official story anyways and NIST...So I have no doubt you believe in fairy tales.

You can believe in magic forces that can exist without a catalyst or anything of the such. Probably the same force that knocked down the towers.

Believe what you want... Just know it has zero basis in reality.

Even my rainbow shitting horse thinks you are nuts.

Also, obvious you aren't going to oblige in my little challenge...So in that case,

Shut up meg

What was the point you were trying to make?   And what does a catalyst have to do with forces?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 28, 2017, 02:30:57 PM
Quote from: Rama Set on February 28, 2017, 12:44:42 PM
To be fair it's been a giant orgy of shitposting and not really from Master Evar.
Thank you.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 02:35:37 PM
Quote from: Rama Set on February 28, 2017, 01:52:28 PM
Nevertheless there was a lot of interesting stuff posted. Now everyone should abandon ship lest this be mistaken for a Heiwa thread.

Funny thing is that Heiwa's contributions to the thread have been somewhat more logical and reasoned that  BHS and disputeone.   

Here's a question for you,  have you ever seen or heard of a structural mechanics course,  or textbook  that didn't refer at some stage to point loads?

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 02:44:33 PM
Remember Rama Set is an engineer, before you make yourself more silly.

Why not present an argument?

Point loads can't exist in and of themselves, that's the point we need something to cause the point load.

Are we really still not past this?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 02:50:06 PM
As for reason and logic, I'm still waiting for anyone to take this on.

Quote from: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 11:59:39 PM
Here's your smoking gun piece of evidence, geez, you can't handle Bhs, it's over, retire with dignity and honour.

Note that this hasn't been dubunked.

Quote from: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 03:34:22 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on February 27, 2017, 03:12:14 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 02:57:37 AM
No, from one initial fail point our physics will not predict a plumb collapse at free-fall for a building anything like wtc7.
Claim, not fact.

Fact.

Quote from: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 02:57:37 AM
One initial fail point would lead to an unbalanced collapse (as you kindly demonstrated more accurately than I could) at a rate far slower than free-fall as the loads shifted and broke structures during the collapse.





Unless someone can show otherwise.

The only way our physics can replicate the collapse of building 7 is a controlled demolition, trying to fudge numbers without a controlled demolition situation ends up with the model looking like my simple equation would predict.



Debunk it, or retire with dignity and honour.

Quote from: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 12:10:43 AM
>Our physics models can't simulate the collapse of wtc 7 with the official story.

>Our physics models can easily simulate the collapse of wtc 7 with a controlled demolition.

Should I believe physics? Or just take your word on everything?

Wait, don't answer that, I know.

Quote from: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 04:16:38 AM


Watching it you know what this model looks pretty similar to? (Hint. Not what we saw that day)

Edit. Models if you count the second one that doesn't collapse, I'm not joking, I wish I was.

Thought / Actual experiment

Take a bowling ball and put it on a box framed structure, weaken the structure until it starts to collapse, does the tower collapse at free-fall? Or does some of the towers gravitational potential energy get used crushing the remaining structural resistance?

Equation and method

Instead of expressing structural resistance in units we can use a percentage.

Say 100% structural resistance will hold the building up exactly, any more weight and it will start to collapse. Most working loads are two to four times (corrected, 30 to 100 times) the fail point.
So we can safely assume building 7 had over 100% structural resistance before it fell.

So we have gravitational acceleration - percentage of structural resistance = fall acceleration.

9.8m/s2×75%=7.35m/s2

9.8 m/s2 - 7.35m/s2 = 2.45 m/s2

At 75% structural resistance I would predict a 2.45m/s2 fall acceleration.

Obviously this doesnt calculate change and inertia, however it doesn't need to.

We can clearly see building 7 go from over 100% structural resistance to 0% pretty much instantly.

To go from (what we saw) totally upright and standing to free fall, (gravitational acceleration) for 2.25 seconds violates the laws of physics.

The only way building 7 could do this is to have nearly all of its structural resistance removed nearly instantly.

The only way this is possible is a controlled demolition.

So, G- %S = F
Gravitational acceleration - percentage of structural resistance = fall acceleration.

Results and conclusion.

Here's some more math, this is my simplified version of any reasonable buildings collapse due to fire.

So structural resistance and collapse acceleration.

100% = 0m/s2
99  % = .098m/s2
98  % = .196m/s2
97  % = .294m/s2
96  % = .392m/s2
95  % = .49m/s2
94  % = .588m/s2
93  % = .686m/s2
92  % = .784m/s2
91  % = .882m/s2
90  % = .98m/s2

Based on my very simple equation this is my prediction for the onset of collapse for a large building losing structural resistance due to an intense fire.



No way right?

Cough.

Wtc violating the laws of physics given the official story is strong (irrefutable?) evidence things didn't happen the way we were told.

Fact. Sorry.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 02:54:41 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 02:44:33 PM
Remember Rama Set is an engineer, before you make yourself more silly.

Why not present an argument?

Point loads can't exist in and of themselves, that's the point we need something to cause the point load.

Are we really still not past this?

You obviously have never had any formal training in structural mechanics,  other wise you would know that the concept of a point load is fundamental to basic structural calculations.  You can even simplify distributed load calculations for some calculations by converting UDL and UVL to point loads,  oh wait you posted a video on that,  but you obviously didn't understand what it was saying.   Any real world mass can be treated as a point load acting at the center of mass.   

As for someone with a PhD in engineering not knowing what a point load is,  words fail me.   


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 02:56:08 PM
So, what causes a point load?

Something that exists, right?

Anyway enough derailing.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 02:59:43 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 02:56:08 PM
So, what causes a point load?

Something that exists, right?

Anyway enough derailing.

It's just a force acting at a point.    That's it,  nothing more nothing less,  it's about as basic a concept as you can get.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 03:00:13 PM
Lets look at something very basic, by your logic, a building would only need to be supported under the central point load.

In the real world the whole footprint of the building is supported because in reality, it is a distributed load.

Enough derailing.

You admitted our physics cant simulate wtc 7s collapse given the OS, what else is left?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 03:03:22 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 03:00:13 PM
You admitted our physics cant simulate wtc 7s collapse given the OS, what else is left?

Not true.   Care to back up that claim and quote where I said that.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 03:04:52 PM
(https://s13.postimg.org/r7nna1w2f/20170301_070130.jpg)

These load bearing pillars can be described as holding a point load, in reality, it is much, much more complicated than that.

Bonus question, would knocking out three or four result in the buildings plumb collapse at free-fall?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 03:06:24 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 03:03:22 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 03:00:13 PM
You admitted our physics cant simulate wtc 7s collapse given the OS, what else is left?

Not true.   Care to back up that claim and quote where I said that.

Here.

Quote from: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 02:50:06 PM
As for reason and logic, I'm still waiting for anyone to take this on.

Quote from: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 11:59:39 PM
Here's your smoking gun piece of evidence, geez, you can't handle Bhs, it's over, retire with dignity and honour.

Note that this hasn't been dubunked.

Quote from: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 03:34:22 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on February 27, 2017, 03:12:14 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 02:57:37 AM
No, from one initial fail point our physics will not predict a plumb collapse at free-fall for a building anything like wtc7.
Claim, not fact.

Fact.

Quote from: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 02:57:37 AM
One initial fail point would lead to an unbalanced collapse (as you kindly demonstrated more accurately than I could) at a rate far slower than free-fall as the loads shifted and broke structures during the collapse.





Unless someone can show otherwise.

The only way our physics can replicate the collapse of building 7 is a controlled demolition, trying to fudge numbers without a controlled demolition situation ends up with the model looking like my simple equation would predict.



Debunk it, or retire with dignity and honour.

Quote from: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 12:10:43 AM
>Our physics models can't simulate the collapse of wtc 7 with the official story.

>Our physics models can easily simulate the collapse of wtc 7 with a controlled demolition.

Should I believe physics? Or just take your word on everything?

Wait, don't answer that, I know.

Quote from: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 04:16:38 AM


Watching it you know what this model looks pretty similar to? (Hint. Not what we saw that day)

Edit. Models if you count the second one that doesn't collapse, I'm not joking, I wish I was.

Thought / Actual experiment

Take a bowling ball and put it on a box framed structure, weaken the structure until it starts to collapse, does the tower collapse at free-fall? Or does some of the towers gravitational potential energy get used crushing the remaining structural resistance?

Equation and method

Instead of expressing structural resistance in units we can use a percentage.

Say 100% structural resistance will hold the building up exactly, any more weight and it will start to collapse. Most working loads are two to four times (corrected, 30 to 100 times) the fail point.
So we can safely assume building 7 had over 100% structural resistance before it fell.

So we have gravitational acceleration - percentage of structural resistance = fall acceleration.

9.8m/s2×75%=7.35m/s2

9.8 m/s2 - 7.35m/s2 = 2.45 m/s2

At 75% structural resistance I would predict a 2.45m/s2 fall acceleration.

Obviously this doesnt calculate change and inertia, however it doesn't need to.

We can clearly see building 7 go from over 100% structural resistance to 0% pretty much instantly.

To go from (what we saw) totally upright and standing to free fall, (gravitational acceleration) for 2.25 seconds violates the laws of physics.

The only way building 7 could do this is to have nearly all of its structural resistance removed nearly instantly.

The only way this is possible is a controlled demolition.

So, G- %S = F
Gravitational acceleration - percentage of structural resistance = fall acceleration.

Results and conclusion.

Here's some more math, this is my simplified version of any reasonable buildings collapse due to fire.

So structural resistance and collapse acceleration.

100% = 0m/s2
99  % = .098m/s2
98  % = .196m/s2
97  % = .294m/s2
96  % = .392m/s2
95  % = .49m/s2
94  % = .588m/s2
93  % = .686m/s2
92  % = .784m/s2
91  % = .882m/s2
90  % = .98m/s2

Based on my very simple equation this is my prediction for the onset of collapse for a large building losing structural resistance due to an intense fire.



No way right?

Cough.

Wtc violating the laws of physics given the official story is strong (irrefutable?) evidence things didn't happen the way we were told.

Fact. Sorry.

Your silence is enough.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 28, 2017, 03:10:47 PM
The load of an object causes a point load. If i have cube, i can split it in half. Both ends sill weigh equally much. One end will be close to the pivot and act with less torque, the other will be further from the pivot and act with more torque. If you add the torques together, you get the same result as a point load with the load of the original cube and it's position.

One of the definitions of a center of mass is that the torque caused by gravitational loads from the object itself will be perfectly balanced and equal 0. If you put an object on some structural element and it is in rest, the distributed force will act as a single force concentrated at the center of mass, i.e. a point load.

It's also very important to distinuish point load from pressure. A point load only means that the force will be balanced at that point with the given magnitude. It doesn't literally mean that there is an infinitely small point applying a force. It acts as one, and it's the best tool for making torque calculations.

Let's compare it to gravity - gravity isn't acting on your body as if it's one object, in reality it acts differently on each particle in your body. So really, if you don't calculate the force on each single particle in your body you can't calculate the force of gravity on your body and get an answer that represents reality even closely, right? Just going by your logic.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 03:12:44 PM
Pressure is very different, I agree.

Look I never claimed to be an authority on this. I'm just a guy that likes learning.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 03:15:58 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 03:06:24 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 03:03:22 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 03:00:13 PM
You admitted our physics cant simulate wtc 7s collapse given the OS, what else is left?

Not true.   Care to back up that claim and quote where I said that.

Here.
<snipped>

LOL  that was YOU making the claim not me,  that reality disconnect is a recurring problem for you isn't it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 03:20:09 PM
So, you think the models we have  do simulate wtc 7s collapse?

I'm not the one disconnected from reality mate.



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 03:21:31 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 03:20:09 PM
So, you think the models we have  do simulate wtc 7s collapse?

I'm not the one disconnected from reality mate.

What models are you referring to?

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 03:22:10 PM
NIST's models, specifically.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 03:29:34 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 03:22:10 PM
NIST's models, specifically.

Ok,  skip to around 2:00 minutes or thereabouts.  For a side by side comparison of NIST's model and video of the collapse



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 03:30:06 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 03:20:09 PM
So, you think the models we have do simulate wtc 7s collapse?

I'm not the one disconnected from reality mate.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 03:37:30 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 03:30:06 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 03:20:09 PM
So, you think the models we have  do simulate wtc 7s collapse?

I'm not the one disconnected from reality mate.

I'd like to see the models and input data released,  to see if their assumptions are realistic,  especially regarding the damage to the south side caused by debris from WTC1.   

Free fall collapse is NOT conclusive proof of controlled demolition.   I pointed this out repeatedly and you still keep posting the same debunked argument.

The reality disconnect you exhibit, is where you invert something I said or even something you yourself said,  to the opposite meaning.   Or just blindly leap to wildly incorrect and unsupported conclusions.  Or in the example just cited,  you attributed YOUR opinions to me,  that's just creepy.

It happens often enough,  that I think you have a reading comprehension problem.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 28, 2017, 03:39:25 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 03:04:52 PM
(https://s13.postimg.org/r7nna1w2f/20170301_070130.jpg)

These load bearing pillars can be described as holding a point load, in reality, it is much, much more complicated than that.

Bonus question, would knocking out three or four result in the buildings plumb collapse at free-fall?

No. You need kerosene.

Quote from: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 03:21:31 PM

I am not going to address your bullshit.

Just keep up with the lies and personal attacks.  That is all you have, so have at it sunshine. I would love to make you look stupid, but you won't agree to a "pissing match"...You are making good use of the nothing you have...

So I guess, in a way, I am impressed.

Quote from: Master_Evar on February 28, 2017, 03:10:47 PM
The load of an object causes a point load. If i have cube, i can split it in half. Both ends sill weigh equally much. One end will be close to the pivot and act with less torque, the other will be further from the pivot and act with more torque. If you add the torques together, you get the same result as a point load with the load of the original cube and it's position.

One of the definitions of a center of mass is that the torque caused by gravitational loads from the object itself will be perfectly balanced and equal 0. If you put an object on some structural element and it is in rest, the distributed force will act as a single force concentrated at the center of mass, i.e. a point load.

It's also very important to distinuish point load from pressure. A point load only means that the force will be balanced at that point with the given magnitude. It doesn't literally mean that there is an infinitely small point applying a force. It acts as one, and it's the best tool for making torque calculations.

Let's compare it to gravity - gravity isn't acting on your body as if it's one object, in reality it acts differently on each particle in your body. So really, if you don't calculate the force on each single particle in your body you can't calculate the force of gravity on your body and get an answer that represents reality even closely, right? Just going by your logic.

So....As I have said many times, you cannot get an accurate representation of... Actually wait I keep forgetting we are not in the real world with you people.

Even in the case of your little question, ignoring all reality, you cannot get an accurate representation of how the weight of the floor is transferred. There must be more information....

Let's take it a step further, let's say I accept all of this nonsense...Even with all that said, with the position you placed your "load", your calculations of the individual bolts load is incorrect.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 03:41:56 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 03:37:30 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 03:30:06 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 03:20:09 PM
So, you think the models we have  do simulate wtc 7s collapse?

I'm not the one disconnected from reality mate.

I'd like to see the models and input data released,  to see if their assumptions are realistic,  especially regarding the damage to the south side caused by debris from WTC1.   

Free fall collapse is NOT conclusive proof of controlled demolition.   I pointed this out repeatedly and you still keep posting the same debunked argument.

The reality disconnect you exhibit, is where you invert something I said or even something you yourself said,  to the opposite meaning.   Or just blindly leap to wildly incorrect and unsupported conclusions.  Or in the example just cited,  you attributed YOUR opinions to me,  that's just creepy.

It happens often enough,  that I think you have a reading comprehension problem.

Not an answer at all mate.

Quote from: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 03:20:09 PM
So, you think the models we have  do simulate wtc 7s collapse?

I'm not the one disconnected from reality mate.

Don't be shy.

Quote from: Bhs
No. You need kerosene.

 ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 03:47:17 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 28, 2017, 03:39:25 PM

I am not going to address your bullshit.

Just keep up with the lies and personal attacks.  That is all you have, so have at it sunshine. I would love to make you look stupid, but you won't agree to a "pissing match"...You are making good use of the nothing you have...

No point,  it won't make up for the fact that you keep making inexplicable and  fundamental errors of terminology or misunderstanding of concepts.   Your credibility is shot to ribbons already.



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 03:53:15 PM
Speaking of reality disconnects...

Quote from: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 03:41:56 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 03:37:30 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 03:30:06 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 03:20:09 PM
So, you think the models we have  do simulate wtc 7s collapse?

I'm not the one disconnected from reality mate.

I'd like to see the models and input data released,  to see if their assumptions are realistic,  especially regarding the damage to the south side caused by debris from WTC1.   

Free fall collapse is NOT conclusive proof of controlled demolition.   I pointed this out repeatedly and you still keep posting the same debunked argument.

The reality disconnect you exhibit, is where you invert something I said or even something you yourself said,  to the opposite meaning.   Or just blindly leap to wildly incorrect and unsupported conclusions.  Or in the example just cited,  you attributed YOUR opinions to me,  that's just creepy.

It happens often enough,  that I think you have a reading comprehension problem.

Not an answer at all mate.

Quote from: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 03:20:09 PM
So, you think the models we have  do simulate wtc 7s collapse?

I'm not the one disconnected from reality mate.

Don't be shy.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 03:54:59 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 28, 2017, 03:39:25 PM
(https://s13.postimg.org/r7nna1w2f/20170301_070130.jpg)
No. You need kerosene.

You missed the length of RHS coated in nano thermite lying on the ground.   LOL
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 03:55:34 PM
Shill harder, Rayzor.

Quote from: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 03:20:09 PM
So, you think the models we have  do simulate wtc 7s collapse?

I'm not the one disconnected from reality mate.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 04:01:14 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 03:54:59 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 28, 2017, 03:39:25 PM
No. You need kerosene.

You missed the length of RHS coated in nano thermite lying on the ground.   LOL

I should explain,  for anyone who didn't understand that comment,   the much vaunted red and grey nano-thermite particles  found in the WTC dust turned out to be the red iron oxide rust proofing paint and grey primer paint.

Just a classic example of the conspiracy mindset leaping to incorrect conclusions.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 28, 2017, 04:03:44 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 17, 2017, 01:30:31 AM
Rayzor feels no guilt, Rayzor feels no shame, Rayzor has no integrity and he will not stop shitposting, ever, until we stop posting and he claims victory.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 04:10:45 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 28, 2017, 04:03:44 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 17, 2017, 01:30:31 AM
Rayzor feels no guilt, Rayzor feels no shame, Rayzor has no integrity and he will not stop shitposting, ever, until we stop posting and he claims victory.

Perfect example of dipstickone's reality disconnect, he  posted that after I  pointed out a series of blunders you'd made,  and you went ballistic as you usually do when your mistakes are pointed out and called me a liar.

You never explained what you thought a catalyst had to do with forces?

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 28, 2017, 04:12:42 PM
Wait!!! I have an idea!

Rayzor...So you are confirming this answer is correct right?

South and East no change, 85 65 north and west.

Quote from: Master_Evar on February 27, 2017, 03:27:32 PM
The answer to the bonus question is:
North bolt: 85 kg of load.
West bolt: 65 kg of load.
South bolt: 25 kg of load.
East bolt: 25 kg of load.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 28, 2017, 04:15:10 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 04:10:45 PM
You never explained what you thought a catalyst had to do with forces?

Something has to cause a force spanky.

Forces don't come out of nowhere...Even a concussive force has a foot print, we can use that to determine estimated loads of the surrounding area.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on February 28, 2017, 04:16:48 PM
20+ pages since I posted last week. :(

I looked over the information presented in these (http://) videos (http://).

His main argument has to do with the timing of the collapse as presented by the NIST. He claims that the NIST deceptively starts the collapse timer early (by about 1 second) in order to make it look like it isn't undergoing free-fall. The problem is that if you read the NIST report (p 44-45) (http://ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610), they are fairly clear about several things:

1. They start the timer when they first see movement in the center of the building edge. There is 1.75 seconds of small movements.
2. There is a 2.25 second period of near free-fall.
3. There is a 1.4 second period of descent considerably less than free-fall.

Yes, their statement that "the average time for the upper 18 stories to collapse, based on video evidence, was approximately 40 percent longer than the computed free fall time" is a bit deceptive, but only if you don't take the time to read the clarification that immediately follows.

I did my own analysis of the video that the NIST uses (http://) and the video that DavidChandler911 uses (http://).

The problem with the NIST video is that it is from an odd perspective, which makes distance calibration tricky. I did measure a roughly 2 second period of approximately 1 g for the center of the north edge. The timing for the beginning of the NIST's "stage 1" is a bit arbitrary, but it is reasonable.

The video DavidChandler911 uses is from a much better angle, so it might be more accurate for estimating the acceleration. When analyzing that video, the highest acceleration I found was about 0.84 g. I measured from the right corner of the north edge this time, which does drop a bit slower than the middle. DavidChandler911 uses a dubious method of calibrating the scale in that video (compares with the height of the tower in front of building 7). I used the height of the Verizon building to the right to calibrate the scale, which should be much more accurate, but there is still plenty of room for error. I estimated that his scale was off by about 10%, but I could be wrong.

Conclusion:
-------------

1. NIST isn't being as deceptive as DavidChandler911 is making them out to be.
2. NIST does claim that the building undergoes a brief period of approximately 1 g acceleration.
3. I am dubious of both NIST's and DavidChandler911's claim that it hits 1 g, based on both of their questionable analysis. My own analysis showed 0.84g, but calibrating scale is difficult, and there is plenty of room for error.

Are there any other good arguments for building 7 being intentionally brought down that I missed?

Edit: I used http://physlets.org/tracker/ (http://physlets.org/tracker/) for analyzing the videos, in case anyone is curious. It is free.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 04:20:45 PM
Yes. The inability of our physics models to simulate the collapse of wtc7 given the 0S.

I believe is strong evidence that things didn't happen the way we were told.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 04:22:52 PM
Thanks for your input Totes much appreciated sorry the thread got a little crazy...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 04:24:56 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 28, 2017, 04:12:42 PM
Wait!!! I have an idea!

Rayzor...So you are confirming this answer is correct right?

South and East no change, 85 65 north and west.

Quote from: Master_Evar on February 27, 2017, 03:27:32 PM
The answer to the bonus question is:
North bolt: 85 kg of load.
West bolt: 65 kg of load.
South bolt: 25 kg of load.
East bolt: 25 kg of load.

I didn't do the calculation,  Master_Evar did,   you should ask him not me.
 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on February 28, 2017, 04:25:43 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 04:20:45 PM
Yes. The inability of our physics models to simulate the collapse of wtc7 given the 0S.

I believe is strong evidence that things didn't happen the way we were told.

Lol. I definitely disagree with this. Accurately modeling something so chaotic is usually an exercise in futility. Generally, the best you can do is fiddle with the parameters until you get something that somewhat resembles the event. Once you get close, you take it and run. Skimming through the report, and I am actually somewhat impressed by how close they got.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 04:27:14 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 28, 2017, 04:15:10 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 04:10:45 PM
You never explained what you thought a catalyst had to do with forces?

Something has to cause a force spanky.

Forces don't come out of nowhere...Even a concussive force has a foot print, we can use that to determine estimated loads of the surrounding area.

In this case it was a 100kg mass,   how was that not obvious?

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 04:28:42 PM
Totes, they can't even get their models to fully collapse, even without releasing their numbers.

As you can clearly see the collapse is anything but "chaotic" it is neat and ordered.






Seems 9/11 was more powerful than even I assumed.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 28, 2017, 04:29:36 PM
Totes ..Just a few pieces.

The speed at which it fell, the beam they said caused the progressive collapse, the temperatures they claimed was reached inside, the direction it fell, the misrepresentation of the core design itself, squib markers (this is what originally caught my eyes) during its period of free fall, no one including myself can recreate what they said happened only they can with their "secret inputs"...etc etc etc.

Those are just a few things....Can go into detail on any of them but won't just listing a few for now.


Edit* They had no issue recreating it, why can't anyone else? Yet they keep their inputs secret.. convenient
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 04:30:28 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 28, 2017, 04:29:36 PM
Totes ..Just a few pieces.

The speed at which it fell, the beam they said caused the progressive collapse, the temperatures they claimed was reached inside, the direction it fell, the misrepresentation of the core design itself, squib markers (this is what originally caught my eyes) during its period of free fall, no one including myself can recreate what they said happened only they can with their "secret inputs"...etc etc etc.

Those are just a few things....Can go into detail on any of them but won't just listing a few for now.

Totes is actually really honest and intelligent, I think we can have a proper debate if he is interested.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on February 28, 2017, 04:32:18 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 03:12:44 PM
Pressure is very different, I agree.

Look I never claimed to be an authority on this. I'm just a guy that likes learning.
Okay. Just some more for good clarification:

Forces are always assumed to originate in and act at a point. When the force is applied over an area, you can always find a middle, or epicenter, that is the average position of all the forces. Just like your center of mass is the average position of all mass that makes up you. Saying that pointloads don't represent reality is like saying point masses don't represent reality: it's technically true, but it overcomplicates something which is already more than 99% accurate. You might as well scold engineers for not using general relativity instead of Newtons law of gravity. That's kind of how "silly" it sounds to have someone complain about distributed loads the way you did, and also how silly it sounds when BHS claims it doesn't represent reality at all.

I'm hope you understand how load distribution works a bit better now, and how it is treated on a simple level in engineering. I'm not an engineer, however I do have some education in the basics of structural engineering and I am very interested in physics and quite a bit in math, and I do read up on some stuff occasionally (partly for this forum  :P). Okay, I'll leave it at that.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 28, 2017, 04:38:40 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 04:30:28 PM

Totes is actually really honest and intelligent, I think we can have a proper debate if he is interested.

Well that would be a fantastic change and I would welcome it.

Hopefully it works out.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 28, 2017, 04:44:39 PM
Quote from: Master_Evar on February 28, 2017, 04:32:18 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 03:12:44 PM
Pressure is very different, I agree.

Look I never claimed to be an authority on this. I'm just a guy that likes learning.
Okay. Just some more for good clarification:

Forces are always assumed to originate in and act at a point. When the force is applied over an area, you can always find a middle, or epicenter, that is the average position of all the forces. Just like your center of mass is the average position of all mass that makes up you. Saying that pointloads don't represent reality is like saying point masses don't represent reality: it's technically true, but it overcomplicates something which is already more than 99% accurate. You might as well scold engineers for not using general relativity instead of Newtons law of gravity. That's kind of how "silly" it sounds to have someone complain about distributed loads the way you did, and also how silly it sounds when BHS claims it doesn't represent reality at all.

I'm hope you understand how load distribution works a bit better now, and how it is treated on a simple level in engineering. I'm not an engineer, however I do have some education in the basics of structural engineering and I am very interested in physics and quite a bit in math, and I do read up on some stuff occasionally (partly for this forum  :P). Okay, I'll leave it at that.

It does represent reality, just not enough to figure the distribution of a load on a platform without at least two parts more information.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 28, 2017, 03:39:25 PM
Even in the case of your little question, ignoring all reality, you cannot get an accurate representation of how the weight of the floor is transferred. There must be more information....

Let's take it a step further, let's say I accept all of this nonsense...Even with all that said, with the position you placed your "load", your calculations of the individual bolts load is incorrect.

However, since apparently I am an idiot and y'all are not...Let me extend a fun challenge.

Since you are sticking by your answer of your riddle...

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 28, 2017, 04:12:42 PM
South and East no change, 85 65 north and west.

Quote from: Master_Evar on February 27, 2017, 03:27:32 PM
The answer to the bonus question is:
North bolt: 85 kg of load.
West bolt: 65 kg of load.
South bolt: 25 kg of load.
East bolt: 25 kg of load.

I am going to present a challenge...Are you down??
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on February 28, 2017, 04:46:19 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 04:27:45 PM
Totes, they can't even get their models to fully collapse, even without releasing their numbers.






Seems 9/11 was more powerful than even I assumed.

Those models are only the final FEA analysis after the failure of the first column. Each simulation took 8 weeks to run. They ran 4 simulations total. The initial conditions were chosen carefully, and the goal was not to see if a complete collapse would occur. Part of NIST's goals was to make safety recommendations, which is why they chose the conditions for each model. You can read about it on page 38 of the NIST report (http://ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610). I am sorry, but expecting those simulations to accurately represent reality all the way to the ground is extremely naive.

Edit: "Warning - while you were typing 5 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post." lol
Edit: "Warning - while you were typing a new reply has been posted. You may wish to review your post." soon...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 04:55:10 PM
Do you think it's beyond our physics to make an accurate model of a building collapse?

Seems kinda trivial desu.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 28, 2017, 04:56:20 PM
Challenge

I will use my resources and built a test platform in the exact same ratio (obviously not the same dimensions, as those dimensions are not real world with reported weight weight)...Then will present a load at the exact location to scale...Will have each support on a scale, and we will see the results.

There is multiple ways to do it...But we can discuss the specifics.

I propose a friendly wager of any amount (you decide on amount, I will match whatever it is)... Also, the winner cannot question the loser any more on the subject... It will take me a few hours to build it.

What do you say? Master evar?

Rayzor can join as well (or anyone on that matter)

*Edit..Removed double word
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 04:58:57 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 28, 2017, 04:56:20 PM
Challenge

I will use my resources and built a test platform in the exact same ratio (obviously not the same dimensions, as those dimensions are not real world with reported weight weight)...Then will present a load at the exact location to scale...Will have each support on a scale, and we will see the results.

There is multiple ways to do it...But we can discuss the specifics.

I propose a friendly wager of any amount (you decide on amount, I will match whatever it is)... Also, the winner cannot question the loser any more on the subject... It will take me a few hours to build it.

What do you say? Master evar?

Rayzor can join as well (or anyone on that matter)

I'd want to do the calculations myself to confirm ME's result,  but I'm always up for a challenge. 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on February 28, 2017, 05:01:16 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 28, 2017, 04:29:36 PM
Totes ..Just a few pieces.

The speed at which it fell, the beam they said caused the progressive collapse, the temperatures they claimed was reached inside, the direction it fell, the misrepresentation of the core design itself, squib markers (this is what originally caught my eyes) during its period of free fall, no one including myself can recreate what they said happened only they can with their "secret inputs"...etc etc etc.

Those are just a few things....Can go into detail on any of them but won't just listing a few for now.

Edit* They had no issue recreating it, why can't anyone else? Yet they keep their inputs secret.. convenient

1. Freefall -- slightly suspicious
2. model inaccuracy -- Not suspicious at all. Super chaotic.
3. the beam they said caused the progressive collapse -- I am unfamiliar with this issue.
4. the temperatures they claimed was reached inside -- I am unfamiliar with this issue.
5. the direction it fell -- I am unfamiliar with this issue, but doubtful that it is a good argument. Again, super chaotic.
6. the misrepresentation of the core design itself -- I am unfamiliar with this issue.
7. squib markers -- Only glanced over this argument, but it seems like a complete non-issue to me. It isn't surprising at all that random blasts of air would come out of a collapsing building.
8. Keeping the actual model classified -- Suspicious, but I can think of a few reasons why they would do that.

Numbered for organization's sake. So far, it looks slightly suspicious, but I am going to need a lot more than that to deem it anything more than that.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 05:08:40 PM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on February 28, 2017, 05:01:16 PM
So far, it looks slightly suspicious, but I am going to need a lot more than that to deem it anything more than that.

You are a gentleman and a scholar Totes.

This is all I have been trying to prove that it's a bit suspicious.

The deeper you dig the more suspicious it gets.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 28, 2017, 05:09:17 PM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on February 28, 2017, 05:01:16 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 28, 2017, 04:29:36 PM
Totes ..Just a few pieces.

The speed at which it fell, the beam they said caused the progressive collapse, the temperatures they claimed was reached inside, the direction it fell, the misrepresentation of the core design itself, squib markers (this is what originally caught my eyes) during its period of free fall, no one including myself can recreate what they said happened only they can with their "secret inputs"...etc etc etc.

Those are just a few things....Can go into detail on any of them but won't just listing a few for now.

Edit* They had no issue recreating it, why can't anyone else? Yet they keep their inputs secret.. convenient

1. Freefall -- slightly suspicious
2. model inaccuracy -- Not suspicious at all. Super chaotic.
3. the beam they said caused the progressive collapse -- I am unfamiliar with this issue.
4. the temperatures they claimed was reached inside -- I am unfamiliar with this issue.
5. the direction it fell -- I am unfamiliar with this issue, but doubtful that it is a good argument. Again, super chaotic.
6. the misrepresentation of the core design itself -- I am unfamiliar with this issue.
7. squib markers -- Only glanced over this argument, but it seems like a complete non-issue to me. It isn't surprising at all that random blasts of air would come out of a collapsing building.
8. Keeping the actual model classified -- Suspicious, but I can think of a few reasons why they would do that.

Numbered for organization's sake. So far, it looks slightly suspicious, but I am going to need a lot more than that to deem it anything more than that.

This is how you communicate, I like it.

Well I won't address the issues you are unfamiliar with.

I will say, the fact they are the only ones that can come up with a working model (within reality, I and many others made working models with using variables that should not have been and went against NIST...Using only their story, no one other than NIST has made a working model)

I will also say I agree on squib markers being a bi product of a collapse.

However, during free fall before compression? As well as only in areas they should have been for a demo and no where else?

I find that quite suspect in my eyes
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 05:51:09 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 28, 2017, 04:56:20 PM
Challenge

I will use my resources and built a test platform in the exact same ratio (obviously not the same dimensions, as those dimensions are not real world with reported weight weight)...Then will present a load at the exact location to scale...Will have each support on a scale, and we will see the results.

There is multiple ways to do it...But we can discuss the specifics.

I propose a friendly wager of any amount (you decide on amount, I will match whatever it is)... Also, the winner cannot question the loser any more on the subject... It will take me a few hours to build it.

What do you say? Master evar?

Rayzor can join as well (or anyone on that matter)

*Edit..Removed double word

Carton of wild turkey 101 cans or stubbies postage paid.

I just wanna see it happen.  :)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on February 28, 2017, 06:48:59 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 05:08:40 PM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on February 28, 2017, 05:01:16 PM
So far, it looks slightly suspicious, but I am going to need a lot more than that to deem it anything more than that.

You are a gentleman and a scholar Totes.

This is all I have been trying to prove that it's a bit suspicious.

The deeper you dig the more suspicious it gets.

That's fair. But on the other hand, look at the chain of events that led to building 7 collapsing.

Falling debris caused minor exterior damage and started fires -> firefighters fought fires funfuccessfully unsuccessfully -> fires burned for 7 hours -> reported exterior deformation of building -> final collapse

That's a rather precarious chain of events to be intentionally staged. Was that all planned out or was the fire just a fortunate excuse for the collapse? If so, what was the collapse going to originally be blamed on? Remember, for every building that they planted explosives in, that's a huge amount of extra risk of being caught that they are adding. To what purpose? The twin towers are already coming down, and have much more emotional impact. What's the point of bringing down building 7 as well, in spite of the extra risk?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 06:53:32 PM
For sure, I haven't argued for a minute that wtc 7 shouldn't have fallen at all, I am just arguing that the acceleration and plumb collapse is very suspicious for a collapse initiated in a single point causing the weakend structure to collapse as it did.

I think a more realistic prediction of what would happen given the OS is shown in NIST's physics models and predicted by my simplified equation.

This has been the crux of my argument from page one.


Just my opinion but I believe wtc 7 was brought down to destroy physical evidence, but this is just my speculation. I agree that wtc 7 falling was unnecessary.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 28, 2017, 07:30:37 PM
Totes

They had free reign of security at all the WTC buildings (I did a quick break down earlier in thread of ownership etc of the companies, along with all the suspect closures, power outages etc etc etc compiled from witnesses who worked there or leased there. Also the same security company controlled united and Dulles airport...As well as same principles in the insurance companies, especially the terrorist insurance that was taking out 6 weeks previously)

So planting explosives are of no issue on the time line and of ease.

As for the story and warning of the building coming down...All it takes is a few people to start that. (Watch the videos of some of the "witnesses"...Very very suspect)...Plus, firefighters of course are going to be jumpy...Look what they have went through on 1 and 2....Anything was possible to them that day.

As for why 7? It could have been a deal with Silverstein since the building was worthless. Could have been the control center for buildings one and two...Could have had other sensitive material that needed to be " vaporized"....I could keep going with speculation.

But it is just that...All I do is demolish the official story..If that is a lie, then that means the true perpetrators have not been caught..Also means our own government lied to us.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 08:18:43 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 05:51:09 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 28, 2017, 04:56:20 PM
Challenge

I will use my resources and built a test platform in the exact same ratio (obviously not the same dimensions, as those dimensions are not real world with reported weight weight)...Then will present a load at the exact location to scale...Will have each support on a scale, and we will see the results.

There is multiple ways to do it...But we can discuss the specifics.

I propose a friendly wager of any amount (you decide on amount, I will match whatever it is)... Also, the winner cannot question the loser any more on the subject... It will take me a few hours to build it.

What do you say? Master evar?

Rayzor can join as well (or anyone on that matter)

*Edit..Removed double word

Carton of wild turkey 101 cans or stubbies postage paid.

I just wanna see it happen.  :)

I did it a bit simpler than ME,

Taking the 100kg weight by itself,   Looking at the ns axis,  with the ew bolts as the pivot point,   the  100 kg is supported by  n = 100 * 3/5 = 60,   e+w = 40   s =0
now taking the ew axis and the ns bolts become the pivot the distribution is  w = 100*2/5 = 40,   n+s=60  and e=0 

Adding back the disk loading.

So North bolt takes 60+25 = 85 kg ,  South takes 0+25 = 25 kg,   West takes 40 + 25 = 65 kg,  and East takes 0+25 = 25 kg

Which is the same as Master_Evar's  result,   Sanity check  n+s+e+w = 85+25+65+25 = 200.   

The assumption is that the 4 bolts are in fixed locations within the test structure.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Heiwa on February 28, 2017, 08:29:07 PM
Being an expert of FEA and structural damage analysis I developed a funny model years ago:

http://heiwaco.com/funnym.htm

I am using this FE :

(http://heiwaco.com/funnym3.jpg)

I think it is funny.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 08:37:17 PM
Quote from: Heiwa on February 28, 2017, 08:29:07 PM
Being an expert of FEA and structural damage analysis I developed a funny model years ago:

http://heiwaco.com/funnym.htm

I am using this FE :

(http://heiwaco.com/funnym3.jpg)

I think it is funny.

Your model is cute but wrong.   The four corners are bolts fixed in a structure,   you show all 4 corners just floating.

It's important because the  East-West bolts provide a pivot point for loads in the North-South axis,  and the North-South bolts provide a pivot point for the East-West axis.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Heiwa on February 28, 2017, 08:45:09 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 08:37:17 PM
Quote from: Heiwa on February 28, 2017, 08:29:07 PM
Being an expert of FEA and structural damage analysis I developed a funny model years ago:

http://heiwaco.com/funnym.htm

I am using this FE :

(http://heiwaco.com/funnym3.jpg)

I think it is funny.

Your model is cute but wrong.   The four corners are bolts fixed in a structure,   you show all 4 corners just floating.

It's important because the  East-West bolts provide a pivot point for loads in the North-South axis,  and the North-South bolts provide a pivot point for the East-West axis.

Well - you have to read what I write:

Quote
Funny m is a simple structural 3-D assembly that consists of a horizontal element with a mass m (e.g. a floor) supported via solid connections by four vertical elements s (e.g. columns) that can compress like springs before breaking. Each s carries m/4.
The height of this structural assembly is h. A picture of the Funny m assembly is seen right.
Due to mass m the springs s compress elastically d = 0.03h.
The structural Funny m assembly is really funny or at least the spring elements. They can compress 0.09h elastically and 0.1h plastically before they break (in this example). It means you must put on 3 m for the springs to start deforming plastically!   

You can put Funny m assemblies on top of each other to get a bigger structure, e.g. a Tower like structure with n Funny ms as shown below. The springs then adjust themselves to the number of m carried! If you put a Funny m assembly on another Funny m assembly, the bottom springs become twice as strong, etc. Then you have to put on 6 m uniformly (3 m on each element) to start plastic deformation! In a Funny m tower structure with n assemblies any spring is just statically compressed 0.03h by n m.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 08:47:18 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 08:18:43 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 05:51:09 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 28, 2017, 04:56:20 PM
Challenge

I will use my resources and built a test platform in the exact same ratio (obviously not the same dimensions, as those dimensions are not real world with reported weight weight)...Then will present a load at the exact location to scale...Will have each support on a scale, and we will see the results.

There is multiple ways to do it...But we can discuss the specifics.

I propose a friendly wager of any amount (you decide on amount, I will match whatever it is)... Also, the winner cannot question the loser any more on the subject... It will take me a few hours to build it.

What do you say? Master evar?

Rayzor can join as well (or anyone on that matter)

*Edit..Removed double word

Carton of wild turkey 101 cans or stubbies postage paid.

I just wanna see it happen.  :)

I did it a bit simpler than ME,

Taking the 100kg weight by itself,   Looking at the ns axis,  with the ew bolts as the pivot point,   the  100 kg is supported by  n = 100 * 3/5 = 60,   e+w = 40   s =0
now taking the ew axis and the ns bolts become the pivot the distribution is  w = 100*2/5 = 40,   n+s=60  and e=0 

Adding back the disk loading.

So North bolt takes 60+25 = 85 kg ,  South takes 0+25 = 25 kg,   West takes 40 + 25 = 65 kg,  and East takes 0+25 = 25 kg

Which is the same as Master_Evar's  result,   Sanity check  n+s+e+w = 85+25+65+25 = 200.   

The assumption is that the 4 bolts are in fixed locations within the test structure.

So, are you gonna take the challenge?

Easy money for you, could take a year or two off.

I think you should take the challenge, I wanna see it performed.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 08:49:31 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 08:47:18 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 08:18:43 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 05:51:09 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 28, 2017, 04:56:20 PM
Challenge

I will use my resources and built a test platform in the exact same ratio (obviously not the same dimensions, as those dimensions are not real world with reported weight weight)...Then will present a load at the exact location to scale...Will have each support on a scale, and we will see the results.

There is multiple ways to do it...But we can discuss the specifics.

I propose a friendly wager of any amount (you decide on amount, I will match whatever it is)... Also, the winner cannot question the loser any more on the subject... It will take me a few hours to build it.

What do you say? Master evar?

Rayzor can join as well (or anyone on that matter)

*Edit..Removed double word

Carton of wild turkey 101 cans or stubbies postage paid.

I just wanna see it happen.  :)

I did it a bit simpler than ME,

Taking the 100kg weight by itself,   Looking at the ns axis,  with the ew bolts as the pivot point,   the  100 kg is supported by  n = 100 * 3/5 = 60,   e+w = 40   s =0
now taking the ew axis and the ns bolts become the pivot the distribution is  w = 100*2/5 = 40,   n+s=60  and e=0 

Adding back the disk loading.

So North bolt takes 60+25 = 85 kg ,  South takes 0+25 = 25 kg,   West takes 40 + 25 = 65 kg,  and East takes 0+25 = 25 kg

Which is the same as Master_Evar's  result,   Sanity check  n+s+e+w = 85+25+65+25 = 200.   

The assumption is that the 4 bolts are in fixed locations within the test structure.

So, are you gonna take the challenge?

Easy money for you, could take a year or two off.

I think you should take the challenge, I wanna see it performed.

I already did.   I'll take a slab of VB stubbies,  none of that West Australian Swan Lager crap.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 08:50:52 PM
No you didn't read it.

VB is an animals beer.
Explains a lot.

Will you take the challenge then?

My carton was for Bhs putting the effort in.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 08:54:00 PM
Here it is again.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 28, 2017, 04:56:20 PM
Challenge

I will use my resources and built a test platform in the exact same ratio (obviously not the same dimensions, as those dimensions are not real world with reported weight weight)...Then will present a load at the exact location to scale...Will have each support on a scale, and we will see the results.

There is multiple ways to do it...But we can discuss the specifics.

I propose a friendly wager of any amount (you decide on amount, I will match whatever it is)... Also, the winner cannot question the loser any more on the subject... It will take me a few hours to build it.

What do you say? Master evar?

Rayzor can join as well (or anyone on that matter)

*Edit..Removed double word

Will you take the challenge?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 08:58:26 PM
Quote from: Heiwa on February 28, 2017, 08:45:09 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 08:37:17 PM

Your model is cute but wrong.   The four corners are bolts fixed in a structure,   you show all 4 corners just floating.

It's important because the  East-West bolts provide a pivot point for loads in the North-South axis,  and the North-South bolts provide a pivot point for the East-West axis.

Well - you have to read what I write:

Quote
Funny m is a simple structural 3-D assembly that consists of a horizontal element with a mass m (e.g. a floor) supported via solid connections by four vertical elements s (e.g. columns) that can compress like springs before breaking. Each s carries m/4.
The height of this structural assembly is h. A picture of the Funny m assembly is seen right.
Due to mass m the springs s compress elastically d = 0.03h.
The structural Funny m assembly is really funny or at least the spring elements. They can compress 0.09h elastically and 0.1h plastically before they break (in this example). It means you must put on 3 m for the springs to start deforming plastically!   

You can put Funny m assemblies on top of each other to get a bigger structure, e.g. a Tower like structure with n Funny ms as shown below. The springs then adjust themselves to the number of m carried! If you put a Funny m assembly on another Funny m assembly, the bottom springs become twice as strong, etc. Then you have to put on 6 m uniformly (3 m on each element) to start plastic deformation! In a Funny m tower structure with n assemblies any spring is just statically compressed 0.03h by n m.

Well you could modify your model and enter the challenge,  maybe just change the spring constant high enough that so that the support points don't move.

Maybe you could win some  Australian Beer.   Disputeone is offering the prizes,  you'd have to negotiate with him.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 08:59:03 PM
So, you won't take the challenge.

This is fine.

I don't drink Australian Beer I offered Bourban.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 09:00:16 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 08:54:00 PM
Here it is again.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 28, 2017, 04:56:20 PM
Challenge

I will use my resources and built a test platform in the exact same ratio (obviously not the same dimensions, as those dimensions are not real world with reported weight weight)...Then will present a load at the exact location to scale...Will have each support on a scale, and we will see the results.

There is multiple ways to do it...But we can discuss the specifics.

I propose a friendly wager of any amount (you decide on amount, I will match whatever it is)... Also, the winner cannot question the loser any more on the subject... It will take me a few hours to build it.

What do you say? Master evar?

Rayzor can join as well (or anyone on that matter)

*Edit..Removed double word

Will you take the challenge?

Huh?   I already said twice that i accepted the challenge.   
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 09:01:39 PM
What are you putting up as a bet?

I would suggest going high as you seem quite confident and Bhs does quite well for himself.

Why not start at say 500k.

Worst case scenario you sell your house.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 09:05:10 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 08:59:03 PM
So, you won't take the challenge.

This is fine.

I don't drink Australian Beer I offered Bourban.

There's that reality disconnect again,   you did offer stubbies, which means beer.   Wild Turkey is a nuff nuff drink.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Heiwa on February 28, 2017, 09:05:50 PM
Quote
Recap! In a collision between two similar structures but of different size, e.g. a small part C dropping on a big part A (or two ships in a horizontal collision), it is always the weakest sub-elements of the composite parts that fail first. Stronger elements need more time to fail! The various masses or elements supported by the weak, failed elements will then displace first. Other masses may displace later but as they do not act in uniform any intact structure, e.g. part A below, has little problem to deflect them, entangle them or simply arrest them with assistance of friction.

Only religious fundamentalists and terrorists believe that a weak element can destroy a strong element, or a weak part C can destroy a strong part A and fair enough! You may believe what you want. But try to prove it! It is not easy! Much easier to prove the opposite.

It seems any challenge is solved in my article.

If, e.g. a floor is held by four bolts and you load the floor so one bolt fails, the load must then be carried by three bolts, one of which fails, so the floor is only held by two bolts ... and then the load slips off the floor ... and the two bolts remain intact.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 09:07:17 PM
Reading comprehension again, Rayzor, I said I'd give Bhs a carton if he proves you guys wrong. I'd like to see it.

In this regard, for this challenge, you can consider me on your "side".

Now why not put up a bet, since you are so confident?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 09:09:43 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 09:01:39 PM
What are you putting up as a bet?

I would suggest going high as you seem quite confident and Bhs does quite well for himself.

Why not start at say 500k.

Worst case scenario you sell your house.

You haven't even offered a solution to the problem,  so you aren't eligible to compete. 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 09:11:23 PM
Do you really still not get it?

This is why i think you aren't genuine, although there is a strong possibility you are just autistic.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 09:13:29 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 09:11:23 PM
Do you really still not get it?

No.  Explain what you think the bet is,  and what's the prize?

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 09:15:23 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 08:54:00 PM
Here it is again.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 28, 2017, 04:56:20 PM
Challenge

I will use my resources and built a test platform in the exact same ratio (obviously not the same dimensions, as those dimensions are not real world with reported weight weight)...Then will present a load at the exact location to scale...Will have each support on a scale, and we will see the results.

There is multiple ways to do it...But we can discuss the specifics.

I propose a friendly wager of any amount (you decide on amount, I will match whatever it is)... Also, the winner cannot question the loser any more on the subject... It will take me a few hours to build it.

What do you say? Master evar?

Rayzor can join as well (or anyone on that matter)

*Edit..Removed double word

Will you take the challenge?

This is the bet.

Will your predicted loads be the reality of the situation.

The prize is whatever you are willing to bet, hence me going for an easy option of a carton cause I am not 100% sure either way.

Have you ever played blackjack? Bet $10 win $10 etc?

I can't explain it simpler than that, sorry.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 09:24:35 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 09:15:23 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 08:54:00 PM
Here it is again.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 28, 2017, 04:56:20 PM
Challenge

I will use my resources and built a test platform in the exact same ratio (obviously not the same dimensions, as those dimensions are not real world with reported weight weight)...Then will present a load at the exact location to scale...Will have each support on a scale, and we will see the results.

There is multiple ways to do it...But we can discuss the specifics.

I propose a friendly wager of any amount (you decide on amount, I will match whatever it is)... Also, the winner cannot question the loser any more on the subject... It will take me a few hours to build it.

What do you say? Master evar?

Rayzor can join as well (or anyone on that matter)

*Edit..Removed double word

Will you take the challenge?

This is the bet.

Will your predicted loads be the reality of the situation.

The prize is whatever you are willing to bet, hence me going for an easy option of a carton cause I am not 100% sure either way.

Have you ever played blackjack? Bet $10 win $10 etc?

I can't explain it simpler than that, sorry.

Ok  I'll bet my solution is closer than yours,  even though you haven't yet offered one.   No monetary prize, but  you have to put whatever I want into your forum signature for a week,  I'll make it reciprocal.

If you don't offer a solution,  there is no bet.    And one other proviso the experimental set up has to be approved by all parties before the bet is final.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 09:27:35 PM
OK you don't get it, sorry man I can't explain it to you then.

So you predict load.
Bhs builds and tests.

If you are right, you win.
If you are wrong you lose.

For this challenge I will use the predictions you and Evar gave.

If you are wrong I give Bhs a carton.

I can't teach you comprehension over teh internets sorry.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 09:37:15 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 09:27:35 PM
OK you don't get it, sorry man I can't explain it to you then.

So you predict load.
Bhs builds and tests.

If you are right, you win.
If you are wrong you lose.

For this challenge I will use the predictions you and Evar gave.

If you are wrong I give Bhs a carton.

I can't teach you comprehension over teh internets sorry.

Why not, nothing to be gained or lost,  except you might lose a carton.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 09:39:07 PM
This is why I don't think you are a genuine poster. desu.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 28, 2017, 09:46:44 PM
Sigh...

How can something so simple be so difficult?? It was a simple proposition...

I stated the details would be discussed and agreed on. I also said the size would be different (a 836 sq foot structure that weighs 220 pounds, supporting 220 pounds is not reality) but still in the same ratio (just smaller). However, since all of his numbers were round it will be easy to extrapolate into smaller real world figures.

Also the terms of water could no way be made more simple.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 28, 2017, 09:47:42 PM
I am beginning to think rockseverywhere was right.

I need to give him his credit.

(https://images-cdn.9gag.com/photo/aPGQ5qB_700b.jpg)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 09:50:11 PM
40 pages and he hasn't answered one direct question with a direct answer.

What are we supposed to think, Rayzor?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 09:50:56 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 08:18:43 PM

I did it a bit simpler than ME,

Taking the 100kg weight by itself,   Looking at the ns axis,  with the ew bolts as the pivot point,   the  100 kg is supported by  n = 100 * 3/5 = 60,   e+w = 40   s =0
now taking the ew axis and the ns bolts become the pivot the distribution is  w = 100*2/5 = 40,   n+s=60  and e=0 

Adding back the disk loading.

So North bolt takes 60+25 = 85 kg ,  South takes 0+25 = 25 kg,   West takes 40 + 25 = 65 kg,  and East takes 0+25 = 25 kg

Which is the same as Master_Evar's  result,   Sanity check  n+s+e+w = 85+25+65+25 = 200.   

The assumption is that the 4 bolts are in fixed locations within the test structure.

For completeness,  here is the case where the bolts aren't fixed,  like Heiwa's model.

Resolving the North South axis  looking from the east bolt location,   the 100 Kg is 2 m from the north bolt  so the load distribution is  8:2   n = 80/2,  s = 20/2,   
Looking from the south bolt location the 100 Kg is 3m from the west bolt  so the load distribution is 3:7  or w = 70/2 and e = 30/2

So for the floating case  North = 40+25 = 65,   South = 10+25 = 35,  West = 35+25 = 60,  East = 15+25 = 40

EDIT:  Where does the 1/2 come from? The amount of load that transfers to the other orthogonal axis is the load at the mid point of each axis,  so if we have a 70:30 distribution,  then the mid point is 50,  so  50/100 = 1/2
If the load was positioned directly over one of the bolts,  then the distribution would be 100:0 and the mid point would be zero,  so zero load transfer to the other axis. 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 09:55:49 PM
You seem confident, why not take the challenge?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 28, 2017, 10:03:56 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 28, 2017, 09:46:44 PM
Sigh...

How can something so simple be so difficult?? It was a simple proposition...

I stated the details would be discussed and agreed on. I also said the size would be different (a 836 sq foot structure that weighs 220 pounds, supporting 220 pounds is not reality) but still in the same ratio (just smaller). However, since all of his numbers were round it will be easy to extrapolate into smaller real world figures.

Also the terms of wager could no way be made more simple.

I am just baffled. Oh well...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 10:09:52 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 28, 2017, 10:03:56 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 28, 2017, 09:46:44 PM
Sigh...

How can something so simple be so difficult?? It was a simple proposition...

I stated the details would be discussed and agreed on. I also said the size would be different (a 836 sq foot structure that weighs 220 pounds, supporting 220 pounds is not reality) but still in the same ratio (just smaller). However, since all of his numbers were round it will be easy to extrapolate into smaller real world figures.

Also the terms of wager could no way be made more simple.

I am just baffled. Oh well...

Nothing to be baffled about,  the proposition was a bet where there was nothing to be gained or lost.  Except you might get a carton of wild turkey for doing the experiment.

Master_Evar and I have both posted results,  but you and dispute haven't,  are you going to do the calculations?

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 10:15:32 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 09:50:11 PM
40 pages and he hasn't answered one direct question with a direct answer.

What are we supposed to think, Rayzor?

I said it before I will use Master Evars math, if he is incorrect I will post Bhs a carton.

I doubt he will bother for just my bet. I wouldn't.

Why don't you put up a bet, you seem very confident.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 01, 2017, 01:11:49 AM
Just reading back in awe of how badly you guys got schooled.

Master Evar you are clearly a great mathematician, Bhs is very clearly a great engineer.

We can either build it and test it, or you guys can admit the thought experiment was flawed.

I'm gonna throw in a carton and I'm 99.9% Bhs is totally correct, so it's a pretty stupid bet, but it's the least I can do for the time and effort put in.


Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 27, 2017, 08:57:32 PM

Quote from: Master_Evar on February 27, 2017, 03:27:32 PM
The answer to the bonus question is:
North bolt: 85 kg of load.
West bolt: 65 kg of load.
South bolt: 25 kg of load.
East bolt: 25 kg of load.

It's really late here and I'm on the phone, so I'll post my calculations tomorrow.

I have been really trying to decide what to say to this... Still not sure. I suppose I will start by I am in shock you had even an ounce of nerve to criticize me for asking serious questions ANY real structural engineer would ask. To have the nerve to criticize me, implying I don't know the answer to the question because I pointed out your question was fundamentally flawed. After the nerve to do that, you post this...

An answer, which the first part is barely middle school (lol divide 100 by 4?? Right, since this is reality smdh), the second part is barely highschool (and wrong).

I am trying to be nice here as much as I humanly can with as much nonsense as you spoke...So I will just say shame on you.

I will let your divide by 4 simple arithmetic go for the moment. We shall go to your second answer. I am going to attempt to make this as short as possible so I will be only hitting a few points, there are a plethora more to address.

One... you addressed the problem completely incorrect..You are using a measurement of mass instead a measurement of weight. Any actual presentation would be presented in form such as psf...

Two..Your starting figure of 25 kg per bolt is impossible in the real world, thus why I asked you so many follow up questions. Please don't ever design a building!..But I am leaving that alone..As a simple arithmetic it works.

Three..Your calculations with the added load is not correct even using a hypothetical equation ignoring all other real world variables such examples include sheer, deflection, etc etc. Even bypassing all real world variables...You did not provide the dimensions of the point load. However, I do not need that to say the equation is wrong.

Let's just assume your load occupies one square meter in the position you stated on the floor. As I said, ignoring all real world variables, you are still violating UDL, UCL, and N-UDL distribution calculations (which you cannot ignore even in this hypothetical, non realistic equation) None of your load estimates are correct, especially the south and east bolts.

I could continue, there are 6 other things that come to mind off the top of my head, but would require way too much typing I am not in the mood for.

I will say this, despite all the reasons I have stated in this post and many before on why this question is bogus...I will state one more, and will actually get an actually moderately close answer (though not exact and would never fly in an actual presentation).

There is a reason I asked you every single question I did, which obviously you didn't understand so you yelled instead. We will use the structure size and frame size of the floor for the mating surfaces. We will hypothetically assume an 1 and 1/4 quarter inch wide for both, and 6 inch long for the floor mating surface. ( I am also ignoring reality just for this, as no flooring would ever pass code, or even pre design unless it has spandrels or channel plates, but again ignore reality for sake of argument)

So anyways, let's be Sammy safety and use .500 13 thread 325 bolts...So we torque them down, let's say they are the standard spray Telefon coated, that will give them about a .097 COF, so with that said they would torque to almost an even perdy 40 foot pounds.

So with all this said what would be the vertical load on the individual bolts? Almost nil...Why? Because friction of the mating surfaces with the almost 6000 pounds of clamping force per fastener (about 6400 pounds at the bolt bearing, in an eclipsed fashion, no way to figure that without more real world variables) will never be overcome by the available vertical force. So all the force on the bolt is lateral. (You start putting vertical force on bolt shanks, you have structural issues. The process I described is also how heat loads are shared rayzor)

C2 = 1.43(F/Fy)-0.93~ 0.643 for 1.05 < FjFy < 1.35

Just for kicks, if you really wanted to figure your load levels you would use..

Net=(1-0.9r+3.0rd/s) Fu<fu

Along with the equation I provided my last post about this
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 27, 2017, 12:22:00 PM
Find the bolt group centroid
Determine directional vectors for each bolt with distance Rn
Calculate direct shear load for both the weight and applied load(Fv)
Calculate Reaction Moment (M) at the bolt group centroid.
Calculate torsional shear force (Fm)
vector addition of direct and torsional shear for total shear load

Ra=distance from group centroid to bolt A
Rb=distance from group centroid to bolt B
Rc=follow the pattern....

Roughly something like this.

Fv = F/A ; Fm = M*Rn/(Ra^2+Rb^2+Rc^2....)
(though I apologize I don't know how to post the equations 100 percent correct here, but should be close enough)...Though this is still only 20 percent of the info you would need to build a real world answer.


Edit I am also leaving alone the fact the actual theoretical floor is impossible (at least with material I know)..Something that can span 31 feet diameter, 830 ish sq feet, only weight 220 pounds  yet support 220 pounds plus.....But that is another unimportant issue with an already bogus question.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 01, 2017, 01:17:29 AM
Especially you Rayzor

integrity
ɪnˈtɛɡrɪti/
noun

1.
the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles.
"a gentleman of complete integrity"
synonyms:   honesty, uprightness, probity, rectitude, honour, honourableness, upstandingness, good character, principle(s), ethics, morals, righteousness, morality, nobility, high-mindedness, right-mindedness, noble-mindedness, virtue, decency, fairness, scrupulousness, sincerity, truthfulness, trustworthiness
"I never doubted his integrity"

2.
the state of being whole and undivided.
"upholding territorial integrity and national sovereignty"
synonyms:   unity, unification, wholeness, coherence, cohesion, undividedness, togetherness, solidarity, coalition

Get some.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on March 01, 2017, 01:48:06 AM
I'm not really a sucker for making bets with random-ish people on the internet involving money or other stuff with real value, even if I'm 100% confident.

I'll take up the challenge, and I propose that the loser has to write a rigorous, long and well written apology to the winner. The apology should compliment the winner at least a bit at the expense of the loser. The winner can also choose anything to be added to the losers signature (as long as it follows forum guidelines) and the loser is not allowed to edit the rest of their signature in a manner that changes the intended message. The signature has to stay for at least a year.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 01, 2017, 01:51:53 AM
Can't deny the man has style.

I'm also especially concerned with you giving 0kg extra loading to the south and east bolt but I suppose we will see.

Edit. I think what Bhs is getting at is that the load gets distributed through the platform in reality and the loads on the bolts would be much different than you have predicted.

This is why he asked for dimensions of the load.

A platform is a fixed object the idea that the south and east bolts take no extra load is, in my opinion, quite silly.

It doesn't take a doctorate to get this stuff.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on March 01, 2017, 02:03:15 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 01, 2017, 01:51:53 AM
Can't deny the man has style.

I'm also especially concerned with you giving 0kg extra loading to the south and east bolt but I suppose we will see.
Well, that is assuming that the floor is very rigid, so that the north an west bolt acts as a pivot. Even with a pressure applied, the half of the object that is on the south-east side of the axis and adds weight to the south and east bolt will be counteracted by the other half of the object which is applying force that isn't pushing down on a pivot, and thus pushes the floor down like a lever with the north-west bolts as pivots, lifting the floor off of the south and east bolt as much as the other half pushes down.

Another way to think of it - if we just put a plank between the north and west bolt, and put the weight on the middle that plank, it wouldn't tip over. It doesn't need support from some other direction. So why would the south and east bolts experience any added load, if they are not needed to support the weight? So long as the north and west bolts don't give, or the floor doesn't bend under the weight of the load, they shouldn't be taking any of the load.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 01, 2017, 02:06:43 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on March 01, 2017, 02:03:15 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 01, 2017, 01:51:53 AM
Can't deny the man has style.

I'm also especially concerned with you giving 0kg extra loading to the south and east bolt but I suppose we will see.
Another way to think of it - if we just put a plank between the north and west bolt, and put the weight on the middle that plank, it wouldn't tip over. It doesn't need support from some other direction. So why would the south and east bolts experience any added load, if they are not needed to support the weight?

Because in the reality of your experiment they are supporting the weight.

They are supporting the structure that is supporting the weight.

I don't think loads are distributed nearly as simply as you think.

This is just my logic on it, I might be wrong.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 01, 2017, 02:13:05 AM
Actually, I'm right, whichever way you think about it, even assuming pins and not tightened bolts with torque.

Calling it, sorry.

There is no pivot point in your thought experiment.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on March 01, 2017, 02:13:27 AM
In reality, they wouldn't support the weight.

Okay, a very simple example:

Balance your phone or something on two of your fingers, and have some distance between them.

Now, with a third finger you just touch the phone from a different axis.

Your phone should have the same position and rotation as before you started touching it with the third finger.

Is your third finger actually supporting the phone? (not counting the very small force that is needed just to feel the phone).
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 01, 2017, 02:22:00 AM
Try holding a dinner plate level at
N E S W and have a friend apply force on the plate in the position you stated ;)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on March 01, 2017, 02:25:14 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 01, 2017, 02:22:00 AM
Try holding a dinner plate level at
N E S W and have a friend apply force on the plate in the position you stated ;)

That also works.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 01, 2017, 02:25:46 AM
It does.

Ahem.

Quote from: Master_Evar on March 01, 2017, 01:48:06 AM
I'm not really a sucker for making bets with random-ish people on the internet involving money or other stuff with real value, even if I'm 100% confident.

I'll take up the challenge, and I propose that the loser has to write a rigorous, long and well written apology to the winner. The apology should compliment the winner at least a bit at the expense of the loser. The winner can also choose anything to be added to the losers signature (as long as it follows forum guidelines) and the loser is not allowed to edit the rest of their signature in a manner that changes the intended message. The signature has to stay for at least a year.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 01, 2017, 02:28:14 AM
The South and East bolts don't get 0 extra load they get a percentage less increase than the North and West bolts.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on March 01, 2017, 02:32:15 AM
I just did it with my phone. I formed a square with one hand, rested my phone on it and pushed down with a finger right inbetween two of the fingers. It's not perfect, the other two fingers oscillated between getting some load and loosing their load. but on average, they didn't really change their load.

Of course, you don't need to take my word on it. You can test yourself.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 01, 2017, 02:34:08 AM
Ive done it, scale with a plate, fingers at South and East experience an increase in load.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 01, 2017, 02:34:58 AM
I'll take that bet Rayzor, that I am closer to reality than you.

Quote from: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 12:44:48 AM
One more go, I'm never afraid of being wrong. I messed up with my logic... I think...

N = 67.5kg
W = 65kg
S = 32.5kg
E = 35kg

Ok its probably just over my head.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on March 01, 2017, 02:37:30 AM
We will see accurately once BHS is done. Are you sure you pressed down right inbetween the north and west "bolt"? (Well, somewhere along a line drawn between them.)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on March 01, 2017, 02:39:56 AM
Also, is your plate flat/are you only using the flat portions? Because if you press or hold at an angled bit of the surface, the forces will be deflected.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 01, 2017, 02:40:53 AM
Oh yes, I've tried it multiple times sacrificed a plate to a permanent marker.

Oh yes I'm sure, what you are failing to grasp is the North and West bolts actually act as a pivot point and distribute load to the South and East bolts.

It's fine to be wrong.

Edit. Not admitting it is a problem.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 01, 2017, 02:47:20 AM
In the exact centre of the platform the load distribution can be considered equal, the loads on the opposing bolts gets smaller and smaller as the load moves over its opposite bolt, that is, exactly on top of the north bolt the north bolt will experience 100% of the load, the load is distributed through the platform depending on position and dimensions.

@ Rayzor
Logic, bitch.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 01, 2017, 02:49:12 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 01, 2017, 02:25:46 AM

Ahem.

Quote from: Master_Evar on March 01, 2017, 01:48:06 AM
I'm not really a sucker for making bets with random-ish people on the internet involving money or other stuff with real value, even if I'm 100% confident.

I'll take up the challenge, and I propose that the loser has to write a rigorous, long and well written apology to the winner. The apology should compliment the winner at least a bit at the expense of the loser. The winner can also choose anything to be added to the losers signature (as long as it follows forum guidelines) and the loser is not allowed to edit the rest of their signature in a manner that changes the intended message. The signature has to stay for at least a year.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on March 01, 2017, 02:56:56 AM
Well, that is contradictory to my tests. That either means we live in areas with different physical laws, one of us did it wrong, one of us is dishonest or we are both idiots.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 01, 2017, 03:00:36 AM
I guess i could be wrong.

I mean I get your logic, I do, It's just like I said with a fixed structure i dont think it's  that simple.

If Bhs wasn't so sure you were wrong I would've let it go pages ago.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 01, 2017, 03:03:35 AM
Directly between bolts N and W there is a small but noticeable increase in load for the opposing bolts.

I'm standing my ground on this.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on March 01, 2017, 03:11:17 AM
That is either due to inaccuracy or plasticity, or both. Have you tried deliberately pressing down a bit further northwest of the axis?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 01, 2017, 03:18:51 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on March 01, 2017, 03:11:17 AM
That is either due to inaccuracy or plasticity, or both. Have you tried deliberately pressing down a bit further northwest of the axis?

I have.

(https://s13.postimg.org/h4ump4xyv/20170301_191304.jpg)

Northwest of this line there is a pivot and the platform wants to tilt.

On this line for a fixed structure with four bolts supporting it, there should be no increase in load?

I can definitely feel one but it might be error. I guess I'll wait and see.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on March 01, 2017, 03:29:03 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 01, 2017, 03:18:51 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on March 01, 2017, 03:11:17 AM
That is either due to inaccuracy or plasticity, or both. Have you tried deliberately pressing down a bit further northwest of the axis?

I have.

(https://s13.postimg.org/h4ump4xyv/20170301_191304.jpg)

Northwest of this line there is a pivot and the platform wants to tilt.

On this line for a fixed structure with four bolts supporting it, there should be no increase in load?

I can definitely feel one but it might be error. I guess I'll wait and see.
Great diagram.

Yeah, any load put on that line shouldn't affect the south or east bolt. As you say, northwest of the axis it wants to tilt. Southeast of it, it will definitely put a load on the south and east bolt. In the middle, aka on that line, you will neither tilt nor apply load to the south or east bolt. It should be balanced on the north and west bolt, with no need for other support, assuming one could put a load so it's center of mass lines up perfectly with that axis.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 01, 2017, 03:32:38 AM
Yeah I see what you're saying, I do, I can do the math now too :P.

Alright well I guess I'll see why Bhs thinks you're wrong.

P.s we've been off topic for like ten pages lol.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on March 01, 2017, 03:40:07 AM
Lol, yeah. Also, one thing we have to take into account doing this with our fingers - we are subject to the placebo effect. If we push down on something that four of our fingers are holding up, we expect (at least subconsciously) to feel an increased load in all of our fingers, and as a result we do. It makes intuitive sense. It is even a bit plausible that I am so confident that I expect to not feel the extra load, and thus don't feel it. If there was a load, it would be so small and hard to determine that our subconsciousness could possibly affect our judgement there. So let's wait for BHS' model to confirm.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 01, 2017, 03:43:37 AM
You are definitely right in a pure mathematical sense, no doubt about that.

Alright I'll wait for Bhs.

Whatever I'm learning heaps anyway, that's always a win.

Edit. Damnit this is gonna keep me up.

I was sure I was on to something with the way the platform distributes the point load.

I can 100% see how you came to your answers but I think we both might be missing something.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on March 01, 2017, 04:25:58 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 27, 2017, 11:31:02 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 27, 2017, 11:17:34 PM
So rayzor...Can you tell me that everything you said about the flame and heat in the building is true since you harp on that?

Though if you don't want to get into this, I understand...

I'm happy to engage in intelligent discussion,  start with some basic research on typical high rise office fires.   You should scan the following paper.   

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.1014.8949&rep=rep1&type=pdf

The claim I made was that temperatures around 1000C were reported,  and temperatures over 600 C were reached over significant areas of the structure.

At 600 C  the steel is down to about  half it's strength,  and at 1000C it's down to about one tenth.


The jet fuel was responsible for the initial ignition,  but not the main fuel source for the subsequent fires,   you need to remember that smoke temperatures when you see thick turbulent black smoke can approach flame temperatures.   

Conclusion is that the steel structure that was stripped of it's fireproofing by the impact  was substantially weakened by the subsequent fires.
Quote from: Rayzor on February 28, 2017, 02:15:07 PM
Quote from: totallackey on February 28, 2017, 08:26:03 AM

I want to see if you actually understand what you write or if you just think the shit you post supports your position.


You don't appear to understand that the paper I referenced is generic,  that is it applies to high rise office buildings in general,  in the case of the WTC,  the only evidence I can use ( if I refer to NIST you'll just go bezerk again ),  so the best evidence is the video evidence,  which shows fires across multiple floors,  heavy black smoke from across entire floors.   After 30 minutes a 600 sqm fire would reach a far field temperature of 800C,  so the claim of temperatures of over 600C is conservative,  and more than hot enough to halve the strength of the steel.

The inputs and assumptions  are spelt out in detail in that paper.

WRONG!

I do understand it is a generic paper and I want to know if you understand it.

Did you miss this quote?

"The larger the enclosures and the lower the thermal inertial of the linings, the FASTER (emphasis mine) the cooling phase is since the smoke layer spreads over larger areas and heat dissipates faster."

Or this one?

"Travelling fires, like those observed before the WTC collapsed, produce thermal environments of lower temperature that last for many hours, thus representing LONG-COOL FIRES(emphasis mine). "

Or this one?

"When a small fire is in the vicinity of a structural element, the temperature corresponds to the near field (in the order of 1300°C). This heating would last for about 10 min to 20 min (emphasis mine)for typical office fuel loads (in the range from 20 to 40 kg/m2) independently of the fire size."

So, it seems your legitimate sources are actually CONTRADICTORY to your claims and stance.

Furthermore:

"After 30 minutes a 600 sqm fire would reach a far field temperature of 800C,  so the claim of temperatures of over 600C is conservative,  and more than hot enough to halve the strength of the steel. so the claim of temperatures of over 600C is conservative,  and more than hot enough to halve the strength of the steel."

The floors of WTC 1 and 2 were not even close to 600 square meters each. More like 100:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_(1973%E2%80%932001) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_(1973%E2%80%932001))

"... but to meet the Port Authority's requirement for 10,000,000 square feet (930,000 m2) of office space, the buildings would each have to be 110 stories tall."

My math: 930,000/110 = 8454.54 meters2=91
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 01, 2017, 04:26:10 AM
Wait but does this only work with a theoretical point load?

Say for example we have a 300mm x 300mm press applying a 100kg point load to the exact spot.

The cross-section of the press, regardless of the point load, will naturally want to push the platform down as a whole. Especially if it is pinned level which is assumed in your experiment.

Which logically follows that a real world object would apply extra load to bolts S and E but only a minimal amount.

Or not?

All I know is everytime Bhs has made a claim here he has been able to back it up.

I have a strong feeling this is why he asked for dimensions.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 01, 2017, 04:27:51 AM
Quote from: totallackey on March 01, 2017, 04:25:58 AM
So, it seems your legitimate sources are actually CONTRADICTORY to your claims and stance.

Really nice.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on March 01, 2017, 04:33:17 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 01, 2017, 04:26:10 AM
Wait but does this only work with a theoretical point load?

Say for example we have a 300mm x 300mm press applying a 100kg point load to the exact spot.

The cross-section of the press, regardless of the point load, will naturally want to push the platform down as a whole. Especially if it is pinned level which is assumed in your experiment.

Which logically follows that a real world object would apply extra load to bolts S and E but only a minimal amount.

Or not?

All I know is everytime Bhs has made a claim here he has been able to back it up.

I have a strong feeling this is why he asked for dimensions.
The half of the press which is pushing to the south-east will apply load to the south and east bolts, but the half of the press which is pushing to the north west of the axis will use the north and west bolts as an axis to tilt the floor away from the south and east bolts. Both of these forces should cancel each other out.

I'm am very confident that dimensions do not matter, a long as the load is stable on the floor and the center of mass is at the specified position.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 01, 2017, 04:39:22 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on March 01, 2017, 04:33:17 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 01, 2017, 04:26:10 AM
Wait but does this only work with a theoretical point load?

Say for example we have a 300mm x 300mm press applying a 100kg point load to the exact spot.

The cross-section of the press, regardless of the point load, will naturally want to push the platform down as a whole. Especially if it is pinned level which is assumed in your experiment.

Which logically follows that a real world object would apply extra load to bolts S and E but only a minimal amount.

Or not?

All I know is everytime Bhs has made a claim here he has been able to back it up.

I have a strong feeling this is why he asked for dimensions.
The half of the press which is pushing to the south-east will apply load to the south and east bolts, but the half of the press which is pushing to the north west of the axis will use the north and west bolts as an axis to tilt the floor away from the south and east bolts. Both of these forces should cancel each other out.

I'm am very confident that dimensions do not matter, a long as the load is stable on the floor and the center of mass is at the specified position.

Alright I see that. It does make sense.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 01, 2017, 05:12:54 AM
Quote from: totallackey on March 01, 2017, 04:25:58 AM
WRONG!

I do understand it is a generic paper and I want to know if you understand it.

Did you miss this quote?

"The larger the enclosures and the lower the thermal inertial of the linings, the FASTER (emphasis mine) the cooling phase is since the smoke layer spreads over larger areas and heat dissipates faster."

Or this one?

"Travelling fires, like those observed before the WTC collapsed, produce thermal environments of lower temperature that last for many hours, thus representing LONG-COOL FIRES(emphasis mine). "

Or this one?

"When a small fire is in the vicinity of a structural element, the temperature corresponds to the near field (in the order of 1300°C). This heating would last for about 10 min to 20 min (emphasis mine)for typical office fuel loads (in the range from 20 to 40 kg/m2) independently of the fire size."

So, it seems your legitimate sources are actually CONTRADICTORY to your claims and stance.


Not really,  but I can understand how you might think that,  cooler is a relative term,  and 600 or so is a lot cooler than say it might be for a fully distributed fire.  The only non NIST information I can refer you to is to look at the videos of the smoke pouring out of multiple floors,  and make an educated guess.   

Quote from: totallackey on March 01, 2017, 04:25:58 AM
Furthermore:

"After 30 minutes a 600 sqm fire would reach a far field temperature of 800C,  so the claim of temperatures of over 600C is conservative,  and more than hot enough to halve the strength of the steel. so the claim of temperatures of over 600C is conservative,  and more than hot enough to halve the strength of the steel."

The floors of WTC 1 and 2 were not even close to 600 square meters each. More like 100:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_(1973%E2%80%932001) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_(1973%E2%80%932001))

"... but to meet the Port Authority's requirement for 10,000,000 square feet (930,000 m2) of office space, the buildings would each have to be 110 stories tall."

My math: 930,000/110 = 8454.54 meters2=91

Each floor was about 63m by 63m  but take away the central core area, and you are left with about (60ft) 18m on each of the larger sides by (208ft) 63m,   63mx18m = 1134 sqm,  and there are two such open areas on each floor,  neglecting the smaller area on the sides of the central core. 

So you could fit about 4x  600 sqm fires per floor,  but I guess it depends on if there are partitions or it's all open office etc..

There's floor plan here for a typical floor if you want to double check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_(1973%E2%80%932001)

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on March 01, 2017, 05:56:35 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 01, 2017, 05:12:54 AM
Not really,  but I can understand how you might think that,  cooler is a relative term,  and 600 or so is a lot cooler than say it might be for a fully distributed fire.  The only non NIST information I can refer you to is to look at the videos of the smoke pouring out of multiple floors,  and make an educated guess.

"Not really.." = Yeah, I was actually busted.

Not only can you understand how I might think that, you simply do not want to ADMIT I am correct in my argument and statements and you are wrong.

Everybody else does though.

Do not worry, the written record is here.

Quote from: Rayzor on March 01, 2017, 05:12:54 AM
Each floor was about 63m by 63m  but take away the central core area, and you are left with about (60ft) 18m on each of the larger sides by (208ft) 63m,   63mx18m = 1134 sqm,  and there are two such open areas on each floor,  neglecting the smaller area on the sides of the central core. 

So you could fit about 4x  600 sqm fires per floor,  but I guess it depends on if there are partitions or it's all open office etc..

There's floor plan here for a typical floor if you want to double check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_(1973%E2%80%932001)

Yeah...again busted...

Why eliminate the cores, for one?

That is laughable.

The floor space available is 840 square feet = 78 square meters.

Honestly, just stop.

The source you provided states a travelling fire would now only achieve temps of between 400 and 500 C.

Does this lady look she is holding on to metal that has been subjected to temps of 400 to 500 C?

(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/ba/89/d4/ba89d4aca816580ca82cb07df0bc2171.jpg)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 01, 2017, 06:05:32 AM
Quote from: totallackey on March 01, 2017, 05:56:35 AM

Quote from: Rayzor on March 01, 2017, 05:12:54 AM
Each floor was about 63m by 63m  but take away the central core area, and you are left with about (60ft) 18m on each of the larger sides by (208ft) 63m,   63mx18m = 1134 sqm,  and there are two such open areas on each floor,  neglecting the smaller area on the sides of the central core. 

So you could fit about 4x  600 sqm fires per floor,  but I guess it depends on if there are partitions or it's all open office etc..

There's floor plan here for a typical floor if you want to double check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_(1973%E2%80%932001)

Yeah...again busted...

Why eliminate the cores, for one?

That is laughable.

The floor space available is 840 square feet = 78 square meters.

Honestly, just stop.


How did  you arrive at 840 square feet?     My workshop is bigger than that.   
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 01, 2017, 06:08:52 AM
Quote from: totallackey on March 01, 2017, 05:56:35 AM
Not only can you understand how I might think that, you simply do not want to ADMIT I am correct in my argument and statements and you are wrong.

/thread.

That's the truth man theres no point arguing with Rayzor.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on March 01, 2017, 06:21:18 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 01, 2017, 06:05:32 AM
How did  you arrive at 840 square feet?     My workshop is bigger than that.

Bad math.

780 sq meters.

Now, according to the paper, assumed far field temps back at 600 C after 1/2 hour only if the ventilation is at 25 percent.

Given the size of the holes in the outside of the building I suppose you will still claim only 25 percent ventilation.

And this lady:
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/ba/89/d4/ba89d4aca816580ca82cb07df0bc2171.jpg)
is still grabbing on to metal subjected to temps of 600 C?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 01, 2017, 06:28:24 AM
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=1074303;area=showposts;start=3780

Check out his posts, anyone wanna guess what his favourite word is?

Thats right, conspiracy, attacking anyone that goes against mainstream beliefs is apparently his calling in life.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63505.0
Yuck...

There is a disturbing trend of twisting FE threads trying to discredit other conspiracy theories at the same time as FE

Geez, I wonder why that could be?

Notice his posts have no substance and character and they are very rarely more than copy pasta / video and calling people crazy.

Geez, I wonder why that could be?

I wonder why he basically hasn't posted in another thread since this one started and has contributed absolutely nothing to it.

Geez, I wonder why that could be?

It's probably nothing... Shouldn't think too much.... Right Rayzor?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 01, 2017, 06:29:45 AM
Quote from: totallackey on March 01, 2017, 06:21:18 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 01, 2017, 06:05:32 AM
How did  you arrive at 840 square feet?     My workshop is bigger than that.

Bad math.

780 sq meters.


Still wrong,  the entire area of one floor including the core is 63mx63m  = 3969 square meters.   

And i've no idea what that woman is doing,  I'd guess that might be the coolest part of that floor where the air is rushing in.   

Where did 25% ventilation figure come from?   I don't think I ever claimed anything other than that all fires are ventilation limited to some extent.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on March 01, 2017, 06:42:11 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 01, 2017, 06:29:45 AM
Quote from: totallackey on March 01, 2017, 06:21:18 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 01, 2017, 06:05:32 AM
How did  you arrive at 840 square feet?     My workshop is bigger than that.

Bad math.

780 sq meters.


Still wrong,  the entire area of one floor including the core is 63mx63m  = 3969 square meters.   

And i've no idea what that woman is doing,  I'd guess that might be the coolest part of that floor where the air is rushing in.   

Where did 25% ventilation figure come from?   I don't think I ever claimed anything other than that all fires are ventilation limited to some extent.

Why do you now COUNT the core?

I already asked that once.

The core is not counted in the floor area.

"And i've no idea what that woman is doing..."

LMAO!!!

So, she is not holding onto the outside metal of the building...

She is not standing in an area that has been subjected to fires hot enough to have weakened structural steel.

She is impervious to these types of fires.

She is Wonder Woman!
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 01, 2017, 06:48:45 AM
Sorry, Actually fell asleep for once and I have to run to a meeting.

But very quickly.

So is the bet on?

FYI, I will be nice and throw a hint at what's missing if this is performed in the real world (Actually there are many many things) but just two.

Total mass of the load compared to total weight of the platform.

Total size and weight of the platform, to total mass supported.

Depending on exact design of the test structural we may actually have LESS weight on a bolt.  :o

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 01, 2017, 06:50:39 AM
Quote from: totallackey on March 01, 2017, 06:42:11 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 01, 2017, 06:29:45 AM
Quote from: totallackey on March 01, 2017, 06:21:18 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 01, 2017, 06:05:32 AM
How did  you arrive at 840 square feet?     My workshop is bigger than that.

Bad math.

780 sq meters.


Still wrong,  the entire area of one floor including the core is 63mx63m  = 3969 square meters.   

And i've no idea what that woman is doing,  I'd guess that might be the coolest part of that floor where the air is rushing in.   

Where did 25% ventilation figure come from?   I don't think I ever claimed anything other than that all fires are ventilation limited to some extent.

Why do you now COUNT the core?

I already asked that once.

The core is not counted in the floor area.


Just the open plan office area on each floor is 2,835 square meters.      That's more than enough for 4 x 600 sqm fires per floor,  as I said earlier.
 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 01, 2017, 06:52:27 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 01, 2017, 06:48:45 AM
Sorry, Actually fell asleep for once and I have to run to a meeting.

But very quickly.

So is the bet on?

FYI, I will be nice and throw a hint at what's missing if this is performed in the real world (Actually there are many many things) but just two.

Total mass of the load compared to total weight of the platform.

Total size and weight of the platform, to total mass supported.

Depending on exact design of the test structural we may actually have LESS weight on a bolt.  :o

Do you have strain gages you can fit on the mounting bolts?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: markjo on March 01, 2017, 06:54:58 AM
Quote from: totallackey on March 01, 2017, 06:42:11 AM
So, she is not holding onto the outside metal of the building...

She is not standing in an area that has been subjected to fires hot enough to have weakened structural steel.
It seems to me that she's standing in an area that was subjected to the initial impact of the plane.  The intense fires were further inside the building.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on March 01, 2017, 07:06:55 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 01, 2017, 06:48:45 AM
Sorry, Actually fell asleep for once and I have to run to a meeting.

But very quickly.

So is the bet on?

FYI, I will be nice and throw a hint at what's missing if this is performed in the real world (Actually there are many many things) but just two.

Total mass of the load compared to total weight of the platform.

Total size and weight of the platform, to total mass supported.

Depending on exact design of the test structural we may actually have LESS weight on a bolt.  :o
Yes, the bet is on:
Quote from: Master_Evar on March 01, 2017, 01:48:06 AM
I'm not really a sucker for making bets with random-ish people on the internet involving money or other stuff with real value, even if I'm 100% confident.

I'll take up the challenge, and I propose that the loser has to write a rigorous, long and well written apology to the winner. The apology should compliment the winner at least a bit at the expense of the loser. The winner can also choose anything to be added to the losers signature (as long as it follows forum guidelines) and the loser is not allowed to edit the rest of their signature in a manner that changes the intended message. The signature has to stay for at least a year.

And other than small things that will only change the result by maybe a percent, I'm very sure I haven't forgotten anything. Oh, and it would be nice if you could record the experiment or take some photos.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 01, 2017, 07:16:28 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on March 01, 2017, 07:06:55 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 01, 2017, 06:48:45 AM
Sorry, Actually fell asleep for once and I have to run to a meeting.

But very quickly.

So is the bet on?

FYI, I will be nice and throw a hint at what's missing if this is performed in the real world (Actually there are many many things) but just two.

Total mass of the load compared to total weight of the platform.

Total size and weight of the platform, to total mass supported.

Depending on exact design of the test structural we may actually have LESS weight on a bolt.  :o
Yes, the bet is on:
Quote from: Master_Evar on March 01, 2017, 01:48:06 AM
I'm not really a sucker for making bets with random-ish people on the internet involving money or other stuff with real value, even if I'm 100% confident.

I'll take up the challenge, and I propose that the loser has to write a rigorous, long and well written apology to the winner. The apology should compliment the winner at least a bit at the expense of the loser. The winner can also choose anything to be added to the losers signature (as long as it follows forum guidelines) and the loser is not allowed to edit the rest of their signature in a manner that changes the intended message. The signature has to stay for at least a year.

And other than small things that will only change the result by maybe a percent, I'm very sure I haven't forgotten anything. Oh, and it would be nice if you could record the experiment or take some photos.

(https://s16.postimg.org/andlz63qd/omoshroi.jpg)

I am sure proof of experiment will be posted. I am up way too late.

I look forward to seeing it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on March 01, 2017, 07:17:05 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 01, 2017, 06:50:39 AM
Quote from: totallackey on March 01, 2017, 06:42:11 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 01, 2017, 06:29:45 AM
Quote from: totallackey on March 01, 2017, 06:21:18 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 01, 2017, 06:05:32 AM
How did  you arrive at 840 square feet?     My workshop is bigger than that.

Bad math.

780 sq meters.


Still wrong,  the entire area of one floor including the core is 63mx63m  = 3969 square meters.   

And i've no idea what that woman is doing,  I'd guess that might be the coolest part of that floor where the air is rushing in.   

Where did 25% ventilation figure come from?   I don't think I ever claimed anything other than that all fires are ventilation limited to some extent.

Why do you now COUNT the core?

I already asked that once.

The core is not counted in the floor area.


Just the open plan office area on each floor is 2,835 square meters.      That's more than enough for 4 x 600 sqm fires per floor,  as I said earlier.

How do you figure?

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e4/World_Trade_Center_Building_Design_with_Floor_and_Elevator_Arrangement.svg/1024px-World_Trade_Center_Building_Design_with_Floor_and_Elevator_Arrangement.svg.png)

You are correct.

I was wrong.

The actual figure is 2498m2.

And there is not 4 fires per floor.

There is one fire per floor.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on March 01, 2017, 07:18:02 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 01, 2017, 07:16:28 AM
(https://s16.postimg.org/andlz63qd/omoshroi.jpg)
Amazing.

Quote from: disputeone on March 01, 2017, 07:16:28 AM
I am sure proof of experiment will be posted. I am up way too late.

I look forward to seeing it.
Yeah, I agree with the statement of the meme.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on March 01, 2017, 07:18:12 AM
Quote from: markjo on March 01, 2017, 06:54:58 AM
Quote from: totallackey on March 01, 2017, 06:42:11 AM
So, she is not holding onto the outside metal of the building...

She is not standing in an area that has been subjected to fires hot enough to have weakened structural steel.
It seems to me that she's standing in an area that was subjected to the initial impact of the plane.  The intense fires were further inside the building.

You were there with the thermometer?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: markjo on March 01, 2017, 08:17:03 AM
Quote from: totallackey on March 01, 2017, 07:18:12 AM
Quote from: markjo on March 01, 2017, 06:54:58 AM
Quote from: totallackey on March 01, 2017, 06:42:11 AM
So, she is not holding onto the outside metal of the building...

She is not standing in an area that has been subjected to fires hot enough to have weakened structural steel.
It seems to me that she's standing in an area that was subjected to the initial impact of the plane.  The intense fires were further inside the building.

You were there with the thermometer?
Do you see any smoke or flames near by?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on March 01, 2017, 08:27:16 AM
Quote from: markjo on March 01, 2017, 08:17:03 AM
Quote from: totallackey on March 01, 2017, 07:18:12 AM
Quote from: markjo on March 01, 2017, 06:54:58 AM
Quote from: totallackey on March 01, 2017, 06:42:11 AM
So, she is not holding onto the outside metal of the building...

She is not standing in an area that has been subjected to fires hot enough to have weakened structural steel.
It seems to me that she's standing in an area that was subjected to the initial impact of the plane.  The intense fires were further inside the building.

You were there with the thermometer?
Do you see any smoke or flames near by?

The fireballs?

Yeah I saw them.

OUTSIDE the building, near the points of impact.

These, of course, DID NOT transfer any heat to the metal that lady is hanging on.

I also saw flames just inside the building, visible from the outside by camera.

Yeah...

You were there and of course you know all about it.

I missed the bulleted reference made by NIST in their official report.

Was it #1 or #2 that stated:

Opus, Achieved Temperatures in WTC 1 and 2, Penguin Publishing...

Go clean your diaper already.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on March 01, 2017, 10:59:01 AM
The fires at WTC were hot enough to MELT METAL!

LMAO!!!
(http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k126/CB_Brooklyn/WTC%20Molten%20Metal%20-%20Fact%20or%20Fiction/32_JONES_leak-resized.jpg)

Anyone who knows about cutting torches or welding or foundries knows exactly what they are witnessing in the photo.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Heiwa on March 01, 2017, 11:59:30 AM
Quote from: totallackey on March 01, 2017, 10:59:01 AM
The fires at WTC were hot enough to MELT METAL!

LMAO!!!
(http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k126/CB_Brooklyn/WTC%20Molten%20Metal%20-%20Fact%20or%20Fiction/32_JONES_leak-resized.jpg)

Anyone who knows about cutting torches or welding or foundries knows exactly what they are witnessing in the photo.

But the walls look pretty solid and intact. I wonder what could transform them into dust? A solid, rigid top part dropping down crushing them?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: hoppy on March 01, 2017, 01:02:19 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 28, 2017, 02:17:32 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 01:53:31 PM
Quote from: Rama Set on February 28, 2017, 01:52:28 PM
Nevertheless there was a lot of interesting stuff posted. Now everyone should abandon ship lest this be mistaken for a Heiwa thread.

Pretty wise Rama.

Logic is logic
Yes, and Rayzor is a shitpost fag.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Twerp on March 01, 2017, 01:07:31 PM
Quote from: Rama Set on February 28, 2017, 01:52:28 PM
Nevertheless there was a lot of interesting stuff posted. Now everyone should abandon ship lest this be mistaken for a Heiwa thread.

Hear, Hear!
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 01, 2017, 01:55:49 PM
Quote from: totallackey on March 01, 2017, 10:59:01 AM
The fires at WTC were hot enough to MELT METAL!

LMAO!!!
(http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k126/CB_Brooklyn/WTC%20Molten%20Metal%20-%20Fact%20or%20Fiction/32_JONES_leak-resized.jpg)

Anyone who knows about cutting torches or welding or foundries knows exactly what they are witnessing in the photo.

I do...

Thus another reason I call bullshit on the official story. (Add it on the bin of the 1000)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 01, 2017, 04:01:57 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 01, 2017, 01:55:49 PM
Quote from: totallackey on March 01, 2017, 10:59:01 AM
The fires at WTC were hot enough to MELT METAL!

LMAO!!!
(http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k126/CB_Brooklyn/WTC%20Molten%20Metal%20-%20Fact%20or%20Fiction/32_JONES_leak-resized.jpg)

Anyone who knows about cutting torches or welding or foundries knows exactly what they are witnessing in the photo.

I do...

Thus another reason I call bullshit on the official story. (Add it on the bin of the 1000)

So what do you think it is?   
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 01, 2017, 04:19:58 PM
Molten steel.

You, yourself said you have a foundry.

I also have a small one made from a bucket.

I also have spent a bit of time on an oxy-acetylene torch and a Mig and Tig welder.

What does it look like to you?

Truth aside for a minute.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 01, 2017, 04:39:55 PM
Quote from: totallackey on March 01, 2017, 07:17:05 AM
You are correct.

I was wrong.

The actual figure is 2498m2.

And there is not 4 fires per floor.

There is one fire per floor.

No shame in admitting you were wrong,    the thermal modelling for generic high rise office fires and  "cool"  travelling fires still stands.

(https://s10.postimg.org/cgv2qcnhl/travellingfires.jpg)

So if the fires were only 25% ( ~600 sqm)  of just one floor then far field temperatures of 800 wouldn't be unexpected,  and with a duration of 10x13 = 130 minutes.

The video evidence shows clearly large fires on multiple floors.    So temperatures of 600C over large areas is conservative and not unreasonable.

BTW Aluminium melts at 470-650 depending on the alloy,   so any aircraft wreckage close enough to the fires would probably have melted.

I don't know what the molten liquid is coming out of the 80th floor,  but that corner had a lot of aircraft debris and you can see fires around that area,  so molten aluminium is a possibility,  but as far as I know the emissivity would make it look silvery, not  glowing yellow.   I've seen theories that other stuff mixed in with (like partially burnt materials) the molten aluminium could make it look like that,

Maybe one of these days I'll do an experiment and see if it's true. 

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 01, 2017, 04:50:54 PM
Quote from: Heiwa on March 01, 2017, 11:59:30 AM
But the walls look pretty solid and intact. I wonder what could transform them into dust? A solid, rigid top part dropping down crushing them?

Your idea of intact is a bit different to mine.  LOL.   

And as surprising at it might seem,  I actually agree with you,  in the sense,  that the precise collapse mechanism needs further modelling,   the collapse initiation is a direct result of impact damage and fires,  but what happened after that is open for conjecture.    A new open and transparent enquiry would help.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 01, 2017, 05:08:33 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 01, 2017, 04:39:55 PM
I don't know what the molten liquid is coming out of the 80th floor,  but that corner had a lot of aircraft debris and you can see fires around that area,  so molten aluminium is a possibility,  but as far as I know the emissivity would make it look silvery, not  glowing yellow.

Closest thing to an honest answer you've given, in actuality, it does look just like molten steel and nothing like what we would expect molten ally to look like.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 01, 2017, 05:11:00 PM
Occams Razor.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on March 01, 2017, 06:09:25 PM
-- Disclaimer: I haven't really kept up with this thread, and I have no clue what this challenge thing is about. I'm just responding to a few posts directed at me from a few pages back. --

Quote from: disputeone on February 28, 2017, 06:53:32 PM
For sure, I haven't argued for a minute that wtc 7 shouldn't have fallen at all, I am just arguing that the acceleration and plumb collapse is very suspicious for a collapse initiated in a single point causing the weakend structure to collapse as it did.

And I am just arguing that you are putting a lot of faith into some simplistic assumptions about an extremely complicated event. It's enough to slightly arouse my suspicion and curiosity, but not much more than that.

Quote
I think a more realistic prediction of what would happen given the OS is shown in NIST's physics models and predicted by my simplified equation.

1. No offense, but I suspect you would have a lot less faith in those simulations if you had actual experience working with them. Minor changes in the initial conditions can result in massively different outcomes. Given that the building burned for 7 hours, there were a LOT of unknowns.
2. Your "simplified equation" didn't predict anything. It's basically just a statement that the acceleration of the top will depend on the "resistance" of the debris below it. This much is obvious. The key is determining how large the "resistance" is, which your equation does nothing to predict.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 28, 2017, 07:30:37 PM
But it is just that...All I do is demolish the official story..If that is a lie, then that means the true perpetrators have not been caught..Also means our own government lied to us.

I haven't seen you demolish the official story at all. All I have seen are weak arguments (model innaccuracy, squibs, direction of fall) (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1876054#msg1876054) and suspicious events (freefall, classified) (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1876054#msg1876054), which are a part of the official story anyway. Granted, I haven't read into your arguments for #3, 4, and 6 (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1876054#msg1876054) yet.

Edit: "Warning - while you were typing 2 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post." + sticking my nose in where it doesn't belong:

Quote from: disputeone on March 01, 2017, 05:08:33 PM
Closest thing to an honest answer you've given, in actuality, it does look just like molten steel and nothing like what we would expect molten ally to look like.

How on earth can you tell the difference between molten steel and aluminum from a distance?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 01, 2017, 06:32:10 PM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 01, 2017, 06:09:25 PM
How on earth can you tell the difference between molten steel and aluminum from a distance?

The colour is the clue,   molten aluminium has fairly low emissivity and looks silvery in colour rather than the typical reddish yellow for steel,  but that's for relatively uncontaminated  molten aluminium,   what does it look like if there is substantial amounts of other partially burnt material mixed in?   I'm not aware that anyone has done the experiment to see if molten aluminium can be made to look like that material flowing from near the 80th floor corner.

But there are other clues,   first it's coming from the 80th floor corner of WTC2 where a lot of the UA175 debris piled up,  and we know from the video evidence there were substantial fires in that area,  so molten aluminium is a definite candidate.   It's just the wrong colour.

Either way it's an unsolved puzzle.  Also, It wasn't seen anywhere else that I'm aware of. 
 

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 01, 2017, 06:43:16 PM
Rayzor actually covered it.

It's the colour.

We wouldn't predict molten Aluminium at that color and temperature.

I respect you Totes we can agree to disagree.

Another strong point for molten steel is that they were pulling out glowing red steel from ground zero for months after.

This is irrefutable evidence the fires had more to them than jet fuel and the fuel in the building.

Irrefutably.

Here is a drill bit that I ruined drilling through stainless steel, it got red hot as I got frustrated and very quickly cooled in the atmosphere.

(https://s10.postimg.org/40yc8on7d/20170302_103131.jpg)

The steel was weakened by heat and I ruined the bit, now I have to sharpen it.

If we go by NIST's numbers the fires shouldn't have got hot enough to make massive lumps of steel glow red hot.

Pulling red hot steel from ground zero months after smashes the total progressive collapse hypothesis.

(https://s23.postimg.org/4ehzi938r/images_2.jpg)

If you don't mind me asking, do you have any metal work experience?

Edit. I am glad you are suspicious that is all I ask, you are very intelligent and critical and I have no doubt you can make your own decisions, I won't push you on this but am happy to have a friendly debate if you wish.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 01, 2017, 07:01:33 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 27, 2017, 03:40:41 AM
I don't expect anyone to even say anything about a conspiracy. After 43 pages I have, at the very least, shown that building 7s collapse was very unlikely and NIST's report doesn't even attempt to cover it.

That's just truth sorry.

@ Totes this is where me and Evar left our debate for reference, I accept I can't irrefutably prove my controlled demolition hypothesis, but we have shown some gaping holes in the official story.

Which, as you say, is suspicious.
This is enough.

You are much brighter than me, I'm not delusional, if you want to debate anything we can, of not then I'm happy to leave it there.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on March 01, 2017, 07:03:37 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 01, 2017, 06:32:10 PM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 01, 2017, 06:09:25 PM
How on earth can you tell the difference between molten steel and aluminum from a distance?

The colour is the clue,   molten aluminium has fairly low emissivity and looks silvery in colour rather than the typical reddish yellow for steel,  but that's for relatively uncontaminated  molten aluminium,   what does it look like if there is substantial amounts of other partially burnt material mixed in?   I'm not aware that anyone has done the experiment to see if molten aluminium can be made to look like that material flowing from near the 80th floor corner.

But there are other clues,   first it's coming from the 80th floor corner of WTC2 where a lot of the UA175 debris piled up,  and we know from the video evidence there were substantial fires in that area,  so molten aluminium is a definite candidate.   It's just the wrong colour.

Either way it's an unsolved puzzle.  Also, It wasn't seen anywhere else that I'm aware of.

I'm not super knowledgeable in this subject, but a quick search of "molten aluminum" on youtube comes up with quite a few videos of molten aluminum glowing orange. It does become silvery as it cools.

Quote from: disputeone on March 01, 2017, 06:43:16 PM
Another strong point for molten steel is that they were pulling out glowing red steel from ground zero for months after.

This is irrefutable evidence the fires had more to them than jet fuel and the fuel in the building.

Irrefutably.

Something something steel beams can't melt dank memes. I haven't looked too much into this argument, so I have no idea. One of these days I'll look into it seriously.

Quote
If you don't mind me asking, do you have any metal work experience?

Not really. So... grain of salt.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 01, 2017, 07:10:11 PM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 01, 2017, 06:09:25 PM
2. Your "simplified equation" didn't predict anything. It's basically just a statement that the acceleration of the top will depend on the "resistance" of the debris below it. This much is obvious. The key is determining how large the "resistance" is, which your equation does nothing to predict.

I 100% pay this, we can however use NIST's numbers of how much the structure was weakened and estimate a collapse acceleration from there.

That's why I originally picked 75% because it works with NIST's "hellfire" idea. Not even factoring in the support from concrete.

Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 01, 2017, 07:03:37 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 01, 2017, 06:32:10 PM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 01, 2017, 06:09:25 PM
How on earth can you tell the difference between molten steel and aluminum from a distance?

The colour is the clue,   molten aluminium has fairly low emissivity and looks silvery in colour rather than the typical reddish yellow for steel,  but that's for relatively uncontaminated  molten aluminium,   what does it look like if there is substantial amounts of other partially burnt material mixed in?   I'm not aware that anyone has done the experiment to see if molten aluminium can be made to look like that material flowing from near the 80th floor corner.

But there are other clues,   first it's coming from the 80th floor corner of WTC2 where a lot of the UA175 debris piled up,  and we know from the video evidence there were substantial fires in that area,  so molten aluminium is a definite candidate.   It's just the wrong colour.

Either way it's an unsolved puzzle.  Also, It wasn't seen anywhere else that I'm aware of.

I'm not super knowledgeable in this subject, but a quick search of "molten aluminum" on youtube comes up with quite a few videos of molten aluminum glowing orange. It does become silvery as it cools.

Quote from: disputeone on March 01, 2017, 06:43:16 PM
Another strong point for molten steel is that they were pulling out glowing red steel from ground zero for months after.

This is irrefutable evidence the fires had more to them than jet fuel and the fuel in the building.

Irrefutably.

Something something steel beams can't melt dank memes. I haven't looked too much into this argument, so I have no idea. One of these days I'll look into it seriously.

Quote
If you don't mind me asking, do you have any metal work experience?

Not really. So... grain of salt.


(https://s21.postimg.org/qecqoncrb/totes.jpg)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 01, 2017, 08:20:41 PM
A simpler analysis of Master_Evar's challenge.

The four fixed bolts form two orthogonal axes, NS and EW,  so they can be resolved separately.

Imagine the East West fixed bolts as an axle running through the disc and the 100 kg weight is placed  3m  on the north side of the axle,  it should be obvious that the South bolt takes no load,  the triangle formed by the E-W-N bolts take the load.

Now balance the torque about the East West "axle"   the weight is 3m from the axis,  so the torque is 3 * 100 = 300 kgm,  this must be balanced by the torque applied to the disk by the north bolt,  and  as it's 5 meters from the East West axle it takes  300/5 = 60 kg,    So we now have N=60kg, and S=0kg

Moving to the North South "axle"  the weight is 2m from the axis on the west side of the North South "axle" so the torque is  2 * 100 = 200 kgm,   this must be balanced by the torque applied by the West bolt,  which is 5m from the axis, so  W = 200/5  = 40kg,  and as before East=0kg

Adding back the weight of the disc.

So  N= 60 + 25 = 85kg   S = 0 + 25 = 25kg,    W= 40+25 = 65kg  E = 0 + 25 = 25kg,

Which is once again the same answer Master_Evar got.

This assumes as before that the bolts locations are fixed.   Which makes the experimental design a bit trickier,   

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 01, 2017, 08:48:12 PM
Quote from: Master_Evar on March 01, 2017, 07:06:55 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 01, 2017, 06:48:45 AM
Sorry, Actually fell asleep for once and I have to run to a meeting.

But very quickly.

So is the bet on?

FYI, I will be nice and throw a hint at what's missing if this is performed in the real world (Actually there are many many things) but just two.

Total mass of the load compared to total weight of the platform.

Total size and weight of the platform, to total mass supported.

Depending on exact design of the test structural we may actually have LESS weight on a bolt.  :o
Yes, the bet is on:
Quote from: Master_Evar on March 01, 2017, 01:48:06 AM
I'm not really a sucker for making bets with random-ish people on the internet involving money or other stuff with real value, even if I'm 100% confident.

I'll take up the challenge, and I propose that the loser has to write a rigorous, long and well written apology to the winner. The apology should compliment the winner at least a bit at the expense of the loser. The winner can also choose anything to be added to the losers signature (as long as it follows forum guidelines) and the loser is not allowed to edit the rest of their signature in a manner that changes the intended message. The signature has to stay for at least a year.

And other than small things that will only change the result by maybe a percent, I'm very sure I haven't forgotten anything. Oh, and it would be nice if you could record the experiment or take some photos.

Quote from: disputeone on March 01, 2017, 03:18:51 AM

(https://s13.postimg.org/h4ump4xyv/20170301_191304.jpg)

Northwest of this line there is a pivot and the platform wants to tilt.

On this line for a fixed structure with four bolts supporting it, there should be no increase in load?

Quote from: disputeone on March 01, 2017, 04:39:22 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on March 01, 2017, 04:33:17 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 01, 2017, 04:26:10 AM
Wait but does this only work with a theoretical point load?

Say for example we have a 300mm x 300mm press applying a 100kg point load to the exact spot.

The cross-section of the press, regardless of the point load, will naturally want to push the platform down as a whole. Especially if it is pinned level which is assumed in your experiment.

Which logically follows that a real world object would apply extra load to bolts S and E but only a minimal amount.

Or not?

All I know is everytime Bhs has made a claim here he has been able to back it up.

I have a strong feeling this is why he asked for dimensions.
The half of the press which is pushing to the south-east will apply load to the south and east bolts, but the half of the press which is pushing to the north west of the axis will use the north and west bolts as an axis to tilt the floor away from the south and east bolts. Both of these forces should cancel each other out.

I'm am very confident that dimensions do not matter, a long as the load is stable on the floor and the center of mass is at the specified position.

Alright I see that. It does make sense.

(https://s16.postimg.org/andlz63qd/omoshroi.jpg)

We are well past that, thanks...

Now I wanna see the math vs reality.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 01, 2017, 08:55:43 PM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 01, 2017, 07:03:37 PM
I'm not super knowledgeable in this subject, but a quick search of "molten aluminum" on youtube comes up with quite a few videos of molten aluminum glowing orange. It does become silvery as it cools.

Having done my fair share of Aluminium casting I can say that I've never seen any other colour than silver,  but that doesn't say anything about what happens at much higher temperatures,  what I do know is that taking pictures of hot objects that emit lots of near infrared light up brighter on digital cameras,  the ccd sensors are more sensitive to infrared than the human eye.   

Others have said that molten alumnium can look reddish in low light,  but is always silvery in daylight.   That might be a clue.

Still unresolved,  but I suspect the sensitivity of video camera's to near infrared might be a factor.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 01, 2017, 09:14:31 PM
You actually know a bit about this.

Occams Razor still dictates it is molten steel, especially considering the glowing steel months afterwards.

Edit, the only way we can rationalize it as ally is with a strong desire to believe the official story and deliberately not look for evidence.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 01, 2017, 10:23:19 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 01, 2017, 09:14:31 PM
You actually know a bit about this.

Occams Razor still dictates it is molten steel, especially considering the glowing steel months afterwards.

Edit, the only way we can rationalize it as ally is with a strong desire to believe the official story and deliberately not look for evidence.

To my eye it looks like someone cutting beams with oxy.  But maybe there's a more plausible explanation.

If it was molten steel, where did it come from?  and,  Why was it in seen in an area where there was a concentration of  aircraft debris?   Was red glowing molten metal seen anywhere else before collapse?

I'm not saying I have an answer to the puzzle,  just that molten steel seems an unlikely possibility given the weight of evidence.

Contaminated molten aluminium and sensitivity of digital ccd's to infrared seems a more likely avenue to investigate.   But I wouldn't rule anything out.




Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 01, 2017, 10:37:42 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 01, 2017, 10:23:19 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 01, 2017, 09:14:31 PM
You actually know a bit about this.

Occams Razor still dictates it is molten steel, especially considering the glowing steel months afterwards.

Edit, the only way we can rationalize it as ally is with a strong desire to believe the official story and deliberately not look for evidence.

To my eye it looks like someone cutting beams with oxy.  But maybe there's a more plausible explanation.

I value your honesty and accept the possibility it is not molten steel.

It does neatly explain why the buildings initial point of collapse was where the plane hit it.

It also neatly explains the subsequent (close to) free-fall and plumb collapse.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 01, 2017, 11:07:03 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 01, 2017, 10:23:19 PM
To my eye it looks like someone cutting beams with oxy.  But maybe there's a more plausible explanation.

I have said this many times...Which to me make it seem even more suspect than just melted steel. (As I know many like to try and play my words for things they are not. I am not saying there was someone up their cutting the beams..I am going to start writing disclaimers to remove all ambiguity)

As for aluminum, would never glow that color in direct sunlight even with trash mixed in it. Maybe low level light at high temps, but not direct sunlight
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 01, 2017, 11:31:10 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 01, 2017, 11:07:03 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 01, 2017, 10:23:19 PM
To my eye it looks like someone cutting beams with oxy.  But maybe there's a more plausible explanation.

I have said this many times...Which to me make it seem even more suspect than just melted steel. (As I know many like to try and play my words for things they are not. I am not saying there was someone up their cutting the beams..I am going to start writing disclaimers to remove all ambiguity)

As for aluminum, would never glow that color in direct sunlight even with trash mixed in it. Maybe low level light at high temps, but not direct sunlight

I'm not so sure,  I've got to fire up the furnace sometime soon,   for a job that requires 800C,  so I could mix up 50/50  aluminium with some powdered carbon and see what it looks like in daylight. 


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bullwinkle on March 01, 2017, 11:41:10 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 01, 2017, 11:31:10 PM
I've got to fire up the furnace sometime soon,

How about now?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 01, 2017, 11:47:55 PM
Quote from: Bullwinkle on March 01, 2017, 11:41:10 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 01, 2017, 11:31:10 PM
I've got to fire up the furnace sometime soon,

How about now?

I'll just tell the customer,  that a friendly moose on the internet talked me into doing his job early.   I can see uses for this approach already.  :)


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 01, 2017, 11:50:20 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 01, 2017, 11:31:10 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 01, 2017, 11:07:03 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 01, 2017, 10:23:19 PM
To my eye it looks like someone cutting beams with oxy.  But maybe there's a more plausible explanation.

I have said this many times...Which to me make it seem even more suspect than just melted steel. (As I know many like to try and play my words for things they are not. I am not saying there was someone up their cutting the beams..I am going to start writing disclaimers to remove all ambiguity)

As for aluminum, would never glow that color in direct sunlight even with trash mixed in it. Maybe low level light at high temps, but not direct sunlight

I'm not so sure,  I've got to fire up the furnace sometime soon,   for a job that requires 800C,  so I could mix up 50/50  aluminium with some powdered carbon and see what it looks like in daylight.

Actually sounds like a good experiment.

This interests me, I'm willing to do it with some ally and carbon also. Would be interested to see if we can change the colour by eye.

Furthermore taking pictures with digital cameras eliminates the possibility it is a trick of the camera.

I appreciate your change of tact Rayzor however I am not sure what brought it on.



How do you rationalize the fires burning for months after the towers fell?

Edit. Typo.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bullwinkle on March 01, 2017, 11:54:27 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 01, 2017, 11:47:55 PM
Quote from: Bullwinkle on March 01, 2017, 11:41:10 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 01, 2017, 11:31:10 PM
I've got to fire up the furnace sometime soon,

How about now?

I'll just tell the customer,  that a friendly moose on the internet talked me into doing his job early.   I can see uses for this approach already.  :)


Screw work.  ;)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on March 01, 2017, 11:58:59 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 01, 2017, 06:43:16 PM
Here is a drill bit that I ruined drilling through stainless steel, it got red hot as I got frustrated and very quickly cooled in the atmosphere.

...

Pulling red hot steel from ground zero months after smashes the total progressive collapse hypothesis.

I think you just debunked yourself. Yes, friction can make steel red hot. How much friction do you think is generated by a falling skyscraper? Friction causes heat. Deforming metal causes heat. High pressure causes heat. Concrete and steel falling from 1000+ feet causes heat.

Quote from: Rayzor on March 01, 2017, 11:31:10 PM
I'm not so sure,  I've got to fire up the furnace sometime soon,   for a job that requires 800C,  so I could mix up 50/50  aluminium with some powdered carbon and see what it looks like in daylight. 

+1

Very curious to see the results. Quick research shows that they predicted a temperature of ~1000 C though. Crank it up!
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 02, 2017, 12:02:51 AM
Totes the molten steel (possibly not steel) was seen long before the tower fell, so I haven't debunked myself.

I am well aware that friction causes heat, see the drill bit I ruined.

This still doesn't explain three month old glowing red steel.

Or the plumb neat collapse at close to free fall imo.

You have debunked yourself, good sir, the friction that would be required to make steel glow red would cause a massive reduction on fall acceleration.

No disrespect.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 02, 2017, 12:10:26 AM
Quote from: Bullwinkle on March 01, 2017, 11:54:27 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 01, 2017, 11:47:55 PM
Quote from: Bullwinkle on March 01, 2017, 11:41:10 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 01, 2017, 11:31:10 PM
I've got to fire up the furnace sometime soon,

How about now?

I'll just tell the customer,  that a friendly moose on the internet talked me into doing his job early.   I can see uses for this approach already.  :)


Screw work.  ;)

I'm just 6 numbers plus the power ball away from agreeing with you.   Otherwise +10.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 02, 2017, 12:24:06 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 02, 2017, 12:02:51 AM
the friction that would be required to make steel glow red would cause a massive reduction on fall acceleration.

No disrespect.

20 points here....Very nice.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 02, 2017, 12:26:53 AM
If you guys have to know (idrk) I am an electrical / mechanical fitter, I install, wire, maintain and tune commercial elevators. I know a thing or two about steel, concrete, static and dynamic loads also how things are over engineered for safety

Some lifts use eight ropes to support a load that two could easily take without deformation and / or breaking, yet we use eight, not to mention if all eight ropes broke simultaneously you would still not fall further than 150mm.

You could literally set a kerosene fire in the pit of an elevator leave it burning for 24 hours come back put it out and all that would be broken is your electrics and the plastics. It certainly wouldn't spread into the building due to the fireproofing I install.

I am also on site pretty early and talk to the form workers steel workers architects engineers etc (my engineers are useless the shit I have to modify to make work is unreal wanna study M.E once I have sorted out family commitments and design them better but that is another story).

I don't need to tell you the opinion most people that work in the industry have on 9/11. I make jokes about the OS all the time and get great laughs all round. (mainly to a 21 - 33 yo crowd, the older guys don't wanna talk about it in my experience.)

Like Bhs said some experience really shows how bunk the OS is. I've never claimed to be the smartest poster on this site but if it makes you feel better about the OS feel free to rip on me for working with my hands.

I also read a lot, if that wasn't obvious.

This is also not an argument from authority, if that wasn't obvious.

Edit. Thanks Bhs.

Edit. Edit. One of my favorite sayings for something built well (except she'll be right mate) is you could crash a plane into it.

I'm not the only one who says it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 02, 2017, 12:28:48 AM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 01, 2017, 11:58:59 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 01, 2017, 06:43:16 PM
Here is a drill bit that I ruined drilling through stainless steel, it got red hot as I got frustrated and very quickly cooled in the atmosphere.

...

Pulling red hot steel from ground zero months after smashes the total progressive collapse hypothesis.

I think you just debunked yourself. Yes, friction can make steel red hot. How much friction do you think is generated by a falling skyscraper? Friction causes heat. Deforming metal causes heat. High pressure causes heat. Concrete and steel falling from 1000+ feet causes heat.

Quote from: Rayzor on March 01, 2017, 11:31:10 PM
I'm not so sure,  I've got to fire up the furnace sometime soon,   for a job that requires 800C,  so I could mix up 50/50  aluminium with some powdered carbon and see what it looks like in daylight. 

+1

Very curious to see the results. Quick research shows that they predicted a temperature of ~1000 C though. Crank it up!

I think the 1000C was localized,  rather than over a wider area.  I'll start at 800,  and see what it looks like, Check back tomorrow and I'll post the pictures.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on March 02, 2017, 12:31:45 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 02, 2017, 12:02:51 AM
Totes the molten steel (possibly not steel) was seen long before the tower fell, so I haven't debunked myself.

I was referring specifically to the glowing and/or molten steel at the bottom. The glowing metal seen falling before the collapse could have been aluminum (or a number of other things). I know you don't think that is possible, but the numerous youtube videos of glowing orange aluminum say otherwise.

Quote
This still doesn't explain three month old glowing red steel.

Why not? Thousands of tons of steel insulated by thousands of tons of concrete and surrounded by smoldering debris is going to stay hot slightly longer than your drill bit.

Quote
Or the plumb neat collapse at close to free fall imo.

You have debunked yourself, good sir, the friction that would be required to make steel glow red would cause a massive reduction on fall acceleration.

I haven't looked at the fall speed of the main towers yet. However, in-air friction wouldn't need to be significant. Plenty of friction to be had when it smashes into the ground.

Quote from: disputeone on March 02, 2017, 12:26:53 AM
You could literally set a kerosene fire in the pit of an elevator leave it burning for 24 hours come back put it out and all that would be broken is your electrics and the plastics. It certainly wouldn't spread into the building due to the fireproofing I install.

But have you tested it against airplanes? ;)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 02, 2017, 12:35:14 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 01, 2017, 08:20:41 PM
A simpler analysis of Master_Evar's challenge.

The four fixed bolts form two orthogonal axes, NS and EW,  so they can be resolved separately.

Imagine the East West fixed bolts as an axle running through the disc and the 100 kg weight is placed  3m  on the north side of the axle,  it should be obvious that the South bolt takes no load,  the triangle formed by the E-W-N bolts take the load.

Now balance the torque about the East West "axle"   the weight is 3m from the axis,  so the torque is 3 * 100 = 300 kgm,  this must be balanced by the torque applied to the disk by the north bolt,  and  as it's 5 meters from the East West axle it takes  300/5 = 60 kg,    So we now have N=60kg, and S=0kg

Moving to the North South "axle"  the weight is 2m from the axis on the west side of the North South "axle" so the torque is  2 * 100 = 200 kgm,   this must be balanced by the torque applied by the West bolt,  which is 5m from the axis, so  W = 200/5  = 40kg,  and as before East=0kg

Adding back the weight of the disc.

So  N= 60 + 25 = 85kg   S = 0 + 25 = 25kg,    W= 40+25 = 65kg  E = 0 + 25 = 25kg,

Which is once again the same answer Master_Evar got.

This assumes as before that the bolts locations are fixed.   Which makes the experimental design a bit trickier,   

This one is for Master_Evar,  to ease his mind about the zero load on the South and East bolt locations from loads added in the North West  quadrant.

(https://s23.postimg.org/i117savaj/Challenge.jpg)

The perspex disk is about 400 mm diameter,  left over from a failed pizza making experiment,  it's set up on parallels on just North,  East and West bolt locations,  and a 5 kg ( approx) weight has been placed in the north west section.

As you can see there is zero load  on the South Bolt location.

If I could find some load cells,  I'd  confirm the actual load distribution,  but I can't see it being much different to the answer already derived.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 02, 2017, 12:40:22 AM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 02, 2017, 12:31:45 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 02, 2017, 12:02:51 AM
Totes the molten steel (possibly not steel) was seen long before the tower fell, so I haven't debunked myself.

I was referring specifically to the glowing and/or molten steel at the bottom. The glowing metal seen falling before the collapse could have been aluminum (or a number of other things). I know you don't think that is possible, but the numerous youtube videos of glowing orange aluminum say otherwise.

Quote
This still doesn't explain three month old glowing red steel.

Why not? Thousands of tons of steel insulated by thousands of tons of concrete and surrounded by smoldering debris is going to stay hot slightly longer than your drill bit.

Quote
Or the plumb neat collapse at close to free fall imo.

You have debunked yourself, good sir, the friction that would be required to make steel glow red would cause a massive reduction on fall acceleration.

I haven't looked at the fall speed of the main towers yet. However, in-air friction wouldn't need to be significant. Plenty of friction to be had when it smashes into the ground.

Quote from: disputeone on March 02, 2017, 12:26:53 AM
You could literally set a kerosene fire in the pit of an elevator leave it burning for 24 hours come back put it out and all that would be broken is your electrics and the plastics. It certainly wouldn't spread into the building due to the fireproofing I install.

But have you tested it against airplanes? ;)

I haven't yet tested it against air planes.
You got me ;D ;D

I see what you say about the impact causing heat. This is feasible I guess.

I do understand the insulation factor for the heat also, you rationalized that really well.

It still doesn't begin to explain the fall acceleration and plumb collapse.

The glowing orange aluminum isn't in direct sunlight, Bhs, Myself and even Rayzor all agree on this.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on March 02, 2017, 12:49:21 AM
Thanks, Rayzor. If you also put the south one back, and removed the east, it should also be stable. However, It doesn't prove it all. If you put back the south one, it would still take some load, assuming it has the exact (or nearly exact) same height as the east one, due to the east one slightly compressing. The load isn't put right in between the north and west bolt, so the south and east still has some load. if you remove the south bolt, it is put on the east bolt and vice versa.

Are you brave enough to balance that weight between the north and west support, and then remove the east support? If the load weighs more than that disk, and since technically you could say that each side and corner of those north and west supports acts as individual pivots, it could be stable.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 02, 2017, 12:52:13 AM
Rayzor brings out his A game on page 50 lol, nice work tho, credit where credit is due.

Quote from: NIST
the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.

Just to point out another blatant lie from the NIST report. The supporting structure could've easily taken twice the load above, I am willing to bet it could safely take four times the load above it. This is how we build things, it's just reality, ask any engineer.

The idea of structural resistance causing zero effect on fall acceleration is another blatant lie, as my primary school level equation clearly shows.

if NIST weren't so dirty I might not believe as strongly as I do.

I hate being talked to like an idiot and I especially hate it when my government talks to me like an idiot.

The saddest part of this conspiracy false flag, imo, is the physics and engineering aren't even the strongest evidence for foul play. :(
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 02, 2017, 12:59:18 AM
This thread gives me hope.

(https://s9.postimg.org/apyv80jjj/1485846225795.gif)




Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 02, 2017, 01:04:48 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on March 02, 2017, 12:49:21 AM
Thanks, Rayzor. If you also put the south one back, and removed the east, it should also be stable. However, It doesn't prove it all. If you put back the south one, it would still take some load, assuming it has the exact (or nearly exact) same height as the east one, due to the east one slightly compressing. The load isn't put right in between the north and west bolt, so the south and east still has some load. if you remove the south bolt, it is put on the east bolt and vice versa.

Are you brave enough to balance that weight between the north and west support, and then remove the east support? If the load weighs more than that disk, and since technically you could say that each side and corner of those north and west supports acts as individual pivots, it could be stable.

Yes, I thought that through,  and if you take the NS "axle"  the 100 kg load is distributed  40 kg on the West bolt and 60 kg on the axle,   so the load transferred to the "axle" is 60 kg,

So how is that 60 kg load on the NS axle distributed?

Now rotate through 90 degrees,  and look at the EW axle,   the 100 kg load is 60 kg on the North bolt and 40 Kg on the axle,  which we have already  shown is taken entirely by the west bolt.

So your answer still stands.  The load doesn't have to be exactly  on the line between North and West bolt locations. 

If I had some load cells I could confirm it, but I guess we will know for sure when BHS does his experiment.   




Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on March 02, 2017, 01:10:35 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 02, 2017, 12:52:13 AM
Just to point out another blatant lie from the NIST report. The supporting structure could've easily taken twice the load above, I am willing to bet it could safely take four times the load above it. This is how we build things, it's just reality, ask any engineer.
This is where my thought experiment spawned from. According to BHS, the bolts were designed for some x load, the yield strength would be 2x, the ultimate tensile strength would be 4x. In an ideal situation, it could have taken some 4 times it's load. However, at 2 times it's load it would start deforming horribly, which more likely than not would cause some seriously uneven distribution of loads. So I'd say they could have taken a bit more than twice their load, but at or before 3 times their load the deformation would cause some supports to experience spikes of more than 4 times loads, and probably snapping.

(And that was when BHS started saying "no, doubling loads don't work that way!.... And then "Distribution doesn't work that way"... and here we are.)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on March 02, 2017, 01:19:16 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 02, 2017, 01:04:48 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on March 02, 2017, 12:49:21 AM
Thanks, Rayzor. If you also put the south one back, and removed the east, it should also be stable. However, It doesn't prove it all. If you put back the south one, it would still take some load, assuming it has the exact (or nearly exact) same height as the east one, due to the east one slightly compressing. The load isn't put right in between the north and west bolt, so the south and east still has some load. if you remove the south bolt, it is put on the east bolt and vice versa.

Are you brave enough to balance that weight between the north and west support, and then remove the east support? If the load weighs more than that disk, and since technically you could say that each side and corner of those north and west supports acts as individual pivots, it could be stable.

Yes, I thought that through,  and if you take the NS "axle"  the 100 kg load is distributed  40 kg on the West bolt and 60 kg on the axle,   so the load transferred to the "axle" is 60 kg,

So how is that 60 kg load on the NS axle distributed?

Now rotate through 90 degrees,  and look at the EW axle,   the 100 kg load is 60 kg on the North bolt and 40 Kg on the axle,  which we have already  shown is taken entirely by the west bolt.

So your answer still stands.  The load doesn't have to be exactly  on the line between North and West bolt locations. 

If I had some load cells I could confirm it, but I guess we will know for sure when BHS does his experiment.
Well, those ratios only hold for the position (2,3), which happens to be right on the line. Let's say we put the weight at (2, 2) instead of (2, 3).
NS axis torque: 100kg*2m - Wkg*5m = 0kgm
Wkg*5m = 200kgm
Wkg = 40kg
West bolt takes 40kg.
So does north in that case.
and south and east takes 10kg each.

EDIT: but that wouldn't hold, because that would mean torque around NS axis would actually be:
100*2-40*5+10*5 = 50 > 0.
I had a hunch that you got the right answer by a bit of luck there, normally you wouldn't do it with ratios the way you did.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 02, 2017, 01:21:59 AM
There's a difference between a safe working load a deformation load and a fail load.

NIST deliberately confuses these.

At twice the towers SWL no deformation would occur.

Plus metal has the unfortunate tendency to bend before it will shear (especially when hot)

The fact we see practically zero deformation before the towers fall very quickly is strong evidence in and of itself for a controlled demolition.

I am not talking about anything fancy, just the axiomatic fact that exceeding SWL will not result in deformation or failure.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 02, 2017, 01:27:45 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on March 02, 2017, 01:19:16 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 02, 2017, 01:04:48 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on March 02, 2017, 12:49:21 AM
Thanks, Rayzor. If you also put the south one back, and removed the east, it should also be stable. However, It doesn't prove it all. If you put back the south one, it would still take some load, assuming it has the exact (or nearly exact) same height as the east one, due to the east one slightly compressing. The load isn't put right in between the north and west bolt, so the south and east still has some load. if you remove the south bolt, it is put on the east bolt and vice versa.

Are you brave enough to balance that weight between the north and west support, and then remove the east support? If the load weighs more than that disk, and since technically you could say that each side and corner of those north and west supports acts as individual pivots, it could be stable.

Yes, I thought that through,  and if you take the NS "axle"  the 100 kg load is distributed  40 kg on the West bolt and 60 kg on the axle,   so the load transferred to the "axle" is 60 kg,

So how is that 60 kg load on the NS axle distributed?

Now rotate through 90 degrees,  and look at the EW axle,   the 100 kg load is 60 kg on the North bolt and 40 Kg on the axle,  which we have already  shown is taken entirely by the west bolt.

So your answer still stands.  The load doesn't have to be exactly  on the line between North and West bolt locations. 

If I had some load cells I could confirm it, but I guess we will know for sure when BHS does his experiment.
Well, those ratios only hold for the position (2,3), which happens to be right on the line. Let's say we put the weight at (2, 2) instead of (2, 3).
NS axis torque: 100kg*2m - Wkg*5m = 0kgm
Wkg*5m = 200kgm
Wkg = 40kg
West bolt takes 40kg.
So does north in that case.
and south and east takes 10kg each.

Of course,  you are correct,  I didn't think 2,3 was on the NW line for some reason.  your correction makes sense.  You chose the magic numbers.  :)



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on March 02, 2017, 01:29:04 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 02, 2017, 01:27:45 AM
Of course,  you are correct,  I didn't think 2,3 was on the NW line for some reason.  your correction makes sense.  You chose the magic numbers.  :)
Yeah, dumb luck on my part.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 02, 2017, 01:42:39 AM
If it makes you feel better Rayzor I had to draw a diagram :P

(https://s13.postimg.org/h4ump4xyv/20170301_191304.jpg)

The load should be further north on the line but whatever.

Edit. If we want to continue the thought experiment / real experiment can we do it in another thread, I know it is kind of on topic but we've spent a good portion of the last of the thread on it.

I'm happy to find the quotes and make it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on March 02, 2017, 01:50:56 AM
Well, it depends on if BHS will perform the experiment soon or not. If he's going to take some time, we could move to a different thread. It doesn't matter that much to me.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 02, 2017, 01:55:56 AM
I just don't want this thread to turn into purely your thought experiment.

Any thoughts on this?

Quote from: Master_Evar on March 02, 2017, 01:10:35 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 02, 2017, 12:52:13 AM
Just to point out another blatant lie from the NIST report. The supporting structure could've easily taken twice the load above, I am willing to bet it could safely take four times the load above it. This is how we build things, it's just reality, ask any engineer.
This is where my thought experiment spawned from. According to BHS, the bolts were designed for some x load, the yield strength would be 2x, the ultimate tensile strength would be 4x. In an ideal situation, it could have taken some 4 times it's load. However, at 2 times it's load it would start deforming horribly, which more likely than not would cause some seriously uneven distribution of loads. So I'd say they could have taken a bit more than twice their load, but at or before 3 times their load the deformation would cause some supports to experience spikes of more than 4 times loads, and probably snapping.

(And that was when BHS started saying "no, doubling loads don't work that way!.... And then "Distribution doesn't work that way"... and here we are.)

Quote from: disputeone on March 02, 2017, 01:21:59 AM
There's a difference between a safe working load a deformation load and a fail load.

NIST deliberately confuses these.

At twice the towers SWL no deformation would occur.

Plus metal has the unfortunate tendency to bend before it will shear (especially when hot)

The fact we see practically zero deformation before the towers fall very quickly is strong evidence in and of itself for a controlled demolition.

I am not talking about anything fancy, just the axiomatic fact that exceeding SWL will not result in deformation or failure.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 02, 2017, 02:04:34 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on March 02, 2017, 01:50:56 AM
Well, it depends on if BHS will perform the experiment soon or not. If he's going to take some time, we could move to a different thread. It doesn't matter that much to me.

It's ME's  challenge he can call it.  I'm not fussed either way.

I've been playing around with balancing torque about each axis,  not quite there yet,  but of course torque reaction reverses as the load crossed the NW  axis,   The South and East  loads go negative.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 02, 2017, 02:10:53 AM


To also try to address the "why" they took the towers down.

I have been thinking on this deeply.
In a psychological / magickal sense, it wasn't enough for the planes to hit the towers, they had to be removed, the difference on every photo, everytime someones visits and sees those towers no longer on the skyline, all the old photos videos postcards etc with the wtc buildings.

The power of this is unfathomable on a population, the fear, anxiety and stress it causes is huge, then promise to fix everything as long as we trust in our leaders, go to war for "wmd's" come back with oil, money countless deaths of innocents / innocence and geopolitical control in the middle east with an added advantage over Russia.

Everytime someone questions it or speaks out they are reminded of the forever changed skyline and sense of safety and called a "nutter" like has happened on this thread since the OP.



#Trumpfor911truth
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on March 02, 2017, 02:16:15 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 02, 2017, 01:21:59 AM
There's a difference between a safe working load a deformation load and a fail load.

NIST deliberately confuses these.

At twice the towers SWL no deformation would occur.

Plus metal has the unfortunate tendency to bend before it will shear (especially when hot)

The fact we see practically zero deformation before the towers fall very quickly is strong evidence in and of itself for a controlled demolition.

I am not talking about anything fancy, just the axiomatic fact that exceeding SWL will not result in deformation or failure.

First of all, this is information from BHS, not NIST. Maybe it wouldn't deform quite at twice, and the structure could be made so that if a load is about to double on something, that load is proportionally shifted onto a really strong bolt. However, adding another 10% after doubling we'd reach deformation going by BHS's figures.
Also, this deformation happens in the bolts. I'm not a user of the imperial system, but I'd guess the bolts would be around one inch at most (but probably half-inch or quarter-inch?). Do you think you'd notice a difference of a few inches on a video? A few inches is really hard to spot, but it can really make som difference when it comes to load distribution.

EDIT: at the high-end of BHS figures the bolts would deform a little before twice the load.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 02, 2017, 02:19:32 AM
That is information from me, this is information from NIST.

Quote from: disputeone on March 02, 2017, 12:52:13 AM
Quote from: NIST
the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.

Just to point out another blatant lie from the NIST report. The supporting structure could've easily taken twice the load above, I am willing to bet it could safely take four times the load above it. This is how we build things, it's just reality, ask any engineer.

The idea of structural resistance causing zero effect on fall acceleration is another blatant lie, as my primary school level equation clearly shows.

if NIST weren't so dirty I might not believe as strongly as I do.

I hate being talked to like an idiot and I especially hate it when my government talks to me like an idiot.

The saddest part of this conspiracy false flag, imo, is the physics and engineering aren't even the strongest evidence for foul play. :(

We are talking about the towers, not individual bolts.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on March 02, 2017, 02:19:56 AM
BHS' figures:
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 24, 2017, 04:22:53 PM
Bolts used for the box flooring were a490 connection bolts, the box supports were a325. The a490 was certified in that design of the box floor support to have a working load of no more than 80 ksi, the a325 52ksi. At that time, the a490 would fail at 170 ksi, the a325 about 120 ksi. The actual estimated load of each bolt was 30-45 ksi for the 490s, 20-28 for the a325 with the floor at weight comp (depending on wind conditions and other variables).
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on March 02, 2017, 02:21:23 AM
Ah, by "This" I meant my numbers for the WLL, yield and tensile strength.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 02, 2017, 02:28:05 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on March 02, 2017, 02:19:56 AM
BHS' figures:
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 24, 2017, 04:22:53 PM
Bolts used for the box flooring were a490 connection bolts, the box supports were a325. The a490 was certified in that design of the box floor support to have a working load of no more than 80 ksi, the a325 52ksi. At that time, the a490 would fail at 170 ksi, the a325 about 120 ksi. The actual estimated load of each bolt was 30-45 ksi for the 490s, 20-28 for the a325 with the floor at weight comp (depending on wind conditions and other variables).

I'm not talking about your thought experiment, I am talking about the towers.

Inb4 it was only one support that initially failed.

One support doesn't take nearly the full load of the structure, as I am sure you know, also even a weakened structure could have a single column fail and not even nearly collapse, much less on its own footprint at close to free-fall.

If this wasn't an inside job, the main company executives behind the wtc complex, engineers, architects and most likely some tradesman, would go to jail. The ones that are still alive.

Edit, especially building 7, people should have gone to jail over that.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on March 02, 2017, 02:52:04 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 02, 2017, 02:28:05 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on March 02, 2017, 02:19:56 AM
BHS' figures:
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 24, 2017, 04:22:53 PM
Bolts used for the box flooring were a490 connection bolts, the box supports were a325. The a490 was certified in that design of the box floor support to have a working load of no more than 80 ksi, the a325 52ksi. At that time, the a490 would fail at 170 ksi, the a325 about 120 ksi. The actual estimated load of each bolt was 30-45 ksi for the 490s, 20-28 for the a325 with the floor at weight comp (depending on wind conditions and other variables).

I'm not talking about your thought experiment, I am talking about the towers.

Inb4 it was only one support that initially failed.

One support doesn't take nearly the full load of the structure, as I am sure you know, also even a weakened structure could have a single column fail and not even nearly collapse, much less on its own footprint at close to free-fall.

If this wasn't an inside job, the main company executives behind the wtc complex, engineers, architects and most likely some tradesman, would go to jail. The ones that are still alive.
I'm not talking about the thought experiment either. Where'd you get that from?

And the support must have failed because it had a large load on it. After that, the load has to go somewhere. Buildings are built so that if one support fails, the load should be as evenly distributed as possible over the other supports. However the most nearby joints/directly connected joints will definitely take most of the load, and if they are already near the point of irreversible deformation, it might be enough to start a chain reaction of joint failure. If not, it's going to be even more sensitive to extra loads than it was before. The planes themselves knocked out more than just a column each.

And due to leverage, it is even entirely possible that some joint far away from the collapse will use a joint close to the collapse as a pivot and shift it's load over to it (compare to two people pushing up on both ends of a teeter - if one person suddenly releases, or "collapses", the other person will push their end up in the air away from them so that it lifts from their hands, which means that the teeter went from being supported by those two people to being supported mostly by it's actual pivot, just because one person released. Hey, we're back at load distribution with torque!) possibly causing it to collapse. This means that joints close to the collapse can experience an increase in load greater than the load of the collapsed joint.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 02, 2017, 03:00:11 AM
That may be correct but it will not, under any circumstances lead to this.

Quote
Quote from: NIST
the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.

Just to point out another blatant lie from the NIST report. The supporting structure could've easily taken twice the load above, I am willing to bet it could safely take four times the load above it. This is how we build things, it's just reality, ask any engineer.

The idea of structural resistance causing zero effect on fall acceleration is another blatant lie, as my primary school level equation clearly shows.





Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 02, 2017, 03:02:51 AM
Master Evar, to be fair you and Totes have done a far better job of justifying the towers collapse than NIST ever did.

Edit. Also, I gotta hand it to you, after three days of reading I can see no reasons why your predictions for your thought experiment are wrong, to give you credit.

I hope Bhs can prove otherwise but I can't fault your logic.

However it debunks nothing on this thread.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on March 02, 2017, 03:12:36 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 02, 2017, 03:02:51 AM
Master Evar, to be fair you and Totes have done a far better job of justifying the towers collapse than NIST ever did.

Edit. Also, I gotta hand it to you, after three days of reading I can see no reasons why your predictions for your thought experiment are wrong, to give you credit.

I hope Bhs can prove otherwise but I can't fault your logic.

However it debunks nothing on this thread.
Well, thanks.

I'd still say it debunks BHS' claim about how evenly load is distributed, and if I'm correct over him, that at least shows he's not the authority he made himself out to be, in which case I hope he starts referencing to sources more instead of simply claiming that he knows and that he's got the facts.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 02, 2017, 03:14:01 AM
Sure, if he's incorrect, I'll pay that.

I'll even send you a carton to apologize.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on March 02, 2017, 03:15:13 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 02, 2017, 03:14:01 AM
Sure, if he's incorrect, I'll pay that.

I'll even send you a carton to apologize.
Carton or cartoon?  ;)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 02, 2017, 03:16:53 AM
In Australia cartons of alcohol are like currency, if you ask for a favour you buy a six pack, big favour is a carton.

Also a big apology is worth a carton because, to be fair, I was pretty rude to you.

I'm a man of my word.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on March 02, 2017, 03:20:44 AM
I see. Well, I don't drink, so there's no need to send me a carton then.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 02, 2017, 03:21:53 AM
For some reason that doesn't surprise me, well I will apologize in regards to the thought experiment in any case.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 02, 2017, 03:23:11 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on March 02, 2017, 02:52:04 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 02, 2017, 02:28:05 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on March 02, 2017, 02:19:56 AM
BHS' figures:
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 24, 2017, 04:22:53 PM
Bolts used for the box flooring were a490 connection bolts, the box supports were a325. The a490 was certified in that design of the box floor support to have a working load of no more than 80 ksi, the a325 52ksi. At that time, the a490 would fail at 170 ksi, the a325 about 120 ksi. The actual estimated load of each bolt was 30-45 ksi for the 490s, 20-28 for the a325 with the floor at weight comp (depending on wind conditions and other variables).

I'm not talking about your thought experiment, I am talking about the towers.

Inb4 it was only one support that initially failed.

One support doesn't take nearly the full load of the structure, as I am sure you know, also even a weakened structure could have a single column fail and not even nearly collapse, much less on its own footprint at close to free-fall.

If this wasn't an inside job, the main company executives behind the wtc complex, engineers, architects and most likely some tradesman, would go to jail. The ones that are still alive.
I'm not talking about the thought experiment either. Where'd you get that from?

And the support must have failed because it had a large load on it. After that, the load has to go somewhere. Buildings are built so that if one support fails, the load should be as evenly distributed as possible over the other supports. However the most nearby joints/directly connected joints will definitely take most of the load, and if they are already near the point of irreversible deformation, it might be enough to start a chain reaction of joint failure. If not, it's going to be even more sensitive to extra loads than it was before. The planes themselves knocked out more than just a column each.

And due to leverage, it is even entirely possible that some joint far away from the collapse will use a joint close to the collapse as a pivot and shift it's load over to it (compare to two people pushing up on both ends of a teeter - if one person suddenly releases, or "collapses", the other person will push their end up in the air away from them so that it lifts from their hands, which means that the teeter went from being supported by those two people to being supported mostly by it's actual pivot, just because one person released. Hey, we're back at load distribution with torque!) possibly causing it to collapse. This means that joints close to the collapse can experience an increase in load greater than the load of the collapsed joint.

Quote from: disputeone on March 02, 2017, 03:00:11 AM
That may be correct but it will not, under any circumstances lead to this.

Quote
Quote from: NIST
the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.

Just to point out another blatant lie from the NIST report. The supporting structure could've easily taken twice the load above, I am willing to bet it could safely take four times the load above it. This is how we build things, it's just reality, ask any engineer.

The idea of structural resistance causing zero effect on fall acceleration is another blatant lie, as my primary school level equation clearly shows.







Not letting this get off topic tho  ;)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on March 02, 2017, 03:29:51 AM
Well, I don't have anything to say about that. It may or may not be possible (plausibly possible), you believe it isn't, i believe it is. There's not enough hard evidence to determine with absolute certainty, although we may be confident in our respective positions.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 02, 2017, 03:31:57 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on March 02, 2017, 03:29:51 AM
Well, I don't have anything to say about that. It may or may not be possible (plausibly possible), you believe it isn't, i believe it is. There's not enough hard evidence to determine with absolute certainty, although we may be confident in our respective positions.

I respect that.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 02, 2017, 04:03:06 AM
Looking for natural building collapse videos on youtube, pretty hard to find, a lot that say collapse are controlled demos, which is an interesting observation, was pretty disenchanted after clicking on a collapse video and hearing 3, 2, 1...

This sums it up pretty well.

(https://s16.postimg.org/4ifh9iv1h/Screenshot_20170302_195956.png)

People who look find answers.

After 9/11 and especially building 7, why don't we just set fire to jet fuel in a building, it would be cheaper and quicker, plus more efficient and effective than 95% of controlled demolitions.

So far 100% success rate 3/3....

Everyone who voted fires caused the collapse?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 02, 2017, 04:13:09 AM
Pro tip.

The answer is it wouldn't collapse.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on March 02, 2017, 04:47:23 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 01, 2017, 04:39:55 PM
BTW Aluminium melts at 470-650 depending on the alloy,   so any aircraft wreckage close enough to the fires would probably have melted.

I don't know what the molten liquid is coming out of the 80th floor,  but that corner had a lot of aircraft debris and you can see fires around that area,  so molten aluminium is a possibility,  but as far as I know the emissivity would make it look silvery, not  glowing yellow.   I've seen theories that other stuff mixed in with (like partially burnt materials) the molten aluminium could make it look like that,

Maybe one of these days I'll do an experiment and see if it's true.

I do not think so:

"As explained by physicist Jerry Lobdill:

The problem with concluding that the liquid flowing from the tower’s 82nd floor could have been aluminum… is that the liquid in the tower was not confined in a container so that more heat could be applied to raise the temperature of the liquid above its melting point. Instead, as soon as the metal liquefied it flowed away from the heat source under the force of gravity. Therefore, the color of the liquid flowing from the 82nd floor [indicated that it] was at approximately the melting point of the metal. And therefore, it was molten iron from steel."

http://adamtaylor42.blogspot.com/2012/12/taylor-contra-powers.html (http://adamtaylor42.blogspot.com/2012/12/taylor-contra-powers.html)

You can certainly cut aluminum with a torch but the temp will never be hot enough for the flow to remain orange or yellow for the length depicted in the picture.

Poured melted aluminum will never remain orange or yellow for that length of time.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 02, 2017, 04:49:02 AM
Oh snap, great post man, great logic.

There's really nothing much to say to that.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on March 02, 2017, 04:54:57 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 02, 2017, 04:03:06 AM
After 9/11 and especially building 7, why don't we just set fire to jet fuel in a building, it would be cheaper and quicker, plus more efficient and effective than 95% of controlled demolitions.

So far 100% success rate 3/3....

Everyone who voted fires caused the collapse?

I concur.

We can actually save quite a bit of money this way.

Planes, destined for the scrap yard, can be equipped with the same amount of fuel and flown by remote control to impact buildings scheduled for demolition.

Simply announce the time so people can clear out.

Think of the amount of man-hours that could be saved by existing demolition companies.

They simply need to get the specifics from the NIST.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 02, 2017, 05:00:55 AM
It's so ridiculous this is still a conspiracy.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on March 02, 2017, 05:24:12 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 02, 2017, 05:00:55 AM
It's so ridiculous this is still a conspiracy.

I think you meant: It's ridiculous this is still considered a conspiracy "theory" (I'd say hypothesis, but whatever).
If you people are right, it would be a conspiracy. Not just a hypothesis that one exists, but a real one.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 02, 2017, 05:25:12 AM
I did yeah, you got me.

And I've never referred to it as anything other than the controlled demolition hypothesis. We just need access to NIST's numbers to test it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 02, 2017, 05:34:31 AM
Or we just do this three times and check the results.

Quote from: totallackey on March 02, 2017, 04:54:57 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 02, 2017, 04:03:06 AM
After 9/11 and especially building 7, why don't we just set fire to jet fuel in a building, it would be cheaper and quicker, plus more efficient and effective than 95% of controlled demolitions.

So far 100% success rate 3/3....

Everyone who voted fires caused the collapse?

I concur.

We can actually save quite a bit of money this way.

Planes, destined for the scrap yard, can be equipped with the same amount of fuel and flown by remote control to impact buildings scheduled for demolition.

Simply announce the time so people can clear out.

Think of the amount of man-hours that could be saved by existing demolition companies.

They simply need to get the specifics from the NIST.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on March 02, 2017, 05:40:53 AM
Ah, I didn't really mean that you call it a theory. But every time there's something about a conspiracy people call it a "theory", when scientifically it would and should be called a hypothesis.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 02, 2017, 05:49:45 AM
I agree with you there, it's stupid and discredits the hypothesis they are trying to push.

For the record, just cause Rayzor was trying to imply I was a flat earther earlier in the thread.

This is the only "conspiracy theory" I think has real weight.

5% of the population owning most of the worlds wealth is very suspicious but that's capitalism for you.

I believe we went to the moon, the experiments clearly done in 1/6 earths gravity is enough evidence for me personally.

I don't believe in reptillians or a satanic illuminati.

Edit. Imo and only imo, if we find the real perpetrators of 9/11 we will get closer to the truth, whatever it is.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rama Set on March 02, 2017, 12:01:18 PM
Quote from: hoppy on March 01, 2017, 01:02:19 PM
Yes, and Rayzor is a shitpost fag.

And you run the bathhouse.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 02, 2017, 04:11:05 PM


10/10 would marry.

The album is fantastic if you want to support some great Aussie indie rock.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 02, 2017, 04:58:22 PM
I apologize, I have actually been having to do things instead of having everyone do them for me, so I have had less time to waste here... Also have been having to follow Texas time.

Also, to be honest, lost alot of interest for the most part. I was hoping for real debate, not yuppie nonsense, diversion and distraction.

One more thing, if people are going to attempt to call me out...Do so with actions, not empty words. Want to call me out on credentials or experience, say why you know better than I. Please, by all means, do so through actions and proof. I have already done much action and proof on proving what I am here...I will continue if need be. However, so far, it's the accusers who have the ground to be made up..Not I. So what have you?? (Sorry middle school math doesn't count)

As far as sources, nothing I have said so far is even remotely secret, research is easy (I have even told the material where it can be found) prerequisites come with study...Though unfortunately ..

Logic cannot be taught..

I know the reason people must focus on me is they must disqualify me, because someone like me cannot support what I do, it does not compute. If you remove me, there are 1000s like me and better that will be there to take my place. Good luck...


Quote from: disputeone on March 02, 2017, 12:52:13 AM
Rayzor brings out his A game on page 50 lol, nice work tho, credit where credit is due.

Assuming you are speaking of this?

(https://s23.postimg.org/i117savaj/Challenge.jpg)

Beware your beliefs of an "A" game..A house with no foundation can still look pretty on the outside, until you step inside or it falls under its own weight.

Saying this "proves" master's middle school math problem, is either out of ignorance or deliberately miss represented, from rayzor I would expect either.

The left leg has increased in load, pull that one out and see what happens..I also said depending on exact structure there could be a reduced or no load on a leg or two. Nor from the picture can we see how much sag is present at the missing leg. I never said you couldn't remove a leg and still not maintain stability (this only happened on 9/11)

Your dimensions are incorrect, the supports are under the circle, moved in, placed in direction of the weight transfer, not outside held on by a bolt. This changes pivot points and load transfer, not to mention the legs have increased the support footprint by 500+ times, as well as reduced leverage on the circle and seriously effected transfer (anyone remember the list of questions I asked master that he deemed useless?? This happened to be one of them..No way huh?)

I could continue...But it is not necessary right now, not to mention I believe it's pissing in the wind with the present company. Simple fact, master's equations are not reality in the real world.


Now unless someone would like to take up my wager for this test...Or... someone would like to start a pissing match with me on who is who in reality (instead of just running ones mouth with empty words), OR....someone would like to actually discuss 9/11 and truly is looking for the truth. I will spend any time I am in this thread (which will not be much) shit posting or stirring the pot.

I have wasted enough quality hours on yuppie nonsense.

(Also, it anyone would like to know how to solve master's bonus question in reality and have the estimated totals reflect correctly in a real life application, I have presented the needed math and flow chart on this thread to get you moving in the right direction)

Edited to add*

Toodle-pip

That's a must
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 02, 2017, 05:07:32 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 02, 2017, 04:58:22 PM
I apologize, I have actually been having to do things instead of having everyone do them for me, so I have had less time to waste here... Also have been having to follow Texas time.

Also, to be honest, lost alot of interest for the most part. I was hoping for real debate, not yuppie nonsense, diversion and distraction.

One more thing, if people are going to attempt to call me out...Do so with actions, not empty words. Want to call me out on credentials or experience, say why you know better than I. Please, by all means, do so through actions and proof. I have already done much action and proof on proving what I am here...I will continue if need be. However, so far, it's the accusers who have the ground to be made up..Not I. So what have you?? (Sorry middle school math doesn't count)

As far as sources, nothing I have said so far is even remotely secret, research is easy (I have even told the material where it can be found) prerequisites come with study...Though unfortunately ..

Logic cannot be taught..

I know the reason people must focus on me is they must disqualify me, because someone like me cannot support what I do, it does not compute. If you remove me, there are 1000s like me and better that will be there to take my place. Good luck...


Quote from: disputeone on March 02, 2017, 12:52:13 AM
Rayzor brings out his A game on page 50 lol, nice work tho, credit where credit is due.

Assuming you are speaking of this?

(https://s23.postimg.org/i117savaj/Challenge.jpg)

Beware your beliefs of an "A" game..A house with no foundation can still look pretty on the outside, until you step inside or it falls under its own weight.

Saying this "proves" master's middle school math problem, is either out of ignorance or deliberately miss represented, from rayzor I would expect either.

The left leg has increased in load, pull that one out and see what happens..I also said depending on exact structure there could be a reduced or no load on a leg or two. Nor from the picture can we see how much sag is present at the missing leg. I never said you couldn't remove a leg and still not maintain stability (this only happened on 9/11)

Your dimensions are incorrect, the supports are under the circle, moved in, placed in direction of the weight transfer, not outside held on by a bolt. This changes pivot points and load transfer, not to mention the legs have increased the support footprint by 500+ times, as well as reduced leverage on the circle and seriously effected transfer (anyone remember the list of questions I asked master that he deemed useless?? This happened to be one of them..No way huh?)

I could continue...But it is not necessary right now, not to mention I believe it's pissing in the wind with the present company. Simple fact, master's equations are not reality in the real world.


Now unless someone would like to take up my wager for this test...Or... someone would like to start a pissing match with me on who is who in reality (instead of just running ones mouth with empty words), OR....someone would like to actually discuss 9/11 and truly is looking for the truth. I will spend any time I am in this thread (which will not be much) shit posting or stirring the pot.

I have wasted enough quality hours on yuppie nonsense.

(Also, it anyone would like to know how to solve master's bonus question in reality and have the estimated totals reflect correctly in a real life application, I have presented the needed math and flow chart on this thread to get you moving in the right direction)

Edited to add*

Toodle-pip

That's a must

Thanks man I am deeply curious and would love to see how you do the Math, its been keeping me up.

I'll re read your posts and see if I can see where he / I went wrong.

Actually I think totallackey put the final nail in the OS' coffin funnily enough.

Quote from: totallackey on March 02, 2017, 04:47:23 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 01, 2017, 04:39:55 PM
BTW Aluminium melts at 470-650 depending on the alloy,   so any aircraft wreckage close enough to the fires would probably have melted.

I don't know what the molten liquid is coming out of the 80th floor,  but that corner had a lot of aircraft debris and you can see fires around that area,  so molten aluminium is a possibility,  but as far as I know the emissivity would make it look silvery, not  glowing yellow.   I've seen theories that other stuff mixed in with (like partially burnt materials) the molten aluminium could make it look like that,

Maybe one of these days I'll do an experiment and see if it's true.

I do not think so:

"As explained by physicist Jerry Lobdill:

The problem with concluding that the liquid flowing from the tower’s 82nd floor could have been aluminum… is that the liquid in the tower was not confined in a container so that more heat could be applied to raise the temperature of the liquid above its melting point. Instead, as soon as the metal liquefied it flowed away from the heat source under the force of gravity. Therefore, the color of the liquid flowing from the 82nd floor [indicated that it] was at approximately the melting point of the metal. And therefore, it was molten iron from steel."

http://adamtaylor42.blogspot.com/2012/12/taylor-contra-powers.html (http://adamtaylor42.blogspot.com/2012/12/taylor-contra-powers.html)

You can certainly cut aluminum with a torch but the temp will never be hot enough for the flow to remain orange or yellow for the length depicted in the picture.

Poured melted aluminum will never remain orange or yellow for that length of time.

A lot of what you say makes logical sense but I can't find the math (mainly due to my ignorance I assume.)

(https://s16.postimg.org/andlz63qd/omoshroi.jpg)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 02, 2017, 05:21:31 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 02, 2017, 04:58:22 PM
I know the reason people must focus on me is they must disqualify me, because someone like me cannot support what I do, it does not compute. If you remove me, there are 1000s like me and better that will be there to take my place. Good luck...

I completely agree with this and have seen it first hand, not only in this thread but in the truth movement in general. (Ive been pushing for this since '03)

This is why I was hesitant to say what I do.

It happens to the guys / girls from AE911truth and anyone brave / smart enough to speak out.

As for the debate on this thread. I am still waiting for the guys that voted the fires caused the collapse to justify this.


Quote from: totallackey on March 02, 2017, 04:54:57 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 02, 2017, 04:03:06 AM
After 9/11 and especially building 7, why don't we just set fire to jet fuel in a building, it would be cheaper and quicker, plus more efficient and effective than 95% of controlled demolitions.

So far 100% success rate 3/3....

Everyone who voted fires caused the collapse?

I concur.

We can actually save quite a bit of money this way.

Planes, destined for the scrap yard, can be equipped with the same amount of fuel and flown by remote control to impact buildings scheduled for demolition.

Simply announce the time so people can clear out.

Think of the amount of man-hours that could be saved by existing demolition companies.

They simply need to get the specifics from the NIST.

If my logic holds we should have 13 people that agree with this statement.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 02, 2017, 06:01:07 PM
Quote from: totallackey on March 02, 2017, 04:54:57 AM

Think of the amount of man-hours that could be saved by existing demolition companies.

They simply need to get the specifics from the NIST.

This is actually quite funny.... I could have saved so much time in my life of "learning"...

I mean seriously lol....Think of how stupid all those "smart" or "educated" people are out there! So simple....

You need to do a perfect demo on a building under 50 stories tall...explosives?? Pre removal of mass?? Man hours and materials consisting of Millions and millions of dollars??? Hell No, just light a trash can and a desk on fire.

I am going to blow my competition away...500k for any building under 50...My only materials will be a desk and trashcan from good will and a 2 dollar bic.

Building over 50?? No problem...Extra 100k and I will take care of it. Just need to blow a cartoon hole in the exterior of a couple floors and add kerosene....

My work is guaranteed...100 percent of the time.... I don't just demo, I PULVERIZE!!! Makes clean up a breeze!
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 02, 2017, 06:08:09 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 02, 2017, 04:58:22 PM
Now unless someone would like to take up my wager for this test...Or... someone would like to start a pissing match with me on who is who in reality (instead of just running ones mouth with empty words), OR....someone would like to actually discuss 9/11 and truly is looking for the truth. I will spend any time I am in this thread (which will not be much) shit posting or stirring the pot.

Master_Evar,  already accepted a bet with disputeone.     Up to you whether to continue or not.    If you back out I might just as well dig out some load cells ( if I can find them ) and do it myself.

You misunderstood the point I was making with that setup,   I could try and explain it,  but,  if you aren't interested I won't bother.

Back onto the main topic.   I've got the furnace heating up to run the contaminated aluminium test,  so I'll have some pictures later of molten aluminium at 900C with contamination.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 02, 2017, 06:09:25 PM
If we started a business with this premise we would be laughed at like people laughed at that guy who proposed intercontinental travel via going up in an air balloon and waiting for the earth to turn under us.

Kinda makes sense of you dont know physics / don't think about it much.

It would undeniably bring attention to our movement.

"New cheaper more effective demolition inspired by NIST and 9/11, ten per cent the price and time of a regular controlled demolition."

I can see it now...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 02, 2017, 06:16:42 PM
I still think we should start a new thread for the experiment.

Getting contaminated aluminum to glow red in direct sunlight is inconsequential as shown by physicist Jerry Lobdill:

Quote from: totallackey on March 02, 2017, 04:47:23 AM
The problem with concluding that the liquid flowing from the tower’s 82nd floor could have been aluminum… is that the liquid in the tower was not confined in a container so that more heat could be applied to raise the temperature of the liquid above its melting point. Instead, as soon as the metal liquefied it flowed away from the heat source under the force of gravity. Therefore, the color of the liquid flowing from the 82nd floor [indicated that it] was at approximately the melting point of the metal. And therefore, it was molten iron from steel."

http://adamtaylor42.blogspot.com/2012/12/taylor-contra-powers.html (http://adamtaylor42.blogspot.com/2012/12/taylor-contra-powers.html)

It seems all evidence points to molten steel.

Edit, I'd still be interested to see your results.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 02, 2017, 06:25:34 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 02, 2017, 06:08:09 PM

Master_Evar,  already accepted a bet with disputeone.

This has what to do with me now?

(also your answer to your dishonest physical "example" is unacceptable)

Now...Please re read

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 02, 2017, 04:58:22 PM
Now unless someone would like to take up my wager for this test...Or... someone would like to start a pissing match with me on who is who in reality (instead of just running ones mouth with empty words), OR....someone would like to actually discuss 9/11 and truly is looking for the truth. I will spend any time I am in this thread (which will not be much) shit posting or stirring the pot.


Also..

Quote from: disputeone on March 02, 2017, 02:10:53 AM
In a psychological / magickal sense, it wasn't enough for the planes to hit the towers, they had to be removed, the difference on every photo, everytime someones visits and sees those towers no longer on the skyline, all the old photos videos postcards etc with the wtc buildings.

The power of this is unfathomable on a population, the fear, anxiety and stress it causes is huge, then promise to fix everything as long as we trust in our leaders, go to war for "wmd's" come back with oil, money countless deaths of innocents / innocence and geopolitical control in the middle east with an added advantage over Russia.

Everytime someone questions it or speaks out they are reminded of the forever changed skyline and sense of safety and called a "nutter" like has happened on this thread since the OP.

100 percent accurate...

Though remember...The one under the spell will never realize it.

Takes courage, perseverance, logic, wisdom, clarity and raw nuts to break it. Many don't want to risk it, weak minded individuals will never be able to break through the grasp of group think, even if they are walking off a cliff
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 02, 2017, 06:36:33 PM
ANYONE who has dealt with metal, can even be a hillbilly who didn't even finish 8th grade will know, aluminum poured in direct sunlight is silver...There is no way you can add in enough contamination for it to glow bright red.

(Or just google any pictures, no experience besides typing needed for that)

Despite all that, it still doesn't even remind me of molton pouring anything...Looks more like cutting to me, always have. Though liquid steel can pour like that, so either is possible, just looks more like the former.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 02, 2017, 07:12:17 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 02, 2017, 06:25:34 PM
Though remember...The one under the spell will never realize it.

Takes courage, perseverance, logic, wisdom, clarity and raw nuts to break it. Many don't want to risk it, weak minded individuals will never be able to break through the grasp of group think, even if they are walking off a cliff

sceptimatic says almost the exact same thing.     What does that tell you?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 02, 2017, 07:38:43 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 02, 2017, 07:12:17 PM
sceptimatic says almost the exact same thing.     What does that tell you?

It tells me Scepti is intelligent and a free-thinker.

The fact we have different beliefs on earth shape doesn't diminish this at all.

I respect the hell out of how he makes his own decisions and justifies them even if I don't agree with all of them

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 02, 2017, 06:25:34 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 02, 2017, 02:10:53 AM
In a psychological / magickal sense, it wasn't enough for the planes to hit the towers, they had to be removed, the difference on every photo, everytime someones visits and sees those towers no longer on the skyline, all the old photos videos postcards etc with the wtc buildings.

The power of this is unfathomable on a population, the fear, anxiety and stress it causes is huge, then promise to fix everything as long as we trust in our leaders, go to war for "wmd's" come back with oil, money countless deaths of innocents / innocence and geopolitical control in the middle east with an added advantage over Russia.

Everytime someone questions it or speaks out they are reminded of the forever changed skyline and sense of safety and called a "nutter" like has happened on this thread since the OP.

100 percent accurate...

Though remember...The one under the spell will never realize it.

Takes courage, perseverance, logic, wisdom, clarity and raw nuts to break it. Many don't want to risk it, weak minded individuals will never be able to break through the grasp of group think, even if they are walking off a cliff

Thanks man, I appreciate your thoughts.

Like you have said on the engineering side of this you would like to shake the persons hand who pulled it off if it wasn't so evil.

I feel the same way about the ritualistic / psychological / magickal side of it, I'd be impressed if it wasn't so evil.

Sad.

Quote
In the book, Le Bon claims that there are several characteristics of crowd psychology: "impulsiveness, irritability, incapacity to reason, the absence of judgement of the critical spirit, the exaggeration of sentiments, and others...".[1] Le Bon claimed "that an individual immersed for some length of time in a crowd soon finds himself – either in consequence of magnetic influence given out by the crowd or from some other cause of which we are ignorant (AD LIB, READS MAGICK) – in a special state, which much resembles the state of fascination in which the hypnotized individual finds himself in the hands of the hypnotizer."[3]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crowd:_A_Study_of_the_Popular_Mind

https://www.amazon.com/Crowd-Study-Popular-Mind/dp/1502303264

Quote
Magick is the science and art of causing change to occur in conformity with will, using means not currently understood by Western science… magick is not supernatural.

I told you guys I could fill this thread with occult speculation. I've tried to avoid it until now.

This was for much, much more than oil and power.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 02, 2017, 06:25:34 PM
Though remember...The one under the spell will never realize it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 02, 2017, 08:19:47 PM
Picture of contaminated aluminium at 900C

(https://s1.postimg.org/63p7fwawf/900_CAluminium.jpg)

When you stir it or pour it the aluminum is still the normal silvery colour.   

My conclusion is that the molten aluminium will simply heat up whatever it's in contact with,  whether that glows or not depends on the material.

So it's not likely that contaminated aluminium explains the molten material seen on the WTC2 video.   But I wouldn't rule it out completely. 

Furnace is now back doing stuff,  that puts food on the table.   

If anyone has another idea to try.   Let me know.

EDIT:
Just as a dumb experiment,  I poured the molten aluminium into a pile of black iron oxide to see if it was hot enough to ignite the thermite reaction...  no deal.  If I had added a magnesium igniter it probably would have worked.

I wouldn't rule out the possibility that there was some chemical reaction going on with the molten aluminium,  and other material.  The thermite reaction is not the only possibility.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 02, 2017, 08:55:44 PM
Thanks Rayzor I appreciate the effort you put in, I might test this myself on the long weekend.

Is it in direct sunlight? If not can you take a picture in direct sunlight?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 02, 2017, 08:58:11 PM
Although.

Quote from: disputeone on March 02, 2017, 06:16:42 PM

Getting contaminated aluminum to glow red in direct sunlight is inconsequential as shown by physicist Jerry Lobdill:

Quote from: totallackey on March 02, 2017, 04:47:23 AM
The problem with concluding that the liquid flowing from the tower’s 82nd floor could have been aluminum… is that the liquid in the tower was not confined in a container so that more heat could be applied to raise the temperature of the liquid above its melting point. Instead, as soon as the metal liquefied it flowed away from the heat source under the force of gravity. Therefore, the color of the liquid flowing from the 82nd floor [indicated that it] was at approximately the melting point of the metal. And therefore, it was molten iron from steel."

http://adamtaylor42.blogspot.com/2012/12/taylor-contra-powers.html (http://adamtaylor42.blogspot.com/2012/12/taylor-contra-powers.html)

It seems all evidence points to molten steel.

Edit, I'd still be interested to see your results.

What's the color soon after the contaminated ally melts?

Also how do you rationalize the ally being / getting contaminated?

Quote from: Rayzor on March 02, 2017, 08:19:47 PM
Picture of contaminated aluminium at 900C

(https://s1.postimg.org/63p7fwawf/900_CAluminium.jpg)

When you stir it or pour it the aluminum is still the normal silvery colour.   

My conclusion is that the molten aluminium will simply heat up whatever it's in contact with,  whether that glows or not depends on the material.

So it's not likely that contaminated aluminium explains the molten material seen on the WTC2 video.   But I wouldn't rule it out completely. 

I also appreciate your honesty.

Quote from: disputeone on March 02, 2017, 06:16:42 PM
It seems all evidence points to molten steel.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 02, 2017, 09:25:07 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 02, 2017, 08:55:44 PM
Thanks Rayzor I appreciate the effort you put in, I might test this myself on the long weekend.

Is it in direct sunlight? If not can you take a picture in direct sunlight?

That was in sunlight,  but obviously down in the crucible it's slightly shaded,  to my eye it didn't make any difference,  if you stirred it to move the slag/contamination it was just normal silvery aluminium underneath.

The real clue as to what that metal might be, is the location,  it came from the corner where all the aircraft wreckage piled up,  and wasn't seen anywhere else.   Just the one instance.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 02, 2017, 09:40:22 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 02, 2017, 09:25:07 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 02, 2017, 08:55:44 PM
Thanks Rayzor I appreciate the effort you put in, I might test this myself on the long weekend.

Is it in direct sunlight? If not can you take a picture in direct sunlight?

That was in sunlight,  but obviously down in the crucible it's slightly shaded,  to my eye it didn't make any difference,  if you stirred it to move the slag/contamination it was just normal silvery aluminium underneath.

Cool, great experiment thanks.

Quote
The real clue as to what that metal might be, is the location,  it came from the corner where all the aircraft wreckage piled up,  and wasn't seen anywhere else.   Just the one instance.

It definitely appears to be coming from where the aircraft hit tower two, however I think we need to make a few logical jumps to accept it's aluminum.

However saying that, molten steel does disagree with the official story.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 02, 2017, 09:59:34 PM
The aluminum experiment...Proved what was already known, but as much as it pains me I will say good job rayzor. Appreciate the time and effort of doing that.

Even mixing contamination with aluminum it works in a way of water and oil...You will still see it clearly. That was in no way aluminum we saw pouring out.

Optical d->s2 transition is the main reason, which is why it comes out as it does in the sun.

[Ne] 3s22 3p11  Is typical aluminum, though it is one of the only metals with no d valence electrons...I have always found that interesting, though Fresnel equations help to solve it. It is still an interesting metal.

Though I know it's RI is 1.1978..I don't know what it is when in liquid form, but going off its transition as a liquid, I doubt it is much different liquid or solid.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 02, 2017, 10:14:48 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 02, 2017, 09:59:34 PM
The aluminum experiment...Proved what was already known, but as much as it pains me I will say good job rayzor. Appreciate the time and effort of doing that.

Even mixing contamination with aluminum it works in a way of water and oil...You will still see it clearly. That was in no way aluminum we saw pouring out.

Optical d->s2 transition is the main reason, which is why it comes out as it does in the sun.

[Ne] 3s22 3p11  Is typical aluminum, though it is one of the only metals with no d valence electrons...I have always found that interesting, though Fresnel equations help to solve it. It is still an interesting metal.

Though I know it's RI is 1.1978..I don't know what it is when in liquid form, but going off its transition as a liquid, I doubt it is much different liquid or solid.

Going back to the colour of the molten metal,  and just that alone,  looks like at least 1200-1300C,   that's  hotter than normal office fires should have burnt, maybe there was something on the aircraft that shouldn't have been there?      A few suitcases full of thermite?


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 02, 2017, 10:31:49 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 02, 2017, 10:14:48 PM
Going back to the colour of the molten metal,  and just that alone,  looks like at least 1200-1300C,   that's  hotter than normal office fires should have burnt, maybe there was something on the aircraft that shouldn't have been there?      A few suitcases full of thermite?

Your best post all thread imo, lmao.

Maybe the "Terrorist Hijackers" brought it as luggage.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 02, 2017, 10:47:52 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 02, 2017, 10:14:48 PM
Going back to the colour of the molten metal,  and just that alone,  looks like at least 1200-1300C,   that's  hotter than normal office fires should have burnt, maybe there was something on the aircraft that shouldn't have been there?      A few suitcases full of thermite?

Assuming the heat protection was damaged as they say, and there was direct heat able to hit unprotected bare steel. Still have to account for TTS of the structure, location etc, so once that is factored in, it would take fires hotter than 1300c...

That was one of the issues I had with modeling of one and two. To weaken the structure I had to damn near melt the top..Even then I couldn't get it to collapse, the top would just collapse, but the bottom would stay strong. This was using variables impossible, I was just playing.

Once I got the top to collapse, it fell at close to free fall for about 15 stories...Then hit the intact lower core, and the upper then collapsed even more then broke up and fell to the west. The lower 44 is always the issue...That was built like a freaking tank, more than double the mass, then the lower 15 and below...That doubled over the above.

Low story short, only way I could get things to happen how we saw, remove mass and EVERY TIME I had to take out the lower core...That was always the biggest issue no matter what you did to the top.


Second long story short lol...It would take more than some briefcases of thermite to do any real heating to the structure...

Unless there is tech completely unbeknown to me (which with the government this is a high possibility) I do not know any other option than something being placed before hand. Even then, as I said before, thermite has never been a big theory of mine, just something I know and have worked with. However, it isn't always reliable, especially for cutting thick steel.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on March 02, 2017, 10:48:43 PM
BHS, I have accepted your bet, as I have already told you, with a proposed stake.

And while I wouldn't exactly call it middle school math... do you think you are above it? Do you think that simple math no longer applies to you? In that case, prove it. You offered to make an experiment, a great chance to prove yourself. Here's not where I learned to do these load distributions, but sources for them:
http://www.brighthubengineering.com/building-construction-design/109683-beam-load-calculations-explained/ (http://www.brighthubengineering.com/building-construction-design/109683-beam-load-calculations-explained/)
https://bendingmomentdiagram.com/tutorials/calculating-reactions-at-supports/ (https://bendingmomentdiagram.com/tutorials/calculating-reactions-at-supports/)
Since we assume that the floor will not shear, we do not need to calculate the shearing force. The source also only dealt with 1 dimension (as in, all load and the pivots was placed along a single one-dimensional straight), while we are dealing with 2 dimensions (our pivots and loads are distributed across a surface).
Haven't you been attacking me and my maths enough already?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 02, 2017, 10:54:57 PM
You would need something that can be reliable every time....Unless they took out the lower core which explains the bombs/explosions..In theory this would give more leeway to the thermite for error. Also they may have a much more efficient way to use it.

Even then, let's say shape charges take out the lower core, thermite takes care of the rest (with their more efficient technique) and they are able to do this 3 times in a row in perfection...Despite it being absolute genius, it still doesn't explain the months of liquid metal..Nothing I can think of that I have experience with would have the ability to do that without added energy.

That has always baffled me.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 02, 2017, 11:21:08 PM
Was gonna send this as a PM but whatever.

**disclaimer this is purely speculation**

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 02, 2017, 10:54:57 PM
You would need something that can be reliable every time....Unless they took out the lower core which explains the bombs/explosions..In theory this would give more leeway to the thermite for error. Also they may have a much more efficient way to use it.

Even then, let's say shape charges take out the lower core, thermite takes care of the rest (with their more efficient technique) and they are able to do this 3 times in a row in perfection...Despite it being absolute genius, it still doesn't explain the months of liquid metal..Nothing I can think of that I have experience with would have the ability to do that without added energy.

That has always baffled me.

You said yourself that tritium was found in the rubble, do you think a tactical nuclear device / demolition is so unlikely?

Given the negative health consequences of the guys working on ground zero and the molten / glowing steel, I would speculate it could be quite likely.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-04-15/one-man-asks-why-was-tritium-found-911-ground-zero

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_arising_from_the_September_11_attacks

One of my favourite speculative hypothesis'.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 02, 2017, 11:56:10 PM
This thread fills my heart with joy, hope and pride.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 03, 2017, 12:59:21 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 02, 2017, 11:21:08 PM
Was gonna send this as a PM but whatever.

**disclaimer this is purely speculation**

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 02, 2017, 10:54:57 PM
You would need something that can be reliable every time....Unless they took out the lower core which explains the bombs/explosions..In theory this would give more leeway to the thermite for error. Also they may have a much more efficient way to use it.

Even then, let's say shape charges take out the lower core, thermite takes care of the rest (with their more efficient technique) and they are able to do this 3 times in a row in perfection...Despite it being absolute genius, it still doesn't explain the months of liquid metal..Nothing I can think of that I have experience with would have the ability to do that without added energy.

That has always baffled me.

You said yourself that tritium was found in the rubble, do you think a tactical nuclear device / demolition is so unlikely?

Given the negative health consequences of the guys working on ground zero and the molten / glowing steel, I would speculate it could be quite likely.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-04-15/one-man-asks-why-was-tritium-found-911-ground-zero

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_effects_arising_from_the_September_11_attacks

One of my favourite speculative hypothesis'.

I have mentioned this once or twice in passing here. Though I have left it alone for obvious reasons. However, in my head, theoretical "nuclear" shape charges would work amazingly..At least in theory.

It would be instantaneous and reliable. Would liquify metal in less than a second. Though I am not an expert in nuclear physics, I am fairly well versed, as well as shadowed for 2 weeks at Comanche when I was decided what to finalize in as well as what emphasis to take. (Obviously decided against it)

Just from my math, you wouldn't need something very enriched. Just some run of the mill LEU 235 only 4 percent. Or even repU paste would work. Run the shape you need, then a very small charge to blow the inhibitor and you are off to the races.

Then once the building is collapsed you still have the reactions happening in certain areas, depending on how the debris scattered hence the intense heat at ground zero for months.

The health issues stated (no these health issues have not been standard asbestos issues), tritium, and the 3 months of molton steel?? There has to be something there... A nuclear solution is all I can think of...Doesn't mean there are not other options.

It fits though of all we saw.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 03, 2017, 01:05:00 AM
As always I am impressed with your knowledge, insight and wisdom.

Quote from: sceptimatic on February 28, 2017, 01:42:41 AM
A strong mind will bounce off another strong mind, until seperate dreams merge to become one reality.

Just cause Rayzor was ripping on scepti before. Also his words are powerful and meaningful.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on March 03, 2017, 03:30:02 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 02, 2017, 06:08:09 PM
Back onto the main topic.   I've got the furnace heating up to run the contaminated aluminium test,  so I'll have some pictures later of molten aluminium at 900C with contamination.

Then all you need to do is make sure the planes are constructed of CONTAMINATED ALUMINUM...

Seriously?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 03, 2017, 03:46:30 AM
Quote from: totallackey on March 03, 2017, 03:30:02 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 02, 2017, 06:08:09 PM
Back onto the main topic.   I've got the furnace heating up to run the contaminated aluminium test,  so I'll have some pictures later of molten aluminium at 900C with contamination.

Then all you need to do is make sure the planes are constructed of CONTAMINATED ALUMINUM...

Seriously?

He stated that when poured or stirred it was still a silver colour.

All the evidence points to molten steel on wtc 2.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on March 03, 2017, 04:24:53 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 03, 2017, 03:46:30 AM
Quote from: totallackey on March 03, 2017, 03:30:02 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 02, 2017, 06:08:09 PM
Back onto the main topic.   I've got the furnace heating up to run the contaminated aluminium test,  so I'll have some pictures later of molten aluminium at 900C with contamination.

Then all you need to do is make sure the planes are constructed of CONTAMINATED ALUMINUM...

Seriously?

He stated that when poured or stirred it was still a silver colour.

All the evidence points to molten steel on wtc 2.

Yes.

I noticed he wrote that later in the thread.

He also wrote this:

Quote from: Rayzor on March 02, 2017, 08:19:47 PM
But I wouldn't rule it out completely. 

Furnace is now back doing stuff,  that puts food on the table.   

If anyone has another idea to try.   Let me know.

EDIT:
Just as a dumb experiment,  I poured the molten aluminium into a pile of black iron oxide to see if it was hot enough to ignite the thermite reaction...  no deal.  If I had added a magnesium igniter it probably would have worked.

I wouldn't rule out the possibility that there was some chemical reaction going on with the molten aluminium,  and other material.  The thermite reaction is not the only possibility.

I would like to know what type of chemical reaction would take place with steel/iron/concrete/paper/glass/jet fuel/aluminum/any other material present on 9/11
that could explain what we all witnessed...

I mean, everyone agrees it was molten metal right?

The only time I have seen anything like that is at a foundry/steel mill/my grandfather's blacksmith shop.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 03, 2017, 09:47:53 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on March 02, 2017, 10:48:43 PM
BHS, I have accepted your bet, as I have already told you, with a proposed stake.

And while I wouldn't exactly call it middle school math... do you think you are above it? Do you think that simple math no longer applies to you? In that case, prove it. You offered to make an experiment, a great chance to prove yourself. Here's not where I learned to do these load distributions, but sources for them:
http://www.brighthubengineering.com/building-construction-design/109683-beam-load-calculations-explained/ (http://www.brighthubengineering.com/building-construction-design/109683-beam-load-calculations-explained/)
https://bendingmomentdiagram.com/tutorials/calculating-reactions-at-supports/ (https://bendingmomentdiagram.com/tutorials/calculating-reactions-at-supports/)
Since we assume that the floor will not shear, we do not need to calculate the shearing force. The source also only dealt with 1 dimension (as in, all load and the pivots was placed along a single one-dimensional straight), while we are dealing with 2 dimensions (our pivots and loads are distributed across a surface).
Haven't you been attacking me and my maths enough already?

You said you didn't make wagers with people over the Internet? So i left it alone after that.

As for being above middle school/freshmen math...No I am not above it at all...Math is math. However, from another angle I am above it..Not from a snooty perspective, but from the fact it isn't real world math. It is way to simple, leaves out too many variables. Your numbers gained from this would not reflect in the real world.

All I asked was questions about the structure, important questions any engineer would ask...Nothing really even complex about them. It is a habit, and natural..When you have my background and have as much skin in the game as I do, you can't help it, it must be real world. It's not like I am some engineer working for a company, there is a boss above me that will check my work before it goes out.

It is my business, I am the last one on the totem pole, it makes it by me it's gone. If it has issues, then people could get hurt or killed at the worse, at best I am sued for alot of money my insurance would cover, but would I ever recover from the bad rap? Or would I be forced out of business and all my employees are jobless....Alot of skin in the game every single day.

Yet you take this natural tendency to exist in the real world, ask the correct questions needed for an answer that reflects reality and attempt to twist it. So, yes, I will continue to live in reality nor will I "stoop to your level" as you put it, and I will continue to call your math low brow nor applicable to reality alone. You can yell and point fingers at me all day long, I care not..Nor will I apologize...I will save the apology for when I say something inaccurate.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on March 03, 2017, 10:02:50 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 03, 2017, 09:47:53 AM
You said you didn't make wagers with people over the Internet? So i left it alone after that.
Not about money, no. So you're going to cop out now?

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 03, 2017, 09:47:53 AM
As for being above middle school/freshmen math...No I am not above it at all...Math is math. However, from another angle I am above it..Not from a snooty perspective, but from the fact it isn't real world math. It is way to simple, leaves out too many variables. Your numbers gained from this would not reflect in the real world.
Newtons laws of gravitation are simpler. Hell, math-wise special relativity isn't all that bad(some parts of it at least). You need to make a distinction between "reflecting" and "perfectly simulates".

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 03, 2017, 09:47:53 AM
All I asked was questions about the structure, important questions any engineer would ask...Nothing really even complex about them. It is a habit, and natural..When you have my background and have as much skin in the game as I do, you can't help it, it must be real world. It's not like I am some engineer working for a company, there is a boss above me that will check my work before it goes out.
Important for a real building? Of course. Important for this thought experiment? Absolutely not. And they won't change the variables we are after. We don't care about shearing, so we don't need the footprint/dimensions of the load.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 03, 2017, 09:47:53 AM
It is my business, I am the last one on the totem pole, it makes it by me it's gone. If it has issues, then people could get hurt or killed at the worse, at best I am sued for alot of money my insurance would cover, but would I ever recover from the bad rap? Or would I be forced out of business and all my employees are jobless....Alot of skin in the game every single day.
So far, every source I've looked up agrees with me. Can't you simply admit if it was a mistake?

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 03, 2017, 09:47:53 AM
Yet you take this natural tendency to exist in the real world, ask the correct questions needed for an answer that reflects reality and attempt to twist it. So, yes, I will continue to live in reality nor will I "stoop to your level" as you put it, and I will continue to call your math low brow nor applicable to reality alone. You can yell and point fingers at me all day long, I care not..Nor will I apologize...I will save the apology for when I say something inaccurate.
"Twist it", You're the one twisting MY thought experiment.

Also, I do have a slight feeling telling me you either did the experiment and it didn't turn out the way you wanted, or you know I'm right and you're trying to let the experiment die away.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 03, 2017, 02:43:42 PM
Back on topic.

Quote from: totallackey on March 03, 2017, 04:24:53 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 03, 2017, 03:46:30 AM
Quote from: totallackey on March 03, 2017, 03:30:02 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 02, 2017, 06:08:09 PM
Back onto the main topic.   I've got the furnace heating up to run the contaminated aluminium test,  so I'll have some pictures later of molten aluminium at 900C with contamination.

Then all you need to do is make sure the planes are constructed of CONTAMINATED ALUMINUM...

Seriously?

He stated that when poured or stirred it was still a silver colour.

All the evidence points to molten steel on wtc 2.

Yes.

I noticed he wrote that later in the thread.

He also wrote this:

Quote from: Rayzor on March 02, 2017, 08:19:47 PM
But I wouldn't rule it out completely. 

Furnace is now back doing stuff,  that puts food on the table.   

If anyone has another idea to try.   Let me know.

EDIT:
Just as a dumb experiment,  I poured the molten aluminium into a pile of black iron oxide to see if it was hot enough to ignite the thermite reaction...  no deal.  If I had added a magnesium igniter it probably would have worked.

I wouldn't rule out the possibility that there was some chemical reaction going on with the molten aluminium,  and other material.  The thermite reaction is not the only possibility.

I would like to know what type of chemical reaction would take place with steel/iron/concrete/paper/glass/jet fuel/aluminum/any other material present on 9/11
that could explain what we all witnessed...

I mean, everyone agrees it was molten metal right?

The only time I have seen anything like that is at a foundry/steel mill/my grandfather's blacksmith shop.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 03, 2017, 04:47:30 PM
Quote from: totallackey on March 03, 2017, 04:24:53 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 03, 2017, 03:46:30 AM
Quote from: totallackey on March 03, 2017, 03:30:02 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 02, 2017, 06:08:09 PM
Back onto the main topic.   I've got the furnace heating up to run the contaminated aluminium test,  so I'll have some pictures later of molten aluminium at 900C with contamination.

Then all you need to do is make sure the planes are constructed of CONTAMINATED ALUMINUM...

Seriously?

He stated that when poured or stirred it was still a silver colour.

All the evidence points to molten steel on wtc 2.

Yes.

I noticed he wrote that later in the thread.

He also wrote this:

Quote from: Rayzor on March 02, 2017, 08:19:47 PM
But I wouldn't rule it out completely. 

Furnace is now back doing stuff,  that puts food on the table.   

If anyone has another idea to try.   Let me know.

EDIT:
Just as a dumb experiment,  I poured the molten aluminium into a pile of black iron oxide to see if it was hot enough to ignite the thermite reaction...  no deal.  If I had added a magnesium igniter it probably would have worked.

I wouldn't rule out the possibility that there was some chemical reaction going on with the molten aluminium,  and other material.  The thermite reaction is not the only possibility.

I would like to know what type of chemical reaction would take place with steel/iron/concrete/paper/glass/jet fuel/aluminum/any other material present on 9/11
that could explain what we all witnessed...

I mean, everyone agrees it was molten metal right?

The only time I have seen anything like that is at a foundry/steel mill/my grandfather's blacksmith shop.

One suggestion I've come across,  is that it was in fact it could have been  molten steel,  it refers to the 3200 liter oxygen tanks,  as well as the 100 or so chemical oxygen generators,   blasting oxygen into a fire could melt steel without too mush hassle.

So what's the summary of evidence for the molten metal.

1.  It came from the corner where a concentration of aircraft debris ended up.   
2.  It was only seen at that one location.
3.  It had the colour temperature of 1200-1300C  too hot for normal office fires.

If it was thermite or something else  related to a controlled demolition,  then why was it only seen in only one location?

I'm liking the oxygen assisted fire hypothesis at the moment.  It fits all the evidence.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 03, 2017, 05:01:24 PM
Funny NIST couldn't cite those numbers, I wonder why they didn't seems like of we figured out it is most likely molten steel, NIST would have came to the same conclusion.

So far we have.

Unlikelyhood of the hijackers getting on the planes with weapons.

Unlikelyhood of trained pilots giving them command of their aircraft risking the lives of their passengers.

Unlikelyhood of the aerial maneuvers / unlikelyhood of guys with no commercial plane experience pulling them off.

Unlikelyhood of the planes / explosions passing right through the building without the building seeming to notice.

Unlikelyhood of the fires getting hot enough to melt steel. Impossibility of the fires weakening the entire structure uniformly to allow a plumb neat collapse.

Unlikelyhood of firemen being sent into buildings that were assumed to fall.

Unlikelyhood of the temperature and duration of the glowing / molten steel on ground zero.

Unlikelyhood of finding tritium and thermite residue

Unlikelyhood of wtc 1 and 2's plumb collapse at close to freefall.

Mathematical impossibility of wtc 7s free fall / plumb collapse.

Unlikelyhood of "bad intelligence" being responsible for our hunt for WMD's and toppling Saddams regime.

Unlikelyhood of the laws passed and freedoms lost afterwards.

Unlikelyhood that the information is still classified.

Unlikelyhood no one has been able to replicate NIST's models after the collapse.

Unlikelyhood of the passports being identified after being pulled out of molten / glowing steel / impact that "vaporized" the planes and passengers.

Unlikelyhood NIST hasn't addressed any of these points raised.

I think that's most of the points we raised

My conclusion, occams rayzor dictates foul play.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 03, 2017, 05:05:37 PM
Still waiting for the thirteen members that voted fires caused the collapse to justify this.

Quote from: totallackey on March 02, 2017, 04:54:57 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 02, 2017, 04:03:06 AM
After 9/11 and especially building 7, why don't we just set fire to jet fuel in a building, it would be cheaper and quicker, plus more efficient and effective than 95% of controlled demolitions.

So far 100% success rate 3/3....

Everyone who voted fires caused the collapse?

I concur.

We can actually save quite a bit of money this way.

Planes, destined for the scrap yard, can be equipped with the same amount of fuel and flown by remote control to impact buildings scheduled for demolition.

Simply announce the time so people can clear out.

Think of the amount of man-hours that could be saved by existing demolition companies.

They simply need to get the specifics from the NIST.

Also anyone interested in donating to a kickstarter for our new building demolition method?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 03, 2017, 05:29:54 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 03, 2017, 05:01:24 PM
Funny NIST couldn't cite those numbers, I wonder why they didn't seems like of we figured out it is most likely molten steel, NIST would have came to the same conclusion.

So far we have.

Unlikelyhood of the hijackers getting on the planes with weapons.

No problem in those days,  I used to carry a toolbox in my carry-on luggage prior to 911.   Getting stanley knives on board would have been no problem.

Quote from: disputeone on March 03, 2017, 05:01:24 PM
Unlikelyhood of trained pilots giving them command of their aircraft risking the lives of their passengers.
The pilots were probably dead by that time.

Quote from: disputeone on March 03, 2017, 05:01:24 PM
Unlikelyhood of the aerial maneuvers / unlikelyhood of guys with no commercial plane experience pulling them off.
I'm half inclined to agree,  but after talking to a few people I know,  I don't think what they did was impossible.

Quote from: disputeone on March 03, 2017, 05:01:24 PM
Unlikelyhood of the planes / explosions passing right through the building without the building seeming to notice.
Impact physics is all about momentum and energy transfer,  the video evidence matches exactly what you would expect.

Quote from: disputeone on March 03, 2017, 05:01:24 PM
Unlikelyhood of the fires getting hot enough to melt steel. Impossibility of the fires weakening the entire structure uniformly to allow a plumb neat collapse.
The far field temperatures could easily exceed 600C  over a number of floors.  The collapse mechanism need more research.  IE a new open enquiry.

Quote from: disputeone on March 03, 2017, 05:01:24 PM
Unlikelyhood of firemen being sent into buildings that were assumed to fall.
The didn't expect the WTC2 to collapse.   WTC7 and surrounds was evacuated,  so I think your statement is wrong.

Quote from: disputeone on March 03, 2017, 05:01:24 PM
Unlikelyhood of the temperature and duration of the glowing / molten steel on ground zero.
Good question,   I have been reading up on different possibilities.

Quote from: disputeone on March 03, 2017, 05:01:24 PM
Unlikelyhood of finding tritium and thermite residue
The didn't find thermite residue,  what was claimed to be nano-thermite turned out to be the red iron oxide paint the steel was painted with.   Tritium I don't know. 

Quote from: disputeone on March 03, 2017, 05:01:24 PM
Unlikelyhood of wtc 1 and 2's plumb collapse at close to freefall.
Agreed,  see earlier answer about new enquiry.

Quote from: disputeone on March 03, 2017, 05:01:24 PM
Mathematical impossibility of wtc 7s free fall / plumb collapse.
Debated already at length.   Free fall collapse does not always mean controlled demolition. 

Quote from: disputeone on March 03, 2017, 05:01:24 PM
Unlikelyhood of "bad intelligence" being responsible for our hunt for WMD's and toppling Saddams regime.
You want to trust the spooks,  I don't.

Quote from: disputeone on March 03, 2017, 05:01:24 PM
Unlikelyhood of the laws passed and freedoms lost afterwards.
Politics not engineering.   But we know that there was whitehouse interference in the 911 commission. 

Quote from: disputeone on March 03, 2017, 05:01:24 PM
Unlikelyhood that the information is still classified.
See above

Quote from: disputeone on March 03, 2017, 05:01:24 PM
Unlikelyhood no one has been able to replicate NIST's models after the collapse.
New open enquiry needed to answer that question.

Quote from: disputeone on March 03, 2017, 05:01:24 PM
Unlikelyhood of the passports being identified after being pulled out of molten / glowing steel / impact that "vaporized" the planes and passengers.
Quite a lot of bits and pieces survived,  and were scattered all over.   

Quote from: disputeone on March 03, 2017, 05:01:24 PM
Unlikelyhood NIST hasn't addressed any of these points raised.

They did address most if not all those,  there is a FAQ question and answer paper somewhere.   

Quote from: disputeone on March 03, 2017, 05:01:24 PM
I think that's most of the points we raised

My conclusion, occams rayzor dictates foul play.

My conclusion is the official story stands,   The complexities of the collapse mechanism are not enough to just leap to a conclusion of controlled demolition,  in fact controlled demolition actually makes no sense at all.
It's far more likely that the collapse mechanism hasn't been understood.  Given the large number of variables and unknowns,  that's hardly surprising.

Just the fact that  the collapse initiation occurred  at the aircraft impact sites for both WTC1 and WTC2,  rules out controlled demolition in my mind.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 03, 2017, 05:42:43 PM
Agreed the OS is very unlikely.

I know how much you want to believe the OS and I at least understand that.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 03, 2017, 05:49:20 PM
As for the initial collapse at the aircraft impact site, the molten steel shows metal was melting / being cut there, it follows that the collapse would start there.

However NIST claiming the structural resistance underneath it providing no deceleration of fall acceleration is a blatant lie and violates physics.

I think all it proves is they tried to make it look at least a little bit possible  (until you do your own research and really look into it.)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 03, 2017, 05:52:20 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 03, 2017, 05:42:43 PM
Agreed the OS is very unlikely.

I know how much you want to believe the OS and I at least understand that.

Actually,  that's not what I said.    But, if you want to believe in the controlled demolition conspiracy,  you should already know that the overwhelming weight of evidence is against you.

The ONLY unknown is the collapse mechanism,  and as you already know NIST didn't model past the collapse initiation.   The collapse itself  is still an open question,  and worthy of a new enquiry.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 03, 2017, 05:56:12 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 03, 2017, 05:49:20 PM
As for the initial collapse at the aircraft impact site, the molten steel shows metal was melting / being cut there, it follows that the collapse would start there.

However NIST claiming the structural resistance underneath it providing no deceleration of fall acceleration is a blatant lie and violates physics.

I think all it proves is they tried to make it look at least a little bit possible  (until you do your own research and really look into it.)

The strongest evidence for the official story is the desire to believe the official story, I'm not here to debunk that, I can't. I won't take it away from you, I can't.

We have all the evidence.

Would you like to donate to my new business venture?

Quote from: disputeone on March 03, 2017, 05:05:37 PM
Still waiting for the thirteen members that voted fires caused the collapse to justify this.

Quote from: totallackey on March 02, 2017, 04:54:57 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 02, 2017, 04:03:06 AM
After 9/11 and especially building 7, why don't we just set fire to jet fuel in a building, it would be cheaper and quicker, plus more efficient and effective than 95% of controlled demolitions.

So far 100% success rate 3/3....

Everyone who voted fires caused the collapse?

I concur.

We can actually save quite a bit of money this way.

Planes, destined for the scrap yard, can be equipped with the same amount of fuel and flown by remote control to impact buildings scheduled for demolition.

Simply announce the time so people can clear out.

Think of the amount of man-hours that could be saved by existing demolition companies.

They simply need to get the specifics from the NIST.

Also anyone interested in donating to a kickstarter for our new building demolition method?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 03, 2017, 05:56:57 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 03, 2017, 05:49:20 PM
As for the initial collapse at the aircraft impact site, the molten steel shows metal was melting / being cut there, it follows that the collapse would start there.

However NIST claiming the structural resistance underneath it providing no deceleration of fall acceleration is a blatant lie and violates physics.

I think all it proves is they tried to make it look at least a little bit possible  (until you do your own research and really look into it.)

That molten metal,  ( whatever it was )  let's say it was molten steel,   actually  goes against the controlled demolition theory.   It was only one corner area on one building.  Not a very good demolition plan.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 03, 2017, 05:58:40 PM
3/3 totally collapsed into their own footprint at nearly free-fall and neater and more efficient than most explosive demolition.

The molten steel in one area would cause an uneven collapse, it is strong evidence for CD.

I would postulate they had a great demolition plan.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 03, 2017, 06:02:10 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 03, 2017, 05:56:12 PM
The strongest evidence for the official story is the desire to believe the official story, I'm not here to debunk that, I can't. I won't take it away from you, I can't.

Or perhaps the desire to look deeper and find the truth.   


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 03, 2017, 06:06:45 PM
After 16 years of seeking the truth I can stand here and say completely honestly that I believe the official story is bunk.

Tell me would this work?
Once?
Twice?
Three times in a row on the same day, never before and never again?


Quote from: disputeone on March 03, 2017, 05:05:37 PM
Still waiting for the thirteen members that voted fires caused the collapse to justify this.

Quote from: totallackey on March 02, 2017, 04:54:57 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 02, 2017, 04:03:06 AM
After 9/11 and especially building 7, why don't we just set fire to jet fuel in a building, it would be cheaper and quicker, plus more efficient and effective than 95% of controlled demolitions.

So far 100% success rate 3/3....

Everyone who voted fires caused the collapse?

I concur.

We can actually save quite a bit of money this way.

Planes, destined for the scrap yard, can be equipped with the same amount of fuel and flown by remote control to impact buildings scheduled for demolition.

Simply announce the time so people can clear out.

Think of the amount of man-hours that could be saved by existing demolition companies.

They simply need to get the specifics from the NIST.

Also anyone interested in donating to a kickstarter for our new building demolition method?

Come on guys anyone who can't see the brilliance of our plan is a "conspiracy nutter."
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 03, 2017, 06:20:31 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 03, 2017, 06:06:45 PM
After 16 years of seeking the truth I can stand here and say completely honestly that I believe the official story is bunk.

Tell me would this work?
Once?
Twice?
Three times in a row on the same day, never before and never again?


Are you going to hang a conspiracy on an argument from incredulity?

There are no other instances of people flying  767's at 500 mph or so into 110 story skyscrapers,  so I'd call that a unique set of circumstances.   


I'll pick this up later.   But by all means keep looking for evidence of conspiracy.  I'm open to being proven wrong. 

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 03, 2017, 06:21:44 PM
This is what I set out to achieve here there is nothing you can say or do that will take this away from us.

Quote from: Bullwinkle on March 01, 2017, 01:41:03 PM
Leaving my opinion of the event out of the picture for a moment,
that is one of the most reasoned and well argued threads I have read here.

As for my opinion, well, there are now some cracks.

The physical collapse is one thing, the alternative reasons behind the catastrophe
are more difficult to fathom.

Quote from: Boots on February 25, 2017, 10:23:18 PM
Here is my summary of this thread.

I don't really know enough about the engineering and physics to be easily convinced one way or the other by technical arguments. My bias would be toward believing the official story because I believe that on average, the official version is usually more accurate and reliable than conspiracy theories.

However, the people arguing for the official version of events did not seem to be able to make a clear case IMO. Because, like I admitted, I have a bias toward the official version I would like to see it clearly shown that this version is the most likely to be correct. So far it doesn't seem like this has happened - at least not in a way that I could grasp.

I win.

ANOTHER VICTORY FOR THE FE!!
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 03, 2017, 06:44:26 PM
For Bullwinkle, mainly, also any honest reader, this is my speculation / interpretation of why.

My sisters doing a PhD in psychology currently I know it's not a hard science, I've sold her on 9/11 now (she didn't know about wtc 7 before I told her) I'm really hoping she will use her doctorate to raise awareness of this issue and type of psychology.

Quote from: disputeone on March 02, 2017, 02:10:53 AM
To also try to address the "why" they took the towers down.

I have been thinking on this deeply.
In a psychological / magickal sense, it wasn't enough for the planes to hit the towers, they had to be removed, the difference on every photo, everytime someones visits and sees those towers no longer on the skyline, all the old photos videos postcards etc with the wtc buildings.

The power of this is unfathomable on a population, the fear, anxiety and stress it causes is huge, then promise to fix everything as long as we trust in our leaders, go to war for "wmd's" come back with oil, money countless deaths of innocents / innocence and geopolitical control in the middle east with an added advantage over Russia.

Everytime someone questions it or speaks out they are reminded of the forever changed skyline and sense of safety and called a "nutter" like has happened on this thread since the OP.



#Trumpfor911truth

This is just my speculation if anyone wants to discuss speculation feel free to PM or email me.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 03, 2017, 10:13:06 PM
The psychology of the issue does need to be addressed Absolutely...

You can have all the evidence in the planet, but if people are trained not to accept it at all cost...What good is the evidence? Nil...Completely useless.

Same thing with anything to building a business to fixing the country and everything in between. You can have all the building blocks, but without the mentality, they are useless. You can have all the intelligence on the planet, trained not to use it then it's a complete waste.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 03, 2017, 10:19:45 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 03, 2017, 10:13:06 PM
The psychology of the issue does need to be addressed Absolutely...

You can have all the evidence in the planet, but if people are trained not to accept it at all cost...What good is the evidence? Nil...Completely useless.

Same thing with anything to building a business to fixing the country and everything in between. You can have all the building blocks, but without the mentality, they are useless. You can have all the intelligence on the planet, trained not to use it then it's a complete waste.

Couldn't have said it better myself.   The psychology is probably the key to understanding why otherwise intelligent people believe  in such far fetched conspiracy theories.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 03, 2017, 10:48:00 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 03, 2017, 10:19:45 PM
The psychology is probably the key to understanding why otherwise intelligent people believe  in such far fetched conspiracy theories.

Depends on the issue and where it hits the heart. The mentality of why someone would believe in an obviously fabricated religion (such as Scientology, where Hubbard the creator of it is literally on record saying " if you want to be a millionaire, start your own religion" then a few years later he pops Scientology off his Dianetics) is different than someone who would not believe their wife is cheating on them when hit with irrefutable evidence, or ignore it.

Now in this situation, of why people (some even intelligent) would believe the obvious fabrication of the official story has its own motivations

Quote from: disputeone on March 02, 2017, 02:10:53 AM
To also try to address the "why" they took the towers down.

I have been thinking on this deeply.
In a psychological / magickal sense, it wasn't enough for the planes to hit the towers, they had to be removed, the difference on every photo, everytime someones visits and sees those towers no longer on the skyline, all the old photos videos postcards etc with the wtc buildings.

The power of this is unfathomable on a population, the fear, anxiety and stress it causes is huge, then promise to fix everything as long as we trust in our leaders, go to war for "wmd's" come back with oil, money countless deaths of innocents / innocence and geopolitical control in the middle east with an added advantage over Russia.

Everytime someone questions it or speaks out they are reminded of the forever changed skyline and sense of safety and called a "nutter" like has happened on this thread since the OP.

This is just a valid piece of the puzzle. Group think is unbearably strong with humans just like many other mammals. We are wired to want to be "part of the group", exile is the worst punishment. This is even the worst punishment in prison.

So with all the building blocks that created the 9/11 effect...People would rather over look than risk exile....

Takes alot of nuts to go against the current
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 04, 2017, 03:03:00 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 03, 2017, 10:48:00 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 03, 2017, 10:19:45 PM
The psychology is probably the key to understanding why otherwise intelligent people believe  in such far fetched conspiracy theories.

Depends on the issue and where it hits the heart. The mentality of why someone would believe in an obviously fabricated religion (such as Scientology, where Hubbard the creator of it is literally on record saying " if you want to be a millionaire, start your own religion" then a few years later he pops Scientology off his Dianetics) is different than someone who would not believe their wife is cheating on them when hit with irrefutable evidence, or ignore it.

Now in this situation, of why people (some even intelligent) would believe the obvious fabrication of the official story has its own motivations

Give me an example of this "obvious fabrication"   I'll try to keep an open mind.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on March 04, 2017, 06:57:49 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 03, 2017, 05:56:57 PM
That molten metal,  ( whatever it was )  let's say it was molten steel,   actually  goes against the controlled demolition theory.   It was only one corner area on one building.  Not a very good demolition plan.

It was only SEEN in one corner of the building.

That does not MEAN it was absent in other areas of the building.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on March 04, 2017, 07:05:26 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 03, 2017, 06:20:31 PM
Are you going to hang a conspiracy on an argument from incredulity?

The arguments are not from a position of incredulity.

They are well reasoned and actually have a great deal more of scientific method present than the OS.

Quote from: Rayzor on March 03, 2017, 06:20:31 PM
There are no other instances of people flying  767's at 500 mph or so into 110 story skyscrapers,  so I'd call that a unique set of circumstances.

Correct.

And in a situation demanding truth, it would seem replicating the circumstances of just ONE 110 story tower with a plane crashing into it to determine if the tower would collapse as a result would be a reasonable expectation.

I mean, compared to the cost of the resulting war it would be a drop in the bucket.

Quote from: Rayzor on March 03, 2017, 06:20:31 PM
I'll pick this up later.   But by all means keep looking for evidence of conspiracy.  I'm open to being proven wrong.

For the last and final time, WE DO NOT NEED TO LOOK FOR EVIDENCE OF A CONSPIRACY!!!

The OS CLAIMS 9/11 WAS A CONSPIRACY!!!

The issue is who actually FUNDED AND GAVE BIRTH TO BIN LADEN IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!

ANSWER = GHWB!
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 04, 2017, 04:11:38 PM
Quote from: totallackey on March 04, 2017, 07:05:26 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 03, 2017, 06:20:31 PM
Are you going to hang a conspiracy on an argument from incredulity?

The arguments are not from a position of incredulity.
Out of context quoting is dishonest.

Quote from: totallackey on March 04, 2017, 07:05:26 AM
They are well reasoned and actually have a great deal more of scientific method present than the OS.

Nope,   your only argument so far has been,   "it looks like controlled demolition,  so it must be".   

Quote from: totallackey on March 04, 2017, 07:05:26 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 03, 2017, 06:20:31 PM
There are no other instances of people flying  767's at 500 mph or so into 110 story skyscrapers,  so I'd call that a unique set of circumstances.

Correct.

And in a situation demanding truth, it would seem replicating the circumstances of just ONE 110 story tower with a plane crashing into it to determine if the tower would collapse as a result would be a reasonable expectation.

I mean, compared to the cost of the resulting war it would be a drop in the bucket.

Quote from: Rayzor on March 03, 2017, 06:20:31 PM
I'll pick this up later.   But by all means keep looking for evidence of conspiracy.  I'm open to being proven wrong.

For the last and final time, WE DO NOT NEED TO LOOK FOR EVIDENCE OF A CONSPIRACY!!!

The OS CLAIMS 9/11 WAS A CONSPIRACY!!!

The issue is who actually FUNDED AND GAVE BIRTH TO BIN LADEN IN THE FIRST PLACE!!!

ANSWER = GHWB!

So you are now accepting the official story?  :)

Did you ever see a film called "The  Beast of War"  It was about the crew of a T-55 tank during Russian war in Afghanistan.  That might tell you something about the early days of Al Qaeda.

Here's some information about molten Aluminium,  he has some interesting theories about the fires in the debris burning for weeks afterward.
http://www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on March 04, 2017, 04:34:18 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 04, 2017, 04:11:38 PM

Out of context quoting is dishonest.

What was out of context?

Quote from: Rayzor on March 04, 2017, 04:11:38 PM
Nope,   your only argument so far has been,   "it looks like controlled demolition,  so it must be".

No, my argument has also been the NIST is a bunch of crapola, evidenced by the lack of scientific method.

And what else looks like a controlled demolition other than a controlled demolition?

Quote from: Rayzor on March 04, 2017, 04:11:38 PM

So you are now accepting the official story?  :)

Insofar as the OS states it was a conspiracy, yes.

Insofar as to the depth of the conspiracy, no.

Quote from: Rayzor on March 04, 2017, 04:11:38 PM
Did you ever see a film called "The  Beast"  It was about the crew of a T-55 tank during Russian war in Afghanistan.
No. I know about the Mujahadeen.

Quote from: Rayzor on March 04, 2017, 04:11:38 PM
Here's some information about molten Aluminium,  he has some interesting theories about the fires in the debris burning for weeks afterward.
http://www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf

" It is concluded that as much as 10,000 kg of molten aluminum flowed from the Boeing 767 airframes lodged in the upper floors of the Towers prior to their collapse."

This is just utterly laughable.

1) For a person with a PhD to make this claim without testing whether molten aluminum can maintain a yellow or orange color for the length of time witnessed in the video; and,
2) No mention of this amount of aluminum being collected at the site.

You claim our side is the "incredulous side?"

I don't care.

I will remain incredulous in the face of utter stupidity offered as evidence for molten aluminum at WTC.

Especially by people using their PhD to defend the indefensible.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 04, 2017, 04:49:08 PM
I also.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 04, 2017, 04:52:31 PM


Quote from: totallackey on March 04, 2017, 04:34:18 PM
" It is concluded that as much as 10,000 kg of molten aluminum flowed from the Boeing 767 airframes lodged in the upper floors of the Towers prior to their collapse."

This is just utterly laughable.

1) For a person with a PhD to make this claim without testing whether molten aluminum can maintain a yellow or orange color for the length of time witnessed in the video; and,
2) No mention of this amount of aluminum being collected at the site.

You claim our side is the "incredulous side?"

I don't care.

I will remain incredulous in the face of utter stupidity offered as evidence for molten aluminum at WTC.

Especially by people using their PhD to defend the indefensible.

Yes,  his estimate of 10,000 kg is probably on the low side,  there was at least  60,000 kg of aircraft aluminium,  and  2,000,000 kg of aluminium cladding that ended up in the debris pile.

The chemistry of aluminium might be an important factor in understanding how fires can burn for weeks without oxygen deep in the debris pile.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 04, 2017, 04:57:34 PM
Quote from: totallackey on March 04, 2017, 04:34:18 PM
r a person with a PhD to make this claim without testing whether molten aluminum can maintain a yellow or orange color for the length of time witnessed in the video; and,
2) No mention of this amount of aluminum being collected at the site.


I was going to read this until I saw this post...Everyone...And I mean everyone who has dealt with aluminum knows it will not be that color in direct sunlight.

Here is one of the main reasons

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 02, 2017, 09:59:34 PM
Even mixing contamination with aluminum it works in a way of water and oil...You will still see it clearly. That was in no way aluminum we saw pouring out.

Optical d->s2 transition is the main reason, which is why it comes out as it does in the sun.

[Ne] 3s22 3p11  Is typical aluminum, though it is one of the only metals with no d valence electrons...I have always found that interesting, though Fresnel equations help to solve it. It is still an interesting metal.

Though I know it's RI is 1.1978..I don't know what it is when in liquid form, but going off its transition as a liquid, I doubt it is much different liquid or solid.


Also as for recovered things....Nothing was as it should have been in that area. Aside from the lack of wreckage and bodies, most of the office furniture etc was lacking (and all things that should have been in the buildings).. Thankfully that passport was able to escape without harm from its indestructible material, and lay so perfectly on top of the Carnage.


Also, tid bit, as this will be knocking myself...PhD doesn't mean you have an attachment to reality. Especially if you move straight from learning to teaching like most do. The real world ate me alive for the first few years of business until I learned to combine everything correctly... Extended education tends to remove that logic, critical thinking and reality button unfortunately.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 04, 2017, 05:03:33 PM
Agreed, I also stand by this.

Quote from: disputeone on March 03, 2017, 05:56:12 PM
The strongest evidence for the official story is the desire to believe the official story, I'm not here to debunk that, I can't. I won't take it away from you, I can't.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 04, 2017, 05:07:15 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 02, 2017, 09:59:34 PM
Even mixing contamination with aluminum it works in a way of water and oil...You will still see it clearly. That was in no way aluminum we saw pouring out.

Optical d->s2 transition is the main reason, which is why it comes out as it does in the sun.

[Ne] 3s22 3p11  Is typical aluminum, though it is one of the only metals with no d valence electrons...I have always found that interesting, though Fresnel equations help to solve it. It is still an interesting metal.

Though I know it's RI is 1.1978..I don't know what it is when in liquid form, but going off its transition as a liquid, I doubt it is much different liquid or solid.

Thanks for the reminder,  I was going to ask you to elaborate on what you were trying to say,   apart from the fact that you got the electron structure wrong,  [Ne]3s2 3p1   but that's just nit picking,   the lack of valence electrons in the d shell seem a bit spurious,  it's only Atomic number 13,  you don't get d shell electrons,  and anyway why do you think that matters?   But also you forgot that Lithium, Sodium, Potassium, Magnesium, and Beryllium are all metals without d shell electrons. 

Can you clarify what you meant.   I'm just confused by what you are trying to say.   I would have probably just said that Aluminium has low emissivity,  leave aside the electron transitions as just unnecessary detail.


 

 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 05, 2017, 12:07:06 AM
http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a6384/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center/

Quote
FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength—and that required exposure to much less heat.

That's so funny cause it did melt steel.

(http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k126/CB_Brooklyn/WTC%20Molten%20Metal%20-%20Fact%20or%20Fiction/32_JONES_leak-resized.jpg)

Kinda contradictory imo.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 05, 2017, 12:15:14 AM
I wonder why NIST's report is so full of lies? Or maybe the special 9/11 effectTM was to blame but I didn't see them cite it as a cause.

Quote from: disputeone on March 02, 2017, 12:52:13 AM
Quote from: NIST
the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.

Just to point out another blatant lie from the NIST report. The supporting structure could've easily taken twice the load above, I am willing to bet it could safely take four times the load above it. This is how we build things, it's just reality, ask any engineer.

The idea of structural resistance causing zero effect on fall acceleration is another blatant lie, as my primary school level equation clearly shows.

if NIST weren't so dirty I might not believe as strongly as I do.

I hate being talked to like an idiot and I especially hate it when my government talks to me like an idiot.

The saddest part of this conspiracy false flag, imo, is the physics and engineering aren't even the strongest evidence for foul play. :(
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 05, 2017, 12:34:16 AM
I'm going places with my business idea guys, jump on board before it's too late.

I mean, fires obviously caused the collapse, look at the votes.

(https://s3.postimg.org/jwq95bumb/20170305_163136.png)

I wonder how quickly I will sell my idea?

Edit, I'll share the replies, should be lulzy.

Edit, edit. The ideas already patented, Rayzor, so don't even think about getting rich of my brilliant plan.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Heiwa on March 05, 2017, 05:20:10 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 05, 2017, 12:34:16 AM
I'm going places with my business idea guys, jump on board before it's too late.

I mean, fires obviously caused the collapse, look at the votes.

(https://s3.postimg.org/jwq95bumb/20170305_163136.png)

I wonder how quickly I will sell my idea?

Edit, I'll share the replies, should be lulzy.

Edit, edit. The ideas already patented, Rayzor, so don't even think about getting rich of my brilliant plan.

Sorry, this weak top down building demolition method is just pseudoscience invented by a Saudi little boy OBL assisted by rich friends in the 1990's. It only works if backed up by local Main Stream Media and when shown live on TV. I describe the details and cost at http://heiwaco.com .  Note that you put fire to the weak TOP! DHS, CIA, FBI and local security thinks nothing up there can destroy the whole strong building incl. cellars down below so they sleep at street level.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on March 05, 2017, 05:32:37 AM
Pretty sure explosives would be cheaper (a far greater mass of jet fuel was present in the planes, than mass of explosives that would be used for a demolition).
Very sure explosives are quicker (Cutting supports in a fraction of a second vs burning for an hour or more).

The months and weeks of preparation would also be longer if you used jet fuel (a much larger mass and it's liquid, so harder to set up).
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on March 05, 2017, 10:51:02 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on March 05, 2017, 05:32:37 AM
Pretty sure explosives would be cheaper (a far greater mass of jet fuel was present in the planes, than mass of explosives that would be used for a demolition).
Very sure explosives are quicker (Cutting supports in a fraction of a second vs burning for an hour or more).

The months and weeks of preparation would also be longer if you used jet fuel (a much larger mass and it's liquid, so harder to set up).

Actually, I think the overall cost of flying a jet into a building would be much cheaper.

No manpower except to erect containment fences and remote the plane in.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Master_Evar on March 05, 2017, 11:02:14 AM
Quote from: totallackey on March 05, 2017, 10:51:02 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on March 05, 2017, 05:32:37 AM
Pretty sure explosives would be cheaper (a far greater mass of jet fuel was present in the planes, than mass of explosives that would be used for a demolition).
Very sure explosives are quicker (Cutting supports in a fraction of a second vs burning for an hour or more).

The months and weeks of preparation would also be longer if you used jet fuel (a much larger mass and it's liquid, so harder to set up).

Actually, I think the overall cost of flying a jet into a building would be much cheaper.

No manpower except to erect containment fences and remote the plane in.
Does anyone know the cost of a loaded (in regards to fuel, not people) jet plane vs the cost of a demolition?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on March 05, 2017, 12:50:23 PM
Quote from: Master_Evar on March 05, 2017, 11:02:14 AM
Does anyone know the cost of a loaded (in regards to fuel, not people) jet plane vs the cost of a demolition?

I do not want to be the person who calls to get an estimate on the cost of demolishing any building as I do not own any building.

I cannot claim the information is needed for a science project either...

I got to guess the cost would be astronomical.

The cost to demolish the Kingdome in Seattle: "The total cost for the demolition project was $9 million."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_Demolition,_Inc.

A used 767 costs 10 million.

But I got to believe a 767 ready for mothballs could be had for less than a million dollars and the fuel would not cost a million.

So, I still say cheaper by far.

And the results (pending the specifics from the NIST) are guaranteed.

2 for 2 so far, and if there is a nearby building on the same concourse also in need of demolishing, just leave that one unprotected.

Get 3 for 2 sale!

The buildings come down with minimal collateral damage to existing structures, especially with actual safeguards in place.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 05, 2017, 02:32:43 PM
People who think 1 dimensionally such as master keep forgetting about all the prep work required before a demo. It's not just explosives. There is months and months of design, prep work, mass removal/redistribution, support modifications etc etc etc before you even get to any explosives.

Yes, a 767 that can no longer be certified is only worth the sum of its parts remaining that can be certified as well as metal scrap weight. So yes, a dead plane can be had quite cheap.

You really don't even need a plane unless you just want to be fancy..Just blow a cartoon shaped hole in the exoskeleton, then add kerosene... Ta dah!!!! Perfect demos every time...Straight into its foot print.....Not just demos.. ..we are talking "vaporizing" here, no other company offers that box to check.

Of course our frequent demo card always comes with the option of two for the price of 3....The third will fall just out of fear, no need to actually step foot in it.


(http://i64.tinypic.com/2qutefk.jpg)

All it takes is 20k gallons of kerosene to level 16 acres, and demolish as well as vaporize 2 million tons of mass.....

Y'all call me a nutter??? Lmao

 ::) ::) ::) ::)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 05, 2017, 04:44:54 PM
Plus 13 votes that jet fuel caused the collapse.

We don't even need a 767 according to NIST and the thirteen voters on this thread, just jet fuel, heaps cheaper and easier than a regular CD.

No one has replied yet to my emails yet.
Someone will see my brilliance soon, otherwise I'm gonna jump up and down and call them conspiracy nuts.

Edit. Lmao, three for the price of two, we could do a September sales spectacular. Lmao.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 05, 2017, 04:54:49 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 05, 2017, 02:32:43 PM
People who think 1 dimensionally such as master ...
No need to insult Master_Evar just because you couldn't solve his simple engineering problem,  you need to get over it and move on. 

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 05, 2017, 02:32:43 PM
Y'all call me a nutter??? Lmao

Congratulations for getting something right.  You are a nutter.   What's the going price in Texas these days for a 10 gallon tinfoil hat? 


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 05, 2017, 05:11:01 PM
So, Rayzors officially given up it seems.

I could feel his heart break from the other side of the country when he proved the molten metal on wtc 2 was steel and not aluminum. That was the proverbial straw that broke the camels back.

Anyone who has been following objectively / honestly, please note Rayzors strongest argument all thread has just been calling us crazy.

You guys decide who won this debate.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 05, 2017, 05:21:39 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 05, 2017, 05:11:01 PM
So, Rayzors officially given up it seems.

I could feel his heart break from the other side of the country when he proved the molten metal on wtc 2 was steel and not aluminum. That was the proverbial straw that broke the camels back.

Anyone who has been following objectively / honestly, please note Rayzors strongest argument all thread has just been calling us crazy.

You guys decide who won this debate.

There's that reality disconnect again,  I can understand that you don't want to admit defeat,  but you really need to work on your reading comprehension,  just as BabyBullshit needs to work on his fake PhD persona.

You lost the debate,   time has come for you to deal with it.

Now all you have left is trolling.   So good luck with that.

Here's that reference about Aluminium again,  http://www.911myths.com/WTCTHERM.pdf   happy reading.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 05, 2017, 05:23:06 PM
Lmao ;D

Please read the thread.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 05, 2017, 05:27:34 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 02, 2017, 08:19:47 PM
Picture of contaminated aluminium at 900C

(https://s1.postimg.org/63p7fwawf/900_CAluminium.jpg)

When you stir it or pour it the aluminum is still the normal silvery colour.

My conclusion is that the molten aluminium will simply heat up whatever it's in contact with,  whether that glows or not depends on the material.

So it's not likely that contaminated aluminium explains the molten material seen on the WTC2 video.   But I wouldn't rule it out completely. 

Furnace is now back doing stuff,  that puts food on the table.   

If anyone has another idea to try.   Let me know.

EDIT:
Just as a dumb experiment,  I poured the molten aluminium into a pile of black iron oxide to see if it was hot enough to ignite the thermite reaction...  no deal.  If I had added a magnesium igniter it probably would have worked.

I wouldn't rule out the possibility that there was some chemical reaction going on with the molten aluminium,  and other material.  The thermite reaction is not the only possibility.

>Did his own research, proves the molten metal we saw could not have been aluminum.

>Proceeds to post a PDF from NIST telling us it really is actually aluminum.

>Teh lulz, literally magick....

I don't have a PhD and didn't need one to destroy the total progressive collapse hypothesis.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 05, 2017, 05:28:47 PM
Quote from: totallackey on March 01, 2017, 10:59:01 AM
The fires at WTC were hot enough to MELT METAL!

LMAO!!!
(http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k126/CB_Brooklyn/WTC%20Molten%20Metal%20-%20Fact%20or%20Fiction/32_JONES_leak-resized.jpg)

Anyone who knows about cutting torches or welding or foundries knows exactly what they are witnessing in the photo.

Thats right, steel being cut.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 05, 2017, 05:34:36 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 05, 2017, 05:27:34 PM
>Did his own research, proves the molten metal we saw could not have been aluminum.

>Proceeds to post a PDF from NIST telling us it really is actually aluminum.

>Teh lulz, literally magick....

I don't have a PhD and didn't need one to destroy the total progressive collapse hypothesis.

And there it is in a nutshell,  the reason you lost.   Failure to comprehend the written word.   

BTW.  Here's a hint,  FR Greening is not NIST,  and you should actually read what he says instead of making yourself look foolish.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 05, 2017, 05:38:42 PM
I read up to the part where he said the steel was actually molten ally if you squint, I'll pay that there would have been some molten ally there.

The molten metal in this post.

Quote from: disputeone on March 05, 2017, 05:28:47 PM
Quote from: totallackey on March 01, 2017, 10:59:01 AM
The fires at WTC were hot enough to MELT METAL!

LMAO!!!
(http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k126/CB_Brooklyn/WTC%20Molten%20Metal%20-%20Fact%20or%20Fiction/32_JONES_leak-resized.jpg)

Anyone who knows about cutting torches or welding or foundries knows exactly what they are witnessing in the photo.

Thats right, steel being cut.

Is clearly molten steel.

You showed here that the colour of the metal could not be molten ally and was probably molten steel.

Quote from: disputeone on March 05, 2017, 05:27:34 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 02, 2017, 08:19:47 PM
Picture of contaminated aluminium at 900C

(https://s1.postimg.org/63p7fwawf/900_CAluminium.jpg)

When you stir it or pour it the aluminum is still the normal silvery colour.

My conclusion is that the molten aluminium will simply heat up whatever it's in contact with,  whether that glows or not depends on the material.

So it's not likely that contaminated aluminium explains the molten material seen on the WTC2 video.   But I wouldn't rule it out completely. 

Furnace is now back doing stuff,  that puts food on the table.   

If anyone has another idea to try.   Let me know.

EDIT:
Just as a dumb experiment,  I poured the molten aluminium into a pile of black iron oxide to see if it was hot enough to ignite the thermite reaction...  no deal.  If I had added a magnesium igniter it probably would have worked.

I wouldn't rule out the possibility that there was some chemical reaction going on with the molten aluminium,  and other material.  The thermite reaction is not the only possibility.

>Did his own research, proves the molten metal we saw could not have been aluminum.

>Proceeds to post a PDF from NIST some shill telling us it really is actually aluminum.

>Teh lulz, literally magick....

I don't have a PhD and didn't need one to destroy the total progressive collapse hypothesis.

>teh lulz.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 05, 2017, 05:53:59 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 05, 2017, 05:38:42 PM
I read up to the part where he said the steel was actually molten ally if you squint, I'll pay that there would have been some molten ally there.

So you missed the part about thermite reactions,  the colour temperature of the metal and the oxygen tanks.   Can't say I'm surprised.  Everything else so far has gone right over your head.   

Be happy in your occult world of numerology and magick.   I'm sure that makes more sense to you than physics and engineering.




Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 05, 2017, 05:55:47 PM
You said yourself the thermite reaction never happened, it's pseudo science in the context of 9/11.

As for physics and engineering, you seriously didn't read the thread where I schooled you?

Here have some more.

Reserved.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 05, 2017, 05:59:10 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 05, 2017, 05:55:47 PM
You said yourself the thermite reaction never happened, it's pseudo science in the context of 9/11.

As for physics and engineering, you seriously didn't read the thread where I schooled you?

Here have some more.

Reserved.

There's that reading comprehension problem again,   900C is below the thermite ignition temperature,   you didn't understand that point. 

What thread was that,  where you "schooled" me?  LOL


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 05, 2017, 06:02:16 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 02, 2017, 12:52:13 AM
Quote from: NIST
the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.

Just to point out another blatant lie from the NIST report. The supporting structure could've easily taken twice the load above, I am willing to bet it could safely take four times the load above it. This is how we build things, it's just reality, ask any engineer.

The idea of structural resistance causing zero effect on fall acceleration is another blatant lie, as my primary school level equation clearly shows.

Quote from: disputeone on March 05, 2017, 12:07:06 AM
http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a6384/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center/

Quote
FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength—and that required exposure to much less heat.

That's so funny cause it did melt steel.

(http://i87.photobucket.com/albums/k126/CB_Brooklyn/WTC%20Molten%20Metal%20-%20Fact%20or%20Fiction/32_JONES_leak-resized.jpg)

Kinda contradictory imo.


Here https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.1740


I got a PM from a little birdie, I can't remember the exact wording but it said something like.

"He can't explain why he believes what he believes but he has no problem telling others what to believe."

This struck me very hard.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 05, 2017, 06:07:55 PM
Here's a "thermite reaction"

Check it out, neat huh.

It's cool how it reacted on such a perfect angle.

(https://s29.postimg.org/kpwxrz5vr/Cut_beam.jpg)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 05, 2017, 06:17:08 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 05, 2017, 06:02:16 PM
Here https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.1740

Do you still hold to the view that free fall collapse is only possible in a controlled demolition?    I thought you'd moved past that logical fallacy.

Quote from: disputeone on March 05, 2017, 06:02:16 PM
I got a PM from a little birdie, I can't remember the exact wording but it said something like.

"He can't explain why he believes what he believes but he has no problem telling others what to believe."

This struck me very hard.

LOL,  Good quote.  He should join the thread.  In spite of the crazy ideas you keep pushing, the truth will always win out,  regardless.    But you have to be relentless.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 05, 2017, 06:18:26 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 05, 2017, 06:07:55 PM
Here's a "thermite reaction"

Check it out, neat huh.

It's cool how it reacted on such a perfect angle.

(https://s29.postimg.org/kpwxrz5vr/Cut_beam.jpg)

You should check your sources,  those were cut with oxy  actually it was thermal lances



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 05, 2017, 06:29:59 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 05, 2017, 06:17:08 PM
(https://s9.postimg.org/ah5fcaukv/2f7.jpg)

This is ugly.

I've done what I wanted to do here.

You have at it. The truth will eventually come out, suppressing it will only delay it, Look at JFK.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 05, 2017, 06:45:10 PM
Honest question, Rayzor, why, throughout the whole thread, have you been the only one blindly parroting the O/S.

There are many very intelligent posters here, far more intelligent than you or I, why? I wonder, have you been the only one citing the O/S trying to take us on?

Everyone else it seems, either doesn't want to look too deeply, doesn't want to say what they really think, or won't argue from a position of intellectual dishonesty.

Why do you think you are NIST's last and only standing soilder here?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 05, 2017, 06:49:02 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 05, 2017, 06:29:59 PM

This is ugly.

I've done what I wanted to do here.

You have at it. The truth will eventually come out, suppressing it will only delay it, Look at JFK.

Whatever I say or debunk,  you won't ever choose to see the reality.    The parallels in the thought processes of the 911 truthers and flat earthers is startling.    Same refusal to see what's right in front of them.

If you want to talk JFK,  you'll need to start another thread.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 05, 2017, 06:49:56 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 05, 2017, 06:45:10 PM
Honest question, Rayzor, why, throughout the whole thread, have you been the only one blindly parroting the O/S.

There are many very intelligent posters here, far more intelligent than you or I, why? I wonder, have you been the only one citing the O/S trying to take us on?

Everyone else it seems, either doesn't want to look too deeply, doesn't want to say what they really think, or won't argue from a position of intellectual dishonesty.

Why do you think you are NIST's last and only standing soilder here?

Toodle-pip, Rayzor.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 05, 2017, 06:51:20 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 05, 2017, 06:45:10 PM
Honest question, Rayzor, why, throughout the whole thread, have you been the only one blindly parroting the O/S.

There are many very intelligent posters here, far more intelligent than you or I, why? I wonder, have you been the only one citing the O/S trying to take us on?

Everyone else it seems, either doesn't want to look too deeply, doesn't want to say what they really think, or won't argue from a position of intellectual dishonesty.

Why do you think you are NIST's last and only standing soilder here?

You didn't read where I've repeatedly called the NIST report compromised and a cover up,  and that a new open enquiry is required. 

Oh,  wait,  I forgot your inability to comprehend the written word.   
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 05, 2017, 06:52:51 PM
I see you are trying to win by compromise.

Quote from: Rayzor on March 05, 2017, 06:51:20 PM
I've repeatedly called the NIST report compromised and a cover up,  and that a new open enquiry is required. 

Thank you for admitting the NIST report was a cover up.

I appreciate that.

In this regard, we agree.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 05, 2017, 07:18:49 PM
Rayzor is just the fowl smell of desperation...

"The lulz" as some would say...

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 02, 2017, 04:58:22 PM
Now unless someone would like to take up my wager for this test...Or... someone would like to start a pissing match with me on who is who in reality (instead of just running ones mouth with empty words), OR....someone would like to actually discuss 9/11 and truly is looking for the truth. I will spend any time I am in this thread (which will not be much) shit posting or stirring the pot.

I have wasted enough quality hours on yuppie nonsense.

So??? Anything??


Also...I don't attempt to spout this nonsense...

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 05, 2017, 02:32:43 PM
(http://i64.tinypic.com/2qutefk.jpg)

All it takes is 20k gallons of kerosene to level 16 acres, and demolish as well as vaporize 2 million tons of mass.....

I also don't spout the nonsensical rhetoric of a symmetrical “collapse” due to asymmetrical damage...  Which of course is at odds with the principles of structural mechanics. Right along side of the pancake theory fallacy, telling us that more and more energy would be generated to accelerate the collapse.

Not to mention you have yet to present an argument besides to "look at NIST"...

So I believe what we can determine is you stand in no place to judge anyone's intelligence....
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 05, 2017, 07:21:14 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 05, 2017, 07:18:49 PM
I also don't spout the nonsensical rhetoric of a symmetrical “collapse” due to asymmetrical damage...  Which of course is at odds with the principles of structural mechanics. Right along side of the pancake theory fallacy, telling us that more and more energy would be generated to accelerate the collapse.

Please note that from page one, this point hasn't even come close to being debunked.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 05, 2017, 07:39:12 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 05, 2017, 05:21:39 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 05, 2017, 05:11:01 PM
please note Rayzors strongest argument all thread has just been calling us crazy.

There's that reality disconnect again.

This is the saddest thing ever.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 05, 2017, 07:49:57 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 05, 2017, 07:18:49 PM

I also don't spout the nonsensical rhetoric of a symmetrical “collapse” due to asymmetrical damage...  Which of course is at odds with the principles of structural mechanics. Right along side of the pancake theory fallacy, telling us that more and more energy would be generated to accelerate the collapse.

Not to mention you have yet to present an argument besides to "look at NIST"...

So I believe what we can determine is you stand in no place to judge anyone's intelligence....

Sigh,   go back and read where I have repeatedly said that the collapse mechanism was not modelled by NIST,   they only modelled up to the point of collapse initiation.   Explaining the collapse mechanism requires a new enquiry.  But by all means you go right ahead and pretend that means it was controlled demolition,  just so that you know it's just an opinion.

So long as you continue to misrepresent what I've said, I'll know that's the only argument you've got left.   

As for your pissing contest,  you haven't shown any of the clarity of thought that your supposed qualifications would imply.   Whenever you've attempted a technical answer it's been a mish-mash of gibberish and attempts to obfusticate with a weird mix of tangentially relevant jargon.

One of the characteristics of someone who really understands their profession is the ability to express ideas and concepts with clarity and simplicity.   You lack that characteristic.  Makes me suspicious you are trying to be deceptive about what you actually know.



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 05, 2017, 07:53:14 PM
>still no attempt to explain the plumb symmetrical collapse at close to free-fall for a building that has sustained uneven damage and a collapse that was initiated at a single point and not throughout the entire building.

>admits NIST's investigation was a cover up

>what more do you want?

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 05, 2017, 08:18:34 PM
Rayzor...Just because you don't understand something does not make it any less factual.

I have tried to use relatively straightforward math when I present it. I have tried using metaphors, simplistic explanations and many other forms of communication... They are then either deflected, twisted, flat out ignored, or judged on typos.

I can only do so much...

As for a pissing match..I mean a true tit for tat (I have no doubt you know what I meant). Just like when I first joined here..Someone would call bullshit I would show direct proof otherwise. It's not hard. So if you would like to continue calling me out personally then I suggest you post up or shut up (corny, but fitting).. ::)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 05, 2017, 08:28:19 PM
I think I've said it more than once,  don't make any assumptions about what I do or don't understand.   Let's start with you clarifying what you meant by this post.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 02, 2017, 09:59:34 PM
Even mixing contamination with aluminum it works in a way of water and oil...You will still see it clearly. That was in no way aluminum we saw pouring out.

Optical d->s2 transition is the main reason, which is why it comes out as it does in the sun.

[Ne] 3s22 3p11  Is typical aluminum, though it is one of the only metals with no d valence electrons...I have always found that interesting, though Fresnel equations help to solve it. It is still an interesting metal.

Though I know it's RI is 1.1978..I don't know what it is when in liquid form, but going off its transition as a liquid, I doubt it is much different liquid or solid.

Thanks for the reminder,  I was going to ask you to elaborate on what you were trying to say,   apart from the fact that you got the electron structure wrong,  [Ne]3s2 3p1   but that's just nit picking,   the lack of valence electrons in the d shell seem a bit spurious,  it's only Atomic number 13,  you don't get d shell electrons,  and anyway why do you think that matters?   But also you forgot that Lithium, Sodium, Potassium, Magnesium, and Beryllium are all metals without d shell electrons. 

Can you clarify what you meant.   I'm just confused by what you are trying to say.   I would have probably just said that Aluminium has low emissivity,  leave aside the electron transitions as just unnecessary detail.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 05, 2017, 08:30:50 PM
After 59 pages, forgive us for making a few assumptions about you.

Your post has nothing to do with the possibility the metal seen coming from wtc 2 before its collapse being aluminum, its clearly steel.

What happened to your "suitcases full of thermite" argument? I was rather fond of that one. It did show why you won't present your own thoughts and ideas.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 05, 2017, 09:04:49 PM
https://kendoc911.wordpress.com/911-shills/

Quote
instead of debunking our views and theories (backed by science) he trolls the movement with personal attacks. Typical debunker tactics because science and physics is to hard to deal with.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 05, 2017, 10:08:47 PM
http://www.ae911truth.org/news/199-news-media-events-60-structural-engineers.html

Quote from: wikipedia
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth) is an American non-profit[1][2] organization of architects and engineers who dispute the results of official investigations into the September 11 attacks, including the 9/11 Commission Report.[3][4]

Founded in 2006, the group demands that the United States Congress pursue "a truly independent investigation" into the September 11 attacks as they believe government agency investigations into the collapse of the World Trade Center have not addressed what it calls "massive evidence for explosive demolition."[5]

Quote from: Rayzor on March 05, 2017, 06:51:20 PM
a new open enquiry is required. 

Why do you fight us?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 05, 2017, 10:43:24 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 05, 2017, 10:08:47 PM
http://www.ae911truth.org/news/199-news-media-events-60-structural-engineers.html

Quote from: wikipedia
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth) is an American non-profit[1][2] organization of architects and engineers who dispute the results of official investigations into the September 11 attacks, including the 9/11 Commission Report.[3][4]

Founded in 2006, the group demands that the United States Congress pursue "a truly independent investigation" into the September 11 attacks as they believe government agency investigations into the collapse of the World Trade Center have not addressed what it calls "massive evidence for explosive demolition."[5]

Quote from: Rayzor on March 05, 2017, 06:51:20 PM
a new open enquiry is required. 

Why do you fight us?

Could it be because I disagree with your controlled demolition theory?    Which I've debunked over and over in this thread.

Not having a thorough detailed and open explanation of the collapse mechanism  doesn't mean it's controlled demolition.

Any theory of controlled demolition for the twin towers has to explain the impossible,  why did the collapse initiate on the floors where the planes impacted?
Why wait 7 hours to demolish WTC7,  in fact why bother at all,  everyone knew it was on the verge of collapse mid afternoon on that day.

Controlled demolition only makes sense to anyone who is blind to the facts right in front of them.   Like the video footage of the  planes impacting the towers.

It's a bit like showing a flat earther live video feed from the ISS.   Or pictures of the earth from Geostationary weather satellites.

The video evidence must be fake,  since it doesn't fit the conspiracy narrative.  And they don't understand the physics.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 05, 2017, 11:00:16 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 05, 2017, 10:43:24 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 05, 2017, 10:08:47 PM
http://www.ae911truth.org/news/199-news-media-events-60-structural-engineers.html

Quote from: wikipedia
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth) is an American non-profit[1][2] organization of architects and engineers who dispute the results of official investigations into the September 11 attacks, including the 9/11 Commission Report.[3][4]

Founded in 2006, the group demands that the United States Congress pursue "a truly independent investigation" into the September 11 attacks as they believe government agency investigations into the collapse of the World Trade Center have not addressed what it calls "massive evidence for explosive demolition."[5]

Quote from: Rayzor on March 05, 2017, 06:51:20 PM
a new open enquiry is required. 

Why do you fight us?

Could it be because I disagree with your controlled demolition theory?    Which I've debunked over and over in this thread.

(https://s4.postimg.org/numckebbh/tumblr_mrphp50vna1qdlh1io1_400.gif)

I guess in the meantime we can both fight for a fair, honest and open investigation into the events before during and after 9/11/01.

Thankyou.

Edit. Controlled demolition hypothesis, get it right.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 05, 2017, 11:07:24 PM
Quote
Well Rayzor, we all know that the Towers were built to withstand the impact of MULTIPLE Boeing airliners. Unless he feels like debunking the engineers that built it. Buildings do not collapse in on themselves from office fires, never have, never will. But in Rayzor's deluded brain, he still cannot see what a top down controlled demolition is (like the towers) and Building 7 DID start from the bottom.

https://kendoc911.wordpress.com/911-shills/
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 05, 2017, 11:11:44 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 05, 2017, 11:07:24 PM
Quote
Well Rayzor, we all know that the Towers were built to withstand the impact of MULTIPLE Boeing airliners. Unless he feels like debunking the engineers that built it. Buildings do not collapse in on themselves from office fires, never have, never will. But in Rayzor's deluded brain, he still cannot see what a top down controlled demolition is (like the towers) and Building 7 DID start from the bottom.

https://kendoc911.wordpress.com/911-shills/

Ok,  baby steps, 

1. Why did the collapse start on the floors where the planes impacted?

2. Why wait 7 hours to demolish WTC7?


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 05, 2017, 11:17:53 PM
1. To give the appearance you even have an argument.

2. To give the appearance you even have an argument. / hope no one noticed.

Rayzor you are boring, you bore me. I grow tired of "debating" you.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 05, 2017, 11:20:08 PM
Here are 60 structural engineers that agree with me, can you find 60 that agree with you?

http://www.ae911truth.org/news/199-news-media-events-60-structural-engineers.html
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 05, 2017, 11:29:42 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 05, 2017, 11:17:53 PM
1. To give the appearance you even have an argument.

2. To give the appearance you even have an argument. / hope no one noticed.

Rayzor you are boring, you bore me. I grow tired of "debating" you.

Well,  let me give you BHS's answer to the first question,  he claims that there were no planes at all and they were drones programmed to hit those precise locations,  with pre-planted charges designed to create the outline of an aircraft and so to make people think it was an aircraft,   and that all the video evidence was faked.   Then some combination of shaped charges and thermite were pre-positioned and timed to accomplish the demolition. 

He even claimed to have video evidence of an aircraft penetrating the building without leaving a mark.

Seriously.  I'm not kidding.     and as far as I'm aware,  you agreed with his version of events,

As far as the second question,  as to why wait 7 hours to demo  WTC7?  he didn't really give a detailed answer,  if he did I missed it amongst the noise. 

You appear to have no answers at all.  Maybe you should just stick to your dumb meme pictures. 
 


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 05, 2017, 11:30:40 PM
Yawn.

Shill harder, Rayzor.

Quote from: disputeone on March 05, 2017, 11:17:53 PM
1. To give the appearance you even have an argument.

2. To give the appearance you even have an argument. / hope no one noticed.

Rayzor you are boring, you bore me. I grow tired of "debating" you.

Quote from: disputeone on March 05, 2017, 11:20:08 PM
Here are 60 structural engineers that agree with me, can you find 60 that agree with you?

http://www.ae911truth.org/news/199-news-media-events-60-structural-engineers.html
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 05, 2017, 11:31:59 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 05, 2017, 11:07:24 PM
Quote
Well Rayzor, we all know that the Towers were built to withstand the impact of MULTIPLE Boeing airliners. Unless he feels like debunking the engineers that built it. Buildings do not collapse in on themselves from office fires, never have, never will. But in Rayzor's deluded brain, he still cannot see what a top down controlled demolition is (like the towers) and Building 7 DID start from the bottom.

https://kendoc911.wordpress.com/911-shills/
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 05, 2017, 11:32:47 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 05, 2017, 06:45:10 PM
Honest question, Rayzor, why, throughout the whole thread, have you been the only one blindly parroting the O/S.

There are many very intelligent posters here, far more intelligent than you or I, why? I wonder, have you been the only one citing the O/S trying to take us on?

Everyone else it seems, either doesn't want to look too deeply, doesn't want to say what they really think, or won't argue from a position of intellectual dishonesty.

Why do you think you are NIST's last and only standing soilder here?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 05, 2017, 11:38:27 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 05, 2017, 11:30:40 PM

Quote from: disputeone on March 05, 2017, 11:20:08 PM
Here are 60 structural engineers that agree with me, can you find 60 that agree with you?

http://www.ae911truth.org/news/199-news-media-events-60-structural-engineers.html

Probabably more like 800,000 who agree with the general conclusion,  that it was hijacked aircraft and subsequent fires,  rather than controlled demolition that caused the collapse.

Here is the view of a professional demolition company.  Time to put the final nail in the controlled demolition hypothesis.

http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 05, 2017, 11:40:31 PM
Lmao.

800 000 that agree.

Lmao.

Shill harder Rayzor, I'm done.

http://reinvestigate911.org/content/911-opinion-poll-majority-doubt-official-911-story

Quote from: ABC
First, there is the war in Afghanistan, which has already claimed thousands of lives, and appears to have no end in sight. If the 9/11 official narrative proves to be false, then the attack on Afghanistan may be a war crime.

Second, there is the continued erosion of civil liberties in the form of anti-terror legislation, and increases in police powers of surveillance and detention, which relies largely on 9/11 as the primary justification.

Finally, there are core values of truth, decency and justice at stake, which I wish to uphold and which I ask all Australians to join me in upholding as I say to our elected leaders, with all due respect, we need a new investigation

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2008-05-16/31852?pfmredir=sm

https://www.jeremyrhammond.com/2013/09/10/nearly-half-of-americans-dont-know-about-the-collapse-of-wtc-7-on-911/
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 05, 2017, 11:43:49 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 05, 2017, 11:29:42 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 05, 2017, 11:17:53 PM
1. To give the appearance you even have an argument.

2. To give the appearance you even have an argument. / hope no one noticed.

Rayzor you are boring, you bore me. I grow tired of "debating" you.

Well,  let me give you BHS's answer to the first question,  he claims that there were no planes at all and they were drones programmed to hit those precise locations,  with pre-planted charges designed to create the outline of an aircraft and so to make people think it was an aircraft,   and that all the video evidence was faked.   Then some combination of shaped charges and thermite were pre-positioned and timed to accomplish the demolition. 

He even claimed to have video evidence of an aircraft penetrating the building without leaving a mark.

Seriously.  I'm not kidding.     and as far as I'm aware,  you agreed with his version of events,

As far as the second question,  as to why wait 7 hours to demo  WTC7?  he didn't really give a detailed answer,  if he did I missed it amongst the noise. 

You appear to have no answers at all.  Maybe you should just stick to your dumb meme pictures.

Liar

Quote from: Rayzor on March 05, 2017, 11:38:27 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 05, 2017, 11:30:40 PM

Quote from: disputeone on March 05, 2017, 11:20:08 PM
Here are 60 structural engineers that agree with me, can you find 60 that agree with you?

http://www.ae911truth.org/news/199-news-media-events-60-structural-engineers.html

Probabably more like 800,000 who agree with the general conclusion,  that it was hijacked aircraft and subsequent fires,  rather than controlled demolition that caused the collapse.


Liar pants on fire.

 ::) ::)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 05, 2017, 11:49:50 PM
Quote from: anonymous
It's engineers. Always the fucking engineers that peddle this bullshit conspiracy crap. There's a reason people on /sci/ point and laugh at you engineer cranks, no one takes you seriously.

It seems engineers often doubt the official narrative based on this shill posters aggressive tone.

I wonder why engineers tend to doubt the official story?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 05, 2017, 11:55:44 PM
I actually read on a website while lurking through the internet...There was about 50 people (a couple who said they worked in the field) in complete agreement that 7 was brought down for safety...

What the fuck is wrong with these people?!? Do they know nothing of demoing a building? It's like 9/11 brings out the dumbest sides of people. Though I guess if I was trying to defend my rainbow shitting unicorn I would sound a bit nutty as well.

Though to be honest, I can't remember the last time I ran across people in the field that believed any of the towers fell from natural structural failure. College, there were many, however, the teachers had to follow what they were told or they were blacklisted (check out the teachers that did stand against the official story)..So who knows how many of those teachers Actually believed or just followed suit. Also, many teachers never actually stepped foot into the field..They get a PhD, then turn right around and start teaching. I never agreed with that.

Anyways...The whole point..It seems you only find those that parrot the official story on the internet who are "qualified"...However, these people never show proof of what they are so who knows...The majority of people though are just internet warriors with no real knowledge or prerequisites on the needed subjects
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 05, 2017, 11:57:39 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 05, 2017, 11:43:49 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 05, 2017, 11:29:42 PM

Well,  let me give you BHS's answer to the first question,  he claims that there were no planes at all and they were drones programmed to hit those precise locations,  with pre-planted charges designed to create the outline of an aircraft and so to make people think it was an aircraft,   and that all the video evidence was faked.   Then some combination of shaped charges and thermite were pre-positioned and timed to accomplish the demolition. 

He even claimed to have video evidence of an aircraft penetrating the building without leaving a mark.

Seriously.  I'm not kidding.     and as far as I'm aware,  you agreed with his version of events,

As far as the second question,  as to why wait 7 hours to demo  WTC7?  he didn't really give a detailed answer,  if he did I missed it amongst the noise. 

You appear to have no answers at all.  Maybe you should just stick to your dumb meme pictures.

Liar

Ok,  I'm just repeating what you've posted.   You want to retract anything,  that's up to you.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 06, 2017, 12:00:51 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 05, 2017, 11:57:39 PM
(https://s9.postimg.org/ah5fcaukv/2f7.jpg)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 06, 2017, 12:00:59 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 05, 2017, 11:55:44 PM
I actually read on a website while lurking through the internet...There was about 50 people (a couple who said they worked in the field) in complete agreement that 7 was brought down for safety...

What the fuck is wrong with these people?!? Do they know nothing of demoing a building? It's like 9/11 brings out the dumbest sides of people. Though I guess if I was trying to defend my rainbow shitting unicorn I would sound a bit nutty as well.

Though to be honest, I can't remember the last time I ran across people in the field that believed any of the towers fell from natural structural failure. College, there were many, however, the teachers had to follow what they were told or they were blacklisted (check out the teachers that did stand against the official story)..So who knows how many of those teachers Actually believed or just followed suit. Also, many teachers never actually stepped foot into the field..They get a PhD, then turn right around and start teaching. I never agreed with that.

Anyways...The whole point..It seems you only find those that parrot the official story on the internet who are "qualified"...However, these people never show proof of what they are so who knows...The majority of people though are just internet warriors with no real knowledge or prerequisites on the needed subjects

Have you bothered to read this?
http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 06, 2017, 12:05:27 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 05, 2017, 11:49:50 PM
I wonder why engineers tend to doubt the official story?

Same reason a musician could easily catch someone lip syncing, an actor can easily catch another actors quirks, an old man can walk up and tune a carb without a vacuum gauge just by the seat of his pants, etc etc...

Simply..

Experience, education and time in the field. Not just google and bad dreams...

I can predictive model some things in my head now days.... Especially mechanical assemblies. Obviously not a final design (we all can't be Tesla) but you get my drift...With experience things just come together. When something is bullshit, you just get it.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 06, 2017, 12:09:57 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 06, 2017, 12:00:59 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 05, 2017, 11:55:44 PM
I actually read on a website while lurking through the internet...There was about 50 people (a couple who said they worked in the field) in complete agreement that 7 was brought down for safety...

What the fuck is wrong with these people?!? Do they know nothing of demoing a building? It's like 9/11 brings out the dumbest sides of people. Though I guess if I was trying to defend my rainbow shitting unicorn I would sound a bit nutty as well.

Though to be honest, I can't remember the last time I ran across people in the field that believed any of the towers fell from natural structural failure. College, there were many, however, the teachers had to follow what they were told or they were blacklisted (check out the teachers that did stand against the official story)..So who knows how many of those teachers Actually believed or just followed suit. Also, many teachers never actually stepped foot into the field..They get a PhD, then turn right around and start teaching. I never agreed with that.

Anyways...The whole point..It seems you only find those that parrot the official story on the internet who are "qualified"...However, these people never show proof of what they are so who knows...The majority of people though are just internet warriors with no real knowledge or prerequisites on the needed subjects

Have you bothered to read this?
http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf

Quote from: Rayzors magic unicorn
They followed the path of least resistance, and there was a lot of resistance

LMAO!!





What resistance?

LMFAO!!



ROTFLMFAO!!!

Get real man...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 06, 2017, 12:22:16 AM
Quote from: Rayzors magic unicorn
They followed the path of least resistance, and there was a lot of resistance

http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf

All your "citations" tend to shoot themselves in the foot, this is an alarming trend I have noticed..

Well.... which is it...? Did the structural resistance provide zero / negligible effect on the fall acceleration or was there a lot of resistance?? Which one do you want????

Quote from: NIST
the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger less due to the increasing mass. structural resistance.

https://www.nist.gov/el/faqs-nist-wtc-towers-investigation

lmao....
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 06, 2017, 12:38:45 AM
(https://s15.postimg.org/xaqfb2fyj/Rayger.jpg)

(https://s29.postimg.org/sweoqvplj/images_3.jpg)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 06, 2017, 12:45:41 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 06, 2017, 12:38:45 AM
(https://s15.postimg.org/xaqfb2fyj/Rayger.jpg)

Hehe,   that's me before I get my morning coffee..   cute.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 06, 2017, 12:47:30 AM
Thoughts?

Quote from: disputeone on March 06, 2017, 12:22:16 AM
Quote from: Rayzors magic unicorn
They followed the path of least resistance, and there was a lot of resistance

http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf

All your "citations" tend to shoot themselves in the foot, this is an alarming trend I have noticed..

Well.... which is it...? Did the structural resistance provide zero / negligible effect on the fall acceleration or was there a lot of resistance?? Which one do you want????

Quote from: NIST
the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger less due to the increasing mass. structural resistance.

https://www.nist.gov/el/faqs-nist-wtc-towers-investigation

lmao....
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on March 06, 2017, 01:31:40 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 05, 2017, 10:43:24 PM

Could it be because I disagree with your controlled demolition theory?    Which I've debunked over and over in this thread.

Not having a thorough detailed and open explanation of the collapse mechanism  doesn't mean it's controlled demolition.

Any theory of controlled demolition for the twin towers has to explain the impossible,  why did the collapse initiate on the floors where the planes impacted?
Why wait 7 hours to demolish WTC7,  in fact why bother at all,  everyone knew it was on the verge of collapse mid afternoon on that day.

Controlled demolition only makes sense to anyone who is blind to the facts right in front of them.   Like the video footage of the  planes impacting the towers.

It's a bit like showing a flat earther live video feed from the ISS.   Or pictures of the earth from Geostationary weather satellites.

The video evidence must be fake,  since it doesn't fit the conspiracy narrative.  And they don't understand the physics.

Oh...

I am sorry...

Where exactly did you debunk controlled demolition?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 06, 2017, 02:15:07 AM
Quote from: totallackey on March 06, 2017, 01:31:40 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 05, 2017, 10:43:24 PM

Could it be because I disagree with your controlled demolition theory?    Which I've debunked over and over in this thread.

Not having a thorough detailed and open explanation of the collapse mechanism  doesn't mean it's controlled demolition.

Any theory of controlled demolition for the twin towers has to explain the impossible,  why did the collapse initiate on the floors where the planes impacted?
Why wait 7 hours to demolish WTC7,  in fact why bother at all,  everyone knew it was on the verge of collapse mid afternoon on that day.

Controlled demolition only makes sense to anyone who is blind to the facts right in front of them.   Like the video footage of the  planes impacting the towers.

It's a bit like showing a flat earther live video feed from the ISS.   Or pictures of the earth from Geostationary weather satellites.

The video evidence must be fake,  since it doesn't fit the conspiracy narrative.  And they don't understand the physics.

Oh...

I am sorry...

Where exactly did you debunk controlled demolition?

Could you answer the following two questions.

1. Why did the collapse start on the floors where the planes impacted?

2. Why wait 7 hours to demolish WTC7?

Also
http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 06, 2017, 02:38:55 AM
There is blatantly out right lies in that link.

Pass.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 06, 2017, 02:42:22 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 06, 2017, 02:38:55 AM
There is blatantly out right lies in that link.

Pass.

No detail no pass.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on March 06, 2017, 03:11:05 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 06, 2017, 02:15:07 AM
Quote from: totallackey on March 06, 2017, 01:31:40 AM
Oh...

I am sorry...

Where exactly did you debunk controlled demolition?

Could you answer the following two questions.

1. Why did the collapse start on the floors where the planes impacted?

2. Why wait 7 hours to demolish WTC7?

Also
http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf
Yes.

I can answer the two questions.

You will not like the answers.

First, the fact collapse initiated at the point where impacts occurred does nothing to disprove controlled demolition.

So the answer to your first question is to rephrase it: "Why collapse would not initiate at the impact points?"

B) Why not wait 7 hours? How is the evidence of a 7 hour window between collapse of 1 and 2 and 7 an argument against controlled demolition?

Why announce it already came down prior to the actual event?

III) You must deal with FACTS!

I will lay the facts out for you and everyone else here.

WTC 1 and 2 are no longer standing.

They fell straight down (they did not topple).

That means their collapse was CONTROLLED, not uncontrolled.

WTC 7 is no longer standing.

It fell straight down (it did not topple).

That means its collapse was CONTROLLED, not uncontrolled.

I do not know the entire mechanisms as to why what took place that day took place.

I only know know I saw three buildings fall, not topple, virtually straight down, at times at free fall speeds.

So, once again, NO.

You have not debunked CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.

The only thing not present that day were the typical announcements, safety barriers, cordoned off streets, and other safeguards in place when buildings are actually scheduled for demolition.

Otherwise, the entire thing looked exactly like CONTROLLED DEMOLITIONS!

Even the OS claims the supposed perps wanted the buildings to fall.

The bombing in 93, supposedly to bring down at least one tower.

So, according to the OS, the perps wanted to DEMOLISH the buildings and CONTROL how they were brought down.

Rayzor, rayzor, rayzor...

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 06, 2017, 03:29:25 AM
Quote from: totallackey on March 06, 2017, 03:11:05 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 06, 2017, 02:15:07 AM
Quote from: totallackey on March 06, 2017, 01:31:40 AM
Oh...

I am sorry...

Where exactly did you debunk controlled demolition?

Could you answer the following two questions.

1. Why did the collapse start on the floors where the planes impacted?

2. Why wait 7 hours to demolish WTC7?

Also
http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf
Yes.

I can answer the two questions.

You will not like the answers.

First, the fact collapse initiated at the point where impacts occurred does nothing to disprove controlled demolition.

So the answer to your first question is to rephrase it: "Why collapse would not initiate at the impact points?"

B) Why not wait 7 hours? How is the evidence of a 7 hour window between collapse of 1 and 2 and 7 an argument against controlled demolition?

Why announce it already came down prior to the actual event?

III) You must deal with FACTS!

I will lay the facts out for you and everyone else here.

WTC 1 and 2 are no longer standing.

They fell straight down (they did not topple).

That means their collapse was CONTROLLED, not uncontrolled.

WTC 7 is no longer standing.

It fell straight down (it did not topple).

That means its collapse was CONTROLLED, not uncontrolled.

I do not know the entire mechanisms as to why what took place that day took place.

I only know know I saw three buildings fall, not topple, virtually straight down, at times at free fall speeds.

So, once again, NO.

You have not debunked CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.

The only thing not present that day were the typical announcements, safety barriers, cordoned off streets, and other safeguards in place when buildings are actually scheduled for demolition.

Otherwise, the entire thing looked exactly like CONTROLLED DEMOLITIONS!

Even the OS claims the supposed perps wanted the buildings to fall.

The bombing in 93, supposedly to bring down at least one tower.

So, according to the OS, the perps wanted to DEMOLISH the buildings and CONTROL how they were brought down.

Rayzor, rayzor, rayzor...

Well we both looked at the same facts and came to different conclusions.   
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on March 06, 2017, 03:30:56 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 06, 2017, 03:29:25 AM
Well we both looked at the same facts and came to different conclusions.

So, you looked at the buildings and saw them topple?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 06, 2017, 03:31:23 AM
Your link is pseudoscience, Rayzor, deal with it.

Quote from: disputeone on March 06, 2017, 12:22:16 AM
Quote from: Rayzors magic unicorn
They followed the path of least resistance, and there was a lot of resistance

http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf

All your "citations" tend to shoot themselves in the foot, this is an alarming trend I have noticed..

Well.... which is it...? Did the structural resistance provide zero / negligible effect on the fall acceleration or was there a lot of resistance?? Which one do you want????

Quote from: NIST
the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger less due to the increasing mass. structural resistance.

https://www.nist.gov/el/faqs-nist-wtc-towers-investigation

lmao....

Quote from: totallackey on March 06, 2017, 03:30:56 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 06, 2017, 03:29:25 AM
Well we both looked at the same facts and came to different conclusions.

So, you looked the buildings and saw them topple?

Lmao.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 06, 2017, 03:39:45 AM
You can't have your cake and eat it too on this, there was either a lot of resistance (implosion world) or there was negligible resistance (NIST), you need to pick one.

I prefer lots of resistance but it's just not what we saw.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 06, 2017, 03:46:04 AM
Quote from: totallackey on March 06, 2017, 03:30:56 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 06, 2017, 03:29:25 AM
Well we both looked at the same facts and came to different conclusions.

So, you looked at the buildings and saw them topple?

You saw the same video I saw,  or didn't you?
The tops tilted over a fair amount in both cases, but you probably forgot which direction gravity operates..



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 06, 2017, 03:56:43 AM
Sorry, what?







Straight down through the path of "greatest resistance".
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 06, 2017, 04:11:01 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 05, 2017, 07:39:12 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 05, 2017, 05:21:39 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 05, 2017, 05:11:01 PM
please note Rayzors strongest argument all thread has just been calling us crazy.

There's that reality disconnect again.

This is the saddest thing ever.

This is the saddest thing ever.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on March 06, 2017, 04:12:33 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 06, 2017, 03:46:04 AM
Quote from: totallackey on March 06, 2017, 03:30:56 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 06, 2017, 03:29:25 AM
Well we both looked at the same facts and came to different conclusions.

So, you looked at the buildings and saw them topple?

You saw the same video I saw,  or didn't you?
The tops tilted over a fair amount in both cases, but you probably forgot which direction gravity operates..

Actually, the buildings did not topple.

Yes, the tops gave the impression of moving off center initially, but then collapsed straight down.

The paper you reference offers up a lot of STRAWMEN argumentation, cleverly substituting "explosive," for the word, "controlled."

I ain't buyin...

The paper you offer even has this IN WRITING: "With very few exceptions, a tall office building cannot be made to tip over like a tree."

Here are some TOPPLED buildings...
(http://topplingtower.com/_Media/cccc_med_hr.jpeg)
(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRs-uPasZeXS8aE1nWtdOtn3hInpIO5QqxDAwXl-j_I8rKMskpvHA)
https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?(http://q=tbn:ANd9GcRV1HWTj9Y5JJeoWzkVwLmJGwe33cfxBb5dYCngGKq1MFbaAU9O)
(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSd83-gcYrWKm1wjr0z60BSmZ-Yiv_KLNXrTFou6ejtnLwcD0UF)
(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQPgv1kcyxTsQCvZKrZdvrWgzYLNQBAYDQYKbv7jgcdeRhJVnCl)

So like a write, your source is disingenuous and nothing but an obvious shill.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 06, 2017, 04:15:02 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 06, 2017, 03:56:43 AM
Sorry, what?

Quote from: Brett Blanchard
ASSERTION #2
“But they fell straight down into their own footprint.”
PROTEC COMMENT: They did not. They followed the path of least resistance,
and there was a lot of resistance.
Any discussion of how the towers fell on 9/11 requires a fundamental understanding of
how buildings collapse and an examination of the damage inflicted upon adjacent
structures that morning.

The collapse of towers 1 and 2 followed this principle exactly. When the impact floors of
both towers eventually failed, the upper sections did not simply tumble over onto the
street below, rather they tilted while simultaneously collapsing downward.

That's pretty much exactly what the video shows.   


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 06, 2017, 04:21:43 AM
So, now you disagree with NIST saying there was negligible resistance? Ok that's fine, let's use lots of resistance?

Why doesn't the resistance decrease fall acceleration?

Quote from: NIST
the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger (less) due to the increasing mass. (structural resistance.)

https://www.nist.gov/el/faqs-nist-wtc-towers-investigation

see now NIST's explanation doesn't make sense I had to snip it and change it to fit with your new source.

You are still shooting yourself in the foot.

Footshooter.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on March 06, 2017, 04:25:02 AM
Further, PROTEC in the paper provided by Rayzor, makes some other bullshit remarks.

Strawman #1: PROTEC states an assertion made thusly: "The towers' collapse looked exactly like explosive demolitions."

Notice the use of the word "explosive," by PROTEC.

While some may utilize the word, "explosive," I certainly do not.

I use the word "controlled."

Because the collapse of 1, 2, and 7, did look exactly like it was controlled.

Strawman #2: PROTEC states a false argument: "But they fell straight down into their own footprint."

Then PROTEC appropriately demolishes this argument, claiming material ejected to several blocks away.

But they fail to acknowledge that in their demolition process (or any other controlled demolition process) a vast majority of building exterior and interior is removed to facilitate this "falling straight down." Look at this image from their own website:
(http://www.implosionworld.com/img/scotland.gif)

1, 2, and 7, had none of the exterior removed and who knows what parts of the interior were present.

Regardless, a vast majority of the material present in all three buildings did not stray from their building sites.

Their claim that most buildings over 20 stories do not topple is simply laughable.

If they are not set up for demolition or if the timing is screwed up on the charges, they most certainly will topple.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 06, 2017, 04:25:38 AM
Quote from: totallackey on March 06, 2017, 04:12:33 AM
Here are some TOPPLED buildings...
(http://topplingtower.com/_Media/cccc_med_hr.jpeg)
(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRs-uPasZeXS8aE1nWtdOtn3hInpIO5QqxDAwXl-j_I8rKMskpvHA)
https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?(http://q=tbn:ANd9GcRV1HWTj9Y5JJeoWzkVwLmJGwe33cfxBb5dYCngGKq1MFbaAU9O)
(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSd83-gcYrWKm1wjr0z60BSmZ-Yiv_KLNXrTFou6ejtnLwcD0UF)
(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQPgv1kcyxTsQCvZKrZdvrWgzYLNQBAYDQYKbv7jgcdeRhJVnCl)

So like a write, your source is disingenuous and nothing but an obvious shill.

So the first one is an earth quake,   the second I don't know,  the last one is a chinese building that they forgot the foundations for.

What's your point?   

I like how anyone with an opposing point of view is a shill.   That's a class argument.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 06, 2017, 04:30:18 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 06, 2017, 04:25:38 AM
I like how anyone with an opposing point of view is a shill.   That's a class argument.

Just you, Rayzor.

No one has said anything about Master Evar, Totes, Markjo, Onebigmonkey or sokarul mind you they haven't had quite 1/10 of your tenacity, stubbornness or inability to accept facts.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 06, 2017, 04:31:51 AM
Quote from: totallackey on March 06, 2017, 04:25:02 AM
Further, PROTEC in the paper provided by Rayzor, makes some other bullshit remarks.

Strawman #1: PROTEC states an assertion made thusly: "The towers' collapse looked exactly like explosive demolitions."

Notice the use of the word "explosive," by PROTEC.

While some may utilize the word, "explosive," I certainly do not.

I use the word "controlled."

Because the collapse of 1, 2, and 7, did look exactly like it was controlled.

Strawman #2: PROTEC states a false argument: "But they fell straight down into their own footprint."

Then PROTEC appropriately demolishes this argument, claiming material ejected to several blocks away.

But they fail to acknowledge that in their demolition process (or any other controlled demolition process) a vast majority of building exterior and interior is removed to facilitate this "falling straight down." Look at this image from their own website:
(http://www.implosionworld.com/img/scotland.gif)

1, 2, and 7, had none of the exterior removed and who knows what parts of the interior were present.

Regardless, a vast majority of the material present in all three buildings did not stray from their building sites.

Their claim that most buildings over 20 stories do not topple is simply laughable.

If they are not set up for demolition or if the timing is screwed up on the charges, they most certainly will topple.

Why don't you send them an email pointing out their errors and call them shills while you're at it.  It will make you feel better. Let me know if you get an answer.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 06, 2017, 04:33:31 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 06, 2017, 04:31:51 AM
Quote from: totallackey on March 06, 2017, 04:25:02 AM
Further, PROTEC in the paper provided by Rayzor, makes some other bullshit remarks.

Strawman #1: PROTEC states an assertion made thusly: "The towers' collapse looked exactly like explosive demolitions."

Notice the use of the word "explosive," by PROTEC.

While some may utilize the word, "explosive," I certainly do not.

I use the word "controlled."

Because the collapse of 1, 2, and 7, did look exactly like it was controlled.

Strawman #2: PROTEC states a false argument: "But they fell straight down into their own footprint."

Then PROTEC appropriately demolishes this argument, claiming material ejected to several blocks away.

But they fail to acknowledge that in their demolition process (or any other controlled demolition process) a vast majority of building exterior and interior is removed to facilitate this "falling straight down." Look at this image from their own website:
(http://www.implosionworld.com/img/scotland.gif)

1, 2, and 7, had none of the exterior removed and who knows what parts of the interior were present.

Regardless, a vast majority of the material present in all three buildings did not stray from their building sites.

Their claim that most buildings over 20 stories do not topple is simply laughable.

If they are not set up for demolition or if the timing is screwed up on the charges, they most certainly will topple.

Why don't you send them an email pointing out their errors and call them shills while you're at it.  It will make you feel better. Let me know if you get an answer.

So you can't debunk it.

Noted.

You started this thread, I bet you regret it now.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on March 06, 2017, 04:37:49 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 06, 2017, 04:31:51 AM
Quote from: totallackey on March 06, 2017, 04:25:02 AM
Further, PROTEC in the paper provided by Rayzor, makes some other bullshit remarks.

Strawman #1: PROTEC states an assertion made thusly: "The towers' collapse looked exactly like explosive demolitions."

Notice the use of the word "explosive," by PROTEC.

While some may utilize the word, "explosive," I certainly do not.

I use the word "controlled."

Because the collapse of 1, 2, and 7, did look exactly like it was controlled.

Strawman #2: PROTEC states a false argument: "But they fell straight down into their own footprint."

Then PROTEC appropriately demolishes this argument, claiming material ejected to several blocks away.

But they fail to acknowledge that in their demolition process (or any other controlled demolition process) a vast majority of building exterior and interior is removed to facilitate this "falling straight down." Look at this image from their own website:
(http://www.implosionworld.com/img/scotland.gif)

1, 2, and 7, had none of the exterior removed and who knows what parts of the interior were present.

Regardless, a vast majority of the material present in all three buildings did not stray from their building sites.

Their claim that most buildings over 20 stories do not topple is simply laughable.

If they are not set up for demolition or if the timing is screwed up on the charges, they most certainly will topple.

Why don't you send them an email pointing out their errors and call them shills while you're at it.  It will make you feel better. Let me know if you get an answer.


I do not need to, that is why.

The errors are already here, present for all to see.

PROTEC, your own source, states it is the tendency of 20 story buildings or higher, to come straight down, with few exceptions.

I have provided MORE THAN A FEW, for one.

If you do not see it, then you are 1)blind, 2) ignorant; or, 3) stupid.

I am inclined to believe #1 and I believe it is on purpose.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 06, 2017, 04:42:36 AM
Quote from: totallackey on March 06, 2017, 04:37:49 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 06, 2017, 04:31:51 AM
Quote from: totallackey on March 06, 2017, 04:25:02 AM
Further, PROTEC in the paper provided by Rayzor, makes some other bullshit remarks.

Strawman #1: PROTEC states an assertion made thusly: "The towers' collapse looked exactly like explosive demolitions."

Notice the use of the word "explosive," by PROTEC.

While some may utilize the word, "explosive," I certainly do not.

I use the word "controlled."

Because the collapse of 1, 2, and 7, did look exactly like it was controlled.

Strawman #2: PROTEC states a false argument: "But they fell straight down into their own footprint."

Then PROTEC appropriately demolishes this argument, claiming material ejected to several blocks away.

But they fail to acknowledge that in their demolition process (or any other controlled demolition process) a vast majority of building exterior and interior is removed to facilitate this "falling straight down." Look at this image from their own website:
(http://www.implosionworld.com/img/scotland.gif)

1, 2, and 7, had none of the exterior removed and who knows what parts of the interior were present.

Regardless, a vast majority of the material present in all three buildings did not stray from their building sites.

Their claim that most buildings over 20 stories do not topple is simply laughable.

If they are not set up for demolition or if the timing is screwed up on the charges, they most certainly will topple.

Why don't you send them an email pointing out their errors and call them shills while you're at it.  It will make you feel better. Let me know if you get an answer.


I do not need to, that is why.

The errors are already here, present for all to see.

PROTEC, your own source, states it is the tendency of 20 story buildings or higher, to come straight down, with few exceptions.

I have provided MORE THAN A FEW, for one.

If you do not see it, then you are 1)blind, 2) ignorant; or, 3) stupid.

I am inclined to believe #1 and I believe it is on purpose.

No,  you proved that earthquakes and lack of foundations can cause buildings to fall over.   We are talking about demolition,  and your inability to read and comprehend simple English is not my problem.

You seem to have forgotten that the collapse didn't start at the bottom.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 06, 2017, 04:43:36 AM
The collapse did start at the bottom, on building 7.

Wtc 1 and 2 were top down controlled demolitions.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 06, 2017, 04:45:49 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 06, 2017, 04:43:36 AM
The collapse did start at the bottom, on building 7.

Wtc 1 and 2 were top down controlled demolitions.

LOL,  so now try to answer the question,   Why did the collapse start at the exact places that the planes impacted?     totallackey ducked it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on March 06, 2017, 04:50:57 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 06, 2017, 04:42:36 AM
No,  you proved that earthquakes and lack of foundations can cause buildings to fall over.   We are talking about demolition,  and your inability to read and comprehend simple English is not my problem.

You seem to have forgotten that the collapse didn't start at the bottom.

No, I took issue with your source and disproved one assertion of your source paper.

Your source: "With very few exceptions, a tall office building cannot be made to tip over like a tree."

Actually, that would be the tendency of any tall structure, absent prior modifications in place to facilitate otherwise.

In other words, any demolition or collapse of a building will demonstrate TOPPLING unless the building has been prepped NOT TO TOPPLE.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 06, 2017, 04:51:46 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 06, 2017, 04:45:49 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 06, 2017, 04:43:36 AM
The collapse did start at the bottom, on building 7.

Wtc 1 and 2 were top down controlled demolitions.

LOL,  so now try to answer the question,   Why did the collapse start at the exact places that the planes impacted?     totallackey ducked it.


Quote from: Rayzor on March 05, 2017, 11:11:44 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 05, 2017, 11:07:24 PM
Quote
Well Rayzor, we all know that the Towers were built to withstand the impact of MULTIPLE Boeing airliners. Unless he feels like debunking the engineers that built it. Buildings do not collapse in on themselves from office fires, never have, never will. But in Rayzor's deluded brain, he still cannot see what a top down controlled demolition is (like the towers) and Building 7 DID start from the bottom.

https://kendoc911.wordpress.com/911-shills/

Ok,  baby steps, 

1. Why did the collapse start on the floors where the planes impacted?

2. Why wait 7 hours to demolish WTC7?

Quote from: disputeone on March 05, 2017, 11:17:53 PM
1. To give the appearance you even have an argument.

2. To give the appearance you even have an argument. / hope no one noticed.

Rayzor you are boring, you bore me. I grow tired of "debating" you.

Toodle-pip Rayzor, enjoy your shilling, I will be back tomorrow.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on March 06, 2017, 04:52:44 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 06, 2017, 04:45:49 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 06, 2017, 04:43:36 AM
The collapse did start at the bottom, on building 7.

Wtc 1 and 2 were top down controlled demolitions.

LOL,  so now try to answer the question,   Why did the collapse start at the exact places that the planes impacted?     totallackey ducked it.

I did not duck the question.

Of course the collapse initiated there.

Why would it not?

Do you think the fact it did initiate there somehow argues against controlled demolition?

If so, I will forewarn you.

The fact collapse initiated at the top does NOT argue against controlled demolition.

I am very prepared to provide indisputable evidence of this.

You better be able to back your claim up.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 06, 2017, 05:06:27 AM
Regardless of the initial collapse, if it was actually a natural collapse caused by the airplane / fire. (you keep changing your mind) The undamaged structure would act a lot like this to the falling structure above it.



The pancake theory is pseudoscience so far you are hinging your argument on two citations; one says there was a lot of resistance, and the other said the resistance caused no effect to the fall acceleration.

(https://s28.postimg.org/wlbwyh9gd/gayzor.jpg)

Go, my son.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on March 06, 2017, 05:12:23 AM
The Theme Song for Rayzor's argument:

Carry on my wayward son
There'll be peace when you are done
Lay your weary head to rest
Don't you cry no more


Once I rose above the noise and confusion
Just to get a glimpse beyond this illusion
I was soaring ever higher
But I flew too high
Though my eyes could see I still was a blind man
Though my mind could think I still was a mad man
I hear the voices when I'm dreaming
I can hear them say


Carry on my wayward son
There'll be peace when you are done
Lay your weary head to rest
Don't you cry no more


Masquerading as a man with a reason
My charade is the event of the season
And if I claim to be a wise man, well
It surely means that I don't know
On a stormy sea of moving emotion
Tossed about I'm like a ship on the ocean
I set a course for winds of fortune
But I hear the voices say


Carry on my wayward son
There'll be peace when you are done
Lay your weary head to rest
Don't you cry no more
No!



Carry on, you will always remember
Carry on, nothing equals the splendor
Now your life's no longer empty
But surely heaven waits for you


Carry on my wayward son
There'll be peace when you are done
Lay your weary head to rest
Don't you cry
Don't you cry no more
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on March 06, 2017, 05:17:34 AM
Oh, and one other thing.

Controlled demolitions do not demand free fall speeds.

As matter of fact, it is rare for free fall speeds to be achieved during any controlled demolition.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 06, 2017, 05:18:52 AM
Quote from: totallackey on March 06, 2017, 04:52:44 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 06, 2017, 04:45:49 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 06, 2017, 04:43:36 AM
The collapse did start at the bottom, on building 7.

Wtc 1 and 2 were top down controlled demolitions.

LOL,  so now try to answer the question,   Why did the collapse start at the exact places that the planes impacted?     totallackey ducked it.

I did not duck the question.

Of course the collapse initiated there.

Why would it not?

Do you think the fact it did initiate there somehow argues against controlled demolition?

If so, I will forewarn you.

The fact collapse initiated at the top does NOT argue against controlled demolition.

I am very prepared to provide indisputable evidence of this.

You better be able to back your claim up.

So how did they get all the charges in the exact place where the planes hit, and how did the charges survive the impact and subsequent fires. 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 06, 2017, 05:22:39 AM
Quote from: totallackey on March 06, 2017, 05:12:23 AM
The Theme Song for Rayzor's argument:

Carry on my wayward son
There'll be peace when you are done
Lay your weary head to rest
Don't you cry no more


Once I rose above the noise and confusion
Just to get a glimpse beyond this illusion
I was soaring ever higher
But I flew too high
Though my eyes could see I still was a blind man
Though my mind could think I still was a mad man
I hear the voices when I'm dreaming
I can hear them say


Carry on my wayward son
There'll be peace when you are done
Lay your weary head to rest
Don't you cry no more


Masquerading as a man with a reason
My charade is the event of the season
And if I claim to be a wise man, well
It surely means that I don't know
On a stormy sea of moving emotion
Tossed about I'm like a ship on the ocean
I set a course for winds of fortune
But I hear the voices say


Carry on my wayward son
There'll be peace when you are done
Lay your weary head to rest
Don't you cry no more
No!



Carry on, you will always remember
Carry on, nothing equals the splendor
Now your life's no longer empty
But surely heaven waits for you


Carry on my wayward son
There'll be peace when you are done
Lay your weary head to rest
Don't you cry
Don't you cry no more

@disputeone said something about people ending up a jibbering mess,  I never thought it would be you,   But thanks for the tribute poem,  I'm touched.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on March 06, 2017, 05:23:06 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 06, 2017, 05:18:52 AM
So how did they get all the charges in the exact place where the planes hit, and how did the charges survive the impact and subsequent fires.

What charges?

Who said they needed charges?

Even if there were charges, why would they not survive impact and subsequent fires.

People and even paper survived the initial impacts and subsequent fires, correct?

Geez O peet Rayzor...

Aintcha got anything better?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 06, 2017, 05:24:54 AM
Quote from: totallackey on March 06, 2017, 05:23:06 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 06, 2017, 05:18:52 AM
So how did they get all the charges in the exact place where the planes hit, and how did the charges survive the impact and subsequent fires.

What charges?

Who said they needed charges?

Even if there were charges, why would they not survive impact and subsequent fires.

People and even paper survived the initial impacts and subsequent fires, correct?

Geez O peet Rayzor...

Aintcha got anything better?

Ok,  you are claiming it was a controlled demolition,  but there were no charges,  are you one of the death ray satellite people?

I'm serious,  there are 911 truthers who think it was a special satellite that projected holographic planes,  and a demolition beam of some sort.  I'm not kidding.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on March 06, 2017, 05:26:36 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 06, 2017, 05:22:39 AM
@disputeone said something about people ending up a jibbering mess,  I never thought it would be you,   But thanks for the tribute poem,  I'm touched.

Oh, let there be no mistake...

You are the one jibbering...

"How did the charges survive the initial impacts and subsequent fires," indeed.

This, in the presence of indisputable evidence of PEOPLE AND PAPER surviving the initial impacts and subsequent fires...

I believe there is an old saying...

"ASK A STUPID QUESTION!"

Go ahead...

Do you have another stupid question?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 06, 2017, 05:29:12 AM
This is just sad now.

Rayzor it's just so over, you are the only one blind / stupid enough to keep arguing against the points we've raised.

If they were controlling the planes, then hitting the towers in a particular spot is easy, look what guys that hadn't even flown real planes could do, apparently.

The towers collapse at the point of the explosion / plane crash is not evidence against a top down controlled demolition, the molten steel coming from the impact site of wtc 2 clearly shows something happening that the OS can't explain.

The floors below offering no reduction in fall acceleration goes directly against your citation saying there was a lot of resistance, you literally have nothing, it's over, everyone sees it, that's why you are the only one here still saying the towers collapse was perfectly probable given the OS.

 ::)  ::)  ::)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 06, 2017, 05:32:38 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 06, 2017, 05:29:12 AM
This is just sad now.

Rayzor it's just so over, you are the only one blind / stupid enough to keep arguing against the points we've raised.

If they were controlling the planes, then hitting the towers in a particular spot is easy, look what guys that hadn't even flown real planes could do.

The towers collapse at the point of the explosion / plane crash is not evidence against a top down controlled demolition, the molten steel coming from the impact site of wtc 2 clearly shows something happening that the OS can't explain.

The floors below offering no reduction in fall acceleration goes directly against your citation saying there was a lot of resistance, you literally have nothing, it's over, everyone sees it, that's why you are the only one here still saying the towers collapse was perfectly probable given the OS.

 ::)  ::)  ::)

Well at least you admit the planes exist,  that puts you a rung above BHS in the 911 truther stupidity rankings.   The blatant stupidity of the rest of your argument will penetrate your thick skull sooner of later.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 06, 2017, 05:34:00 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 06, 2017, 04:11:01 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 05, 2017, 07:39:12 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 05, 2017, 05:21:39 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 05, 2017, 05:11:01 PM
please note Rayzors strongest argument all thread has just been calling us crazy.

There's that reality disconnect again.

This is the saddest thing ever.

This is the saddest thing ever.

I shouldn't get so upset, it says more about his arguments than ours.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 06, 2017, 05:37:19 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 06, 2017, 05:32:38 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 06, 2017, 05:29:12 AM
This is just sad now.

Rayzor it's just so over, you are the only one blind / stupid enough to keep arguing against the points we've raised.

If they were controlling the planes, then hitting the towers in a particular spot is easy, look what guys that hadn't even flown real planes could do.

The towers collapse at the point of the explosion / plane crash is not evidence against a top down controlled demolition, the molten steel coming from the impact site of wtc 2 clearly shows something happening that the OS can't explain.

The floors below offering no reduction in fall acceleration goes directly against your citation saying there was a lot of resistance, you literally have nothing, it's over, everyone sees it, that's why you are the only one here still saying the towers collapse was perfectly probable given the OS.

 ::)  ::)  ::)

Well at least you admit the planes exist,  that puts you a rung above BHS in the 911 truther stupidity rankings.

I told you what he's trying to do totallackey lol, I'm getting to know his game.

I've seen it before.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on March 06, 2017, 05:37:46 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 06, 2017, 05:24:54 AM
Ok,  you are claiming it was a controlled demolition,  but there were no charges,  are you one of the death ray satellite people?

After asking the question, "How did the charges survive the initial impacts and subsequent fires,", flying in the face of clear and indisputable evidence of people and paper surviving the same initial impacts and subsequent fires...

Your feeble attempt to categorize any other explanation for the events of 9/11 as outlandish must be roundly and proudly labeled as UTTER BULLSHIT of the PUREST FORM!

Quote from: Rayzor on March 06, 2017, 05:24:54 AM
I'm serious,  there are 911 truthers who think it was a special satellite that projected holographic planes,  and a demolition beam of some sort.  I'm not kidding.

And I am serious.

For you to pose that question indicates a distinct lack of reasoning, of character, and intellectual honesty.

It does exhibit a great deal of disingenuous poppycock.

What I believe or do not believe what happened that day does not matter, except to you?

Why is that?

So you can shoehorn me into what you like to think are "crazies and idiots?"

Fine, I will enjoy your company, for only a "crazy, idiotic person," would have asked that question.

I know...I know...

I promised to be more civil.

But I kept the F- - - - - - profanity out it until now.

Sorry.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 06, 2017, 05:39:49 AM
Quote from: totallackey on March 06, 2017, 05:37:46 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 06, 2017, 05:24:54 AM
Ok,  you are claiming it was a controlled demolition,  but there were no charges,  are you one of the death ray satellite people?

After asking the question, "How did the charges survive the initial impacts and subsequent fires,", flying in the face of clear and indisputable evidence of people and paper surviving the same initial impacts and subsequent fires...

Your feeble attempt to categorize any other explanation for the events of 9/11 as outlandish must be roundly and proudly labeled as UTTER BULLSHIT of the PUREST FORM!

Quote from: Rayzor on March 06, 2017, 05:24:54 AM
I'm serious,  there are 911 truthers who think it was a special satellite that projected holographic planes,  and a demolition beam of some sort.  I'm not kidding.

And I am serious.

For you to pose that question indicates a distinct lack of reasoning, of character, and intellectual honesty. It does exhibit a great deal of disingenuous poppycock.

What I believe or do not believe what happened that day does not matter, except to you?

Why is that?

So you can shoehorn me into what you like to think are "crazies and idiots?"

Fine, I will enjoy your company, for only a "crazy, idiotic person," would have asked that question.

I know...I know...

I promised to be more civil.

But I kept the F- - - - - - profanity out it until now.

Sorry.

You're the one claiming it was controlled demolition but with no charges,   that's almost the definition of crazy.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 06, 2017, 05:40:14 AM
Shilling 101.

Someones in a lot of trouble for starting this thread...

Please note Rayzors strongest argument all thread has just been calling us crazy.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on March 06, 2017, 05:40:32 AM
Hey Rayzor,

Quote from: totallackey on March 06, 2017, 05:26:36 AM
Go ahead...

Do you have another stupid question?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on March 06, 2017, 05:41:24 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 06, 2017, 05:39:49 AM
You're the one claiming it was controlled demolition but with no charges,   that's almost the definition of crazy.

Kindly point out where I claimed "no charges."
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 06, 2017, 05:41:37 AM
Quote from: totallackey on March 06, 2017, 05:40:32 AM
Hey Rayzor,

Quote from: totallackey on March 06, 2017, 05:26:36 AM
Go ahead...

Do you have another stupid question?

How do you do a controlled demolition without charges?   
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 06, 2017, 05:42:11 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 06, 2017, 05:24:54 AM
Quote from: totallackey on March 06, 2017, 05:23:06 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 06, 2017, 05:18:52 AM
So how did they get all the charges in the exact place where the planes hit, and how did the charges survive the impact and subsequent fires.

What charges?

Who said they needed charges?

Even if there were charges, why would they not survive impact and subsequent fires.

People and even paper survived the initial impacts and subsequent fires, correct?

Geez O peet Rayzor...

Aintcha got anything better?

Ok,  you are claiming it was a controlled demolition,  but there were no charges,  are you one of the death ray satellite people?

I'm serious,  there are 911 truthers who think it was a special satellite that projected holographic planes,  and a demolition beam of some sort.  I'm not kidding.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on March 06, 2017, 05:44:54 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 06, 2017, 05:42:11 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 06, 2017, 05:24:54 AM
Quote from: totallackey on March 06, 2017, 05:23:06 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 06, 2017, 05:18:52 AM
So how did they get all the charges in the exact place where the planes hit, and how did the charges survive the impact and subsequent fires.

What charges?

Who said they needed charges?

Even if there were charges, why would they not survive impact and subsequent fires.

People and even paper survived the initial impacts and subsequent fires, correct?

Geez O peet Rayzor...

Aintcha got anything better?

Ok,  you are claiming it was a controlled demolition,  but there were no charges,  are you one of the death ray satellite people?

I'm serious,  there are 911 truthers who think it was a special satellite that projected holographic planes,  and a demolition beam of some sort.  I'm not kidding.

Again, point where I claimed there were NO charges.

I did not make that claim.

Your obvious lack of reading comprehension may explain your rather weak performance in this thread.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 06, 2017, 05:45:36 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 06, 2017, 05:41:37 AM
Quote from: totallackey on March 06, 2017, 05:40:32 AM
Hey Rayzor,

Quote from: totallackey on March 06, 2017, 05:26:36 AM
Go ahead...

Do you have another stupid question?

How do you do a controlled demolition without charges?   

Could be done on an already prepped building with a few cuts, for the top part anyway. We can all agree the aircraft did a fair bit of damage when it exploded. All we need is evidence of molten steel, oh wait, we have it, nevermind.

The bottom structure requires charges / bombs no way I can see of getting around it. If only we had witness testimony of bombs going off, oh wait, we have it, nevermind.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on March 06, 2017, 05:50:23 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 06, 2017, 05:41:37 AM
How do you do a controlled demolition without charges?   

I do not know.

There are some people who think it is possible.

I will post a source later.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 06, 2017, 05:51:07 AM
Quote from: totallackey on March 06, 2017, 05:44:54 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 06, 2017, 05:42:11 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 06, 2017, 05:24:54 AM
Quote from: totallackey on March 06, 2017, 05:23:06 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 06, 2017, 05:18:52 AM
So how did they get all the charges in the exact place where the planes hit, and how did the charges survive the impact and subsequent fires.

What charges?

Who said they needed charges?

Even if there were charges, why would they not survive impact and subsequent fires.

People and even paper survived the initial impacts and subsequent fires, correct?

Geez O peet Rayzor...

Aintcha got anything better?

Ok,  you are claiming it was a controlled demolition,  but there were no charges,  are you one of the death ray satellite people?

I'm serious,  there are 911 truthers who think it was a special satellite that projected holographic planes,  and a demolition beam of some sort.  I'm not kidding.

Again, point where I claimed there were NO charges.

I did not make that claim.

Your obvious lack of reading comprehension may explain your rather weak peroformance in this thread.

My reading comprehension is just fine.  You are the one who seems to not understand simple english,  you even misunderstood and misquoted that paper by the demolition guys.

Quote from: totallackey on March 06, 2017, 05:44:54 AM
What charges?

Who said they needed charges?

Even if there were charges, why would they not survive impact and subsequent fires.


Seem pretty plain to me,  if that's not what you meant,  then explain what you were trying to say.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 06, 2017, 05:56:45 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 06, 2017, 05:42:11 AM
I'm serious,  there are 911 truthers who think it was a special satellite that projected holographic planes,  and a demolition beam of some sort.  I'm not kidding.

Everyone can see your desperate dishonest attempt to derail the direction of debate, to discredit and develop disdain for the truth movement, your deception is doubtless you do a despicable disservice to truth.

That's free.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on March 06, 2017, 05:58:25 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 06, 2017, 05:51:07 AM
My reading comprehension is just fine.  You are the one who seems to not understand simple english,  you even misunderstood and misquoted that paper by the demolition guys.

Where did I misquote the paper?

Point out my misunderstanding.

Otherwise, unsupported rubbish.


Quote from: Rayzor on March 06, 2017, 05:51:07 AM
Seem pretty plain to me,  if that's not what you meant,  then explain what you were trying to say.

I was writing charges were not necessary, because they are not necessary.

You do not even believe they are necessary.

According to you, the impact of a plane, spilled kerosene, and a lit match are enough.

You claim there were no charges.

However, when you ask, "How did the charges survive the initial impacts and subsequent fires," it is clear you are just a blabbering, jibbering fool.

There is clear cut evidence of PEOPLE AND PAPER surviving the initial impacts and subsequent fires.

If there were charges in the area of the impacts on WTC 1 and 2, they could have just as easily survived.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 06, 2017, 06:09:12 AM
Quote from: totallackey on March 06, 2017, 05:58:25 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 06, 2017, 05:51:07 AM
My reading comprehension is just fine.  You are the one who seems to not understand simple english,  you even misunderstood and misquoted that paper by the demolition guys.

Where did I misquote the paper?

Point out my misunderstanding.

Otherwise, unsupported rubbish.


Quote from: totallackey

Strawman #2: PROTEC states a false argument: "But they fell straight down into their own footprint."

Then PROTEC appropriately demolishes this argument, claiming material ejected to several blocks away.

Can you see where you went wrong?   

You then went on to waffle about toppling, and posted earthquake pictures,  completely misunderstanding the point they were making about building collapse.


Quote from: totallackey on March 06, 2017, 05:58:25 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 06, 2017, 05:51:07 AM
Seem pretty plain to me,  if that's not what you meant,  then explain what you were trying to say.

I was writing charges were not necessary, because they are not necessary.

You do not even believe they are necessary.

According to you, planes impacting and jet fuel are enough.

You claim there were no charges.

However, when you ask, "How did the charges survive the initial impacts and subsequent fires," it is clear you are just a blabbering, jibbering fool.

There is clear cut evidence of PEOPLE AND PAPER surviving the initial impacts and subsequent fires.

If there were charges in the area of the impacts on WTC 1 and 2, they could have just as easily survived.

There you go again,  so I'll ask again,  how do you do controlled demolition without charges?   

I don't think there were any charges either,  but that's because I don't think it was controlled demolition. I thought that was pretty obvious.

I'll look forward to continuing tomorrow.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on March 06, 2017, 06:24:43 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 06, 2017, 06:09:12 AM
Can you see where you went wrong?
No.

I did not go wrong.

PROTEC, in the paper you referenced, built a strawman.

1, 2, and 7, did not collapse into their own footprint.

They appropriately demolished this argument, as if it was ever offered.

It may have been offered at some point.

But in their argument, they fail to account for their own demolitions, prepping a building by removing a great deal of the material, both interior and exterior, prior to demo...

This accounts for material found blocks away in the case of 1, 2, and 7.

Furthermore, PROTEC in their paper implies that controlled demolitions result in NO MATERIAL from the demolition being found blocks away.

Well, that is just popppycock, despite precautionary measures taken.

Quote from: Rayzor on March 06, 2017, 06:09:12 AM
You then went on to waffle about toppling, and posted earthquake pictures,  completely misunderstanding the point they were making about building collapse.

Incorrect again.

PROTEC CLAIMS IN THEIR PAPER THAT HIGH RISE BUILDINGS DO NOT FALL LIKE TREES!

I offered proof that despite their claim, it is the natural tendency of all tall things to TOPPLE unless otherwise prepped to collapse differently.

Quote from: Rayzor on March 06, 2017, 06:09:12 AM
There you go again,  so I'll ask again,  how do you do controlled demolition without charges?   

I don't think there were any charges either,  but that's because I don't think it was controlled demolition. I thought that was pretty obvious.

It seems there are many ways to perform a controlled demolition without "charges."

Go ahead.

Look them up.

Make sure to find a valid source this time, one that does not set up strawman arguments.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 06, 2017, 06:35:05 AM
Quote from: totallackey on March 06, 2017, 06:24:43 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 06, 2017, 06:09:12 AM
Can you see where you went wrong?
No.

I did not go wrong.

PROTEC, in the paper you referenced, built a strawman.

1, 2, and 7, did not collapse into their own footprint.

They appropriately demolished this argument, as if it was ever offered.

It may have been offered at some point.

But in their argument, they fail to account for their own demolitions, prepping a building by removing a great deal of the material, both interior and exterior, prior to demo...

This accounts for material found blocks away in the case of 1, 2, and 7.

Furthermore, PROTEC in their paper implies that controlled demolitions result in NO MATERIAL from the demolition being found blocks away.

Well, that is just popppycock, despite precautionary measures taken.

Quote from: Rayzor on March 06, 2017, 06:09:12 AM
You then went on to waffle about toppling, and posted earthquake pictures,  completely misunderstanding the point they were making about building collapse.

Incorrect again.

PROTEC CLAIMS IN THEIR PAPER THAT HIGH RISE BUILDINGS DO NOT FALL LIKE TREES!

I offered proof that despite their claim, it is the natural tendency of all tall things to TOPPLE unless otherwise prepped to collapse differently.

Quote from: Rayzor on March 06, 2017, 06:09:12 AM
There you go again,  so I'll ask again,  how do you do controlled demolition without charges?   

I don't think there were any charges either,  but that's because I don't think it was controlled demolition. I thought that was pretty obvious.

It seems there are many ways to perform a controlled demolition without "charges."

Go ahead.

Look them up.

Make sure to find a valid source this time, one that does not set up strawman arguments.

First and foremost,  the assertions were not strawman arguments,  they are claims made continually by 911 truthers,   the way the paper is written they first present the assertion,  (not made by them,  so not a strawman)  then proceed to discuss the assertion from their experience in demolition.

Now take the one we are discussing.   the assertion,  made by 911 truthers in support of the controlled demolition hypothesis, is that

Quote from: most 911 truthers

ASSERTION #2
“But they fell straight down into their own footprint.”


It's not them saying that, it's a claim made by others.  Now read their comments.

Quote from: demolition expert
Any discussion of how the towers fell on 9/11 requires a fundamental understanding of
how buildings collapse and an examination of the damage inflicted upon adjacent
structures that morning.
With very few exceptions, a tall office building (i.e., 20+ stories) cannot be made to tip
over like a tree. Reinforced concrete smokestacks and industrial towers can, due to
their small footprint and inherently monolithic properties. However, because the
supporting elements in a typical human-inhabited building are spread over a larger area
to accommodate living and work space, they are not nearly as rigid, and the laws of
gravity cause them to begin collapsing downward upon being weakened or tipped off
center to a certain point. Blasters are well aware of this and often rely on this principle in
designing upper-floor charge patterns to maximize breakage and in predicting debris
drop zones.

The collapse of towers 1 and 2 followed this principle exactly. When the impact floors of
both towers eventually failed, the upper sections did not simply tumble over onto the
street below, rather they tilted while simultaneously collapsing downward.

Then disputeone,  kindly posted video's demonstrating exactly that.    While you went off on a tangent about toppling buildings.

Does it make sense now?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 06, 2017, 06:40:01 AM
UNSW did a video on the WTC collapse mechanism



I'd like to know if their modelling is public domain?

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on March 06, 2017, 06:51:33 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 06, 2017, 06:35:05 AM

First and foremost,  the assertions were not strawman arguments,  they are claims made continually by 911 truthers,
Please find a claim made by anyone, despite their status as truther or OS'er, using the term "explosive demolition." 
Quote from: Rayzorlink=topic=69306.msg1878147#msg1878147 date=1488810905
...the way the paper is written they first present the assertion,  (not made by them,  so not a strawman)  then proceed to discuss the assertion from their experience in demolition.

By the simple change of one word from "controlled," to "explosive," the paper is demonstrated to be FOR SHIT and and does not accurately frame the assertion.

This makes the assertion easy to argue against.

Quote from: Rayzor on March 06, 2017, 06:35:05 AM
Now take the one we are discussing.   the assertion,  made by 911 truthers in support of the controlled demolition hypothesis, is that

Quote from: most 911 truthers

ASSERTION #2
“But they fell straight down into their own footprint.”


It's not them saying that, it's a claim made by others.  Now read their comments.

Quote from: demolition expert
Any discussion of how the towers fell on 9/11 requires a fundamental understanding of
how buildings collapse and an examination of the damage inflicted upon adjacent
structures that morning.
With very few exceptions, a tall office building (i.e., 20+ stories) cannot be made to tip
over like a tree. Reinforced concrete smokestacks and industrial towers can, due to
their small footprint and inherently monolithic properties. However, because the
supporting elements in a typical human-inhabited building are spread over a larger area
to accommodate living and work space, they are not nearly as rigid, and the laws of
gravity cause them to begin collapsing downward upon being weakened or tipped off
center to a certain point. Blasters are well aware of this and often rely on this principle in
designing upper-floor charge patterns to maximize breakage and in predicting debris
drop zones.

The collapse of towers 1 and 2 followed this principle exactly. When the impact floors of
both towers eventually failed, the upper sections did not simply tumble over onto the
street below, rather they tilted while simultaneously collapsing downward.

Then disputeone,  kindly posted video's demonstrating exactly that.    While you went off on a tangent about toppling buildings.

Does it make sense now?

I know it is the claim of others.

I have heard that claim.

It is still a strawman argument for this reason.

Even controlled demolitions do not fall completely into their own footprint.

Despite precautions, even controlled demolitions often cause collateral damage.

PROTEC failed to note none of the exterior sheathing was removed prior to the collapse of 1/2/7 as would probably take place in an announced controlled demolition event, yet went to great lengths to point out how this sheathing caused collateral damage.

PROTEC states, "With very few exceptions, a tall office building (i.e., 20+ stories) cannot be made to tip over like a tree."

I call bullshit on this claim and posted pictures evidencing otherwise.

As a matter of fact, unless the fall/destruction/collapse is otherwise prepped, all tall buildings will topple.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on March 06, 2017, 06:52:55 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 06, 2017, 06:40:01 AM
UNSW did a video on the WTC collapse mechanism



I'd like to know if their modelling is public domain?

What does UNSW stand for?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 06, 2017, 07:05:22 AM
Quote from: totallackey on March 06, 2017, 06:52:55 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 06, 2017, 06:40:01 AM
UNSW did a video on the WTC collapse mechanism

I'd like to know if their modelling is public domain?

What does UNSW stand for?

University of New South Wales 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on March 06, 2017, 07:08:32 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 06, 2017, 07:05:22 AM
Quote from: totallackey on March 06, 2017, 06:52:55 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 06, 2017, 06:40:01 AM
UNSW did a video on the WTC collapse mechanism

I'd like to know if their modelling is public domain?

What does UNSW stand for?

University of New South Wales

Thank you.

I watched the video and it does not present any inputs or results data utilized for modeling and it appears to be useless to the conversation.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 06, 2017, 02:03:03 PM
Just gonna hope this goes away?

Quote from: disputeone on March 06, 2017, 05:29:12 AM
This is just sad now.

Rayzor it's just so over, you are the only one blind / stupid enough to keep arguing against the points we've raised.

If they were controlling the planes, then hitting the towers in a particular spot is easy, look what guys that hadn't even flown real planes could do, apparently.

The towers collapse at the point of the explosion / plane crash is not evidence against a top down controlled demolition, the molten steel coming from the impact site of wtc 2 clearly shows something happening that the OS can't explain.

The floors below offering no reduction in fall acceleration goes directly against your citation saying there was a lot of resistance, you literally have nothing, it's over, everyone sees it, that's why you are the only one here still saying the towers collapse was perfectly probable given the OS.

 ::)  ::)  ::)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 06, 2017, 03:06:25 PM
Quote from: totallackey on March 06, 2017, 07:08:32 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 06, 2017, 07:05:22 AM
Quote from: totallackey on March 06, 2017, 06:52:55 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 06, 2017, 06:40:01 AM
UNSW did a video on the WTC collapse mechanism

I'd like to know if their modelling is public domain?

What does UNSW stand for?

University of New South Wales

Thank you.

I watched the video and it does not present any inputs or results data utilized for modeling and it appears to be useless to the conversation.

Ummm...  it presents the collapse mechanism quite clearly,   as such it's already miles ahead of the controlled demolition hypothesis. 

Do you have detailed modelling for your "no charges" TM controlled demolition?   
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 06, 2017, 03:17:39 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 06, 2017, 02:03:03 PM
Just gonna hope this goes away?

Quote from: disputeone on March 06, 2017, 05:29:12 AM
This is just sad now.

Rayzor it's just so over, you are the only one blind / stupid enough to keep arguing against the points we've raised.

If they were controlling the planes, then hitting the towers in a particular spot is easy, look what guys that hadn't even flown real planes could do, apparently.

The towers collapse at the point of the explosion / plane crash is not evidence against a top down controlled demolition, the molten steel coming from the impact site of wtc 2 clearly shows something happening that the OS can't explain.

The floors below offering no reduction in fall acceleration goes directly against your citation saying there was a lot of resistance, you literally have nothing, it's over, everyone sees it, that's why you are the only one here still saying the towers collapse was perfectly probable given the OS.

 ::)  ::)  ::)

You haven't been paying attention,   we've moved on from "no planes",  no we are at the "no charges" stages.   But if you are still convinced that prepositioned demolition charges are responsible for the collapse,  then you have an uphill battle ahead. 

Why detonate WTC2 first?    Why not WTC1 where the first plane hit.    In fact why delay at all after the planes impacted the building?

You never gave a serious answer as to why delay 7 hours to demolish WTC7,   here's what a demolitions expert said about the collapse of WTC7

Quote from: expert demolition guy
   
5. Several demolition teams had reached Ground Zero by 3:00pm on 9/11, and these individuals witnessed the collapse of WTC 7 from within a few hundred feet of the event.
We have spoken with several who possess extensive experience in explosive demolition, and all reported hearing or seeing nothing to indicate an explosive detonation
precipitating the collapse. As one eyewitness told us, “We were all standing around helpless...we knew full well it was going to collapse. Everyone there knew. You gotta
remember there was a lot of confusion and we didn’t know if another plane was coming...but I never heard explosions like demo charges. We knew with the damage to
that building and how hot the fire was, that building was gonna go, so we just waited, and a little later it went.”
From:  http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf

Do you still claim that WTC7 was controlled demolition?

Take time with your answer I'll be back later.  Don't just repost crap by quoting yourself all the time.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 06, 2017, 03:53:38 PM
Stop making strawman.

Stop pushing the no planes and no charges idea.

Yes building 7 was a controlled demolition, so was wtc 1 and 2.

They waited seven hours so less people would notice, see how much attention building 7 got on the official report.

The answer is the official report originally didn't even mention wtc7.

Why didn't the official report mention wtc 7?

Why did everyone (apparently) expect buildings designed to take the impact of multiple 767's to collapse?

Why did everyone (apparently) think that office fires would bring down wtc 7 when it was designed to be able to handle fires?

Why was building 7s collapse reported while it was still standing?

Take your time.

The reason I repost old posts is because they haven't been debunked.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on March 06, 2017, 04:13:17 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 06, 2017, 03:06:25 PM

Ummm...  it presents the collapse mechanism quite clearly,   as such it's already miles ahead of the controlled demolition hypothesis. 

Do you have detailed modelling for your "no charges" TM controlled demolition?   

You have got to be joking, right?

Expanding steel pushing against outer sheath, resulting in a progress collapse, including the total inner core?

You call that a clear believable model?

And it shows just one beam pushing against the outer sheath.

Where is the rest of the detail?

Honestly, if you believe that is a detailed model I see no further reason to entertain any of your posts.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on March 06, 2017, 04:36:54 PM
~ Sorry I am behind the thread. Haven't had much free time lately. ~

Quote from: Rayzor on March 02, 2017, 08:19:47 PM
Picture of contaminated aluminium at 900C

(https://s1.postimg.org/63p7fwawf/900_CAluminium.jpg)

When you stir it or pour it the aluminum is still the normal silvery colour...

Neat.

Also, keep in mind that the volume of stuff pouring out of the WTC was much greater than what you have in your bucket. It will cool down much slower on contact with air.

I am still of the opinion that it could have been aluminum, or aluminum mixed with other burning materials, or just glowing embers of various burning plastics/wood/carpet, or steel. The assumption that it is steel still seems very premature to me.

Quote from: disputeone on March 06, 2017, 03:53:38 PM
Yes building 7 was a controlled demolition...
Quote from: disputeone on March 01, 2017, 07:01:33 PM
...I accept I can't irrefutably prove my controlled demolition hypothesis...

*cough*
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 06, 2017, 04:53:58 PM
I think building 7 was a cd given the evidence. No one can prove the total progressive collapse hypothesis either.

The molten metal on wtc 2 is steel, there's no getting around it.

As the metal was flowing under gravity it would be close to its melting point.

Contaminated ally has been shown to be an "oil and water" mixture, contaminated ally can not explain the flow or colour.

Sorry Totes.

Your other points have been good.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 06, 2017, 05:06:32 PM
I'm not here to crush anyones desire to believe the official story, I can't.

I can show the OS has holes that are yet to be addressed.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on March 06, 2017, 05:12:13 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 06, 2017, 04:53:58 PM
I think building 7 was a cd given the evidence. No one can prove the total progressive collapse hypothesis either.

Fair enough. It just seems like you are presenting your theory as more certain than the evidence warrants.

Quote
The molten metal on wtc 2 is steel, there's no getting around it.

As the metal was flowing under gravity it would be close to its melting point.

It could have melted and continued heating up in a contained vessel. Something shifted and spilled it out.

Quote
Contaminated ally has been shown to be an "oil and water" mixture, contaminated ally can not explain the flow or colour.

It doesn't need to be mixed together. Maybe something fell on it and started burning. Or maybe it was just a bunch of burning/glowing embers of wood/plastic/carpet/whatever. Or maybe it was some other kind of metal, like copper from plumbing, which has a melting point near the predicted temperature.

Honestly, this is why I have a hard time taking this whole thing seriously. You jump to conclusions way too easily.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 06, 2017, 05:20:15 PM
It may seem like I am jumping to conclusions but most of them are more than 10 years old.

If you guys want to believe its ally thats fine. I admit theres probably a .0001% chance it could be ally.

Theres probably a .00000001% chance the total progressive collapse hypothesis caused the collapse's we saw.

And probably a .000000000000000000001% chance the US government didnt know it was coming / had a hand in it.

It's fine to agree to disagree, I'm not forcing my views on anyone.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 06, 2017, 05:27:49 PM
All I want to show is the more you follow the official story, the more unlikely and improbable it gets.

My hypothesis fits observations much better, I believe I have clearly demonstrated that in this thread.

Forgive my arrogance.

Also NIST calls it aluminum, saying it might be copper shows that you thought about it more than NIST did already.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on March 06, 2017, 06:41:10 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 06, 2017, 05:20:15 PM
It may seem like I am jumping to conclusions but most of them are more than 10 years old.

If you guys want to believe its ally thats fine. I admit theres probably a .0001% chance it could be ally.

Theres probably a .00000001% chance the total progressive collapse hypothesis caused the collapse's we saw.

And probably a .000000000000000000001% chance the US government didnt know it was coming / had a hand in it.

It's fine to agree to disagree, I'm not forcing my views on anyone.

I know you aren't forcing your views on anyone. However, you ARE trying to convince people (which is fine). The exaggeration does not help you convince people.

For example, I don't have the time right now to take a close look at ALL the evidence. However, the strength of the evidence I DID look at closely turned out to be exaggerated. Given those results, I am likely to assume that the rest of the "evidence" is exaggerated as well, and not worth the time researching.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 06, 2017, 06:44:58 PM
Sure ok, no worries.

I feel like I let you down in this regard, for that I apologize, I hope you make your own decisions nonetheless.

I didn't exaggerate the free-fall, NIST claims 2.25 seconds, nor did I exaggerate the aluminum being the molten metal, NIST says it it aluminum.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 06, 2017, 06:58:47 PM
Here are sixty structural engineers that agree with the CD hypothesis and think the total progressive collapse hypothesis is unlikely / improbable.

http://www.ae911truth.org/news/199-news-media-events-60-structural-engineers.html

It's not just kids on teh internets that don't swallow the "total progressive collapse" there are plenty of professionals that think / know it's bunk.

I have shown this to the best of my abilities. I apologize if I dissuaded anyone from seeking the truth.

As for exaggerations on this thread, I think you are being entirely too easy on Rayzor and too hard on me, desu.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 06, 2017, 07:47:11 PM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 06, 2017, 04:36:54 PM
~ Sorry I am behind the thread. Haven't had much free time lately. ~

Quote from: Rayzor on March 02, 2017, 08:19:47 PM
Picture of contaminated aluminium at 900C

(https://s1.postimg.org/63p7fwawf/900_CAluminium.jpg)

When you stir it or pour it the aluminum is still the normal silvery colour...

Neat.

Also, keep in mind that the volume of stuff pouring out of the WTC was much greater than what you have in your bucket. It will cool down much slower on contact with air.

Missed this misunderstanding. The ally doesn't glow silver when stirred or poured because of cooling, it turns silver because molten ally is silver in direct sunlight.

This is why I brought up the water and oil mix of contaminated ally. Stirring or pouring simply sperates the ally and we see its true colour.

Like what would have occured on wtc 2 (imo)

Your idea of copper is a good one, however NIST stands by it being aluminum against all evidence.

I could've nearly believed copper.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on March 06, 2017, 09:19:18 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 06, 2017, 07:47:11 PM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 06, 2017, 04:36:54 PM
~ Sorry I am behind the thread. Haven't had much free time lately. ~

Quote from: Rayzor on March 02, 2017, 08:19:47 PM
Picture of contaminated aluminium at 900C

(https://s1.postimg.org/63p7fwawf/900_CAluminium.jpg)

When you stir it or pour it the aluminum is still the normal silvery colour...

Neat.

Also, keep in mind that the volume of stuff pouring out of the WTC was much greater than what you have in your bucket. It will cool down much slower on contact with air.

Missed this misunderstanding. The ally doesn't glow silver when stirred or poured because of cooling, it turns silver because molten ally is silver in direct sunlight.

To be more precise, it turns silver when the reflected light overwhelms the emitted light. This depends on the temperature of the aluminum and how much external light there is to be reflected.



Granted, it looks overcast in that video, but there was also plenty of smoke coming from the WTC to block the sun. How orange it appears seems to depend on the camera settings. I also don't know what temperature the aluminum is in this video.

Also, notice the orange flames when they dump the iPhone in. Now imagine what the molten aluminum would look like if it had just pushed its way through a ton of plastic/debris.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 06, 2017, 09:27:45 PM
Reasonable point, I'll get to it.

Reserved.

Alright, so we have uncontaminated aluminum that can glow red when it is very hot under low light, I accept this, however the temperature NIST states isn't hot enough to make uncontaminated aluminum glow red in anything close to daylight, so we have a logical jump, that's fine.

Because the molten metal was flowing under gravity we either have to assume that the aluminum was in a container of some sort with a much higher melting point than aluminum then it breaks and let's the aluminum pour out heated up hotter than NIST states the fires reached.

Also the flow of the molten metal guarantees that if the aluminum was contaminated it would start to separate from its parts as it flowed, Rayzor was kind enough to demonstrate this. The uniform colour and consistency of the molten aluminium makes it unlikely contaminated aluminium caused the colour.

There are already three logical jumps we have to make to accept the OS just in regards to the molten metal on wtc 2, for me, the OS has far too many logical jumps to be an acceptable hypothesis.

Quick example for controlled demolition.

Beams cut in position of impact preparing for the top down demolition getting the top to collapse before detonating the charges in the basement and on other support beams lower.

This also neatly explains the plumb collapse at close to freefall, it explains why NIST says the lower structural resistance provided zero structural resistance to the falling tower above it (which you admitted my primary school level equation debunks)
Also explains them lying outright about the towers structural strength and design.

The only logical jump I am making is that it doesn't agree with the OS.

The rest imo, fits like a key in a lock.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 06, 2017, 10:32:35 PM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 06, 2017, 09:19:18 PM
Now imagine what the molten aluminum would look like if it had just pushed its way through a ton of plastic/debris.

You would clearly see the separation just like oil and water.

This is one of the easier things to debunk of the story.

We were seeing something melt, or being cut...Just not aluminum.

Rayzor

I muse many theories planes, no planes etc..They are just musings as I have stated many times. I don't take anything off the table until it takes itself off. I have stated this a 100 times....Going off witnesses, video evidence, etc etc, there are issues.

Now try being honest for once...You might actually like it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 06, 2017, 10:45:39 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 06, 2017, 10:32:35 PM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 06, 2017, 09:19:18 PM
Now imagine what the molten aluminum would look like if it had just pushed its way through a ton of plastic/debris.

You would clearly see the separation just like oil and water.

This is one of the easier things to debunk of the story.

We were seeing something melt, or being cut...Just not aluminum.

More succinct than I could put it.

My point is we have to make no end of excuses for the OS, Totes actually suggested molten copper which imo is far more plausible than ally.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 06, 2017, 11:10:31 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 06, 2017, 10:32:35 PM
Rayzor

I muse many theories planes, no planes etc..They are just musings as I have stated many times. I don't take anything off the table until it takes itself off. I have stated this a 100 times....Going off witnesses, video evidence, etc etc, there are issues.

Now try being honest for once...You might actually like it.

I'm not the one who is being evasive.  I just go by what you write,   If you want to retract the claim that it was drones and pre-placed timed  shaped charges and thermite cutter charges that brought down the twin towers,  then just retract/refute  those statements,  or alternatively  state what your position actually is.   If you don't know then that's fine also.





Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 06, 2017, 11:13:24 PM
Position is the towers collapsed due to controlled demolition, we have given plenty of evidence to support this position. Try to keep up.

All we've said about the planes are considering the OS there are definitely issues with what we were told.

See what we have to deal with Totes? Sorry if I've been short.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 06, 2017, 11:14:47 PM
Quote from: totallackey on March 06, 2017, 04:13:17 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 06, 2017, 03:06:25 PM

Ummm...  it presents the collapse mechanism quite clearly,   as such it's already miles ahead of the controlled demolition hypothesis. 

Do you have detailed modelling for your "no charges" TM controlled demolition?   

You have got to be joking, right?

Expanding steel pushing against outer sheath, resulting in a progress collapse, including the total inner core?

You call that a clear believable model?

And it shows just one beam pushing against the outer sheath.

Where is the rest of the detail?

Honestly, if you believe that is a detailed model I see no further reason to entertain any of your posts.

It's a video intended to tell prospective students about structural engineering,  and the WTC is used as an example of why structural engineering is an important profession.
No,  it's not a detailed model,  and doesn't pretend to be, but it does illustrate the floor collapse hypothesis nicely. 

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 06, 2017, 11:17:15 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 06, 2017, 11:13:24 PM
Position is the towers collapsed due to controlled demolition, we have given plenty of evidence to support this position. Try to keep up.

All we've said about the planes are considering the OS there are definitely issues with what we were told.

See what we have to deal with Totes? Sorry if I've been short.

What evidence of controlled demolition?    You haven't presented anything remotely like evidence.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 06, 2017, 11:19:08 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 06, 2017, 11:14:47 PM
Quote from: totallackey on March 06, 2017, 04:13:17 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 06, 2017, 03:06:25 PM

Ummm...  it presents the collapse mechanism quite clearly,   as such it's already miles ahead of the controlled demolition hypothesis. 

Do you have detailed modelling for your "no charges" TM controlled demolition?   

You have got to be joking, right?

Expanding steel pushing against outer sheath, resulting in a progress collapse, including the total inner core?

You call that a clear believable model?

And it shows just one beam pushing against the outer sheath.

Where is the rest of the detail?

Honestly, if you believe that is a detailed model I see no further reason to entertain any of your posts.

It's a video intended to tell prospective students about structural engineering,  and the WTC is used as an example of why structural engineering is an important profession.
No,  it's not a detailed model,  and doesn't pretend to be, but it does illustrate the floor collapse hypothesis nicely.

But why didn't the structural resistance provide any structural resistance?

According to NIST?

If you don't like my evidence for controlled demolition then please read the evidence from the sixty structural engineers. Of course you know more about structural engineering than a structural engineer, clearly.

Makes perfect sense in a world where structural resistance doesn't provide structural resistance.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 06, 2017, 11:19:48 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 06, 2017, 11:10:31 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 06, 2017, 10:32:35 PM

I muse many theories planes, no planes etc..They are just musings as I have stated many times. I don't take anything off the table until it takes itself off. I have stated this a 100 times....Going off witnesses, video evidence, etc etc, there are issues.

I'm not the one who is being evasive.  I just go by what you write,   If you want to retract the claim that it was drones and pre-placed timed  shaped charges and thermite cutter charges that brought down the twin towers,  then just retract/refute  those statements,  or alternatively  state what your position actually is.   If you don't know then that's fine also.

Reread the bolded area...Again...(I have stated this many times over)

::) ::) ::)

Quote from: disputeone on March 06, 2017, 11:13:24 PM
Position is the towers collapsed due to controlled demolition, we have given plenty of evidence to support this position. Try to keep up.

All we've said about the planes are considering the OS there are definitely issues with what we were told.

See what we have to deal with Totes? Sorry if I've been short.

Ditto....

Agreed sorry totes, I have tried to conversate without attitude towards you. Though I am sure my snippyness shows through at times. Though, I think you can understand...Just imagine more than one of that user you dealt with a few months ago on that challenge (sorry, forgot his name)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 06, 2017, 11:22:02 PM
Voting is now closed,  and  it's pretty clear the case for controlled demolition has very few adherents,  even then,  they differ widely on the details, whereas  the official version has the clear majority of votes.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 06, 2017, 11:25:05 PM
Science and truth is not majority rule.

It reflects the attitudes held by Americans, around 50-60% believe the official story.

In Australia from my experience more like 20-30%

In Russia from what I've seen, maybe 5%.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 06, 2017, 11:25:42 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 06, 2017, 11:19:48 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 06, 2017, 11:10:31 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 06, 2017, 10:32:35 PM

I muse many theories planes, no planes etc..They are just musings as I have stated many times. I don't take anything off the table until it takes itself off. I have stated this a 100 times....Going off witnesses, video evidence, etc etc, there are issues.

I'm not the one who is being evasive.  I just go by what you write,   If you want to retract the claim that it was drones and pre-placed timed  shaped charges and thermite cutter charges that brought down the twin towers,  then just retract/refute  those statements,  or alternatively  state what your position actually is.   If you don't know then that's fine also.

Reread the bolded area...Again...(I have stated this many times over)

::) ::) ::)


Ok.   I'll take that as undecided.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 06, 2017, 11:28:28 PM
Rayzor all you've tried to do is control undecided readers opinions, I understand you have to.

Notice how Totes and Master Evar actually put forward points and debated?

You are just scared people will think for themselves, I want people to think for themselves, I don't care if we come to different conclusions.

This is important to note.


Everyone in this thread has said the collapse was "unlikely" unless you want to start debunking the engineers that built them to withstand pretty much exactly what happened.

Please don't push the narrative everyone expected them to fall.

It just reeks of shillary.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 06, 2017, 11:29:09 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 06, 2017, 11:25:05 PM
Science and truth is not majority rule.

It reflects the attitudes held by Americans, around 50-60% believe the official story.

In Australia from my experience more like 20-30%

In Russia from what I've seen, maybe 5%.

Agreed,  science and truth is not a popularity poll.   
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 06, 2017, 11:29:53 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 06, 2017, 11:22:02 PM
Voting is now closed,  and  it's pretty clear the case for controlled demolition has very few adherents,  even then,  they differ widely on the details, whereas  the official version has the clear majority of votes.

Your point? When a flock of sheep walk off a cliff following each other does that make them right? Or all equally dumb?

I remember in the beginning that poll what have been close to 100 percent for the official story, I would say progress has been coming along, just needs to continue
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 06, 2017, 11:33:43 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 06, 2017, 11:25:05 PM
Science and truth is not majority rule.

It reflects the attitudes held by Americans, around 50-60% believe the official story.

In Australia from my experience more like 20-30%

In Russia from what I've seen, maybe 5%.

Never been to Australia, however I have spent much time in Russia.

They actually use it as an insult to an American there if you believe in the official story. (Basically calling you an idiot)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 06, 2017, 11:37:02 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 06, 2017, 11:28:28 PM
Rayzor all you've tried to do is control undecided readers opinions, I understand you have to.

Notice how Totes and Master Evar actually put forward points and debated?

You are just scared people will think for themselves, I want people to think for themselves, I don't care if we come to different conclusions.

This is important to note.

And this is your response to a request for evidence.


Quote from: disputeone on March 06, 2017, 11:28:28 PM
Everyone in this thread has said the collapse was "unlikely" unless you want to start debunking the engineers that built them to withstand pretty much exactly what happened.

Please don't push the narrative everyone expected them to fall.

It just reeks of shillary.

Wow,  you really have a blind spot,  why don't you watch that video YOU keep posting,  and actually listen to what the people on the ground that day had to say.
The collapse of WTC7 was totally expected.  Listen carefully.



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 06, 2017, 11:39:54 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 06, 2017, 11:29:53 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 06, 2017, 11:22:02 PM
Voting is now closed,  and  it's pretty clear the case for controlled demolition has very few adherents,  even then,  they differ widely on the details, whereas  the official version has the clear majority of votes.

Your point? When a flock of sheep walk off a cliff following each other does that make them right? Or all equally dumb?

Of course they are right, silly, everyone else is doing it, why think for ourselves when we have leaders that tell us what is true and crowd mentality telling us what to think.

(https://s2.postimg.org/52kgnwj6h/MC_L7_B.gif)


Rayzor.

So, the engineers that designed wtc 1 and 2 to withstand multiple plane impacts were wrong? Or incompetent?

As for building 7, the BBC sure knew it was coming down. I don't think anyone uninvolved expected it to fall down, unless they factored on what happened to wtc 1 and 2.

Sorry did you just admit the collapse of wtc 1 and 2 was unlikely?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 06, 2017, 11:46:38 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 06, 2017, 11:39:54 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 06, 2017, 11:29:53 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 06, 2017, 11:22:02 PM
Voting is now closed,  and  it's pretty clear the case for controlled demolition has very few adherents,  even then,  they differ widely on the details, whereas  the official version has the clear majority of votes.

Your point? When a flock of sheep walk off a cliff following each other does that make them right? Or all equally dumb?

Of course they are right, silly, everyone else is doing it, why think for ourselves when we have leaders that tell us what is true and crowd mentality telling us what to think.

(https://s2.postimg.org/52kgnwj6h/MC_L7_B.gif)

LOL 911-truthers going to a conference.

Quote from: disputeone on March 06, 2017, 11:39:54 PM
Rayzor.

So, the engineers that designed wtc 1 and 2 to withstand multiple plane impacts were wrong? Or incompetent?

As for building 7, the BBC sure knew it was coming down. I don't think anyone uninvolved expected it to fall down, unless they factored on what happened to wtc 1 and 2.

Sorry did you just admit the collapse of wtc 1 and 2 was unlikely?

No I was talking about WTC7,  no-one was expecting WTC2  to collapse,   but after the collapse of WTC2,  I don't doubt there was concern about WTC1 collapsing as well.

You keep diverting, and I'm going to keep asking,  you claimed to have presented evidence of controlled demolition,  if you did,  I missed it,  so now is the time to back up your claims.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 06, 2017, 11:49:44 PM
Here.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.0
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 06, 2017, 11:51:40 PM
I have explained to rayzor of course some people were scared another building might fall. Everyone (except those in "the loop") were freaked the hell out...I would be too. I wouldn't be thinking about specifics of anything, plus they didn't know what the full story was. Plus with all the people hearing explosives etc...They were expecting anything, as would I.

Just imagine being down there
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 06, 2017, 11:54:18 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 06, 2017, 11:49:44 PM
Here.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.0

So you've got no evidence of controlled demolition,   that's not surprising,  since we all know it didn't happen.
 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 06, 2017, 11:58:03 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 06, 2017, 11:54:18 PM
So you've got no evidence of controlled demolition,   that's not surprising,  since we all know it didn't happen.

Lol...That's so rayzor.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 07, 2017, 12:02:25 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 06, 2017, 11:51:40 PM
I have explained to rayzor of course some people were scared another building might fall. Everyone (except those in "the loop") were freaked the hell out...I would be too. I wouldn't be thinking about specifics of anything, plus they didn't know what the full story was. Plus with all the people hearing explosives etc...They were expecting anything, as would I.

Just imagine being down there

A statement from a FDNY fireman
Quote from: Chris Boyle
Captain Chris Boyle
Engine 94 - 18 years

Boyle: ...on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?

Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.

Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.

This is the South West corner of WTC7,   

(https://s16.postimg.org/tp3rlck1h/WTC7_Corner.jpg)

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 07, 2017, 12:04:44 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 06, 2017, 11:58:03 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 06, 2017, 11:54:18 PM
So you've got no evidence of controlled demolition,   that's not surprising,  since we all know it didn't happen.

Lol...That's so rayzor.

And so disputeone,  to just link to the whole thread,  he's a liability.   But,  I'm sure he'll be back with another meme picture,  that's what he always does when he's backed into a corner.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 07, 2017, 12:11:21 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 07, 2017, 12:02:25 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 06, 2017, 11:51:40 PM
I have explained to rayzor of course some people were scared another building might fall. Everyone (except those in "the loop") were freaked the hell out...I would be too. I wouldn't be thinking about specifics of anything, plus they didn't know what the full story was. Plus with all the people hearing explosives etc...They were expecting anything, as would I.

Just imagine being down there

A statement from a FDNY fireman
Quote from: Chris Boyle
Captain Chris Boyle
Engine 94 - 18 years

Boyle: ...on the north and east side of 7 it didn’t look like there was any damage at all, but then you looked on the south side of 7 there had to be a hole 20 stories tall in the building, with fire on several floors. Debris was falling down on the building and it didn’t look good.

Firehouse: When you looked at the south side, how close were you to the base of that side?

Boyle: I was standing right next to the building, probably right next to it.

Firehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?

Boyle: There was a huge gaping hole and it was scattered throughout there. It was a huge hole. I would say it was probably about a third of it, right in the middle of it. And so after Visconti came down and said nobody goes in 7, we said all right, we’ll head back to the command post. We lost touch with him. I never saw him again that day.

This is the South West corner of WTC7,   

(https://s16.postimg.org/tp3rlck1h/WTC7_Corner.jpg)

OK, so let's say I take this a face value...We have some damage to the exoskeleton... With the design of the building this will equal a symmetrical near free fall (at times free fall) collapse into its own foot print?

The answer is no.

Quote from: Rayzor on March 07, 2017, 12:04:44 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 06, 2017, 11:58:03 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 06, 2017, 11:54:18 PM
So you've got no evidence of controlled demolition,   that's not surprising,  since we all know it didn't happen.

Lol...That's so rayzor.

And so disputeone,  to just link to the whole thread,  he's a liability.   But,  I'm sure he'll be back with another meme picture,  that's what he always does when he's backed into a corner.




He gives silly answer when you ask silly questions or say silly statements (which is what you do when backed in a corner)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 07, 2017, 12:28:47 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 07, 2017, 12:11:21 AM
OK, so let's say I take this a face value...We have some damage to the exoskeleton... With the design of the building this will equal a symmetrical near free fall (at times free fall) collapse into its own foot print?

The answer is no.

Lmao. Beat me, the answer is indeed no, we could even model the collapse if we knew the actual damage of the building there.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 07, 2017, 12:11:21 AM
He gives silly answer when you ask silly questions or say silly statements (which is what you do when backed in a corner)

Thanks man

Rayzor if you don't like my evidence for controlled demolition how about the evidence of sixty structural engineers?

The only way I can see someone saying the truth movement has no evidence is either out of ignorance or they are paid opinion control.

Which is it?

It's funny how you say everyone agrees with you, its a really shallow and transparent attempt at opinion control by group think, present actual evidence.

If sixty structural engineers that have all found the same flaws in the OS isn't some evidence then you won't accept any and will continue shilling.

I will offer you a truce, I think the evidence points to foul play and CD you believe the evidence supports the OS.

We can agree to disagree, if all you have is ad hominems we have fantastic sub fora for that.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 07, 2017, 12:34:07 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 07, 2017, 12:11:21 AM
He gives silly answer when you ask silly questions or say silly statements (which is what you do when backed in a corner)

Not really,  he claimed to have presented evidence of controlled demolition,  but  when challenged to produce the evidence,  he  folds.

If asking for evidence is a silly question,  I have many more to ask.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 07, 2017, 12:36:54 AM
Oh and Rayzor.

Quote from: disputeone on March 03, 2017, 06:21:44 PM
This is what I set out to achieve here there is nothing you can say or do that will take this away from us.

Quote from: Bullwinkle on March 01, 2017, 01:41:03 PM
Leaving my opinion of the event out of the picture for a moment,
that is one of the most reasoned and well argued threads I have read here.

As for my opinion, well, there are now some cracks.

The physical collapse is one thing, the alternative reasons behind the catastrophe
are more difficult to fathom.

Quote from: Boots on February 25, 2017, 10:23:18 PM
Here is my summary of this thread.

I don't really know enough about the engineering and physics to be easily convinced one way or the other by technical arguments. My bias would be toward believing the official story because I believe that on average, the official version is usually more accurate and reliable than conspiracy theories.

However, the people arguing for the official version of events did not seem to be able to make a clear case IMO. Because, like I admitted, I have a bias toward the official version I would like to see it clearly shown that this version is the most likely to be correct. So far it doesn't seem like this has happened - at least not in a way that I could grasp.

I win.

Two bits of evidence since you are whinging.

1. The towers fall acceleration.

2. The towers plumb neat collapse.

So far you haven't been able to explain these nearly as well as we have.

My hypothesis fits observations perfectly.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 07, 2017, 12:42:12 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 07, 2017, 12:11:21 AM

OK, so let's say I take this a face value...We have some damage to the exoskeleton... With the design of the building this will equal a symmetrical near free fall (at times free fall) collapse into its own foot print?

The answer is no.


That's a good question,  if you recall the structure of WTC7 was a weird cantillever to accomodate the con-ed substation,   with the fires and damage  mostly on the south side,  you get a false impression by just watching the collapse from the north side only.   

The FDNY noticed the bulging in the South West corner early in the afternoon,  I think as early as 2:00 pm,   by 3:00 they claimed to have measured the bulge ( reference needed)  and pulled everyone back,  deciding not to fight the fire,  but just let it burn. 

Nobody was surprised when it came down.   

Quote from: demolition experts
Several demolition teams had reached Ground Zero by 3:00pm on 9/11, and these individuals witnessed the collapse of WTC 7 from within a few hundred feet of the event.
We have spoken with several who possess extensive experience in explosive demolition, and all reported hearing or seeing nothing to indicate an explosive detonation
precipitating the collapse. As one eyewitness told us, “We were all standing around  helpless...we knew full well it was going to collapse. Everyone there knew. You gotta
remember there was a lot of confusion and we didn’t know if another plane was coming...but I never heard explosions like demo charges. We knew with the damage to
that building and how hot the fire was, that building was gonna go, so we just waited, and a little later it went.”

Summary:  Eye witnesses with extensive experience in demolition,  don't think it was a demolition job. 

For 911-truthers to focus on WTC7,  is to ignore the main game and bigger questions about WTC1 and WTC2.   Where there are serious questions to be answered.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 07, 2017, 12:43:29 AM
You didn't even attempt to address the plumb collapse at close to freefall for wtc 7.

You just said "well it possibly might've collapsed. Look at some damage."

STRAWMAN.

Do better next time.

Try again.

Quote
OK, so let's say I take this a face value...We have some damage to the exoskeleton... With the design of the building this will equal a symmetrical near free fall (at times free fall) collapse into its own foot print?

Yes or No and why.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 07, 2017, 12:47:37 AM
>Nobody was surprised.

That's an outright lie and one you are not qualified to speak for seven billion people.

I was surprised.

Gosh.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on March 07, 2017, 12:50:48 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 06, 2017, 11:14:47 PM
No,  it's not a detailed model,  and doesn't pretend to be, but it does illustrate a one floor collapse hypothesis nicely.

Ftfy.

No need to thank me.

Next time just post a Road Runner/Wile E Coyote Cartoon.

That is just as valid a model.

Christ, such bull shit.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 07, 2017, 12:51:02 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 07, 2017, 12:36:54 AM
Two bits of evidence since you are whinging.

1. The towers fall acceleration.

2. The towers plumb neat collapse.

So far you haven't been able to explain these nearly as well as we have.

My hypothesis fits observations perfectly.

Both debunked over and over.   But let me remind you yet again.   

1.   Free fall does NOT equal controlled demolition,  not sure what you are using for a brain,  but maybe write it in texta on your hand. as a reminder.
2.  The tower collapse wasn't actually plumb,  the tops tilted, and anyway the collapse mechanism has yet to be satisfactorily explained,  but still not evidence for CD.

Is that it?   got any real evidence,  or just your "expert" free fall opinions.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 07, 2017, 12:52:00 AM
Quote from: totallackey on March 07, 2017, 12:50:48 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 06, 2017, 11:14:47 PM
No,  it's not a detailed model,  and doesn't pretend to be, but it does illustrate a one floor collapse hypothesis nicely.

Ftfy.

No need to thank me.

Next time just post a Road Runner/Wile E Coyote Cartoon.

That is just as valid a model.

Christ, such bull shit.

I'll thank you for it. It showed great logic and common sense.


Quote
OK, so let's say I take this a face value...We have some damage to the exoskeleton... With the design of the building this will equal a symmetrical near free fall (at times free fall) collapse into its own foot print?

Heres an answer to get you started.

No, cause structural resistance and asymmetrical damage.

Your turn, Rayzor.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 07, 2017, 12:54:22 AM
Quote from: totallackey on March 07, 2017, 12:50:48 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 06, 2017, 11:14:47 PM
No,  it's not a detailed model,  and doesn't pretend to be, but it does illustrate a one floor collapse hypothesis nicely.

Ftfy.

No need to thank me.

Next time just post a Road Runner/Wile E Coyote Cartoon.

That is just as valid a model.

Christ, such bull shit.

That's not a valid criticism,  it doesn't pretend to be a detailed model.   But they probably have done the modelling to support the floor collapse hypothesis,  maybe you could ask them.
   
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 07, 2017, 12:55:29 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 07, 2017, 12:51:02 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 07, 2017, 12:36:54 AM
Two bits of evidence since you are whinging.

1. The towers fall acceleration.

2. The towers plumb neat collapse.

So far you haven't been able to explain these nearly as well as we have.

My hypothesis fits observations perfectly.

Both debunked over and over.   But let me remind you yet again.   

1.   Free fall does NOT equal controlled demolition,  not sure what you are using for a brain,  but maybe write it in texta on your hand. as a reminder.

Strawman, this is not my argument you are misrepresenting my position from saying building 7s fall acceleration and plumb neat collapse is evidence of CD to "free-fall equals controlled demolition."

Its a strawman.

Btw, strawman.

Daily reminder, strawman.


Quote from: Rayzor on March 07, 2017, 12:51:02 AM
2.  The tower collapse wasn't actually plumb,  the tops tilted, and anyway the collapse mechanism has yet to be satisfactorily explained, but still not evidence for CD. (Ad lib, in my unqualified opinion.)

The tops did tilt, very astute, they didnt carry on tilting however they went very close to directly down through the path of greatest resistance.

P.S

Strawman.

P.P.S

My hypothesis can satisfactorily explain the collapse mechanism.

Also, great strawmen.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 07, 2017, 12:59:54 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 07, 2017, 12:52:00 AM
Quote from: totallackey on March 07, 2017, 12:50:48 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 06, 2017, 11:14:47 PM
No,  it's not a detailed model,  and doesn't pretend to be, but it does illustrate a one floor collapse hypothesis nicely.

Ftfy.

No need to thank me.

Next time just post a Road Runner/Wile E Coyote Cartoon.

That is just as valid a model.

Christ, such bull shit.

I'll thank you for it. It showed great logic and common sense.


Quote
OK, so let's say I take this a face value...We have some damage to the exoskeleton... With the design of the building this will equal a symmetrical near free fall (at times free fall) collapse into its own foot print?

Heres an answer to get you started.

No, cause structural resistance and asymmetrical damage.

Your turn, Rayzor.

I already answered BHS,  but since you asked so nicely,   the interior of WTC7 collapsed before the north facing facade,  you can see the penthouse collapse progress from west to east,  and you can see daylight through the north facing windows,  that tells you the interior was gone already.  Then there is the inward bowing of the north wall,  that's further indication that the interior had gone,  so all that was left at the time of final collapse was the exterior shell. 

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 07, 2017, 01:02:59 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 07, 2017, 12:59:54 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 07, 2017, 12:52:00 AM
Quote from: totallackey on March 07, 2017, 12:50:48 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 06, 2017, 11:14:47 PM
No,  it's not a detailed model,  and doesn't pretend to be, but it does illustrate a one floor collapse hypothesis nicely.

Ftfy.

No need to thank me.

Next time just post a Road Runner/Wile E Coyote Cartoon.

That is just as valid a model.

Christ, such bull shit.

I'll thank you for it. It showed great logic and common sense.


Quote
OK, so let's say I take this a face value...We have some damage to the exoskeleton... With the design of the building this will equal a symmetrical near free fall (at times free fall) collapse into its own foot print?

Heres an answer to get you started.

No, cause structural resistance and asymmetrical damage.

Your turn, Rayzor.

I already answered BHS,  but since you asked so nicely,   the interior of WTC7 collapsed before the north facing facade,  you can see the penthouse collapse progress from west to east,  and you can see daylight through the north facing windows,  that tells you the interior was gone already.  Then there is the inward bowing of the north wall,  that's further indication that the interior had gone,  so all that was left at the time of final collapse was the exterior shell. 

I've read the official report, thanks, I grow tired of your copy pasta.

I didn't see you give BHS a yes or no answer you just cited NIST saying the collapse was maybe possible.

You didn't even touch the plumb symmetrical collapse at close to or at free-fall.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 07, 2017, 01:09:40 AM
In 64 pages actually, you haven't touched it, we've been doing this quite a while. Remember when you were trying to say your arguments were not straw men?

Well, here we are.

Quote from: disputeone on March 07, 2017, 12:55:29 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 07, 2017, 12:51:02 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 07, 2017, 12:36:54 AM
Two bits of evidence since you are whinging.

1. The towers fall acceleration.

2. The towers plumb neat collapse.

So far you haven't been able to explain these nearly as well as we have.

My hypothesis fits observations perfectly.

Both debunked over and over.   But let me remind you yet again.   

1.   Free fall does NOT equal controlled demolition,  not sure what you are using for a brain,  but maybe write it in texta on your hand. as a reminder.

Strawman, this is not my argument you are misrepresenting my position from saying building 7s fall acceleration and plumb neat collapse is evidence of CD to "free-fall equals controlled demolition."

Its a strawman.

Btw, strawman.

Daily reminder, strawman.


Quote from: Rayzor on March 07, 2017, 12:51:02 AM
2.  The tower collapse wasn't actually plumb,  the tops tilted, and anyway the collapse mechanism has yet to be satisfactorily explained, but still not evidence for CD. (Ad lib, in my unqualified opinion.)

The tops did tilt, very astute, they didnt carry on tilting however they went very close to directly down through the path of greatest resistance.

P.S

Strawman.

P.P.S

My hypothesis can satisfactorily explain the collapse mechanism.

Also, great strawmen.

Also my offer to fly over and buy you a beer so you can call me stupid and crazy to my face won't expire, just say when.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 07, 2017, 01:16:59 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 07, 2017, 01:02:59 AM

I've read the official report, thanks, I grow tired of your copy pasta.

I didn't see you give BHS a yes or no answer you just cited NIST saying the collapse was maybe possible.

You didn't even touch the plumb symmetrical collapse at close to or at free-fall.

Funny,  that wasn't from the official report,   and I didn't  cite NIST,   you are getting confused.

I debunked the collapse as evidence of controlled demolition,   since you still claim it as evidence,  can I remind you that just because it's not completely explained, doesn't imply CD.

Quote from: disputeone
My hypothesis can satisfactorily explain the collapse mechanism.

Ok, you made the claim,  now back it up.   Detail for me the modelling software used,  the methodology and details of the inputs you used?   How did you model the fires and aircraft impact damage?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 07, 2017, 01:21:40 AM
I'm not doing more than NIST did.

1. Supports cut at plane impact sites, causes molten metal to flow from impact site, top of building tips and starts to collapse.

2. Charges in the basement and lower structure destroy all structural resistance  before the top part of the tower and the collapse reaches it at close to free-fall.

3. Tower continues collapsing at close to free-fall until the mass starts to provide structural resistance near the bottom and slows down.

Simple.

Explains observations nicely, I think.



Where's muh freefall?

Heres an example of a "top down" CD, they use them sometimes, you know, not just in September. ;D

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 07, 2017, 01:38:21 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 07, 2017, 01:21:40 AM
I'm not doing more than NIST did.

1. Supports cut at plane impact sites, causes molten metal to flow from impact site, top of building tips and starts to collapse.

2. Charges in the basement and lower structure destroy all structural resistance  before the top part of the tower and the collapse reaches it at close to free-fall.

3. Tower continues collapsing at close to free-fall untill the mass starts to provide structural resistance near the bottom and slows down.

Simple.

Explains observations nicely, I think.


Where's muh freefall?

You opinion/hypothesis is not evidence,  it's just your opinion.   Do I really need to explain why that's not evidence. 

But I'll humor you a little, and point out the holes in your theory,  it the demo charges were placed at the bottom, why didn't they demo the core?   You can see the central core still standing after the collapse.

No plausible explanation as to why the collapse initiates from the aircraft impact sites.
No plausible explanation as to why there was a long delay between impact and collapse.

I'm pleased to see you've moved on from free-fall nonsense you were spouting earlier,  that's a step forward.






Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 07, 2017, 01:40:35 AM
Thanks for your opinion. I am aware I am not a scientist, neither are you. It does explain what we saw so much neater than the OS, imo.

Quote from: disputeone on March 07, 2017, 12:55:29 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 07, 2017, 12:51:02 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 07, 2017, 12:36:54 AM
Two bits of evidence since you are whinging.

1. The towers fall acceleration.

2. The towers plumb neat collapse.

So far you haven't been able to explain these nearly as well as we have.

My hypothesis fits observations perfectly.

Both debunked over and over.   But let me remind you yet again.   

1.   Free fall does NOT equal controlled demolition,  not sure what you are using for a brain,  but maybe write it in texta on your hand. as a reminder.

Strawman, this is not my argument you are misrepresenting my position from saying building 7s fall acceleration and plumb neat collapse is evidence of CD to "free-fall equals controlled demolition."

Its a strawman.

Btw, strawman.

Daily reminder, strawman.


Quote from: Rayzor on March 07, 2017, 12:51:02 AM
2.  The tower collapse wasn't actually plumb,  the tops tilted, and anyway the collapse mechanism has yet to be satisfactorily explained, but still not evidence for CD. (Ad lib, in my unqualified opinion.)

The tops did tilt, very astute, they didnt carry on tilting however they went very close to directly down through the path of greatest resistance.

P.S

Strawman.

P.P.S

My hypothesis can satisfactorily explain the collapse mechanism.

Also, great strawmen.

Also my offer to fly over and buy you a beer so you can call me stupid and crazy to my face won't expire, just say when.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 07, 2017, 01:47:30 AM
Lol I just noticed you asked for my hypothesis then asked why I didn't have (in your opinion) evidence... lol...

Lmao, nice play, Rayzor showing he doesn't understand / doesn't want to understand, what hypothesis means.

Quote
hypothesis
hʌɪˈpɒθɪsɪs/Submit
noun
a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

Rotflmao.

I have.

1. Fall acceleration.

2. Close to plumb, neat collapse.

My hypothesis matches observation.

1. Supports cut at plane impact sites, causes molten metal to flow from impact site, top of building tips and starts to collapse.

2. Charges in the basement and lower structure destroy all structural resistance  before the top part of the tower and the collapse reaches it at close to free-fall.

3. Tower continues collapsing at close to free-fall until the mass starts to provide structural resistance near the bottom and slows down.

Shill.

I just need to do the further investigation which could easily be done with NIST's classified inputs.

They know this, I know this, You know this. We will never get the original inputs.

Why?

Speculation...

Edit. A poster explains his opinion on why they didn't release the inputs in my sig, he even goes as far as saying it was a "cover up".

Logically follows that poster thinks they "covered something up."
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 07, 2017, 02:10:26 AM
You know that if there is a true fair and open investigation into 9/11 (like you claim to want) there will be hundreds of thousands of people much smarter than me and some smarter than Bhs all getting behind the controlled demolition hypothesis, if the investigation is truly fair and open there will be no stopping it.

Worst case scenario for me is the fair and open investigation will show that that's what happens when planes hit buildings like that, and wtc 7s collapse is justifiable (it won't) and I look like an idiot, plus everyone at www.ae911truth.org will look really stupid. I, personally, am fine with looking stupid if we get the real truth.

Worst case scenario for you, honestly I don't know how much you have invested in this, I would say the worst case could be really really bad. I don't want to speculate.

Quote
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth) is a non-profit, non-partisan organization of architects, engineers, and affiliates dedicated to researching and disseminating scientific information about the complete destruction of all three World Trade Center skyscrapers on September 11, 2001, with the ultimate goal of obtaining a truly independent investigation and supporting the victims in their pursuit of justice.

#Trump for 911truth.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 07, 2017, 02:24:51 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 07, 2017, 02:10:26 AM
You know that if there is a true fair and open investigation into 9/11 (like you claim to want) there will be hundreds of thousands of people much smarter than me and some smarter than Bhs all getting behind the controlled demolition hypothesis, if the investigation is truly fair and open there will be no stopping it.

Worst case scenario for me is the fair and open investigation will show that that's what happens when planes hit buildings like that, and wtc 7s collapse is justifiable (it won't) and I look like an idiot, plus everyone at www.ae911truth.org will look really stupid. I, personally, am fine with looking stupid if we get the real truth.

Worst case scenario for you, honestly I don't know how much you have invested in this, I would say the worst case could be really really bad. I don't want to speculate.

Quote
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth) is a non-profit, non-partisan organization of architects, engineers, and affiliates dedicated to researching and disseminating scientific information about the complete destruction of all three World Trade Center skyscrapers on September 11, 2001, with the ultimate goal of obtaining a truly independent investigation and supporting the victims in their pursuit of justice.

#Trump for 911truth.

I'm up for a beer any time you like,  I've actually got a job coming up in WA in the next few months.  Who knows, I might get to call you crazy to your face after all :)  I know I beat you up pretty bad,  but you keep bouncing back,  that's always a good thing.

Anyway,   I asked for EVIDENCE to support your HYPOTHESIS of controlled demolition,  notice how the evidence part is NOT the hypothesis.   You gave me the hypothesis,  not the evidence.

I don't think there is any evidence,  but there is speculation,   my  OPINION is that the speculation is  nowhere near strong enough to support a controlled demolition hypothesis.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 07, 2017, 02:41:39 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 07, 2017, 02:24:51 AM
I'm up for a beer any time you like,  I've actually got a job coming up in WA in the next few months.  Who knows, I might get to call you crazy to your face after all.

I would very much enjoy you calling me crazy to my face, please let me know when you are in WA, or I can visit you.

Please understand I am serious.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 07, 2017, 03:00:27 AM
Here's my simple hypothesis as it clearly bothers you so much you have to go back to calling us "crazy" "loonies" and "nutters"

For the record, everyone knows it, you would if you read posts. I have Bipolar, I'm not "crazy", it's a mental illness.

THAT DOES NOT MAKE MY IDEAS NULL AND VOID BY DEFAULT FAGGOT!

Ok I think I expressed my anger well there. If you want to say "don't listen to him he's crazy" I would prefer you use the proper "don't listen to him he has bipolar."

Thankyou.

Now if you would just show how your hypothesis matches observation and satisfies occams Razor more, I will consider listening.

Quote from: disputeone on March 07, 2017, 01:21:40 AM
1. Supports cut at plane impact sites, causes molten metal to flow from impact site, top of building tips and starts to collapse.

2. Charges in the basement and lower structure destroy all structural resistance  before the top part of the tower and the collapse reaches it at close to free-fall.

3. Tower continues collapsing at close to free-fall until the mass starts to provide structural resistance near the bottom and slows down.

Simple.

Explains observations nicely, I think.



Where's muh freefall?

Heres an example of a "top down" CD, they use them sometimes, you know, not just in September. ;D


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 07, 2017, 03:05:11 AM
Now you've got something on me, shill me with it like you're shilling Bhs about his credentials, go on hold onto it like a drowning man holds onto a raft, don't ever let it go, it will protect and guide you.

"dispute has bipolar so I don't need to listen to his ideas."

Use it.









In my credit I took well over 60 pages of being called crazy and a loony before I snapped.

Way better effort than last time.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 07, 2017, 03:18:14 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 07, 2017, 03:05:11 AM
Now you've got something on me, shill me with it like you're shilling Bhs about his credentials, go on hold onto it like a drowning man holds onto a raft, don't ever let it go, it will protect and guide you.

"dispute has bipolar so I don't need to listen to his ideas."

Use it.

Don't worry,  you are safe,  I can refute  your crazy hypothesis,  without resorting to personal digs and insults.   :) 

As for BHS,  he writes these deliberately jargon intensive opaque answers,   makes me wonder...   time will tell I guess.    I sometimes think he's trolling.
 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 07, 2017, 03:20:49 AM
PM me when you're in WA.

You've refuted barely anything to be fair.

Your strongest argument had been calling us crazy and loonies that "no one believes"

PM me when you're in WA.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bullwinkle on March 07, 2017, 04:04:19 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 07, 2017, 02:41:39 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 07, 2017, 02:24:51 AM
I'm up for a beer any time you like,  I've actually got a job coming up in WA in the next few months.  Who knows, I might get to call you crazy to your face after all.

I would very much enjoy you calling me crazy to my face, please let me know when you are in WA, or I can visit you.

Please understand I am serious.


I've been a member of a fishing forum for 15 years. 6 or 8 time I've answered a call to be the third on a private boat. Call comes out Thursday. First come first served. Doesn't matter that we butted heads in the past. It's fishing.

Same thing. You'll find out you have a friend.

Take him up on the offer.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 07, 2017, 04:06:17 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 07, 2017, 03:20:49 AM
PM me when you're in WA.

You've refuted barely anything to be fair.

Your strongest argument had been calling us crazy and loonies that "no one believes"

PM me when you're in WA.

You didn't actually have an argument,  all you had boiled down to  "It looked like controlled demolition,  so therefore it must be"   Funny thing is it actually didn't look like controlled demolition according to the demolition experts. 

But to build a whole conspiracy theory on such weak foundations,  you were bound to fail.   Not your fault that there isn't any proof of CD.   



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 07, 2017, 04:08:02 AM
Quote from: Bullwinkle on March 07, 2017, 04:04:19 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 07, 2017, 02:41:39 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 07, 2017, 02:24:51 AM
I'm up for a beer any time you like,  I've actually got a job coming up in WA in the next few months.  Who knows, I might get to call you crazy to your face after all.

I would very much enjoy you calling me crazy to my face, please let me know when you are in WA, or I can visit you.

Please understand I am serious.


I've been a member of a fishing forum for 15 years. 6 or 8 time I've answered a call to be the third on a private boat. Call comes out Thursday. First come first served. Doesn't matter that we butted heads in the past. It's fishing.

Same thing. You'll find out you have a friend.

Take him up on the offer.

No problem,  I like the fact that he's buying the beer,  how could I refuse.

PS,  Good luck with the fishing.  I used to go out a bit with the brother-in-law,  he lives up the coast, but he sold the boat last year.  We have bigger sharks than you guys.  :)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 07, 2017, 04:08:57 AM
Alright I feel better now.

Rayzor don't take it as a threat I just wanted to see if you have the balls to call me crazy irl. Seems like you might.

Here's some evidence to support my top down CD hypothesis all the citations are done for me.

Quote
ARTIFICIAL SYMMETRY

structural engineers paul mason The symmetry of collapse struck both Paul Mason, a structural engineer in Melbourne, Australia, and Dennis Kollar, P.E., a structural engineer in Wisconsin, as disconcerting. Kollar remains troubled by the “totality and uniformity of the destruction” and by the fact that “the mass of debris remained centered on the building core all the way down.”
John Watt, a chartered structural engineer in Edinburgh, UK, voices similar concerns. “With respect to the Twin Towers," he says, “the main puzzle was how two buildings with highly asymmetric damage could fail vertically downwards into the strongest part of the buildings — their steel-columned cores. And not only fail vertically, but at a speed that indicated structural resistance being removed sequentially from under the collapse wave. Few engineers would imagine buildings a quarter-of-a-mile high failing vertically, into their main structures, rather than failing laterally — given the eccentric damage.”
The towers should have fallen “with increasing eccentricity as the collapse progressed,” observes Howard Pasternack, P.Eng., of Toronto, Canada. Moreover, these systematic collapses required that many structural connections not only fail “nearly simultaneously, but also in sequential order,” according to Frank Cullinan, P.E., who designs bridges in Northern California. That’s “impossible from asymmetrical impact loading and . . . small, short-duration fires.”

http://www.ae911truth.org/news/199-news-media-events-60-structural-engineers.html

The discerning reader will see why I don't trust Heiwa.

Quote
Evidence.

Rapid onset of destruction,

Constant acceleration at or near free-fall through what should have been the path of greatest resistance,

Numerous eyewitness accounts of explosions including 118 FDNY personnel,

Lateral ejection of multi-ton steel framing members distances of 600 feet at more than 60 mph,

Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete, and large volumes of expanding pyroclastic-like dust clouds,

Isolated explosive ejections 20 to 60 stories below the “crush zone,”

Total destruction and dismemberment of all three buildings, with 220 floors each an acre in size missing from the Twin Towers’ debris pile,

Several tons of molten steel/iron found in the debris piles,
Evidence of thermite incendiaries on steel beams,

Nanothermite composites and iron microspheres found in WTC dust samples.

http://www.ae911truth.org/evidence.html

Now if you would just show how your hypothesis matches observation and satisfies occams razor more, I will consider listening.

1. Supports cut at plane impact sites, causes molten metal to flow from impact site, top of building tips and starts to collapse.

2. Charges in the lower structure destroy all structural resistance sequentially top down before the top part of the tower and the collapse reaches the structural resistance at close to free-fall.

3. Tower continues collapsing at close to free-fall until the mass starts to provide structural resistance near the bottom and slows down.

Simple.

Explains observations nicely, I think.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 07, 2017, 04:15:49 AM
Can you see why I get a little annoyed when you say I have presented zero evidence?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 07, 2017, 04:25:56 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 07, 2017, 04:08:57 AM

Now if you would just show how your hypothesis matches observation and satisfies occams Razor more, I will consider listening.

1. Supports cut at plane impact sites, causes molten metal to flow from impact site, top of building tips and starts to collapse.
Answer:  No charges needed,  the core and columns are heavily damaged and broken  by the aircraft impact and the subsequent fires,  up to 1000C in places and over 600C in a wider area weaken the steel to the point of collapse, and the floor beams expand from the heat,  weakening the floor to column joints which fail initiating the collapse.

In places where there is oxygen,  (from the 3200 liter oxygen tank or chemical oxygen generators)  the temperatures get up to 1600C or more,  the molten metal is probably steel melted by the fires assisted by the oxygen tank.   
 
Quote from: disputeone on March 07, 2017, 04:08:57 AM
2. Charges in the lower structure destroy all structural resistance sequentially top down before the top part of the tower and the collapse reaches the structural resistance at close to free-fall.
This part I'd like to see modelled properly,  I don't accept that there has to be CD for the lower part to be unable to absorb the kinetic energy and momentum of the top part coming down. 

Quote from: disputeone on March 07, 2017, 04:08:57 AM
3. Tower continues collapsing at close to free-fall until the mass starts to provide structural resistance near the bottom and slows down.
Simple.
Explains observations nicely, I think.

Same

So the only difference is my version doesn't need a controlled demolition and massive conspiracy.  My version also doesn't require the precise piloting of the aircraft,  doesn't need any explanation of the delay before collapse,  in fact it's by far the simpler hypothesis and fits all the evidence.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 07, 2017, 04:34:12 AM
Ok so weakened steel won't cause free-fall we're well past this. Much less symmetrical free-fall through the path of greatest resistance i.e the lower structure.

Weakened steel is only cited on certain floors on wtc 1 and 2 and not the entire building.

Oxygen isn't flammable we are also past this, NIST never cited heat caused by anything other than jet fuel and office fires.

Sure I can accept the lower structure might not have been able to arrest the falling mass, but offering no reduction in fall acceleration or symmetry of fall? Never, every action has an equal and opposite reaction, structural resistance will slow down momentum, always. Unless you want to debunk Newton.

The only difference is in my hypothesis I have to make one logical jump. "It's not the official story."

I have shown many of the logical jumps required for the OS.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 07, 2017, 04:46:01 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 07, 2017, 04:34:12 AM
Ok so weakened steel won't cause free-fall we're well past this. Much less symmetrical free-fall through the path of greatest resistance i.e the lower structure.

Weakened steel is only cited on certain floors on wtc 1 and 2 and not the entire building.

Oxygen isn't flammable we are also past this, NIST never cited heat caused by anything other than jet fuel and office fires.

Try blowing pure oxygen into a fire and see what happens.   Or even just an air blower,   plenty of home made foundries do just that to melt steel.

But you are correct NIST never really addressed the molten metal at the corner of the 80th floor,  a normal office fire is all that's required to initiate collapse.  remember a 600 sqm fire can reach far field temperatures of 800C within 30 minutes.  NIST's figures on temperature are conservative.


Quote from: disputeone on March 07, 2017, 04:34:12 AM
Sure I can accept the lower structure might not have been able to arrest the falling mass, but offering no reduction in fall acceleration or symmetry of fall? Never, every action has an equal and opposite reaction, structural resistance will slow down momentum, always. Unless you want to debunk Newton.

The only difference is in my hypothesis I have to make one logical jump. "It's not the official story."

I have shown many of the logical jumps required for the OS.

The only thing that has to fail for the collapse to look like it does is the floor to column joints to fail to take the load of tens of stories applied in an instant,  It's not a pancake collapse,  but that's a good description.

As I keep saying,  I'd like to see this modelled properly in a open and transparent way.  Doesn't mean there is a conspiracy or controlled demolition.



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 07, 2017, 04:46:23 AM
Just one logical jump is that Jet Fuel is more volatile and explosive than anyone even dreamed of before 9/11/2001.

Think about it in terms of thermodynamics, I am sure you are familiar, how could the fuel which made the explosion we saw on wtc 2 then go on to sufficiently weaken a skyscraper enough to permit a symmetrical free-fall collapse.

And melt steel / copper / contaminated aluminium / whatever it is it's molten metal on wtc 2.

Entropy always increases.

What was that about a crazy hypothesis?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 07, 2017, 04:52:46 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 07, 2017, 04:46:01 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 07, 2017, 04:34:12 AM
Ok so weakened steel won't cause free-fall we're well past this. Much less symmetrical free-fall through the path of greatest resistance i.e the lower structure.

Weakened steel is only cited on certain floors on wtc 1 and 2 and not the entire building.

Oxygen isn't flammable we are also past this, NIST never cited heat caused by anything other than jet fuel and office fires.

Try blowing pure oxygen into a fire and see what happens.   Or even just an air blower,   plenty of home made foundries do just that to melt steel.

Yes I have a foundry with a hair dryer and am well aware that fire needs oxygen to burn, remember we were debating the colour of the smoke and what it said about the fires?

Quote from: Rayzor on March 07, 2017, 04:46:01 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 07, 2017, 04:34:12 AM
Sure I can accept the lower structure might not have been able to arrest the falling mass, but offering no reduction in fall acceleration or symmetry of fall? Never, every action has an equal and opposite reaction, structural resistance will slow down momentum, always. Unless you want to debunk Newton.

The only difference is in my hypothesis I have to make one logical jump. "It's not the official story."

I have shown many of the logical jumps required for the OS.

The only thing that has to fail for the collapse to look like it does is the floor to column joints to fail to take the load of tens of stories applied in an instant,  It's not a pancake collapse,  but that's a good description.

As I keep saying,  I'd like to see this modelled properly in a open and transparent way.  Doesn't mean there is a conspiracy or controlled demolition.

Is that from your logic and experience or is that just quoting what happened according to the OS? I have said before I know the official story, I am familiar with it.

Yes yes, I know, eek, a conspiracy, I understand.

As I said before the biggest logical jump you have to make to accept the CD hypothesis is "it's not the OS" once you can at least experiment with thoughts after making that jump, you'll find it really fits quite nicely.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 07, 2017, 04:58:46 AM
At the moment the strongest argument the OS has is incredulity imo, usually, the more people research into 9/11 the less they want to talk about it if they (want to) hold official views, see this thread, for example.

I understand it's hard, they've spent years calling everyone who disagrees with any official narrative a "tin foiled hat wearing loony" it's a powerful weapon, undeniably, Rayzor has spent 65 pages doing the same.


Edit.
I see your edit, not bad, the piloting of the planes in my version, I think is much simpler, The delay before the collapse/s matches my hypothesis perfectly.

We are however talking about the collapse, not the planes now.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on March 07, 2017, 05:22:20 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 07, 2017, 04:25:56 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 07, 2017, 04:08:57 AM

Now if you would just show how your hypothesis matches observation and satisfies occams Razor more, I will consider listening.

1. Supports cut at plane impact sites, causes molten metal to flow from impact site, top of building tips and starts to collapse.
Answer:  No charges needed,  the core and columns are heavily damaged and broken  by the aircraft impact and the subsequent fires,  up to 1000C in places and over 600C in a wider area weaken the steel to the point of collapse, and the floor beams expand from the heat,  weakening the floor to column joints which fail initiating the collapse.

In places where there is oxygen,  (from the 3200 liter oxygen tank or chemical oxygen generators)  the temperatures get up to 1600C or more,  the molten metal is probably steel melted by the fires assisted by the oxygen tank.

FIRES! HOT ENOUGH TO BUCKLE STEEL BUT NOT HOT ENOUGH TO BRING ORDINARY PEOPLE TO THEIR KNEES!!! (OR BURN PAPER FOR THAT MATTER!)

LMFAO!!!

TO QUOTE BUGS BUNNY: "WHAT A MAROON!" 
 
Quote from: Rayzor on March 07, 2017, 04:25:56 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 07, 2017, 04:08:57 AM
2. Charges in the lower structure destroy all structural resistance sequentially top down before the top part of the tower and the collapse reaches the structural resistance at close to free-fall.
This part I'd like to see modelled properly,  I don't accept that there has to be CD for the lower part to be unable to absorb the kinetic energy and momentum of the top part coming down.

You are the only one who doesn't see it. 

Quote from: Rayzor on March 07, 2017, 04:25:56 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 07, 2017, 04:08:57 AM
3. Tower continues collapsing at close to free-fall until the mass starts to provide structural resistance near the bottom and slows down.
Simple.
Explains observations nicely, I think.

Same

So the only difference is my version doesn't need a controlled demolition and massive conspiracy.  My version also doesn't require the precise piloting of the aircraft,  doesn't need any explanation of the delay before collapse,  in fact it's by far the simpler hypothesis and fits all the evidence.

Not hardly...

SEE FIRE SECTION!
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bullwinkle on March 07, 2017, 05:23:39 AM
OK, no building is designed to be hit by a 'big old jet airliner'. (Steve Miller Band  ;) )

The floors are all hung on a central column. The interior walls are just drywall.
The exterior facade is decoration.

If one floor drops onto the floor below, it exceeds design parameter loads.

What happens then?

One floor sheers off the floor below.
Gaining momentum.

So on and so forth. All the way to the ground.

It's possible.







Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 07, 2017, 05:34:02 AM
Quote from: Bullwinkle on March 07, 2017, 05:23:39 AM
OK, no building is designed to be hit by a 'big old jet airliner'. (Steve Miller Band  ;) )

The floors are all hung on a central column. The interior walls are just drywall.
The exterior facade is decoration.

If one floor drops onto the floor below, it exceeds design parameter loads.

What happens then?

One floor sheers off the floor below.
Gaining momentum.

So on and so forth. All the way to the ground.

It's possible.

I'll pay that Bullwinkle 100% possible,  unlikely imo, but definitely possible, just not possible at close to free-fall, and not twice, right next to each other imo. :(  9/11 makes me sad sometimes.

Edit.

It's the unlikelyhoods that just add up and become overwhelming for me.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 07, 2017, 05:45:43 AM
Did you see I made a thing about fall acceleration vs structural resistance?

It's primary school level but I am happy in saying it debunks NIST's statement that;

Quote from: NIST
it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass.

https://www.nist.gov/el/faqs-nist-wtc-towers-investigation

Instead of expressing structural resistance in units we can use a percentage.

Say 100% structural resistance will hold the building up exactly, any more weight and it will start to collapse.

So we have gravitational acceleration - percentage of structural resistance = fall acceleration.

9.8m/s2×75%=7.35m/s2

9.8 m/s2 - 7.35m/s2 = 2.45 m/s2

At 75% structural resistance I would predict a 2.45m/s2 fall acceleration.

So, G- %S = F
Gravitational acceleration - percentage of structural resistance = fall acceleration.

Structural resistance will always slow fall acceleration.

That was either a mistake, or a lie on NIST's behalf, it's not the only one.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bullwinkle on March 07, 2017, 05:56:38 AM
Same construction. Same attack weapon. Same outcome. Why not?

Sometimes it can be that simple.


Otherwise, I don't wanna hear it, Lalalalalalalalal fingers in my ears lalalalalalalalalala.   ;)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 07, 2017, 05:59:23 AM
I totally respect that and wont push you any further, anyways it's late better go to bed this subject has a tendency to twist my knickers.  :P

Edit. Thanks for jumping in you were a much welcomed voice of reason.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bullwinkle on March 07, 2017, 06:10:24 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 07, 2017, 05:59:23 AM
I totally respect that and wont push you any further, anyways it's late better go to bed this subject has a tendency to twist my knickers.  :P

Edit. Thanks for jumping in you were a much welcomed voice of reason.


Never take me as a voice of reason. 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bullwinkle on March 07, 2017, 06:14:18 AM
Forgot to add . . . . . . .  ;)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bullwinkle on March 07, 2017, 06:17:23 AM
Unscientific addendum...

You ever seen someone smash a bunch of bricks with their elbow?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 07, 2017, 06:28:59 AM
Quote from: Bullwinkle on March 07, 2017, 06:17:23 AM
Unscientific addendum...

You ever seen someone smash a bunch of bricks with their elbow?

I can't, I have seen it but tbth I don't see how it applies to 9/11 unless a giant used his elbow to smash the towers.

The forces and comparisons in that scenario are massively different than the forces and comparisons in the towers.

I once saw a guy put a cinderblock on an egg while the egg was upright then poke a hole in the egg and claim it was evidence for total progressive collapse.

I understand people believing the OS, I sometimes wish I did, I won't fault anyone for it.



None of the bricks are vaporized.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 07, 2017, 06:34:40 AM
Sorry I'm tired and grouchy from Rayzor.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: hoppy on March 07, 2017, 11:52:23 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 05, 2017, 11:17:53 PM
1. To give the appearance you even have an argument.

2. To give the appearance you even have an argument. / hope no one noticed.

Rayzor you are boring, you bore me. I grow tired of "debating" you.
This has been Rayzors' plan from the beginning of this thread. Bore the readers into complacency. He has nothing but diversionary tactics. Rayzor sucks.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bullwinkle on March 07, 2017, 01:59:33 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 07, 2017, 06:28:59 AM
None of the bricks are vaporized.

I think I saw some brick vapor.   ;)

Switching back to 'watch and read' mode.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 07, 2017, 02:37:38 PM
Quote from: Bullwinkle on March 07, 2017, 01:59:33 PM
I think I saw some brick vapor.   ;)

Yeah definitely, ok, similar example what if we had a hammer with a head the width of the brick stack when we swing our hammer at the bricks will the entire tower be crushed flat? or will it crumble and leave its mass in tact?

"Total destruction and dismemberment of all three buildings, with 220 floors each an acre in size missing from the Twin Towers’ debris pile,"
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 07, 2017, 03:19:28 PM
Quote from: hoppy on March 07, 2017, 11:52:23 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 05, 2017, 11:17:53 PM
1. To give the appearance you even have an argument.

2. To give the appearance you even have an argument. / hope no one noticed.

Rayzor you are boring, you bore me. I grow tired of "debating" you.
This has been Rayzors' plan from the beginning of this thread. Bore the readers into complacency. He has nothing but diversionary tactics. Rayzor sucks.

Oh no,  my secret strategy to bore everyone into complacency with the truth and logic has been exposed by the sharpest mind on the forum..   Hoppy is my best friend.





Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 07, 2017, 03:24:39 PM
Quote from: totallackey on March 07, 2017, 05:22:20 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 07, 2017, 04:25:56 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 07, 2017, 04:08:57 AM

Now if you would just show how your hypothesis matches observation and satisfies occams Razor more, I will consider listening.

1. Supports cut at plane impact sites, causes molten metal to flow from impact site, top of building tips and starts to collapse.
Answer:  No charges needed,  the core and columns are heavily damaged and broken  by the aircraft impact and the subsequent fires,  up to 1000C in places and over 600C in a wider area weaken the steel to the point of collapse, and the floor beams expand from the heat,  weakening the floor to column joints which fail initiating the collapse.

In places where there is oxygen,  (from the 3200 liter oxygen tank or chemical oxygen generators)  the temperatures get up to 1600C or more,  the molten metal is probably steel melted by the fires assisted by the oxygen tank.

FIRES! HOT ENOUGH TO BUCKLE STEEL BUT NOT HOT ENOUGH TO BRING ORDINARY PEOPLE TO THEIR KNEES!!! (OR BURN PAPER FOR THAT MATTER!)

LMFAO!!!

TO QUOTE BUGS BUNNY: "WHAT A MAROON!" 

You should have turned left at Albuquerque.

So I take it from those comments you never saw the fires?    Here's a little reminder.

(https://www.metabunk.org/sk/GJS-WTC27.jpg-20130909-112116.jpg)

I have video as well if you like.


Quote from: totallackey on March 07, 2017, 05:22:20 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 07, 2017, 04:25:56 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 07, 2017, 04:08:57 AM
2. Charges in the lower structure destroy all structural resistance sequentially top down before the top part of the tower and the collapse reaches the structural resistance at close to free-fall.
This part I'd like to see modelled properly,  I don't accept that there has to be CD for the lower part to be unable to absorb the kinetic energy and momentum of the top part coming down.

You are the only one who doesn't see it. 

Quote from: Rayzor on March 07, 2017, 04:25:56 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 07, 2017, 04:08:57 AM
3. Tower continues collapsing at close to free-fall until the mass starts to provide structural resistance near the bottom and slows down.
Simple.
Explains observations nicely, I think.

Same

So the only difference is my version doesn't need a controlled demolition and massive conspiracy.  My version also doesn't require the precise piloting of the aircraft,  doesn't need any explanation of the delay before collapse,  in fact it's by far the simpler hypothesis and fits all the evidence.

Not hardly...

SEE FIRE SECTION!

Ditto.   Yes please see the fire section.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 07, 2017, 03:29:23 PM
Pro-tip.

Picking on hoppy doesn't make you look smarter, it makes you look petty.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 07, 2017, 03:34:26 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 07, 2017, 03:29:23 PM
Pro-tip.

Picking on hoppy doesn't make you look smarter, it makes you look petty.

Leave Hoppy alone,  he is my best friend.   I always defend him whenever he is attacked.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 07, 2017, 03:45:24 PM
See? Petty.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 07, 2017, 03:55:50 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 07, 2017, 03:45:24 PM
See? Petty.

Did you expect something different?

Sadly, after all he has said and done, I did till his comment on another thread..Gave up all hope.. Finally..
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 07, 2017, 04:02:55 PM
Yeah nah, cant say I'm surprised.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 07, 2017, 04:08:48 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 07, 2017, 03:55:50 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 07, 2017, 03:45:24 PM
See? Petty.

Did you expect something different?

Sadly, after all he has said and done, I did till his comment on another thread..Gave up all hope.. Finally..

Really?   You give up because  I called your pathetic attempt  at obfustication of a trivially simple maths problem a train wreck,   you just keep digging that hole deeper.



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 07, 2017, 04:35:35 PM
Great vid I actually forgot how good it is.

Heaps of pics, videos and witness statements.



If the maths and physics isn't  your thing.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 07, 2017, 05:00:50 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 07, 2017, 04:35:35 PM
Great vid I actually forgot how good it is.

Heaps of pics, videos and witness statements.
If the maths and physics isn't  your thing.

What a crock of shit,  I  skimmed it and nearly every sentence was deliberately misleading or just an out and out lie.   Just pandering to those gullible weak minds.

If you think that video was convincing,  I have a few hundred youtube videos I can link to that will give you 100% guaranteed proof that the earth is flat.  And that the moon is a hologram.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Twerp on March 07, 2017, 05:03:14 PM
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/13/Parabolic_dish_motion_circle.gif)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 07, 2017, 05:07:03 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 07, 2017, 04:08:48 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 07, 2017, 03:55:50 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 07, 2017, 03:45:24 PM
See? Petty.

Did you expect something different?

Sadly, after all he has said and done, I did till his comment on another thread..Gave up all hope.. Finally..

Really?   You give up because  I called your pathetic attempt  at obfustication of a trivially simple maths problem a train wreck,   you just keep digging that hole deeper.

As least I am not the one confused by it
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 07, 2017, 05:17:37 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 07, 2017, 05:00:50 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 07, 2017, 04:35:35 PM
Great vid I actually forgot how good it is.

Heaps of pics, videos and witness statements.
If the maths and physics isn't  your thing.

What a crock of shit,  I  skimmed it and nearly every sentence was deliberately misleading or just an out and out lie.   Just pandering to those gullible weak minds.

If you think that video was convincing,  I have a few hundred youtube videos I can link to that will give you 100% guaranteed proof that the earth is flat.  And that the moon is a hologram.

What do you think about the multiple eye witnesses saying the plane that hit wtc 2 wasn't a commercial passenger plane?

Fits my hypothesis.

What do you think about nearly every reporter saying "explosion" "implosion" or "controlled demolition" before they were told what to think and say?

Fits my hypothesis.

What about the damage to the Pentagon, initially there wasn't a hole anywhere near the size of a Boeing and goes against what we were told the planes did to wtc 1 and 2.

Fits my hypothesis.

I think you are the one with a gullible, weak mind, I have shown I am anything but gullible or weak minded.

Also this.

Quote from: Boots on March 07, 2017, 05:03:14 PM
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/13/Parabolic_dish_motion_circle.gif)

If anyone has a genuine question or point I will answer it, I am tired of your attempted opinion control. I am done with our "debate."

I called you out on not addressing posts and points and instead just dismissing our ideas backed by science as crazy. Now it seems you have nothing left but incredulity.

A lot of sad things happening today.

The continuation of this thread the way you desire will not be one of them, Rayzor.

Quote
What a crock of shit,

Why am I not surprised this is your only rebuttal. ::)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 07, 2017, 05:43:41 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 07, 2017, 05:17:37 PM
What about the damage to the Pentagon, initially there wasn't a hole anywhere near the size of a Boeing and goes against what we were told the planes did to wtc 1 and 2.
Fits my hypothesis.

I think you are the one with a gullible, weak mind, I have shown I am anything but gullible or weak minded.

David Chandler answers that pretty well. 




Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 07, 2017, 05:45:23 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 07, 2017, 05:07:03 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 07, 2017, 04:08:48 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 07, 2017, 03:55:50 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 07, 2017, 03:45:24 PM
See? Petty.

Did you expect something different?

Sadly, after all he has said and done, I did till his comment on another thread..Gave up all hope.. Finally..

Really?   You give up because  I called your pathetic attempt  at obfustication of a trivially simple maths problem a train wreck,   you just keep digging that hole deeper.

As least I am not the one confused by it

Quite true,  your answers confused everybody.   But I really hope you can clarify what you were trying to say.   
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 07, 2017, 05:46:45 PM
Quote from: Boots on March 07, 2017, 05:03:14 PM
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/13/Parabolic_dish_motion_circle.gif)

LOL  get on the merry-go-round.   Lots of fun to be had for all.   Can you add music?   
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 07, 2017, 05:47:27 PM
Fear my powers of alliteration.


Quote from: Rayzor on March 06, 2017, 05:42:11 AM
I'm serious,  there are 911 truthers who think it was a special satellite that projected holographic planes,  and a demolition beam of some sort.  I'm not kidding.

Everyone can see your desperate dishonest attempt to derail the direction of debate, to discredit and develop disdain for the truth movement, your deception is doubtless you do a despicable disservice to truth.

May I simply add it was a dreadful disaster to debate you and you may call me dispute.

Keep the thought experiment in the thought experiment thread please.

Quote from: Rayzor on March 07, 2017, 05:46:45 PM
Quote from: Boots on March 07, 2017, 05:03:14 PM
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/13/Parabolic_dish_motion_circle.gif)

LOL  get on the merry-go-round.   Lots of fun to be had for all.   Can you add music?   

I fear you missed the point.

Another great point btw.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 07, 2017, 05:51:35 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 07, 2017, 05:17:37 PM

If anyone has a genuine question or point I will answer it, I am tired of your attempted opinion control. I am done with our "debate."

I called you out on not addressing posts and points and instead just dismissing our ideas backed by science as crazy. Now it seems you have nothing left but incredulity.

A lot of sad things happening today.

The continuation of this thread the way you desire will not be one of them, Rayzor.

Quote
What a crock of shit,

Why am I not surprised this is your only rebuttal. ::)

I'll play,  here's the challenge,  pick the most compelling evidence from that Dave Cooper video,  link to the time-stamp and summarize the main point.  Then we can discuss it.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 07, 2017, 05:53:04 PM
Quote
If anyone has a genuine question or point I will answer it, I am tired of your attempted opinion control. I am done with our "debate."

You reek of desperation, I'm done. You have fun I will no longer address your posts.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 07, 2017, 05:56:27 PM
I believe, this is a strong proof and it is yet to be debunked.

Quote from: disputeone on February 13, 2017, 10:49:57 PM
Fall acceleration of building 7.

Note it was my first reply.

Goodbye Rayzor it has been anything but a pleasure.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 07, 2017, 06:00:35 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 07, 2017, 05:56:27 PM
I believe, this is a strong proof and it is yet to be debunked.

Quote from: disputeone on February 13, 2017, 10:49:57 PM
Fall acceleration of building 7.

Note it was my first reply.

Goodbye Rayzor it has been anything but a pleasure.

Really?   you didn't get past that point.   Since you got stuck on that,  here's some evidence of the damage to  south and west sides of  WTC7 that you are ignoring.





When you get past that let me know.   
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 07, 2017, 06:18:27 PM
Symmetrical collapse at free-fall caused by minor asymmetrical damage.

Yawn.

Stop talking to me.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 07, 2017, 06:26:51 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 07, 2017, 06:18:27 PM
Symmetrical collapse at free-fall caused by minor asymmetrical damage.

Yawn.

Stop talking to me.

The initial collapse of the interior of WTC7 was left to right, ( do I need to post a video?)  that's not symmetrical.   Just about the only thing left was the North and East walls, everything else had already gone,  no more structural support.




Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 07, 2017, 06:29:48 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 07, 2017, 06:26:51 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 07, 2017, 06:18:27 PM
Symmetrical collapse at free-fall caused by minor asymmetrical damage.

Yawn.

Stop talking to me.

The initial collapse of the interior of WTC7 was left to right, ( do I need to post a video?)  that's not symmetrical.   Just about the only thing left was the North and East walls, everything else had already gone,  no more structural support.



Get bent, reality.

There is no point doing this anymore, I am done, I've had enough.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on March 08, 2017, 03:59:05 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 07, 2017, 03:24:39 PM
Yes please see the fire section...where people can survive in 900C temperatures.

SHADRACH, MESHACH, AND ABEDNAGO!

APPEARING LIVE AND IN LIVING COLOR AT A SKYSCRAPER NEAR YOU!

I know there was fire, hayseed.

I am just not stupid enough to believe the fire achieved temperatures you and the NIST claim...given there were living people and considerable amounts of paper (most notably what otherwise must have been a titanium/wood pulp composite passport of one of the hijackers) surviving these 900C temps.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 08, 2017, 04:39:28 AM
Quote from: totallackey on March 08, 2017, 03:59:05 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 07, 2017, 03:24:39 PM
Yes please see the fire section...where people can survive in 900C temperatures.

SHADRACH, MESHACH, AND ABEDNAGO!

APPEARING LIVE AND IN LIVING COLOR AT A SKYSCRAPER NEAR YOU!

I know there was fire, hayseed.

I am just not stupid enough to believe the fire achieved temperatures you and the NIST claim...given there were living people and considerable amounts of paper (most notably what otherwise must have been a titanium/wood pulp composite passport of one of the hijackers) surviving these 900C temps.

After the aircraft impact there was stuff scattered all over the place.  This is a seat cushion from AA11,  looks to be mostly intact,  but this is two blocks south of the WTC,  there was a lot of other personal items from passengers as well as body parts and drivers licences,  credit cards,  just about anything you could think of,  not all that surprising that a passerby found a passport.

(https://s29.postimg.org/g52rldvcn/Flight_11_Seat_Cushion_Large.jpg)

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 08, 2017, 04:44:25 AM
Just remember that seat cushion came from this.



Edit, look at how black and not like a commercial 767 the plane looks like in a few original videos, do you think the plane is simply behind the sun? It doesn't appear to be.

Specifically at 1:30 as well as a few other notable times.

Get bent, reality.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 08, 2017, 05:04:41 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 08, 2017, 04:44:25 AM
Just remember that seat cushion came from this.

Nope that seat cushion  was from AA11  not UA175 

Debris prior to collapse.

(https://s9.postimg.org/gz5qoptbj/sites_google_com_site_wtc7lies_Attack22.jpg)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 08, 2017, 05:18:21 AM
Do you agree the planes exploded in a similar way? ::)

Honestly, Rayzor.

I'm being lazy now, here, take this.

Quote
"At 8:46:30 a.m., five hijackers flew American Airlines Flight 11 (AA 11) with 11 crew and 76 passengers into the north face of WTC 1," according to the Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers produced by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) in September 2005: 

The aircraft flew almost straight toward the north tower, banked approximately 25 degrees to the left (i.e. the right wing elevated relative to the left wing) and descended at an angle of about 10 degrees at impact.
Moving at about 440 mph, the nose hit the exterior of the tower at the 96th floor.  The aircraft cut a gash that was over half the width of the building and extended from the 93rd floor to the 99th floor.

All but the lowest of these floors were occupied by Marsh & McLennan, a worldwide insurance company, which also occupied the 100th floor.

"The fuselage was centered on the 96th floor slab and filled the 95th and 96th floors top to bottom," the NIST report says.
So, what was on the 95th and 96th floors of the north tower, which were rented by Marsh & McLennan, Lewis Paul "Jerry" Bremer's company?

Bremer, it should be noted, was the Bush-appointed proconsul or administrator of occupied Iraq until the end of June 2004.  During Bremer's reign there was no metering of the oil that was exported from Iraq.

It is also primarily decisions taken by Bremer that are responsible for the misery and chaos that have afflicted Iraq since the U.S.-led occupation began.  Previously, Bremer was the right-hand man for Henry Kissinger & Associates.

The NIST report provides some information about "General Description of Tenant Layout."  For the floors in question it says, "Generally open space filled with workstations.  Offices, conference rooms, and work areas in exterior corners."

But on the 95th floor, Marsh & McLennan had a "large walled data center along north and east sides," according to the NIST report.  And that's exactly where the plane hit – the north wall of the 95th floor.

I called Marsh & McLennan to get a better idea of what was in this "large walled data center" into which American Airlines Flight 11 plunged with deadly precision.

Reginald McQuay came on the line as a company spokesman.  I told McQuay that Marsh & McLennan got hit broadside on 9/11 and that it appeared that the plane flew straight into their "walled data center," according to the NIST report.

"No," McQuay said, "it wasn't really our data center.  It was our computer center."  Then he suddenly became somewhat distressed, saying he could not even focus on what I was saying and that I should call back next week.

Fair enough, I thought.  He had confirmed my primary suspicion, i.e. that the plane that struck the north tower appears to have been "homed in" or targeted on a secure computer center on the 95th floor – exactly like the plane that struck the south tower some 16 minutes later.
 

SOUTH TOWER

"Sixteen and a half minutes after the first impact, five hijackers flew United Airlines (UA) Flight 175, with 9 crew and 51 passengers, into WTC 2 at about 540 mph, about 100 mph faster than AA Flight 11," the NIST report says.

"The center of the nose of the plane struck at the 81st floor slab.  The plane was banked 38 degrees to the left (right wing upward) and was heading slightly (6 degrees) downward from the horizontal," it says.

Although Flight 175 went straight into the 81st floor of the south tower, the NIST report provides no description of what was on the 81st floor.  Not even one word.  How odd.

While we know that the Fuji Bank was the tenant on floors 79-82 of WTC 2, the NIST report fails to describe the "tenant layout" of floors 79, 81, and 82.

I had repeatedly requested information from NIST about the layout of these floors, primarily because many tons of molten metal were seen falling from the 81st floor prior to the collapse.

The source of the large amount of molten metal on the 81st floor had not been explained.  What could have possibly melted in such large amounts on a normal floor to create several cubic meters of molten metal?

You can watch the molten iron in both normal and slow motion at youtube:
- new link!

I have excerpts of the molten metal in this short video:
ThermiteAtSouthTower.wmv

If this was molten iron, as Professor Steven E. Jones of Brigham Young University says, and if this molten iron was caused by an aluminothermic reaction of Thermite or Thermate (a steel-cutting explosive created from powdered aluminum, iron oxide, and sulfur), then somebody must have pre-loaded the 81st floor of WTC 2 with many tons of Thermate.

The molten metal seen falling from the 81st floor was not aluminum, as the NIST report suggests, because molten aluminum would appear silverfish-grey in daylight conditions.

See our article on Michael Zebuhr's death for photos of molten aluminum:
MoreOnMichaelZebuhr.html


The metal that is seen falling from the burning south tower is clearly yellow and white hot.  This is much hotter than the fires that were observed.  So, what produced such large amounts of extremely hot molten metal on the 81st floor of WTC 2?

The aluminum oxide that is produced in the Thermite or Thermate reaction is a whitish smoke.  White smoke was seen coming from the 81st floor prior to each flow of molten metal, according to the NIST report, and large amounts of white smoke are seen prior to and during the collapse of each tower.  Was this drywall dust or was this Thermite?

http://hugequestions.com/Eric/TFC/Bollyn-Fuji-WTC.html

That's funny, my hypothesis explains that perfectly.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 08, 2017, 05:25:48 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 08, 2017, 05:18:21 AM
Do you agree the planes exploded in a similar way? ::)

Honestly, Rayzor.

I'm being lazy now, here, take this.

TLDR;


I'm staying out of ME's thread,  but I liked the cardboard idea.   One of the places I do some consulting work,   this one guy calls me Heisenberg,  after the Breaking Bad character.  :) Your cardboard equation reminded me.

Debris was scattered over a wide area,  firstly from the aircraft impacts,  then from the collapse,  I've seen some maps of debris fields,  so you could just google for that.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 08, 2017, 05:45:32 AM
10 points for getting it.

The passport surviving is not impossible it's just one more unlikelyhood.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 08, 2017, 05:59:13 AM
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/wtc2_firefighters.html

Quote
The following video documents the last minutes of firefighters in WTC 2. It contains the final transmissions made by firefighters who had reached the aircraft impact area (floors 77 and 78). Floor 78 was officially being ravaged by an 800ºC inferno at this time.



That, is very unlikely. 800°C temperature and the firemen on the floor of the fires.

No denying how unlikely that is.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 08, 2017, 06:50:02 AM
Where was the supposed raging inferno that caused the building to collapse? The firefighters sure didnt see it on the 78th floor.

Quote
A final point to note is New York's Office of Emergency Management issued a collapse (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/oem_wtc.html) warning five minutes before WTC 2 came down.

How did the OEM know something that the firefighters didn't?

Why weren't warnings broadcast to firefighters over the radio?

This is just more undebunkable evidence that we weren't told the truth about 9/11 and that we need a new open honest investigation.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/wtc2_firefighters.html
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on March 08, 2017, 08:06:45 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 08, 2017, 05:25:48 AM
...so you could just google for that.

I tried googling for sources regarding human beings surviving fires with temperatures in the 600-900C range...

Came up with this:
(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS3W2FMR7xA0xLkfL-qOPnRbDPKqvkWLaJJE6HFSN93FflxcRRF)

Got anything else?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 08, 2017, 02:18:53 PM
Quote from: totallackey on March 08, 2017, 08:06:45 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 08, 2017, 05:25:48 AM
...so you could just google for that.

I tried googling for sources regarding human beings surviving fires with temperatures in the 600-900C range...

Came up with this:
(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS3W2FMR7xA0xLkfL-qOPnRbDPKqvkWLaJJE6HFSN93FflxcRRF)

Got anything else?

Good find,    probably more appropriate than google in the context of a clash of cultures. 

Matthew 7:7-8
7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye. shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
8 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh. findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened

But lest ye be confused,  the googling was in reference to debris fields  not fires.   Easy mistake to make.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 08, 2017, 02:50:36 PM
How do you think the fireman survived 800°C heat?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 08, 2017, 03:38:07 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 08, 2017, 02:50:36 PM
How do you think the fireman survived 800°C heat?

Anyone?

My position is that the fires weren't, in fact 800°C thus the fireman could survive and walk through the heat caused by the fire on the 78th floor.

This is supported by thermodynamics if the fuel created the explosion we saw, it is very unlikely the fuel went on to burn long enough and hot enough to melt metal and weaken structural steel to the point of initial collapse.

Entropy, the bitch that was.

One more piece of evidence that fits perfectly with the controlled demolition hypothesis.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 08, 2017, 05:33:45 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 08, 2017, 02:50:36 PM
How do you think the fireman survived 800°C heat?

Were they strawmen  like your argument?


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 08, 2017, 05:43:51 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 08, 2017, 02:50:36 PM
How do you think the fireman survived 800°C heat?

Well?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: rabinoz on March 08, 2017, 06:17:58 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 08, 2017, 05:43:51 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 08, 2017, 02:50:36 PM
How do you think the fireman survived 800°C heat?

Well?
I do love all these conspiracy theorists sitting back in their arm-chairs years later claiming
     "that does not look right" or
     "my simulation proves it couldn't happen!"
      etc, etc.

Very like Eric Dubay, Rob Skiba et al, ad nauseum, claiming that things can't occur on the Globe,
          when they themselves are so ignorant of even the simplest physics.
Still, if it keeps you amused, though maybe if you feel so strongly about it,
go and talk to the survivors or better those that lost loved ones and convince them it didn't happen.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 08, 2017, 06:24:54 PM
Quote from: rabinoz on March 08, 2017, 06:17:58 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 08, 2017, 05:43:51 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 08, 2017, 02:50:36 PM
How do you think the fireman survived 800°C heat?

Well?
  • You had a thermometer there all the time checking that it was really 800°C?

  • You had a stopwatch there checking how long they were exposed to the claimed 800°C?

  • You do, of course, have factual information on how long their suits were able to withstand the actual temperature and time?
I do love all these conspiracy theorists sitting back in their arm-chairs years later claiming
     "that does not look right" or
     "my simulation proves it couldn't happen!"
      etc, etc.

Very like Eric Dubay, Rob Skiba et al, ad nauseum, claiming that things can't occur on the Globe,
          when they themselves are so ignorant of even the simplest physics.
Still, if it keeps you amused, though maybe if you feel so strongly about it,
go and talk to the survivors or better those that lost loved ones and convince them it didn't happen.

NIST claims temperatures of 800°C, Rab, do you disagree with the NIST report.

I do.

If you read the thread you will see I have a fine handle on the physics of the collapse.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 08, 2017, 06:26:22 PM
I am not a conspiracy theorist, I have a lot of evidence for the controlled demolition hypothesis and a lot of professionals that agree with me.

Sixty structural engineers in fact.

If you have nothing to contribute then please dont.

I am not in an armchair, I am working on a large building, right now.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: rabinoz on March 08, 2017, 06:31:40 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 08, 2017, 06:26:22 PM
If you have nothing to contribute then please dont.
But you didn't my questions relevant to the fireman.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 08, 2017, 06:34:59 PM
I wasnt in the building.

I am going off the NIST report that claims 800°C on the 78th floor, yet on the 77th floor the firemen didn't even feel the heat????

Anyone who has been around an intense fire knows this is bunk.

For context imagine boiling water, now imagine eight times hotter than that.

Pretty hot, if you claim the fires where cooler how on earth do you justify the collapse?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 08, 2017, 06:35:48 PM
Once you are past that can you explain why NIST claims that structural resistance caused no decrease in fall acceleration?

Cause structural resistance always slows down momentum.

Rab I suggest you read the thread and the evidence we have put forward.

Don't argue for the OS from incredulity.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: rabinoz on March 08, 2017, 06:41:00 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 08, 2017, 05:45:32 AM
10 points for getting it.
The passport surviving is not impossible it's just one more unlikelyhood.
But I wanted a biscuit with raisins!
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 08, 2017, 06:42:41 PM
Quote from: rabinoz on March 08, 2017, 06:41:00 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 08, 2017, 05:45:32 AM
10 points for getting it.
The passport surviving is not impossible it's just one more unlikelyhood.
But I wanted a biscuit with raisins!

But do you honestly seek truth and want to justify your beliefs, we can have a friendly debate, I'll go right back to the start for you.

If you just want to believe the OS and not justify it then that's fine, I understand. Just trying to keep this thread focussed on facts and science.

Thankyou.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 08, 2017, 06:44:18 PM
Perhaps a better question would be;

How did the fireman stand on the floor of the fires supposedly hot enough to weaken structural steel to the point of initial collapse?

Edit. I should have fourteen people that can explain this.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 08, 2017, 06:49:33 PM
Anyone?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 08, 2017, 07:44:17 PM
Fair enough.

This is very difficult for the OS to explain, I believe impossible.

My thinking is that the fires would be about as hot as we would predict after the explosion for a kerosene fire.

The firemen clearly say they can put the fire out, this does not sound like a raging inferno capable of bringing a building down. If the fires weren't hot enough to dissuade the firemen in their efforts how can it explain the molten metal seen coming from wtc 2 and its subsequent collapse.

My explanation is the molten metal from wtc 2 was from the support beams being cut to trigger the initial collapse before the top down controlled demolition.

If anyone can explain why the firemen couldn't feel the heat hot enough to melt metal and weaken steel to the point of initial collapse I'd genuinely love to hear it.

I get slightly offended when people assume I am jumping to conclusions, I've done much more research on 9/11 than most.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 08, 2017, 07:46:04 PM
Here's some evidence to support my top down CD hypothesis all the citations are done for me.

Quote
ARTIFICIAL SYMMETRY

structural engineers paul mason The symmetry of collapse struck both Paul Mason, a structural engineer in Melbourne, Australia, and Dennis Kollar, P.E., a structural engineer in Wisconsin, as disconcerting. Kollar remains troubled by the “totality and uniformity of the destruction” and by the fact that “the mass of debris remained centered on the building core all the way down.”
John Watt, a chartered structural engineer in Edinburgh, UK, voices similar concerns. “With respect to the Twin Towers," he says, “the main puzzle was how two buildings with highly asymmetric damage could fail vertically downwards into the strongest part of the buildings — their steel-columned cores. And not only fail vertically, but at a speed that indicated structural resistance being removed sequentially from under the collapse wave. Few engineers would imagine buildings a quarter-of-a-mile high failing vertically, into their main structures, rather than failing laterally — given the eccentric damage.”
The towers should have fallen “with increasing eccentricity as the collapse progressed,” observes Howard Pasternack, P.Eng., of Toronto, Canada. Moreover, these systematic collapses required that many structural connections not only fail “nearly simultaneously, but also in sequential order,” according to Frank Cullinan, P.E., who designs bridges in Northern California. That’s “impossible from asymmetrical impact loading and . . . small, short-duration fires.”

http://www.ae911truth.org/news/199-news-media-events-60-structural-engineers.html

The discerning reader will see why I don't trust Heiwa.

Quote
Evidence.

Rapid onset of destruction,

Constant acceleration at or near free-fall through what should have been the path of greatest resistance,

Numerous eyewitness accounts of explosions including 118 FDNY personnel,

Lateral ejection of multi-ton steel framing members distances of 600 feet at more than 60 mph,

Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete, and large volumes of expanding pyroclastic-like dust clouds,

Isolated explosive ejections 20 to 60 stories below the “crush zone,”

Total destruction and dismemberment of all three buildings, with 220 floors each an acre in size missing from the Twin Towers’ debris pile,

Several tons of molten steel/iron found in the debris piles,
Evidence of thermite incendiaries on steel beams,

Nanothermite composites and iron microspheres found in WTC dust samples.

http://www.ae911truth.org/evidence.html

Now if you would just show how your hypothesis matches observation and satisfies occams razor more, I will listen.

1. Supports cut at plane impact sites, causes molten metal to flow from impact site, top of building tips and starts to collapse.

2. Charges in the lower structure destroy all structural resistance sequentially top down before the top part of the tower and the collapse reaches the structural resistance at close to free-fall.

3. Tower continues collapsing at close to free-fall until the mass starts to provide structural resistance near the bottom and slows down.

Simple.

Explains observations nicely, I think.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on March 08, 2017, 09:05:43 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 08, 2017, 02:50:36 PM
How do you think the fireman survived 800°C heat?

A) They probably had on a fire suit, since, you know... they are firemen.
B) They probably avoided standing directly in the middle of the flames.

Just my guess though...

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 08, 2017, 09:09:13 PM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 08, 2017, 09:05:43 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 08, 2017, 02:50:36 PM
How do you think the fireman survived 800°C heat?

A) They probably had on a fire suit, since, you know... they are firemen.
B) They probably avoided standing directly in the middle of the flames.

Just my guess though...

http://firefightersuit.blogspot.com.au/?m=1

Do you think it would protect them from heat that melted metal and caused the collapse?

Do you think the fireman would radio in that they could put the fires out if it was melting metal and causing structural failures?

Seems really unlikely to me.

Firefighters for 9/11 Truth.

http://ff911truthandunity.org/
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 08, 2017, 09:12:58 PM
I don't like your attitude to be totally honest Totes, you seem to be more interested in ridicule than actual thought or consideration.

I've never seen you do this before.

Quote
Entry Suit
The entry is used for entering extreme heat, like being totally submerged in flames. It is made out of Zetex and it is not aluminized. For a short duration of time it can protect people up to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit.

So once again.

Possible, but very, very unlikely.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Re-Elect President Bush on March 08, 2017, 10:00:46 PM
I can confirm that my administration was responsible. I was playing golf, mistimed my stroke and it hit the two towers. My bad.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on March 08, 2017, 10:03:40 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 08, 2017, 09:09:13 PM
Do you think it would protect them from heat that melted metal and caused the collapse?

Do you think the entire floor was 800 C? I seriously doubt that.

Quote
Do you think the fireman would radio in that they could put the fires out if it was melting metal and causing structural failures?

I assume there was already plenty of destruction on the floor. I don't see why they should have noticed if the fire was causing damage to critical support structures.

Quote from: disputeone on March 08, 2017, 09:12:58 PM
I don't like your attitude to be totally honest Totes, you seem to be more interested in ridicule than actual thought or consideration.

I've never seen you do this before.

It just seemed like a rather trivial solution to a problem you were making a big deal out of. Firesuits + don't stand directly in the flame.

You seem to obviously care about this topic, but frankly, it's difficult to take you seriously. Whenever I come back to read the latest in this thread, I see you declaring how absolutely rock solid your evidence is... followed by stuff like this:

Quote from: disputeone on March 08, 2017, 03:38:07 PM
This is supported by thermodynamics if the fuel created the explosion we saw, it is very unlikely the fuel went on to burn long enough and hot enough to melt metal and weaken structural steel to the point of initial collapse.

Entropy, the bitch that was.

This is just silly.

1. Other stuff can burn besides jet fuel.
2. Did you really do any thermodynamic calculations, or did you just guess?
3. What on earth does entropy have to do with this?

Quote from: Re-Elect President Bush on March 08, 2017, 10:00:46 PM
I can confirm that my administration was responsible. I was playing golf, mistimed my stroke and it hit the two towers. My bad.

All is forgiven. I'll gladly elect you Mr.   Insert-any-name-besides-Trump-here  !
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 08, 2017, 10:09:18 PM
Quote from: Re-Elect President Bush on March 08, 2017, 10:00:46 PM
I can confirm that my administration was responsible. I was playing golf, mistimed my stroke and it hit the two towers. My bad.

Not good enough,   was it a slice or a hook?   Video evidence shows clearly it was a fake golf ball in the shape of  a 767.   probably filled with nano-thermite.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 08, 2017, 10:10:34 PM
For the building to collapse like it did initially the structure would have to have zero structural resistance, I have shown this, the tower had negligible structural resistance throughout its entire collapse.

NIST states fires as the cause of collapse, not the aircraft, so I am working with NIST's premise that fire caused the collapse.

I believe the entire structure would have to be weakened symmetrically to fall symmetrically at close to free-fall.

If fires only weakend certain parts of the floors it would be obvious in the collapse.

Entropy means that once the initial explosion / burn of the jet fuel, not enough energy would be left to take the buikding down.

Office fires do not cause collapse in a reasonable building, never have, never would.

I do have rock solid evidence, enough rock solid evidence to justify a new fair and open investigation.

Just like Trump thinks.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 08, 2017, 10:12:19 PM
Here is very strong evidence for CD and foul play.

Quote from: disputeone on March 08, 2017, 07:46:04 PM
Quote
Evidence.

Rapid onset of destruction,

Constant acceleration at or near free-fall through what should have been the path of greatest resistance,

Numerous eyewitness accounts of explosions including 118 FDNY personnel,

Lateral ejection of multi-ton steel framing members distances of 600 feet at more than 60 mph,

Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete, and large volumes of expanding pyroclastic-like dust clouds,

Isolated explosive ejections 20 to 60 stories below the “crush zone,”

Total destruction and dismemberment of all three buildings, with 220 floors each an acre in size missing from the Twin Towers’ debris pile,

Several tons of molten steel/iron found in the debris piles,
Evidence of thermite incendiaries on steel beams,

Nanothermite composites and iron microspheres found in WTC dust samples.

http://www.ae911truth.org/evidence.html

My hypothesis.

1. Supports cut at plane impact sites, causes molten metal to flow from impact site, top of building tips and starts to collapse.

2. Charges in the lower structure destroy all structural resistance sequentially top down before the top part of the tower and the collapse reaches the structural resistance at close to free-fall.

3. Tower continues collapsing at close to free-fall until the mass starts to provide structural resistance near the bottom and slows down.

Simple.

Explains observations nicely, I think.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 08, 2017, 10:15:34 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 08, 2017, 10:12:19 PM
Here is very strong evidence for CD and foul play.

Strong evidence for brain damage if you ask me.    You do realise all these arguments you keep making have been debunked over and over.   

Here's the word of the day,  specially selected for you,   necrohippoflagellation.   Seems very apt.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 08, 2017, 10:20:45 PM
You do know much more than the professionals in the field qualified to speak from their area of expertise.

No doubt about that, Rayzor.

Call me when you're in WA and we can meet and you can call me crazy. I will PM you a phone number to contact me on.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 08, 2017, 10:32:43 PM
Here is enough evidence to justify a new, fair and honest enquiry.

Quote from: disputeone on March 08, 2017, 07:46:04 PM
Here's some evidence to support my top down CD hypothesis all the citations are done for me.

Quote
ARTIFICIAL SYMMETRY

structural engineers paul mason The symmetry of collapse struck both Paul Mason, a structural engineer in Melbourne, Australia, and Dennis Kollar, P.E., a structural engineer in Wisconsin, as disconcerting. Kollar remains troubled by the “totality and uniformity of the destruction” and by the fact that “the mass of debris remained centered on the building core all the way down.”
John Watt, a chartered structural engineer in Edinburgh, UK, voices similar concerns. “With respect to the Twin Towers," he says, “the main puzzle was how two buildings with highly asymmetric damage could fail vertically downwards into the strongest part of the buildings — their steel-columned cores. And not only fail vertically, but at a speed that indicated structural resistance being removed sequentially from under the collapse wave. Few engineers would imagine buildings a quarter-of-a-mile high failing vertically, into their main structures, rather than failing laterally — given the eccentric damage.”
The towers should have fallen “with increasing eccentricity as the collapse progressed,” observes Howard Pasternack, P.Eng., of Toronto, Canada. Moreover, these systematic collapses required that many structural connections not only fail “nearly simultaneously, but also in sequential order,” according to Frank Cullinan, P.E., who designs bridges in Northern California. That’s “impossible from asymmetrical impact loading and . . . small, short-duration fires.”

http://www.ae911truth.org/news/199-news-media-events-60-structural-engineers.html

The discerning reader will see why I don't trust Heiwa.

Quote
Evidence.

Rapid onset of destruction,

Constant acceleration at or near free-fall through what should have been the path of greatest resistance,

Numerous eyewitness accounts of explosions including 118 FDNY personnel,

Lateral ejection of multi-ton steel framing members distances of 600 feet at more than 60 mph,

Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete, and large volumes of expanding pyroclastic-like dust clouds,

Isolated explosive ejections 20 to 60 stories below the “crush zone,”

Total destruction and dismemberment of all three buildings, with 220 floors each an acre in size missing from the Twin Towers’ debris pile,

Several tons of molten steel/iron found in the debris piles,
Evidence of thermite incendiaries on steel beams,

Nanothermite composites and iron microspheres found in WTC dust samples.

http://www.ae911truth.org/evidence.html

Now if you would just show how your hypothesis matches observation and satisfies occams razor more, I will listen.

1. Supports cut at plane impact sites, causes molten metal to flow from impact site, top of building tips and starts to collapse.

2. Charges in the lower structure destroy all structural resistance sequentially top down before the top part of the tower and the collapse reaches the structural resistance at close to free-fall.

3. Tower continues collapsing at close to free-fall until the mass starts to provide structural resistance near the bottom and slows down.

Simple.

Explains observations nicely, I think.

Trump very well might open this back up and tell us the entire truth.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on March 08, 2017, 10:39:30 PM
I haven't done my due diligence on most of those topics, however...

Quote from: disputeone on March 08, 2017, 10:10:34 PM
Entropy means that once the initial explosion / burn of the jet fuel, not enough energy would be left to take the buikding down.

No, that is not what entropy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy) means. Perhaps you are thinking of enthalpy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enthalpy)? Your argument still doesn't make sense to me though. The fires spread beyond the original fuel source, right?

Quote
Office fires do not cause collapse in a reasonable building, never have, never would.

That's a rather bold prediction to make. Regardless, most reasonable buildings aren't hit by airplanes 78 floors up.

Quote
Just like Trump thinks.

Not to make this political, but Trump is an idiot. As far as his credibility goes, he shoots himself in the foot several times a week.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 08, 2017, 10:40:28 PM
Ok sure.

If we had astrophysicists and cosmologists for the flat earth would you also reject their testimony out of hand?

Trump is a very smart man imo, I respect your difference of opinion on the matter.

I meant entropy.

Quote
For example, gas in a container with known volume, pressure, and temperature could have an enormous number of possible configurations of the collection of individual gas molecules. Each instantaneous configuration of the gas may be regarded as random. Entropy may be understood as a measure of disorder within a macroscopic system. The second law of thermodynamics states that an isolated system's entropy never decreases. Such systems spontaneously evolve towards thermodynamic equilibrium, the state with maximum entropy. Non-isolated systems may lose entropy, provided their environment's entropy increases by at least that amount. Since entropy is a function of the state of the system, a change in entropy of a system is determined by its initial and final states. This applies whether the process is reversible or irreversible. However, irreversible processes increase the combined entropy of the system and its environment.

Maybe there is a better word.

In hindsight enthalpy is better, thanks I'll take that.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 08, 2017, 10:55:12 PM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 08, 2017, 10:39:30 PM
That's a rather bold prediction to make. Regardless, most reasonable buildings aren't hit by airplanes 78 floors up.

I hate to make an argument from authority however if you had ever had anything to do with large metal framed buildings you would know it is not a bold statement at all.

Here are 60 structural engineers that think, as I think, that the plane impacts and fires would not, and could not, cause the collapses we saw.

http://www.ae911truth.org/news/199-news-media-events-60-structural-engineers.html
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 08, 2017, 11:08:03 PM
Engineers and Architects that want a new investigation.

www.ae911truth.org

Pilots.

http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/

Firefighters

http://ff911truthandunity.org/

Fire engineers question the official story.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_Engineering_(magazine)

Scientists

http://www.scientistsfor911truth.org/

I could go on, its not just "crazy people" that are truthers, saying we have no evidence is naive in the extreme and I admit, it really pushes my buttons.

This is something I do feel very strongly about.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 08, 2017, 11:14:13 PM
Master Evar and I came to the conclusion / agreement that I have a strong hypothesis for CD however without a building to fly a plane into or NIST's inputs I can't test it and it will remain a hypothesis.

I respect that he feels the official story stacks up and I hope he respects why I don't.

I stand strongly by my statement that far more logical jumps are required to believe the OS.

Totes, by your own admission, this is not a subject you know a lot about, I'm happy to have a debate but I don't want to talk about fires that the firemen say they can handle with two lines but melt metal and leave 220 floors vaporized.

Ive read everything NIST put out at least three times some documents up to ten times, I am not jumping to conclusions and I am not arguing from incredulity.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on March 08, 2017, 11:40:22 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 08, 2017, 10:40:28 PM
Ok sure.

If we had astrophysicists and cosmologists for the flat earth would you also reject their testimony out of hand?

I wouldn't reject it out of hand, but I probably wouldn't read it unless I was very bored. I did read Rowbotham's ENAG a while back. Ugh. I haven't read the testimony of the experts you have provided yet, if that's the point you are trying to make. I'll probably get to it eventually.

Quote
Trump is a very smart man imo, I respect your difference of opinion on the matter.

Yes, he has the bigleagueiest words and brain. Thank goodness he figured out how dangerous Uranium is (http://).

Quote
In hindsight enthalpy is better, thanks I'll take that.

Ok, great, but your argument still doesn't make sense to me at all. Here is the problem. Thermodynamics is not a very armchair-scientist-friendly subject. Honestly, your knowledge of the subject seems a bit shaky to be invoking them in your arguments. Thermodynamic principals/properties are very precisely defined, not particularly intuitive, and easily misapplied. Especially entropy. If you are interested, you should totally learn it, but do it properly (https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/chemistry/5-60-thermodynamics-kinetics-spring-2008/video-lectures/).

I realize that you have done a ton more research into this than I have. It may seem like I am being a negative Nancy, but I really haven't made up my mind either way on the issue. If you want to convince newcomers to the theory, I highly recommend trimming out the bad arguments and focusing on the good arguments. Or at least clearly label the weaker arguments as such.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 09, 2017, 12:16:04 AM
Thanks Totes, I'll let it go. One thing I've learned from this thread is people don't really want the truth. They want to believe what makes them feel good. I can, at the very least understand that.

I have always been different, when I was six I showed my Mum my logic that Santa couldn't possibly deliver presents to everyone in 24 hours. I was a smart kid, wasted it, story for another time.

I was hoping some people who questioned 9/11 would be brave enough to say the official story has some unanswered questions. Alas.

If I haven't presented enough information in this thread to justify a new investigation by now, then I can't and I have failed. I can't apologize enough for this and have let everyone down.

This saddens me, I am also saddened you can't respect my difference in pollitical opinion but that happens a lot.

I tried my best guys, truth is more than a word, although I feel we have forgotten that.

Also comparing the engineers that question 9/11 to Rowbotham was really low desu. You admitted yourself you dont want the truth.

Quote
I wouldn't reject it out of hand, but I probably wouldn't read it unless I was very bored. I did read Rowbotham's ENAG a while back. Ugh. I haven't read the testimony of the experts you have provided yet, if that's the point you are trying to make. I'll probably get to it eventually.

I am so sorry you feel this is on the same level as a flat earth. Rowbotham had no credentials to talk about earth shape.

The 60 structural engineers do have credentials to talk about structural engineering.

I think we have slightly more evidence for foul play than a flat earth but your comment shows you believe they are equally ridiculous.

I didn't want to convince anyone of my views I wanted them to do their own research and make their own opinions.

I'm also really tired of being called crazy. Kinda a pet peeve of mine.

Well good luck guys, peace.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 09, 2017, 12:18:59 AM
Anyway I'll drop in later and say hi, in the meantime have fun calling me crazy while I'm away. I'd just prefer if you guys get the terminology right.

Anyway I'm sad now.

I'm sorry you all feel we have presented zero evidence. I did my best.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sceptimatic on March 09, 2017, 12:31:50 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 09, 2017, 12:18:59 AM
Anyway I'll drop in later and say hi, in the meantime have fun calling me crazy while I'm away. I'd just prefer if you guys get the terminology right.

Anyway I'm sad now.

I'm sorry you all feel we have presented zero evidence. I did my best.
You're allowing shills to bring you down.
It's fine if you think they're being legitimate but you're really smart enough to realise that they are far from it.

All totes is doing is giving you snippets of potential for a conspiracy and then blowing it out of the water with other posts down the line.

Rayzor is well versed on all this stuff. This stuff is his past-time and probably his paid job.
Master Evar is just following a trend.

You know you're correct. You know 100% that the official report is crap and not only crap, but verbal/text book diarrhoea.

I'm sure you know all of this and if you're as honest as you say you are, you wouldn't be pleading with these monsters.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 09, 2017, 12:41:04 AM
Thanks Scepti, you're a good bloke.

I am as honest as I claim to be but I think you give me too much credit for intelligence.

Rayzor idgaf about.

Myself and M.E have an understanding.

Fuck man I respect Totes heaps tho I think he's genuine and really smart, to be told I've presented zero evidence really upset me, I'll get past it.

I do understand the group think and brainwashing involved but fuck I've been sleeping like 3 or 4 hours a night for this thread, I thought I presented a decent case against the OS.

Thanks man I had a rough day, and you are right, this has been getting me down.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sceptimatic on March 09, 2017, 12:50:02 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 09, 2017, 12:41:04 AM
Thanks Scepti, you're a good bloke.

I am as honest as I claim to be but I think you give me too much credit for intelligence.

Rayzor idgaf about.

Myself and M.E have an understanding.

Fuck man I respect Totes heaps tho I think he's genuine and really smart, to be told I've presented zero evidence really upset me, I'll get past it.

I do understand the group think and brainwashing involved but fuck I've been sleeping like 3 or 4 hours a night for this thread, I thought I presented a decent case against the OS.

Thanks man I had a rough day, and you are right, this has been getting me down.
Ok fair enough about respecting those people. I can tell you right now that I have zero respect for those people.
I have zero respect for anyone that refuses to see blatant logic and common sense and claim it to be nonsense.

That's what you're dealing with, with these people and you're pissing against a hurricane wind debating them on this topic.
They are on it to frustrate you out of it and also to nudge away those potential partakers who would initially side with your thought process.

Anyway I'll leave it at that and leave the topic to flow in whatever direction it takes.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on March 09, 2017, 01:07:19 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 09, 2017, 12:16:04 AM
One thing I've learned from this thread is people don't really want the truth.

I think you are confusing "want the truth" with "believe that what you are saying is the truth". Maybe you are right, maybe you aren't. I'm not going to find out by overlooking flaws in the evidence though.

Quote
I was hoping some people who questioned 9/11 would be brave enough to say the official story has some unanswered questions. Alas.

I really have no idea what this has to do with bravery. It wouldn't surprise me at all if the conspiracy was true. The motive is definitely there (see: Patriot Act, wars, etc). It's the means and physical evidence that seems to be lacking from what I have seen so far. (Though again, I haven't looked at it all yet.)

Quote
This saddens me, I am also saddened you can't respect my difference in pollitical opinion but that happens a lot.

I can respect differences in opinion. I can't respect all opinions though. Some things are just wrong, including much of what Trump stands for and how he behaves. As for his intelligence... that's more of a guess, but one I am decently confident in. His credibility is demonstrably worthless though.

Quote
Also comparing the engineers that question 9/11 to Rowbotham was really low desu. You admitted yourself you dont want the truth.

Quote
I wouldn't reject it out of hand, but I probably wouldn't read it unless I was very bored. I did read Rowbotham's ENAG a while back. Ugh. I haven't read the testimony of the experts you have provided yet, if that's the point you are trying to make. I'll probably get to it eventually.

I am so sorry you feel this is on the same level as a flat earth. Rowbotham had no credentials to talk about earth shape.

I don't think they are on the same level at all. I didn't really make that clear. I just haven't read either of them, and will reserve judgment on both until having read them. I suspect your experts are infinitely more reliable than any hypothetical flat-earth-astronomist, though the latter might be better for a quick chuckle.

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 09, 2017, 12:31:50 AM
you're really smart enough to realise...

You know you're correct...

I'm sure you know all of this and if you're as honest as you say you are, you wouldn't...

Subtle. Straight out of "Manipulative Asshole 101: Chapter 1"
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 09, 2017, 02:06:59 AM
Totes I am not understanding why you feel the need to come into a debate blind? What is the point of that?

As for bravery...Well it does take that to say you stand against the official story. You are putting yourself out there to be called crazy and an idiot plus numerous other things (just check some of the idiots from this thread) Most people want to walk with the flock, it is human nature..Takes nuts to risk being an outcast.

When I first stood up against the official story my last year in college and my first couple years in business it was a bit rough. You know you aren't crazy or an idiot, but if you hear it enough, your mind has the tendency to want to believe it.

Though, now things have gotten much better...Most people in the industry know the official story is shit (a joke has even spawned over the last 5 years, if there is an issue "need more jet fuel" is usually said jokingly, spun off the SNL "more cowbell") Mostly it's just internet dumbasses that call you crazy or an idiot now..However, even hearing you are crazy from an internet google warrior moron gets old from time to time.


*Dispute* Why do you keep saying 60 engineers? I could name that many I know personally...There are 1000s upon 1000s of engineers that call BS on the official story publicly..More privately in the US alone
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 09, 2017, 02:57:25 AM
From a PM but I really nailed how I feel.


They say they want physical evidence, we have shown symmetrical collapse at close to free-fall through the path of greatest resistance from minor asymmetrical damage, molten steel, planes passing right through structural steel like jelly, glowing molten steel for months after, a fireball from a "plane" impact that puts a fucking Bruce Willis movie to shame, squib markers and clear explosions in the towers just before demolition, an indestructible passport, the Pentagon "plane" I even posted the video of the Pentagon before the roof collapsed and when it was collapsing, no one gives a fuck.

At this point I think Trump could say it was a US/Israeli operation and people would be like "la la la fake news la la la".



Alright you guys have at it for a bit.

Call me, Rayzor.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Re-Elect President Bush on March 09, 2017, 03:30:50 AM
Don't tell anyone about how I only spent $50,000 on the investigation.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 09, 2017, 04:00:51 AM
http://www.skeptic.com/skepticism-101/you-cant-handle-the-truther/?gclid=CIaa26OvydICFYiBvQodf2QHvA

Check the comments, they are genuinely hilarious, I needed that.

Quote
Michael Fullerton says:
September 5, 2013 at 11:51 am
The fact that Skeptic Magazine can only support the crackpot official story of 9/11 with logical fallacies like the ones in this video, proves they are the very opposite of science-based critical thinkers.

Thank you, kind anon.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Twerp on March 09, 2017, 08:45:47 AM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 09, 2017, 01:07:19 AM
Quote from: sceptimatic on March 09, 2017, 12:31:50 AM
you're really smart enough to realise...

You know you're correct...

I'm sure you know all of this and if you're as honest as you say you are, you wouldn't...

Subtle. Straight out of "Manipulative Asshole 101: Chapter 1"

Typical approach toward those who disagree by scepti.

Succinct but accurate summary of said approach by Totes.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on March 09, 2017, 09:46:34 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 08, 2017, 02:18:53 PM
Quote from: totallackey on March 08, 2017, 08:06:45 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 08, 2017, 05:25:48 AM
...so you could just google for that.

I tried googling for sources regarding human beings surviving fires with temperatures in the 600-900C range...

Came up with this:
(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS3W2FMR7xA0xLkfL-qOPnRbDPKqvkWLaJJE6HFSN93FflxcRRF)

Got anything else?

Good find,    probably more appropriate than google in the context of a clash of cultures. 

Matthew 7:7-8
7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye. shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:
8 For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh. findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened

But lest ye be confused,  the googling was in reference to debris fields  not fires.   Easy mistake to make.

And my post was about the fires, supposedly hot enough to buckle steel I-beams on a skyscraper, yet not hot enough to bring people to their knees.

Yeah, you introduced debris fields when first confronted about fires and the supposed temperatures.

Deflecting the topic.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 09, 2017, 02:57:32 PM
Quote from: totallackey on March 09, 2017, 09:46:34 AM
And my post was about the fires, supposedly hot enough to buckle steel I-beams on a skyscraper, yet not hot enough to bring people to their knees.

Yeah, you introduced debris fields when first confronted about fires and the supposed temperatures.

Deflecting the topic.

And the debris field answer was about the passport,  not the fires.   You just got tangled up somewhere.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 09, 2017, 02:59:44 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 09, 2017, 12:41:04 AM
Thanks man I had a rough day, and you are right, this has been getting me down.

Just chill out and collect your thoughts,  the questions about 911 aren't going away anytime soon.   No need to let it get you down.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 09, 2017, 04:20:27 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 09, 2017, 02:57:32 PM
Quote from: totallackey on March 09, 2017, 09:46:34 AM
And my post was about the fires, supposedly hot enough to buckle steel I-beams on a skyscraper, yet not hot enough to bring people to their knees.

Yeah, you introduced debris fields when first confronted about fires and the supposed temperatures.

Deflecting the topic.

And the debris field answer was about the passport,  not the fires.   You just got tangled up somewhere.

Tangled up from your deflection.

Rayzor put up or shut up call me crazy in person or stfu.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 09, 2017, 04:24:49 PM
Any sane person can clearly see the official story is 100% true and absolutely water tight, there are absolutely no unanswered questions about anything and all we need to know the truth is a t.v plugged into an aerial, we don't even need to think anymore the t.v does it all for us.

Isn't that right, Rayzor.

Nowadays skeptic means "believes what they are told."
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on March 10, 2017, 03:22:34 AM
Quote from: Chaff and Fluff on March 09, 2017, 02:57:32 PM
And the debris field answer was about the passport, not the fires, and not on topic.  I will never address the fires because I know it puts a hole in the OS that can never be explained and I love holes since I am one.

Ftfy, disingenuous _ _ _ _ _ _-_ _ _ _ _ _ _  _ _ _ _ _ _ _...

Fires.

Hot enough to buckle structural steel I-beams, yet not hot enough to kill ordinary people.

Do not blame you for not wanting to address the issue.

Chaff and Fluff.

No Rayzor here.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: rabinoz on March 10, 2017, 04:11:53 AM
Quote from: totallackey on March 10, 2017, 03:22:34 AM
Quote from: Chaff and Fluff on March 09, 2017, 02:57:32 PM
And the debris field answer was about the passport, not the fires, and not on topic.  I will never address the fires because I know it puts a hole in the OS that can never be explained and I love holes since I am one.

Ftfy, disingenuous _ _ _ _ _ _-_ _ _ _ _ _ _  _ _ _ _ _ _ _...

Fires.

Hot enough to buckle structural steel I-beams, yet not hot enough to kill ordinary people.

Do not blame you for not wanting to address the issue.

Chaff and Fluff.

No Rayzor here.
Still lying by twisting other people's posts. Try being honest occasionally and quoting posts as written.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on March 10, 2017, 04:19:02 AM
Quote from: rabinoz on March 10, 2017, 04:11:53 AM
Quote from: totallackey on March 10, 2017, 03:22:34 AM
Quote from: Chaff and Fluff on March 09, 2017, 02:57:32 PM
And the debris field answer was about the passport, not the fires, and not on topic.  I will never address the fires because I know it puts a hole in the OS that can never be explained and I love holes since I am one.

Ftfy, disingenuous _ _ _ _ _ _-_ _ _ _ _ _ _  _ _ _ _ _ _ _...

Fires.

Hot enough to buckle structural steel I-beams, yet not hot enough to kill ordinary people.

Do not blame you for not wanting to address the issue.

Chaff and Fluff.

No Rayzor here.
Still lying by twisting other people's posts. Try being honest occasionally and quoting posts as written.
Quote from: rabinoz on March 10, 2017, 04:11:53 AM
Quote from: totallackey on March 10, 2017, 03:22:34 AM
Quote from: Chaff and Fluff on March 09, 2017, 02:57:32 PM
And the debris field answer was about the passport, not the fires, and not on topic.  I will never address the fires because I know it puts a hole in the OS that can never be explained and I love holes since I am one.

Ftfy, disingenuous _ _ _ _ _ _-_ _ _ _ _ _ _  _ _ _ _ _ _ _...

Fires.

Hot enough to buckle structural steel I-beams, yet not hot enough to kill ordinary people.

Do not blame you for not wanting to address the issue.

Chaff and Fluff.

No Rayzor here.
Still lying by twisting other people's posts. Try being honest occasionally and quoting posts as written.

My quote of Chaff and Fluff was close enough for government work.

Good ole Chaff and Fluff loves government work.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 10, 2017, 05:57:51 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 08, 2017, 04:39:28 AM
Quote from: totallackey on March 08, 2017, 03:59:05 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 07, 2017, 03:24:39 PM
Yes please see the fire section...where people can survive in 900C temperatures.

SHADRACH, MESHACH, AND ABEDNAGO!

APPEARING LIVE AND IN LIVING COLOR AT A SKYSCRAPER NEAR YOU!

I know there was fire, hayseed.

I am just not stupid enough to believe the fire achieved temperatures you and the NIST claim...given there were living people and considerable amounts of paper (most notably what otherwise must have been a titanium/wood pulp composite passport of one of the hijackers) surviving these 900C temps.

After the aircraft impact there was stuff scattered all over the place.  This is a seat cushion from AA11,  looks to be mostly intact,  but this is two blocks south of the WTC,  there was a lot of other personal items from passengers as well as body parts and drivers licences,  credit cards,  just about anything you could think of,  not all that surprising that a passerby found a passport.

(https://s29.postimg.org/g52rldvcn/Flight_11_Seat_Cushion_Large.jpg)

Quote from: Rayzor on March 08, 2017, 05:25:48 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 08, 2017, 05:18:21 AM
Do you agree the planes exploded in a similar way? ::)

Honestly, Rayzor.

I'm being lazy now, here, take this.

TLDR;


I'm staying out of ME's thread,  but I liked the cardboard idea.   One of the places I do some consulting work,   this one guy calls me Heisenberg,  after the Breaking Bad character.  :) Your cardboard equation reminded me.

Debris was scattered over a wide area,  firstly from the aircraft impacts,  then from the collapse,  I've seen some maps of debris fields,  so you could just google for that.

I'll accept your apology, whenever you are ready,  and stop with the insults and misquoting.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 10, 2017, 06:10:02 AM
Quote from: totallackey on March 10, 2017, 03:22:34 AM
Fires.

Hot enough to buckle structural steel I-beams, yet not hot enough to kill ordinary people.

That would depends on where you happen to be and when

(https://www.metabunk.org/sk/GJS-WTC27.jpg-20130909-112116.jpg)

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on March 10, 2017, 09:20:02 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 10, 2017, 06:10:02 AM
Quote from: totallackey on March 10, 2017, 03:22:34 AM
Fires.

Hot enough to buckle structural steel I-beams, yet not hot enough to kill ordinary people.

That would depends on where you happen to be and when

(https://www.metabunk.org/sk/GJS-WTC27.jpg-20130909-112116.jpg)

Yeah.

No doubt.

Anywhere on those floors impacted by the plane where the fires were...

Supposedly hot enough to buckle steel structural I-beams. Yet not hot enough to buckle the knees of persons seen and photographed on those floors.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on March 10, 2017, 12:52:01 PM
Gotta love flat earth society... where people barley know what chemistry and physics is about but try to take entropy as an argument!

"Entropy means that once the initial explosion / burn of the jet fuel, not enough energy would be left to take the buikding down."
Speaking of entropy: There are actually WAY more states of "building collapsed" then of "building standing" and thus, in terms of entropy the probality of the building is in state "collapsed" would be way higher :)

Anyway, when discussing 9/11, people always seem to apply hardcore-simplyfied physics/chemistry and try to apply those in real world scenarios. Like the "jet fuel can't melt steal beams" thing...

Seriously, why the heck do you guys think you gotta study 5 years to get a masters degree in constructional engineering, when you folks actually already are able to calculate when a building can collapse?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 10, 2017, 05:23:18 PM
^^ This is the same embarrassing nonsense used as an "argument" for the official story. All fluff, no substance..

Sad...

Looks like you were right hoppy about user 324
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 10, 2017, 07:48:52 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 10, 2017, 05:23:18 PM
^^ This is the same embarrassing nonsense used as an "argument" for the official story. All fluff, no substance..

Sad...

Looks like you were right hoppy about user 324

Still got nothing to contribute other than insults an innuendo?

What happened to the thousands of "smoking gun"  proofs,   did you abandon them like you abandoned disputeone  you left him twisting in the wind.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 10, 2017, 09:08:15 PM
You havent answered even a couple points in the debate yet...Why should I add more?

Whenever you are done twisting and lying maybe we can be on point.

As for dispute, you are just mad about the things I said to you sticking up for him in the other thread. Never abandoned anyone. Not to mention, I have been on y'all's time, and there was a few days where I was too busy to do that...

Now you already know how I feel about you from other threads....But it's never to late to change, for your own sake in life I hope you do
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on March 11, 2017, 12:39:45 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 10, 2017, 09:08:15 PM
You havent answered even a couple points in the debate yet...Why should I add more?

Whenever you are done twisting and lying maybe we can be on point.

As for dispute, you are just mad about the things I said to you sticking up for him in the other thread. Never abandoned anyone. Not to mention, I have been on y'all's time, and there was a few days where I was too busy to do that...

Now you already know how I feel about you from other threads....But it's never to late to change, for your own sake in life I hope you do

I am definitely not going to read through this thread to search for points...
Can you quickily summarize them?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 11, 2017, 03:35:37 PM
Quote from: User324 on March 11, 2017, 12:39:45 AM
I am definitely not going to read through this thread to search for points...
Can you quickily summarize them?

It's a bit hard to summarize,  as the discussion had wandered all over the place.

Babyhighspeed claims to have a PhD in engineering and has done 10 years worth of research on 911,  but failed to show us any of his results.
Babyhighspeed claims to have pictures of aircraft disappearing into buildings without leaving a mark,  but the video in question is on a hard drive that can't be found.
Babyhighspeed claims without evidence that drones hit the twin towers and thermite and shaped charges were used.
Babyhighspeed claims that a missile hit the pentagon, and that aircraft debris was faked.
Babyhighspeed claims to have analysed the AA77 FDR,  and declares if fake but then doesn't know about later analysis which proves it's real. 
Babyhighspeed goes very quiet after being show a David Chandler video about the pentagon,  in which "no planers" are extensively debunked.
Babyhighspeed claims he never was a "quadruple no planer".
Babyhighspeed claims he is now undecided and nothing is off the table.
Babyhighspeed abandons disputeone,  and leaves him to battle on alone,  with no support.
Babyhighspeed claims I haven't answered any of his points,  when in fact I've more than answered all of them over and over.

Now read on.

 





Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 11, 2017, 04:02:15 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 11, 2017, 03:35:37 PM
Quote from: User324 on March 11, 2017, 12:39:45 AM
I am definitely not going to read through this thread to search for points...
Can you quickily summarize them?
disgusting lies.

Then don't read the thread and don't ask questions. You admitted you won't put in the research for the truth.

As for entropy, how many of those possible states invole a symmetrical collapse at close to free-fall? Hmmm?

Not many, if any.

Quote from: disputeone on March 08, 2017, 11:08:03 PM
Engineers and Architects that want a new investigation.

www.ae911truth.org

Pilots.

http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/

Firefighters

http://ff911truthandunity.org/

Fire engineers question the official story.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_Engineering_(magazine)

Scientists

http://www.scientistsfor911truth.org/

I could go on, its not just "crazy people" that are truthers, saying we have no evidence is naive in the extreme and I admit, it really pushes my buttons.

This is something I do feel very strongly about.

Here's some evidence and a simple hypothesis.

Quote from: disputeone on March 08, 2017, 10:32:43 PM
Here is enough evidence to justify a new, fair and honest enquiry.

Quote from: disputeone on March 08, 2017, 07:46:04 PM
Here's some evidence to support my top down CD hypothesis all the citations are done for me.

Quote
ARTIFICIAL SYMMETRY

structural engineers paul mason The symmetry of collapse struck both Paul Mason, a structural engineer in Melbourne, Australia, and Dennis Kollar, P.E., a structural engineer in Wisconsin, as disconcerting. Kollar remains troubled by the “totality and uniformity of the destruction” and by the fact that “the mass of debris remained centered on the building core all the way down.”
John Watt, a chartered structural engineer in Edinburgh, UK, voices similar concerns. “With respect to the Twin Towers," he says, “the main puzzle was how two buildings with highly asymmetric damage could fail vertically downwards into the strongest part of the buildings — their steel-columned cores. And not only fail vertically, but at a speed that indicated structural resistance being removed sequentially from under the collapse wave. Few engineers would imagine buildings a quarter-of-a-mile high failing vertically, into their main structures, rather than failing laterally — given the eccentric damage.”
The towers should have fallen “with increasing eccentricity as the collapse progressed,” observes Howard Pasternack, P.Eng., of Toronto, Canada. Moreover, these systematic collapses required that many structural connections not only fail “nearly simultaneously, but also in sequential order,” according to Frank Cullinan, P.E., who designs bridges in Northern California. That’s “impossible from asymmetrical impact loading and . . . small, short-duration fires.”

http://www.ae911truth.org/news/199-news-media-events-60-structural-engineers.html

The discerning reader will see why I don't trust Heiwa.

Quote
Evidence.

Rapid onset of destruction,

Constant acceleration at or near free-fall through what should have been the path of greatest resistance,

Numerous eyewitness accounts of explosions including 118 FDNY personnel,

Lateral ejection of multi-ton steel framing members distances of 600 feet at more than 60 mph,

Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete, and large volumes of expanding pyroclastic-like dust clouds,

Isolated explosive ejections 20 to 60 stories below the “crush zone,”

Total destruction and dismemberment of all three buildings, with 220 floors each an acre in size missing from the Twin Towers’ debris pile,

Several tons of molten steel/iron found in the debris piles,
Evidence of thermite incendiaries on steel beams,

Nanothermite composites and iron microspheres found in WTC dust samples.

http://www.ae911truth.org/evidence.html

Now if you would just show how your hypothesis matches observation and satisfies occams razor more, I will listen.

1. Supports cut at plane impact sites, causes molten metal to flow from impact site, top of building tips and starts to collapse.

2. Charges in the lower structure destroy all structural resistance sequentially top down before the top part of the tower and the collapse reaches the structural resistance at close to free-fall.

3. Tower continues collapsing at close to free-fall until the mass starts to provide structural resistance near the bottom and slows down.

Simple.

Explains observations nicely, I think.

Trump very well might open this back up and tell us the entire truth.

Rayzor after shit like that, even the "normie" rational posters are starting to question your motives.

I suggest you look in a mirror and ask the reflection what you should do.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 11, 2017, 04:10:20 PM
I'm sick of guys that couldn't even weld a join or brace concrete and have never even seen a large building up close and personal telling me what should happen when they catch fire.

Get a 500mm × 500mm concrete support, set a fire underneath it and tell me what happens.

Pro-tip. The concrete doesn't give a shit.

Don't take my word for it.

Quote
It is a non-combustible material (i.e. it does not burn), and has a slow rate of heat transfer. Concrete ensures that structural integrity remains, fire compartmentation is not compromised and shielding from heat can be relied upon.

www.google.com

User123, wanna explain how structural resistance causes no structural resistance? I'm still stuck on that one.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 11, 2017, 04:14:44 PM
Heres a simple equation to show that structural resistance causes structural resistance.

Quote
Instead of expressing structural resistance in units we can use a percentage.

Say 100% structural resistance will hold the building up exactly, any more weight and it will start to collapse. Most working loads are two to four times the fail point.
So we can safely assume building 7 had over 100% structural resistance before it fell.

So we have gravitational acceleration - percentage of structural resistance = fall acceleration.

9.8m/s2×75%=7.35m/s2

9.8 m/s2 - 7.35m/s2 = 2.45 m/s2

At 75% structural resistance I would predict a 2.45m/s2 fall acceleration.

Obviously this doesnt calculate change and inertia, however it doesn't need to.

So, G- %S = F
Gravitational acceleration - percentage of structural resistance = fall acceleration.

So, in your own words, why, on 9/11, did structural resistance not cause structural resistance?

Quote from: NIST
that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow only the structural resistance slowed the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger smaller due to the increasing mass. structural resistance.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 11, 2017, 04:23:53 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 11, 2017, 04:02:15 PM
Rayzor after shit like that, even the "normie" rational posters are starting to question your motives.

I suggest you look in a mirror and ask the reflection what you should do.

I'm pleased to see you are back in a better frame of mind.    Try and lay off the personal insults from now on.   
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 11, 2017, 04:25:01 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 11, 2017, 04:23:53 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 11, 2017, 04:02:15 PM
Rayzor after shit like that, even the "normie" rational posters are starting to question your motives.

I suggest you look in a mirror and ask the reflection what you should do.

I'm pleased to see you are back in a better frame of mind.    Try and lay off the personal insults from now on.   

Fuck off shill. Dodges three questions to make cheap shot at my mental health. Fuck off shill, call me.

Your outright lies made me feel physically sick I hate to think of the effect they have on you.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 11, 2017, 04:26:52 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 11, 2017, 04:25:01 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 11, 2017, 04:23:53 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 11, 2017, 04:02:15 PM
Rayzor after shit like that, even the "normie" rational posters are starting to question your motives.

I suggest you look in a mirror and ask the reflection what you should do.

I'm pleased to see you are back in a better frame of mind.    Try and lay off the personal insults from now on.   

Fuck off shill. Dodges three questions to make cheap shot at my mental health. Fuck off shill, call me.

Sorry,   I'm not planning on calling you.   Get over it.     
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 11, 2017, 04:27:55 PM
So, in your own words, why, on 9/11, did structural resistance not cause structural resistance?

Quote from: NIST
that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow (only the structural resistance slowed) the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger smaller due to the increasing mass. (structural resistance.)

This hasn't been answered yet, by NIST, or Rayzor or Master Evar or Totes.

Just pointing it out for anyone who gives a fuck about truth.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 11, 2017, 04:35:11 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 11, 2017, 04:26:52 PM
Sorry,   I'm not planning on calling you.   Get over it.   

I wouldn't either if I were you...

Pathetic sad sack...its shameful..

Quote from: disputeone on March 11, 2017, 04:25:01 PM
Your outright lies made me feel physically sick I hate to think of the effect they have on you.

Sadly I feel they have zero effect on someone like him
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 11, 2017, 05:30:57 PM
So I was asked earlier about the fires and temperatures in wtc 2 causing the initial collapse.

I was laughed at for thinking the entire floor would have to be weakened symmetrically for the initial collapse to occur as it did.

It's not me that stipulates the symmetrical damage it's the video footage.



As physics, engineering and common sense tells us the structure was failing symmetrically and very quickly in its collapse. For this to happen the damage would have to be symmetrical.

(https://s8.postimg.org/qs5jkekud/20170312_091956.jpg)

If certain points of the structure were more weakened we could tell by the collapse.

The structure is failing symmetrically at close to free-fall, the tiny top of the building is crushing the massive structure underneath with the structue underneath providing no structural resistance during the collapse.

How can this happen?

We can see the top part tilt but it doesn't fall off the tower? It continues crushing the lower structure at close to free-fall?

And we just swallow this?

What do you guys think about the explosions in the video I posted?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 11, 2017, 05:46:22 PM
Check out the video at 7:30 and watch wtc 1 glow red hot as wtc 2 fell.



Coincidence?

Or illusion?

Even in the clip after you can see it's clearly slight of hand cutting supports on wtc 1. What else makes that much steel glow that red?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 11, 2017, 06:15:07 PM
Also, any honest comments about how many times the terms "explosion" or "demolition" are used in original footage.

Before we were told what to think and what to say?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 11, 2017, 09:17:32 PM

1. Babyhighspeed claims to have a PhD in engineering and has done 10 years worth of research on 911,  but failed to show us any of his results.
2. Babyhighspeed claims to have pictures of aircraft disappearing into buildings without leaving a mark,  but the video in question is on a hard drive that can't be found.
3. Babyhighspeed claims without evidence that drones hit the twin towers and thermite and shaped charges were used.
4. Babyhighspeed claims that a missile hit the pentagon, and that aircraft debris was faked.
5. Babyhighspeed claims to have analysed the AA77 FDR,  and declares if fake but then doesn't know about later analysis which proves it's real. 
6. Babyhighspeed goes very quiet after being show a David Chandler video about the pentagon,  in which "no planers" are extensively debunked.
7. Babyhighspeed claims he never was a "quadruple no planer".
9. Babyhighspeed claims he is now undecided and nothing is off the table.
10. Babyhighspeed abandons disputeone,  and leaves him to battle on alone,  with no support.
11. Babyhighspeed claims I haven't answered any of his points,  when in fact I've more than answered all of them over and over.

@disputeone Which of the above statements do you claim aren't true,  i've numbered them for you to make it easier.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 11, 2017, 09:59:33 PM
That's between you and Bhs I'm not getting sucked into your diversion, you are terrible at it.

Feel free to address the points I raised above at your leisure.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 11, 2017, 10:03:37 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 11, 2017, 09:17:32 PM

1. Babyhighspeed
2. Babyhighspeed
3. Babyhighspeed
4. Babyhighspeed
5. Babyhighspeed
6. Babyhighspeed
7. Babyhighspeed
9. Babyhighspeed
10. Babyhighspeed
11. Babyhighspeed

@disputeone Which of the above statements do you claim aren't true,  i've numbered them for you to make it easier.

All you have are personal attacks and a clear obsession with Bhs.

This is unequivocally true.

Edit, I've seen your kind a thousand times, you are following a playbook, any discerning internet denizen has seen it all too often.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 11, 2017, 10:07:26 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 11, 2017, 04:27:55 PM
So, in your own words, why, on 9/11, did structural resistance not cause structural resistance?

Quote from: NIST
that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow (only the structural resistance slowed) the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger (smaller) due to the increasing mass. (structural resistance.)

This hasn't been answered yet, by NIST, or Rayzor or Master Evar or Totes.

Just pointing it out for anyone who gives a fuck about truth.

Edit, I'm just putting it out there but a few things we can all agree on is the NIST report was shit, the towers collapse was at best unlikely and we need a new open and honest investigation into the events of 9/11.

Well, Rayzor would probably try to argue it if it wasn't for my sig.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 11, 2017, 10:32:57 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 11, 2017, 09:17:32 PM
4. Babyhighspeed claims that a missile hit the pentagon, and that aircraft debris was faked.

Can't help myself.

LMAO!!!

THE PENTAGONS ROOF HASN'T COLLAPSED YET!!

PLANE??

LMAO!!!!



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 11, 2017, 10:50:40 PM
You have to be a bit more discerning in selecting your video evidence,   showing the  C ring punch out hole  and pretending it's the impact point is a mistake you made earlier in the thread,  I thought you understood your mistake at the time,  but evidently you are still making the same blunder. 

Time you got caught up on the truth about the pentagon and AA77

https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_3460500235&feature=iv&src_vid=E9-O6iqJnOA&v=YsadQzNhT-Q
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 11, 2017, 10:56:18 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 11, 2017, 10:32:57 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 11, 2017, 09:17:32 PM
4. Babyhighspeed claims that a missile hit the pentagon, and that aircraft debris was faked.

Can't help myself.

LMAO!!!

THE PENTAGONS ROOF HASN'T COLLAPSED YET!!

PLANE??

LMAO!!!!





LoL.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on March 12, 2017, 03:41:15 AM
You really ARE hilarious! I appreciate it :)

Quote
As for entropy, how many of those possible states involve a symmetrical collapse at close to free-fall? Hmmm?
Entropy is a state function and therefore does not depend on the path by which the system arrived at the present state.

Quote
Here's some evidence and a simple hypothesis.
As mentioned, I’m not having so much time as I’d go on reading some conspiracy theory websites.

Quote
ARTIFICIAL SYMMETRY
structural engineers paul mason The symmetry of collapse struck both Paul Mason, a structural engineer in Melbourne, Australia, and Dennis Kollar, P.E., a structural engineer in Wisconsin, as disconcerting. Kollar remains troubled by the “totality and uniformity of the destruction” and by the fact that “the mass of debris remained centered on the building core all the way down.”
John Watt, a chartered structural engineer in Edinburgh, UK, voices similar concerns. “With respect to the Twin Towers," he says, “the main puzzle was how two buildings with highly asymmetric damage could fail vertically downwards into the strongest part of the buildings — their steel-columned cores. And not only fail vertically, but at a speed that indicated structural resistance being removed sequentially from under the collapse wave. Few engineers would imagine buildings a quarter-of-a-mile high failing vertically, into their main structures, rather than failing laterally — given the eccentric damage.”
The towers should have fallen “with increasing eccentricity as the collapse progressed,” observes Howard Pasternack, P.Eng., of Toronto, Canada. Moreover, these systematic collapses required that many structural connections not only fail “nearly simultaneously, but also in sequential order,” according to Frank Cullinan, P.E., who designs bridges in Northern California. That’s “impossible from asymmetrical impact loading and . . . small, short-duration fires.”
This and lot’s of other stuff is just some random dumb ass bullshit talk that can easily be seen as such. E.g. the desctruction was obviously neither uniform nor total. Also to say things like “the towers should have fallen with increasing eccentricity as the collapse progressed” is just wrong. To claim you KNOW how such complex IMPOSSIBLE TO CALCULATE situations should behave (/how the building SHOULD have collapsed) makes you look like a liar.
To call those fires “small, short-duration” doesn’t make the guy look smart either.

Quote
Constant acceleration at or near free-fall through what should have been the path of greatest resistance,
That is, again, nothing but bullshit. There was no “constant acceleration at or near free fall” plus it is, again, impossible to calculate HOW the acceleration should be.

Quote
I'm sick of guys that couldn't even weld a join or brace concrete and have never even seen a large building up close and personal telling me what should happen when they catch fire.

Get a 500mm × 500mm concrete support, set a fire underneath it and tell me what happens.

Pro-tip. The concrete doesn't give a shit.
Ants can withstand the pressure of up to 5000 times their body weight (http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/5970/20140210/ants-support-5-000-times-body-weight-before-losing-heads.htm). So, according to your logic which doesn’t involve that physics “changes” with scale, I could apply 5000x your bodyweight ontop of you and you would be fine. Nice logic, mate!

Quote
Heres a simple equation to show that structural resistance causes structural resistance.
WHY, just WHY can’t conspiracy theorists not get it into their minds THAT THERE IS NO SUCH THING as a simple equation that would prove their point on this matter?
So, G- %S = F
I’ve studied mechanical engineering for one year, „formulas“ with such “derivations” are just to stupid to even comment on because they show basic lack of knowledge in pretty much every scientific field. Of course you conspiracy theorists will be laughed at with “formulas” like that.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 12, 2017, 04:49:57 AM
Another guy who know more about structural engineering than structural engineers.

Didn't attempt to answer this.

Quote from: disputeone on March 11, 2017, 10:07:26 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 11, 2017, 04:27:55 PM
So, in your own words, why, on 9/11, did structural resistance not cause structural resistance?

Quote from: NIST
that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow (only the structural resistance slowed) the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger (smaller) due to the increasing mass. (structural resistance.)

This hasn't been answered yet, by NIST, or Rayzor or Master Evar or Totes.

Just pointing it out for anyone who gives a fuck about truth.

Edit, I'm just putting it out there but a few things we can all agree on is the NIST report was shit, the towers collapse was at best unlikely and we need a new open and honest investigation into the events of 9/11.

Well, Rayzor would probably try to argue it if it wasn't for my sig.

Architects and engineers isn't a "conspiracy theory" website, you idiot, they are professionals that want a new investigation.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 12, 2017, 04:53:49 AM
So, on 9/11, why didn't structural resistance cause structural resistance?

Here is the NIST report saying that structural resistance caused no structural resistance.

Care to try to explain it?

https://www.nist.gov/el/faqs-nist-wtc-towers-investigation

So, on 9/11, why didn't structural resistance cause structural resistance?

Take all the time you need.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 12, 2017, 04:55:07 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 11, 2017, 05:46:22 PM
Check out the video at 7:30 and watch wtc 1 glow red hot as wtc 2 fell.



Coincidence?

Or illusion?

Even in the clip after you can see it's clearly slight of hand cutting supports on wtc 1. What else makes that much steel glow that red?

Any thoughts at all user123?

Edit, I'm not a "conspiracy theorist" that's a lie they've fed you and you've swallowed.

I support the controlled demolition hypothesis and want a new fair honest and open investigation.

That's all.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: PawnedScum on March 12, 2017, 08:46:25 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 12, 2017, 04:55:07 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 11, 2017, 05:46:22 PM
Check out the video at 7:30 and watch wtc 1 glow red hot as wtc 2 fell.



Coincidence?

Or illusion?

Even in the clip after you can see it's clearly slight of hand cutting supports on wtc 1. What else makes that much steel glow that red?

Any thoughts at all user123?

Edit, I'm not a "conspiracy theorist" that's a lie they've fed you and you've swallowed.

I support the controlled demolition hypothesis and want a new fair honest and open investigation.

That's all.
Just trying to use a little common sense here, but wouldn't the collapsing building cause an outrush of air in all directions and into the gaping holes in the side of the other tower, thus fanning the fires the same way a billow would fan my fireplace? That looks to be what causes the glowing in the other tower of the video in my opinion.



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on March 12, 2017, 09:48:10 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 12, 2017, 04:53:49 AM
So, on 9/11, why didn't structural resistance cause structural resistance?

Here is the NIST report saying that structural resistance caused no structural resistance.

Care to try to explain it?

https://www.nist.gov/el/faqs-nist-wtc-towers-investigation

So, on 9/11, why didn't structural resistance cause structural resistance?

Take all the time you need.
I'm not going to read all that, just quote the part you think matters.
Anyway, I have no idea what you're trying to say by "structural resistance cause structural resistance". Maybe it's because english isn't my mother tongue. Do you mind to elaborate?

The video: I do not see anything strange there. Most likely air movement created by the first tower collapsing fed the fire inside the 2nd building.


Quote
Another guy who know more about structural engineering than structural engineers.
I'd actually love it if you found any statistics on how many of the structural engineers do think 9/11 is controlled demolition. I'd say it's lesser than one percent if you randomly pick a large number of structural engineers around the world.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 12, 2017, 02:28:07 PM
> air movement causes steel to glow red hot...

>1% of engineers question the official story....

Kek.

Whatever you have to tell yourselves.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 12, 2017, 02:42:25 PM
Quote from: User324 on March 12, 2017, 09:48:10 AM
I'm not going to read all that,

Please gtfo if you are too lazy to do any reading on this but want to argue from incredulity.

Seriously.

Quote from: User324 on March 12, 2017, 09:48:10 AM
Anyway, I have no idea what you're trying to say by "structural resistance cause structural resistance". Maybe it's because english isn't my mother tongue. Do you mind to elaborate?

Here.

pdf (https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.limitstate.com/system/files/LSGTN4_Modelling_Structural_Resistance.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwiitNeK99HSAhWIQpQKHb79AkQQFghWMA0&usg=AFQjCNG-kOh5hUmQIOBPZmgV0sCbF7YdeQ&sig2=Pw-q2cC6fG7zSK_tsp89XQ)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 12, 2017, 02:47:08 PM
Quote from: User324 on March 12, 2017, 09:48:10 AM
(https://s15.postimg.org/t76eaf6rv/1488971470554.jpg)

Good one mate.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 12, 2017, 02:55:41 PM
Look you guys had 70 pages to get on this thread, you both saw the thread in the lounge showing I was upset and now you are here after seeing that thread poking me with a stick for fun.

Not interested especially when people like you and Totes say specifically

"I won't read or consider your evidence, but you're wrong, I'm shmart sho I don't have to read or understand things, I am right you are wrong I won't read or accept any of your evidence."

I can't debate a starting position like that.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: PawnedScum on March 12, 2017, 04:27:53 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 12, 2017, 02:55:41 PM
Look you guys had 70 pages to get on this thread, you both saw the thread in the lounge showing I was upset and now you are here after seeing that thread poking me with a stick for fun.

Not interested especially when people like you and Totes say specifically

"I won't read or consider your evidence, but you're wrong, I'm shmart sho I don't have to read or understand things, I am right you are wrong I won't read or accept any of your evidence."

I can't debate a starting position like that.

I read the whole thing and I watched your video.  Not poking you with a stick.  You made a point out of the glowing in the video and I simply gave you what my impression of that was.  I didn't see anything sinister in that effect but I didn't make any reference to anything else in this thread or the whole 9/11 conspiracy in general.  I merely pointed out that it was logical for a large structure  collapsing to create a lot of air movement which would feed the fires in the other building.

As for the document, A lot of valid questions were asked and the link you gave provided answers to those. I didn't specifically see the structural resistance reference in there but I did see where they explained the reason they believed the building collapsed and fell the way it did. 

I also never said rather I believe either the questions or the answers.  Just relax, I'm not joining the discussion late just to irritate you and have been following it for a while, just not participating because I'm not a structural engineer.  I have been listening to answers and doing my own research based on the different perspectives given.  I simply wanted to point out that the glowing in the second tower during the collapse just seemed like a normal response to how a fire would react when the building next to it fell. Nothing more.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 12, 2017, 09:20:43 PM
So, air movement can make structural steel glow red hot.

Coolio ok.

Explains the molten steel we saw on wtc 2 before it fell and the molten steel for months in the rubble.

Wind, who knew, better stop smoking in my car with the windows down, my car and the car next to me  will fall apart.

Cognitive dissonance much?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 13, 2017, 12:14:39 AM
Take the 47 minute challenge and tell me you believe fire brought down wtc 7.

If I didn't already show the impossibility of it. ::)

If you care about truth. If not, keep calling me crazy, we're all having a great time.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 13, 2017, 01:27:07 AM
If you guys can watch that and tell me that the official story is completely water tight.

There's something wrong with you, not just me.

How many witnesses saying they head explosives do we need?

How many engineers saying building 7s collapse was "impossible without explosive demolition." do we need?

How many victims families do we need to beg for the truth before we support a new investigation?

Obviously more than have already bravely came forward.

I unironically cried when I head "Well I still have an obligation as a parent to find out why my son was murdered."

Then guys like him are called loonies.

The guy lost his son and wants the truth, why is it ok to write him off as crazy!?

Building 7s collapse acceleration and symmetry are the smoking gun piece of evidence that we have been supplying (undebunked) since page one.

NIST not releasing their inputs is a literal slap in the face to the families that lost loved ones.

Cue Rayzor to say he's smarter than 1500 engineers and that those 1500 engineers only see holes in the official story because they are crazy.

Also the people on the ground that will testify to explosive demolition are crazy.

In fact anyone who doesn't go along with the T.V's opinion on everything are crazy.

Smdh.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sceptimatic on March 13, 2017, 01:36:42 AM
To find out what really happened we need legitimate footage.
The footage shown to us in just about all cases, is either doctored or of so bad quality as to be pointless.
How come all news channels show the same crap footage?
How come there's no real time clear as day sun shine footage showing planes?
Why is all footage blurred out?

Something is getting hidden from us all.
I'll tell you one thing for sure.
The people who really know what happened, are those that lived close to the towers.
I'm not talking about those that are on video shouting "oh my god, oh my god, oh my god" or " holy shit.....hoooooly shhhhit." I'm talking about the real people who will have heard progressive explosions and also ground explosions, without seeing any aircraft.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 13, 2017, 01:45:25 AM
Quote from: sceptimatic on March 13, 2017, 01:36:42 AM
To find out what really happened we need legitimate footage.
The footage shown to us in just about all cases, is either doctored or of so bad quality as to be pointless.
How come all news channels show the same crap footage?
How come there's no real time clear as day sun shine footage showing planes?
Why is all footage blurred out?

Something is getting hidden from us all.
I'll tell you one thing for sure.
The people who really know what happened, are those that lived close to the towers.
I'm not talking about those that are on video shouting "oh my god, oh my god, oh my god" or " holy shit.....hoooooly shhhhit." I'm talking about the real people who will have heard progressive explosions and also ground explosions, without seeing any aircraft.

Thanks Scepti.

Sorry I freaked out a bit mate, I'm new to this being called crazy for my opinions.

Usually when I've debated this it's been irl or 4chan which obviously the shills don't have the same level of opinion control.

Anywhoo thanks for the support, I do appreciate it, sorry for freaking out.

My emotions are like a normal persons times nine thousand and one (it's over 9000!)

For everyone else if I didn't care so fucking much I wouldn't get upset.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 13, 2017, 01:53:16 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 12, 2017, 09:20:43 PM
So, air movement can make structural steel glow red hot.

Sure why not?? Just add one more rainbow.

Seeing I am a new tenant in a high rise, I actually reconsidered lighting a candle. Would be afraid to try and blow it out...Might send the whole room in a fiery Blaze...Even though I am at the penthouse level, doesn't matter... Just a little fire in any location will pulverize all 40 plus stories...(not a good way to get to know my new neighbors) My unicorn stable is up here as well. (Also, from the video, we can observe what the "air movement" condition was from the dust)

Quote from: disputeone on March 13, 2017, 01:27:07 AM
Cue Rayzor to say he's smarter than 1500 engineers and that those 1500 engineers only see holes in the official story because they are crazy.

Last I knew is was about 2500 on just ONE site, there are many many more out there on other sites. Plus, many other sites involving others in other professions. That is just people who care enough to say anything (unfortunately many people do not care to make a stir as it directly does not effect them)..Not to mention 50 percent of the population in America, as well as the majority of the population around the globe.

Just in my field, the high majority knows it's bullshit. Granted some don't want to discuss it, some do, some make jokes to blow off steam such as "more jet fuel" when something is being a bitch or not functioning correctly.


But really....There is one thing we should really ask ourselves that will save alot of time...Why should we consider the official report when even those who wrote it didn't even believe it and stated it was horse shit??



Scepti...What you don't like video evidence filmed from a potato with obvious inconsistencies? 1000s upon 1000s of personal testimony withheld from the official report? Obvious scripting and control of interviews allowed on the news? Yep scepti...You sound like a dumb conspiracy theorist to me....

Edit for bold
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 13, 2017, 02:03:25 AM
Damn "conspiracy theorists" won't consider evidence.

I forgot about the rainbow.

@Bhs every engineer worth his salt knows the towers didn't collapse the way they did for the reasons they were told.

I am equally outspoken irl.

I'm just being careful to only make claims I can back up with a citation.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 13, 2017, 01:53:16 AM
Seeing I am a new tenant in a high rise, I actually reconsidered lighting a candle. Would be afraid to try and blow it out...Might send the whole room in a fiery Blaze...Even though I am at the penthouse level, doesn't matter... Just a little fire in any location will pulverize all 40 plus stories...(not a good way to get to know my new neighbors) My unicorn stable is up here as well. (Also, from the video, we can observe what the "air movement" condition was from the dust)

I laughed so fucking hard.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 13, 2017, 02:16:43 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 12, 2017, 09:20:43 PM
So, air movement can make structural steel glow red hot.

Yes,  it does,

What,  you don't believe me?   Ask a blacksmith what his bellows are for?

Point your hair dryer at a fire and tell me what happens,  or you can go one step further and build a cupola to melt steel if you are keen.   A friend of mine does just that with charcoal and forced air to do melt cast iron.

Now try blasting pure oxygen into the fire and report back on what happens,

PS.   I watched that video on WTC7,  and cherry picked witnesses don't count,   nor does reports of "explosions",  do you think a building collapse is going to be silent?  Anyway, seismographic records show no evidence of explosions.   Like all conspiracy videos they only show you stuff that confirms their predetermined bias.   You have to look outside the bubble.




Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 13, 2017, 02:19:18 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 13, 2017, 02:03:25 AM
I'm just being careful to only make claims I can back up with a citation.

Yes, I fell into this trap when I would muse about possible scenarios, (example, how "I" would take down a tower with certàin materials) I should have never. I would not have in a face to face or group debate. I originally made the mistake certain people were actually looking for truth and would appreciate a totally open debate, even with some "thinking out loud"

I learned my lesson (which I already knew, just let my guard down for a second like a dumb ass, which is entirely my fault)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 13, 2017, 02:22:57 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 13, 2017, 02:19:18 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 13, 2017, 02:03:25 AM
I'm just being careful to only make claims I can back up with a citation.

Yes, I fell into this trap when I would muse about possible scenarios, (example, how "I" would take down a tower with certàin materials) I should have never. I would not have in a face to face or group debate. I originally made the mistake certain people were actually looking for truth and would appreciate a totally open debate, even with some "thinking out loud"

I learned my lesson (which I already knew, just let my guard down for a second like a dumb ass, which is entirely my fault)

Yes,  I forgot,  you have no opinion, and are undecided,  every thing is still "on the table"    But you do have video of a plane disappearing into a building not leaving a trace,  and rock solid evidence of a missile hitting the pentagon.  LOL

Why weren't you here helping dispute when he needed it?

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 13, 2017, 02:29:57 AM
Did you watch the video on wtc 7, Rayzor.

Do you believe the official story explains what happened perfectly?

Fuck off shill.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 13, 2017, 02:33:24 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 13, 2017, 02:22:57 AM
Yes,  I forgot,  you have no opinion, and are undecided,  every thing is still "on the table"    But you do have video of a plane disappearing into a building not leaving a trace,  and rock solid evidence of a missile hitting the pentagon.  LOL

Why weren't you here helping dispute when he needed it?

As usual I have answered your question spanky.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 10, 2017, 09:08:15 PM
As for dispute, you are just mad about the things I said to you sticking up for him in the other thread. Never abandoned anyone. Not to mention, I have been on y'all's time, and there was a few days where I was too busy to do that...

I can jack around alot, but unfortunately, there are times that I actually have to do something personally. Sometimes, there are times I have to work 20 hours a day. Sometimes others got it..

Oh...And edit..There has been multiple pictures and video posted of planes "disappearing" into the buildings.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 13, 2017, 02:35:44 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 13, 2017, 02:16:43 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 12, 2017, 09:20:43 PM
So, air movement can make structural steel glow red hot.

Yes,  it does,

What,  you don't believe me?   Ask a blacksmith what his bellows are for?

Point your hair dryer at a fire and tell me what happens,  or you can go one step further and build a cupola to melt steel if you are keen.   A friend of mine does just that with charcoal and forced air to do melt cast iron.

Now try blasting pure oxygen into the fire and report back on what happens,

PS.   I watched that video on WTC7,  and cherry picked witnesses don't count,   nor does reports of "explosions",  do you think a building collapse is going to be silent?  Anyway, seismographic records show no evidence of explosions.   Like all conspiracy videos they only show you stuff that confirms their predetermined bias.   You have to look outside the bubble.

Did you watch the fireman vid where you can hear the explosion yourself?

Wtc 7 was not a furnace or bellows, we already established that the fires couldn't have made the steel glow red hot.

We have established that, earlier in the thread, you helped.

For the Nth time I am aware that fire needs oxygen to burn.

Comparing wtc 7 to a bellows is a weak strawman.

You, need to look outside the bubble.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 13, 2017, 02:38:05 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 13, 2017, 02:29:57 AM
Did you watch the video on wtc 7, Rayzor.

Do you believe the official story explains what happened perfectly?

Fuck off shill.

Yes  I did,   I happen to have a high regard for David Chandler,  he at least is logical and fairly thorough, and he is true to the evidence as he sees it.   I mostly just  disagree with his conclusions.

The evidence for explosions is not conclusive,  a building collapsing is going to make a lot of noise.   The witnesses were cherry picked,  and the seismic evidence was ignored. 


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 13, 2017, 02:40:58 AM
So theres a .00000000000000001% chance the official story can explain it.

Alright, I'll pay that.

What about the explosions heard before the building collapse at free-fall?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 13, 2017, 02:42:50 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 13, 2017, 02:35:44 AM

Wtc 7 was not a furnace or bellows, we already established that the fires couldn't have made the steel glow red hot.


No we didn't   I showed the research that an office fire of 600 sqm in size  could exceed far field temperatures of 800C  in less than 30 minutes,  these fires burned for 7 hours.   

What do you think happens to the yield strength of steel at 800C?

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 13, 2017, 02:44:59 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 13, 2017, 02:40:58 AM
So theres a .00000000000000001% chance the official story can explain it.

Alright, I'll pay that.

What about the explosions heard before the building collapse at free-fall?

The interior collapsed completely  ( and asymetrically )  before the north and east wall collapsed,   I doubt that interior collapse was silent.   thousands of tonnes falling 600 ft  tends to make noise.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 13, 2017, 02:51:30 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 13, 2017, 02:33:24 AM
Oh...And edit..There has been multiple pictures and video posted of planes "disappearing" into the buildings.

I missed the edit,  so can you link to one or more such videos?  or are they still on inaccessible hard drives?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 13, 2017, 02:57:34 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 13, 2017, 02:44:59 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 13, 2017, 02:40:58 AM
So theres a .00000000000000001% chance the official story can explain it.

Alright, I'll pay that.

What about the explosions heard before the building collapse at free-fall?

The interior collapsed completely  ( and asymetrically )  before the north and east wall collapsed,   I doubt that interior collapse was silent.   thousands of tonnes falling 600 ft  tends to make noise.

So your explanation for the explosions heard before wtc 7 fell is wtc 7 falling.

Ok, coolio.

Great logic.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 13, 2017, 03:00:56 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 13, 2017, 02:57:34 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 13, 2017, 02:44:59 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 13, 2017, 02:40:58 AM
So theres a .00000000000000001% chance the official story can explain it.

Alright, I'll pay that.

What about the explosions heard before the building collapse at free-fall?

The interior collapsed completely  ( and asymetrically )  before the north and east wall collapsed,   I doubt that interior collapse was silent.   thousands of tonnes falling 600 ft  tends to make noise.

So your explanation for the explosions heard before wtc 7 fell is wtc 7 falling.

Ok, coolio.

Great logic.

Watch the video again brainiac, and tell me you don't see the penthouse collapse left to right   ( west to east )  long before the North and East wall collapsed.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 13, 2017, 03:09:18 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 13, 2017, 02:57:34 AM
So your explanation for the explosions heard before wtc 7 fell is wtc 7 falling.

Ok, coolio.

Great logic.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 13, 2017, 03:10:42 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 13, 2017, 02:51:30 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 13, 2017, 02:33:24 AM
Oh...And edit..There has been multiple pictures and video posted of planes "disappearing" into the buildings.

I missed the edit,  so can you link to one or more such videos?  or are they still on inaccessible hard drives?

There has been videos and pics posted on this thread.


Quote from: Rayzor on March 13, 2017, 03:00:56 AM

Watch the video again brainiac, and tell me you don't see the penthouse collapse left to right   ( west to east )  long before the North and East wall collapsed.

Is a second or two a "long time"? Also this is exactly what would happen under a demo... I am lost on what this is supposed to rebuttal..

Do you even know? Or just saying things?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 13, 2017, 03:13:38 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 13, 2017, 03:10:42 AM
Is a second or two a "long time"? Also this is exactly what would happen under a demo... I am lost on what this is supposed to rebuttal..

Do you even know? Or just saying things?

(https://s17.postimg.org/dhwk93ej3/1482058264147.jpg)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 13, 2017, 03:30:24 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 13, 2017, 02:42:50 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 13, 2017, 02:35:44 AM

Wtc 7 was not a furnace or bellows, we already established that the fires couldn't have made the steel glow red hot.


No we didn't   I showed the research that an office fire of 600 sqm in size  could exceed far field temperatures of 800C  in less than 30 minutes,  these fires burned for 7 hours.   

What do you think happens to the yield strength of steel at 800C?

I'm glad you asked, my wtc 7 challenge has structural / fire engineers explaining what happens to steel in a fire.

Please watch it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 13, 2017, 03:32:56 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 13, 2017, 12:14:39 AM
Take the 47 minute challenge and tell me you believe fire brought down wtc 7.

If I didn't already show the impossibility of it. ::)

If you care about truth. If not, keep calling me crazy, we're all having a great time.



Rayzor.

Asymmetrical you say?

Edit. Now why would someone argue against what we can see with our own eyes in video evidence.

No, wait, I know.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 13, 2017, 03:45:29 AM
As for the building "collapsing" leaving only the north and east wall standing.

Here is a video that comprehensively debunks (((Rayzors))) claim.



For context this  ((())) is officially a hate symbol now so I'm using it.

God they hate free speech, rallying to shut down one of the last true open anonymous forums.

I wonder why?

Rayzor hates free speech too, lets ask him.

Edit.
(https://s29.postimg.org/rkrq31dtj/latest_2.jpg)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 13, 2017, 04:44:04 AM
Quote from: PawnedScum on March 12, 2017, 04:27:53 PM
As for the document, A lot of valid questions were asked and the link you gave provided answers to those. I didn't specifically see the structural resistance reference in there but I did see where they explained the reason they believed the building collapsed and fell the way it did. 

Unfortunately, in science and engineering, a belief isn't good enough, we need maths.

I won't back down on this issue, until I am bammed, so you're stuck with me.

I literally can't give it up.

SCG will most likely bam me if I don't say "fuck drumpf, I respect all opinions except the opinions different to mine." So we may not have to wait so long.

^^P.S. said it^^
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 13, 2017, 05:03:25 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 11, 2017, 04:27:55 PM
So, in your own words, why, on 9/11, did structural resistance not cause structural resistance?

This hasn't been answered yet, by NIST, or Rayzor or Master Evar or Totes.

Just pointing it out for anyone who gives a fuck about truth.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on March 13, 2017, 09:24:30 AM
Quote from: PawnedScum on March 12, 2017, 04:27:53 PM
I simply wanted to point out that the glowing in the second tower during the collapse just seemed like a normal response to how a fire would react when the building next to it fell. Nothing more.

What glowing in the "second tower?"
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 13, 2017, 09:44:14 AM
Quote from: totallackey on March 13, 2017, 09:24:30 AM
Quote from: PawnedScum on March 12, 2017, 04:27:53 PM
I simply wanted to point out that the glowing in the second tower during the collapse just seemed like a normal response to how a fire would react when the building next to it fell. Nothing more.

What glowing in the "second tower?"

This is what he was talking about

Quote from: disputeone on March 11, 2017, 05:46:22 PM
Check out the video at 7:30 and watch wtc 1 glow red hot as wtc 2 fell.



Coincidence?

Or illusion?

Even in the clip after you can see it's clearly slight of hand cutting supports on wtc 1. What else makes that much steel glow that red?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on March 13, 2017, 10:06:32 AM
Quote
Look you guys had 70 pages to get on this thread, you both saw the thread in the lounge showing I was upset and now you are here after seeing that thread poking me with a stick for fun.
Not interested especially when people like you and Totes say specifically
"I won't read or consider your evidence, but you're wrong, I'm shmart sho I don't have to read or understand things, I am right you are wrong I won't read or accept any of your evidence."
I can't debate a starting position like that
Just make your points but don’t expect me the read through walls of text to actually find what you’re trying to tell me.


Quote
Please gtfo if you are too lazy to do any reading on this but want to argue from incredulity.
As I have already mentioned multiple times, I do have lot’s of other things to do. So keep your postings short or I won’t read them. Same goes for your 5 page maths paper and 10 conspiracy-pages you linked me.
Explain/say what you mean but don’t send me to other websites or long texts I do not really care about nor have the time to read.

Anyway, if you think it makes you an engineer if you read a maths-document, believe me: It doesn’t. You’re just more likely to miss-use your “knowledge” and get guided in the wrong direction.


Quote
So, air movement can make structural steel glow red hot.
Post a screenshot where you can see “structural steel glow red hot”, because I do not see that.


Quote
Take the 47 minute challenge and tell me you believe fire brought down wtc 7.
Again, I’m not going to watch nearly-one-hour-videos about conspiracy theories. Stop trying bore other people until they leave by posting such time-consuming stuff. Get your ideas and arguments ON POINT and then post them here so we can discuss them.

Last, but not least STOP SPAMMING THIS THREAD, THERE IS NO NEED TO POST 5 (edit: 6) ANSWERS IN A ROW.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 13, 2017, 03:03:41 PM
If you won't read or consider evidence then I'm not interested man.

(https://s15.postimg.org/t76eaf6rv/1488971470554.jpg)

I'm not playing that game.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 13, 2017, 03:47:26 PM
Quote from: User324 on March 13, 2017, 10:06:32 AM
Last, but not least STOP SPAMMING THIS THREAD, THERE IS NO NEED TO POST 5 (edit: 6) ANSWERS IN A ROW.

I don't even bother to read most of his crap, it's just the same stuff repeated over and over.
 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 13, 2017, 03:51:03 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 13, 2017, 03:10:42 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 13, 2017, 02:51:30 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 13, 2017, 02:33:24 AM
Oh...And edit..There has been multiple pictures and video posted of planes "disappearing" into the buildings.

I missed the edit,  so can you link to one or more such videos?  or are they still on inaccessible hard drives?

There has been videos and pics posted on this thread.

No, they all leave a mark on entering the building. 


Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 13, 2017, 03:10:42 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 13, 2017, 03:00:56 AM

Watch the video again brainiac, and tell me you don't see the penthouse collapse left to right   ( west to east )  long before the North and East wall collapsed.

Is a second or two a "long time"? Also this is exactly what would happen under a demo... I am lost on what this is supposed to rebuttal..

Do you even know? Or just saying things?


So you didn't watch the video?   And have no idea what I'm talking about.   Not surprised.
 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 13, 2017, 04:03:27 PM
Rayzor, you didn't raise a point.

I am also not surprised.

User321

Quote
In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.

https://www.nist.gov/el/faqs-nist-wtc-towers-investigation

Quote
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)

https://www.nist.gov/el/faqs-nist-wtc-7-investigation

Quote from: disputeone on March 13, 2017, 05:03:25 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 11, 2017, 04:27:55 PM
So, in your own words, why, on 9/11, did structural resistance not cause structural resistance?

This hasn't been answered yet, by NIST, or Rayzor or Master Evar or Totes.

Just pointing it out for anyone who gives a fuck about truth.

Absolutely no "muh english" excuse now.

Why, on 9/11, did structural resistance not cause structural resistance?

Here is a pdf on structural resistance.

pdf (https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.limitstate.com/system/files/LSGTN4_Modelling_Structural_Resistance.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwiitNeK99HSAhWIQpQKHb79AkQQFghWMA0&usg=AFQjCNG-kOh5hUmQIOBPZmgV0sCbF7YdeQ&sig2=Pw-q2cC6fG7zSK_tsp89XQ)

I'm repeating this because it hasn't been anwered.

Edit. You tried to dismiss my math off hand and say it doesn't prove anything, however it proves that structural resistance will slow fall acceleration.

The O/S relies on the structure providing zero structural resistance, which is just untrue.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 13, 2017, 07:18:31 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 13, 2017, 02:44:59 AM
asymetrically

(https://s27.postimg.org/3rgz2uj6r/1489456706844.gif)

Lmao.

Demolition charges.

(https://s15.postimg.org/nn4n03x97/1489455004938.jpg)

Passenger plane.

(https://s28.postimg.org/itmerjxfx/9_11_Ghost_Flash.gif)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 13, 2017, 07:43:48 PM
Quote from: anonymous
Mossad agents caught recording the first plane striking the tower then dancing and celebrating the attack. later arrested in a van with traces of explosives
[Open]

Israel celebrates successful 9/11 operation on Purim holiday
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/03/01/291462/israel-celebrates-successful-911attacks/

9-11 Mossad 'Mural Van' - NYPD Radio Transmission
[Open]

9-11 Cop Who Arrested Dancing Israelis Speaks
[Open]

The Zionist Jews Who Were Caught Celebrating 911 Attacks As While Occuring Are Caught Confessing 911 On Israeli TV
[Open]

Kerry Reminds Congress Netanyahu Advised U.S. to Invade Iraq
www.nytimes.com/.../kerry-reminds-congress-netanyahu-advised-us-to-i...

[Open]
>"If you take out Saddam, Saddam's regime, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region." -- Netanyahu, 2002

Netanyahu Bragged He Has America Wrapped Around His Finge
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/tricky-bibi-1.302053

Have some more red pills.

(https://s13.postimg.org/gq5849ymv/1489458739640m.jpg)

Cue Rayzor to go absolutely ballistic now I brought up Mossad.

Edit.

I really had you pegged for JIDF, might be wrong.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 13, 2017, 09:44:49 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 13, 2017, 07:43:48 PM
Cue Rayzor to go absolutely ballistic now I brought up Mossad.

LOL   So it was a jewish plot?    What about their reptillian shapeshifter overlords?  Don't they deserve a mention?


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 13, 2017, 09:46:45 PM
Didn't let me down.

Yes.

It was a joint Mossad and CIA operation to start a war in the middle east to destabilize the area for mutual gain.

There are no reptilians as far as I know.

9/11 was a false flag.

Edit. Please stop trying to divert the debate to "conspiracy theories" we are still talking about 9/11.

I know it's all you have left but it's desperate.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 13, 2017, 10:16:37 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 13, 2017, 09:44:49 PM
So it was a jewish plot?    What about their reptillian shapeshifter overlords?  Don't they deserve a mention?

 ::) ::) This is an "intelligent" "person" looking for "truth"..

Quote from: disputeone on March 13, 2017, 09:46:45 PM
Didn't let me down.


(http://i65.tinypic.com/30thxcn.jpg)

(http://i65.tinypic.com/6tpn3m.jpg)

Come to my penthouse, let me show you my stable. They don't even need a run way

Edit* Stable of unicorns, not 767s..I am sure some dumb ass will attempt to twist my words somehow there.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 13, 2017, 11:09:20 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 13, 2017, 10:16:37 PM
::) ::) This is an "intelligent" "person" looking for "truth"..

Oh I don't think anyone believes that anymore.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 14, 2017, 12:00:01 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 13, 2017, 10:16:37 PM
(http://i65.tinypic.com/30thxcn.jpg)

I already debunked this once before,  just roll  the next few frames and see if it leaves a mark.   
In any case you can see the right wing tip damage to to aluminium cladding clearly.

Is your brain dead conspiracy so bereft of ideas that you have to keep posting the same bullshit over and over?   You'll end up as loopy as dipstickone if you keep this up.



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 12:04:42 AM
Say it to my face or not at all.

>too scared to say it to my face.

You look like such a bitch right now.

Quote from: Rayzor on March 14, 2017, 12:00:01 AM
I try to bully people on the internet that irl I would be too scared to look in the eyes.

I know mate, I know.

Anyone remember that kid who always used to start fights then run to his Mum when anyone hit him back.

That's Rayzor.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 12:14:33 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 14, 2017, 12:00:01 AM
You'll end up as loopy as dipstickone if you keep this up.

5 × 5 minute rounds.

MMA rules, gloves and cup.

I know plenty of gyms in Melbourne so my place or yours.

Loser stops talking shit. Winner is payed an agreed sum by the loser.

Don't call me crazy.

Back up the checks your mouth is writing.

P.S. You don't use a proxy ;).
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on March 14, 2017, 12:15:49 AM
Lol, Disputeone is having some serious intelligence issues...

I don't think arguing with him will help in any way. Just one last point: If the restructural resistance is causing a slowing of the fall of the building (which it obviously does) but this negative acceleration is negligibly low (probably not measureable), it will be mentioned as "...so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass."
Nothing wrong with that, you just lack the ability of logical thinking which would be required to understand what you read.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 14, 2017, 12:17:12 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 12:04:42 AM
Say it to my face or not at all.

>too scared to say it to my face.

You look like such a bitch right now.

Quote from: Rayzor on March 14, 2017, 12:00:01 AM
I try to bully people on the internet that irl I would be too scared to look in the eyes.

I know mate, I know.

Anyone remember that kid who always used to start fights then run to his Mum when anyone hit him back.

That's Rayzor.

Quote from: dipstickone
You are going to end this a jibbering mess of failed insults and logic.

Yep,  you got something almost right in the whole 71 pages.     I'm sorry your pet conspiracy turned out to be supported only by a bunch of fakes and losers. 

You've got to be more careful about who you trust.   



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 12:19:59 AM
Quote from: User324 on March 14, 2017, 12:15:49 AM
Lol, Disputeone is having some serious intelligence issues...

I don't think arguing with him will help in any way. Just one last point: If the restructural resistance is causing a slowing of the fall of the building (which it obviously does) but this negative acceleration is negligibly low, it will be mentioned as "...so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass."
Nothing wrong with that, you just lack the ability of logical thinking which would be required to understand what you read.

I'm not the one having logical issues.

What NIST says is impossible, drop a bowling ball though multiple sheets of paper. Does the paper slow down the bowling balls fall acceleration?

The answer is yes it does.

You aren't even thinking about this.

Shoot a cannon ball through a sheet of steel, is there enough velocity in the world to pass through the steel without the cannon ball slowing down?

The answer is no.

I know you are scared thinking about this, it seems like this is one of the first times you've tried thinking yourself instead of memorising something someone else wrote.

Also your rebuttal was a logical fallacy so stfu.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 12:20:48 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 12:14:33 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 14, 2017, 12:00:01 AM
You'll end up as loopy as dipstickone if you keep this up.

5 × 5 minute rounds.

MMA rules, gloves and cup.

I know plenty of gyms in Melbourne so my place or yours.

Loser stops talking shit. Winner is payed an agreed sum by the loser.

Don't call me crazy.

Back up the checks your mouth is writing.

P.S. You don't use a proxy ;).

Stop calling me crazy, it would be wise.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 14, 2017, 12:23:59 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 12:14:33 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 14, 2017, 12:00:01 AM
You'll end up as loopy as dipstickone if you keep this up.

5 × 5 minute rounds.

MMA rules, gloves and cup.

I know plenty of gyms in Melbourne so my place or yours.

Loser stops talking shit. Winner is payed an agreed sum by the loser.

Don't call me crazy.

Back up the checks your mouth is writing.

P.S. You don't use a proxy ;).

Funny, just a few days ago you were the guy begging and pleading me to call you to have a beer.    Please go and  get help,   this is not normal behaviour.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 12:25:58 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 14, 2017, 12:23:59 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 12:14:33 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 14, 2017, 12:00:01 AM
You'll end up as loopy as dipstickone if you keep this up.

5 × 5 minute rounds.

MMA rules, gloves and cup.

I know plenty of gyms in Melbourne so my place or yours.

Loser stops talking shit. Winner is payed an agreed sum by the loser.

Don't call me crazy.

Back up the checks your mouth is writing.

P.S. You don't use a proxy ;).

Funny, just a few days ago you were the guy begging and pleading me to call you to have a beer.    Please go and  get help,   this is not normal behaviour.

I was gonna punch you if you decided to call me crazy irl. Full disclosure, same plan.

This is normal for where I'm from, you can only talk shit for so long before you get hit.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 14, 2017, 12:28:10 AM
Quote from: User324 on March 14, 2017, 12:15:49 AM
If the restructural resistance is causing a slowing of the fall of the building (which it obviously does),

Quote from: User324 on March 14, 2017, 12:15:49 AM
(probably not measureable)

What the Sam hell? How is it obvious if we can't measure it?

I have not seen you say one useful thing...It appears hoppy called you correctly.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 14, 2017, 12:31:54 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 14, 2017, 12:17:12 AM

Yep,  you got something almost right in the whole 71 pages.     I'm sorry your pet conspiracy turned out to be supported only by a bunch of fakes and losers. 

You've got to be more careful about who you trust.

Lol...Fakes and losers lol....Says the nobody that knows little and has done nothing.

Such a Sad Sack...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 12:34:05 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 14, 2017, 12:28:10 AM
Quote from: User324 on March 14, 2017, 12:15:49 AM
If the restructural resistance is causing a slowing of the fall of the building (which it obviously does),

Quote from: User324 on March 14, 2017, 12:15:49 AM
(probably not measureable)

What the Sam hell? How is it obvious if we can't measure it?

Lol welcome to the boot-loop of the official story.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 14, 2017, 12:34:47 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 12:25:58 AM
was gonna punch you if you decided to call me crazy irl. Full disclosure, same plan.

This is normal for where I'm from, you can only talk shit for so long before you get hit.

Threatening to beat up strangers you argued with on a flat earth internet forum,  this is part of a normal day for you?     

From now on I'm going to stop responding to you,   I wouldn't want to be responsible for another melt down.   Seriously,  turn off the computer or phone or whatever you are using and take a long walk.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 12:40:12 AM
Yes three strike rule.

Call me crazy, ask them not to.

Call me crazy again, tell them to stop.

Call me crazy again, physically stop them.

This is normal for any man who isn't a beta cuck.

I am glad you are scared of me, this will do.

An MMA fight isn't "beating someone up" it's a sport. We used to do it all the time on bullshido.net in its glory days.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 14, 2017, 12:40:55 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 14, 2017, 12:34:47 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 12:25:58 AM
was gonna punch you if you decided to call me crazy irl. Full disclosure, same plan.

This is normal for where I'm from, you can only talk shit for so long before you get hit.

Threatening to beat up strangers you argued with on a flat earth internet forum,  this is part of a normal day for you?     

From now on I'm going to stop responding to you,   I wouldn't want to be responsible for another melt down.   Seriously,  turn off the computer or phone or whatever you are using and take a long walk.



If it counts I would love to see it...

FYI, he never said beat up....He said fair fight in a ring with rules. If you are assuming you are gonna get beat up that is your problem lol..


Edit for this

Quote from: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 12:40:12 AM

This is normal for any man who isn't a beta cuck.

I laughed
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on March 14, 2017, 12:41:07 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 14, 2017, 12:28:10 AM
Quote from: User324 on March 14, 2017, 12:15:49 AM
If the restructural resistance is causing a slowing of the fall of the building (which it obviously does),

Quote from: User324 on March 14, 2017, 12:15:49 AM
(probably not measureable)

What the Sam hell? How is it obvious if we can't measure it?

I have not seen you say one useful thing...It appears hoppy called you correctly.

The structure is able to absorb kinetic energy and thus leading to a certain amount of de-acceleration (e.g. the acceleration wouldn't be 9.81 but maybe 9.7). If this amount of de-acceleration is not measureble since it would perish due to factors like air resistance etc, its negligible.

Quote
Shoot a cannon ball through a sheet of steel, is there enough velocity in the world to pass through the steel without the cannon ball slowing down?
What NIST says is impossible, drop a bowling ball though multiple sheets of paper. Does the paper slow down the bowling balls fall acceleration?
As I have mentioned, the problem here is a basic understanding of ALL scientific fields and a lack of intelligence. This can, in my experience, be observed with every conspiracy theorist.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 12:44:26 AM
Quote from: User324 on March 14, 2017, 12:41:07 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 14, 2017, 12:28:10 AM
Quote from: User324 on March 14, 2017, 12:15:49 AM
If the restructural resistance is causing a slowing of the fall of the building (which it obviously does),

Quote from: User324 on March 14, 2017, 12:15:49 AM
(probably not measureable)

What the Sam hell? How is it obvious if we can't measure it?

I have not seen you say one useful thing...It appears hoppy called you correctly.

The structure is able to absorb kinetic energy and thus leading to a certain amount of de-acceleration (e.g. the acceleration wouldn't be 9.81 but maybe 9.7). If this amount of de-acceleration is not measureble since it would perish due to factors like air resistance etc, its negligible.

Quote
Shoot a cannon ball through a sheet of steel, is there enough velocity in the world to pass through the steel without the cannon ball slowing down?
What NIST says is impossible, drop a bowling ball though multiple sheets of paper. Does the paper slow down the bowling balls fall acceleration?
As I have mentioned, the problem here is a basic understanding of ALL scientific fields and a lack of intelligence. This can, in my experience, be observed with every conspiracy theorist.

So you can't answer, that's fine.

Maybe your talents would be better used calling actual "conspiracy theorists" crazy.

We are not conspiracy theorists we support the controlled demolition hypothesis. We have evidence.

You make a mistake saying we are not "intelligent" I have shown I am many things, however unintelligent isn't one of them.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on March 14, 2017, 12:48:49 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 12:44:26 AM
So you can't answer, that's fine.
Your incapability of making simple connections and think just a tiny little bit for yourself does not mean your statement has not been answered. It just means you are not able to actually understand what has been written.

I just let that stand here:
Quote from: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 12:44:26 AM
You make a mistake saying we are not "intelligent" I have shown I am many things, however unintelligent isn't one of them.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 14, 2017, 12:52:05 AM
User324

So you are saying 35 thousand tons can vaporize 465 thousand tons with no noticable deceleration to free fall speeds through the path of greatest resistance symmetrically?

Lmao...Smdh.....You say we are the dumb ones lol.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 12:53:28 AM
Answer then, user, if you can.

Quote from: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 12:44:26 AM
Shoot a cannon ball through a sheet of steel, is there enough velocity in the world to pass through the steel without the cannon ball slowing down?
What NIST says is impossible, drop a bowling ball though multiple sheets of paper. Does the paper slow down the bowling balls fall acceleration?

Quote from: disputeone on March 13, 2017, 04:03:27 PM
User321

Quote
In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.

https://www.nist.gov/el/faqs-nist-wtc-towers-investigation

Quote
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)

https://www.nist.gov/el/faqs-nist-wtc-7-investigation

Quote from: disputeone on March 13, 2017, 05:03:25 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 11, 2017, 04:27:55 PM
So, in your own words, why, on 9/11, did structural resistance not cause structural resistance?

This hasn't been answered yet, by NIST, or Rayzor or Master Evar or Totes.

Just pointing it out for anyone who gives a fuck about truth.

Absolutely no "muh english" excuse now.

Why, on 9/11, did structural resistance not cause structural resistance?

Here is a pdf on structural resistance.

pdf (https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.limitstate.com/system/files/LSGTN4_Modelling_Structural_Resistance.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwiitNeK99HSAhWIQpQKHb79AkQQFghWMA0&usg=AFQjCNG-kOh5hUmQIOBPZmgV0sCbF7YdeQ&sig2=Pw-q2cC6fG7zSK_tsp89XQ)

I'm repeating this because it hasn't been anwered.

Edit. You tried to dismiss my math off hand and say it doesn't prove anything, however it proves that structural resistance will slow fall acceleration.

The O/S relies on the structure providing zero structural resistance, which is just untrue.

I disagree with NIST, I think the structural resistance would and should have slowed down the fall acceleration.

What do you think?

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 14, 2017, 12:52:05 AM
User324

So you are saying 35 thousand tons can vaporize 465 thousand tons with no noticable deceleration to free fall speeds through the path of greatest resistance symmetrically?

Lmao...Smdh.....You say we are the dumb ones lol.

This.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 14, 2017, 12:56:15 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 14, 2017, 12:52:05 AM
User324

So you are saying 35 thousand tons can vaporize 465 thousand tons with no noticable deceleration to free fall speeds through the path of greatest resistance symmetrically?

Lmao...Smdh.....You say we are the dumb ones lol.

Forgot to add...That Structural resistance and mass multiplies exponentially after the 44th floor.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on March 14, 2017, 12:58:56 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 14, 2017, 12:52:05 AM
User324

So you are saying 35 thousand tons can vaporize 465 thousand tons with no noticable deceleration to free fall speeds through the path of greatest resistance symmetrically?

Its not like anything was "vaporized" in an instant.
It could have been 1000000k tons of steel if the building was accordingly higher, it would have made no difference.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 01:01:57 AM
Quote from: User324 on March 14, 2017, 12:58:56 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 14, 2017, 12:52:05 AM
User324

So you are saying 35 thousand tons can vaporize 465 thousand tons with no noticable deceleration to free fall speeds through the path of greatest resistance symmetrically?

Its not like anything was "vaporized" in an instant.
It could have been 1000000k tons of steel if the building was accordingly higher, it would have made no difference.

Wow cognitive dissonance.



Quote from: disputeone on March 13, 2017, 07:18:31 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 13, 2017, 02:44:59 AM
asymetrically

(https://s27.postimg.org/3rgz2uj6r/1489456706844.gif)

Lmao.

Demolition charges.

(https://s15.postimg.org/nn4n03x97/1489455004938.jpg)

Passenger plane.

(https://s28.postimg.org/itmerjxfx/9_11_Ghost_Flash.gif)

Dude stick to picking on flat earthers to make yourself feel smart, this is out of your paygrade.

You also dodged the question.
If you are scared to answer questions honestly maybe your position isn't as strong as you want it to be.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 14, 2017, 01:05:21 AM
Quote from: User324 on March 14, 2017, 12:58:56 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 14, 2017, 12:52:05 AM
User324

So you are saying 35 thousand tons can vaporize 465 thousand tons with no noticable deceleration to free fall speeds through the path of greatest resistance symmetrically?

Its not like anything was "vaporized" in an instant.
It could have been 1000000k tons of steel if the building was accordingly higher, it would have made no difference.

Do you even read what you write?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 01:07:20 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 14, 2017, 01:05:21 AM
Quote from: User324 on March 14, 2017, 12:58:56 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 14, 2017, 12:52:05 AM
User324

So you are saying 35 thousand tons can vaporize 465 thousand tons with no noticable deceleration to free fall speeds through the path of greatest resistance symmetrically?

Its not like anything was "vaporized" in an instant.
It could have been 1000000k tons of steel if the building was accordingly higher, it would have made no difference.

Do you even read what you write?

I very much doubt it, he is used to just calling people stupid and letting group think do the rest.

Seems he's upset we're wrecking his arguments.

Edit I do love watching ignorant yet honest posters defend the O/S and have that "OH FUCK" moment.

Gold.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 14, 2017, 01:09:38 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 14, 2017, 12:40:55 AM

Quote from: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 12:40:12 AM

This is normal for any man who isn't a beta cuck.

I laughed

I would think, that  you of all people wouldn't want to open that discussion.

And just to correct the record,  the threat was as follows.

Quote from: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 12:25:58 AM
was gonna punch you if you decided to call me crazy irl. Full disclosure, same plan.

This is the guy begging over and over for just a phone call.   Does that sound stable to you?
 



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 14, 2017, 01:10:17 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 01:07:20 AM
Seems he's upset we're wrecking his arguments.

I would agree if he has even presented one...

All I have seen is "your retarted"...

Yet any content his post contains shows a mirror is more accurate than his accusations
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 01:11:56 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 14, 2017, 01:09:38 AM
Does that sound stable to you?

Sorry, are you still trying to call me crazy.

You're a cuck mate.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 14, 2017, 01:10:17 AM
All I have seen is "you're retarted"...

Actually that's all we've got from anyone, even Totes in the end.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 14, 2017, 01:16:41 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 14, 2017, 01:09:38 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 12:25:58 AM
was gonna punch you if you decided to call me crazy irl. Full disclosure, same plan.

This is the guy begging over and over for just a phone call.   Does that sound stable to you?

Actually I get it...He is a bit old school in his thoughts. He believes in accountability and if someone calls you out personally, then he reserves the right to call that person out. If they continue with their nonsense, then at times, physical action is required...It should be the last resort, however, sometimes it is necessary..This is more of an alpha approach, something betas or Internet warriors will not get.

Alot of people in Texas are this way...However, the two people I have came across from Texas here has been respectful to the fullest even if we disagreed on certain things.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on March 14, 2017, 01:19:43 AM
Lol, you guys are funny as fuck  ;D
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 01:20:42 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 14, 2017, 01:16:41 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 14, 2017, 01:09:38 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 12:25:58 AM
was gonna punch you if you decided to call me crazy irl. Full disclosure, same plan.

This is the guy begging over and over for just a phone call.   Does that sound stable to you?

Actually I get it...He is a bit old school in his thoughts. He believes in accountability and if someone calls you out personally, then he reserves the right to call that person out. If they continue with their nonsense, then at times, physical action is required...It should be the last resort, however, sometimes it is necessary..This is more of an alpha approach, something betas or Internet warriors will not get.

Nailed it.

It's not cause we are arguing Rayzor, it's that you feel you can personally attack me with no recourse.

Originally I thought it would be enough to look you in the eyes and talk to you, but you bitched out of that so I was more direct in my desires.

Quote from: User324 on March 14, 2017, 01:19:43 AM
Lol, you guys are funny as fuck  ;D

Literally the best he has, we should leave him alone Bhs.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 14, 2017, 01:22:42 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 14, 2017, 01:16:41 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 14, 2017, 01:09:38 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 12:25:58 AM
was gonna punch you if you decided to call me crazy irl. Full disclosure, same plan.

This is the guy begging over and over for just a phone call.   Does that sound stable to you?

Actually I get it...He is a bit old school in his thoughts. He believes in accountability and if someone calls you out personally, then he reserves the right to call that person out. If they continue with their nonsense, then at times, physical action is required...It should be the last resort, however, sometimes it is necessary..This is more of an alpha approach, something betas or Internet warriors will not get.

Alot of people in Texas are this way...However, the two people I have came across from Texas here has been respectful to the fullest even if we disagreed on certain things.

Same here,  but I won't ever be the one to throw the first punch,  but I will always throw the last one.   Hanging about here getting all steamed up isn't helping him.

Here's the reason for the collapse.  Since some are still interested.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 01:23:50 AM
Thats why I suggested an MMA match, fun, fair and no one gets "beat up."

You wouldn't have had the balls to talk to me the way you did here irl, we both know that, it would have never come to physicality.

Here is evidence of explosive demolition.

(https://s15.postimg.org/nn4n03x97/1489455004938.jpg)

Since no one will touch it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 01:28:51 AM
Just cause it upsets you so much.

Quote from: disputeone on March 13, 2017, 07:43:48 PM
Quote from: anonymous
Mossad agents caught recording the first plane striking the tower then dancing and celebrating the attack. later arrested in a van with traces of explosives
[Open]

Israel celebrates successful 9/11 operation on Purim holiday
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/03/01/291462/israel-celebrates-successful-911attacks/

9-11 Mossad 'Mural Van' - NYPD Radio Transmission
[Open]

9-11 Cop Who Arrested Dancing Israelis Speaks
[Open]

The Zionist Jews Who Were Caught Celebrating 911 Attacks As While Occuring Are Caught Confessing 911 On Israeli TV
[Open]

Kerry Reminds Congress Netanyahu Advised U.S. to Invade Iraq
www.nytimes.com/.../kerry-reminds-congress-netanyahu-advised-us-to-i...

[Open]
>"If you take out Saddam, Saddam's regime, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region." -- Netanyahu, 2002

Netanyahu Bragged He Has America Wrapped Around His Finge
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/tricky-bibi-1.302053

Have some more red pills.

(https://s13.postimg.org/gq5849ymv/1489458739640m.jpg)

Cue Rayzor to go absolutely ballistic now I brought up Mossad.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 14, 2017, 01:33:44 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 01:23:50 AM
Thats why I suggested an MMA match, fun, fair and no one gets "beat up."

You wouldn't have had the balls to talk to me the way you did here irl, we both know that, it would have never come to physicality.

Here is evidence of explosive demolition.

(https://s15.postimg.org/nn4n03x97/1489455004938.jpg)

Since no one will touch it.

Loose Change crap,  debunked years ago,   you should be ashamed to even try to present it as evidence.   
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 14, 2017, 01:43:48 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 14, 2017, 12:52:05 AM
User324

So you are saying 35 thousand tons can vaporize 465 thousand tons with no noticable deceleration to free fall speeds through the path of greatest resistance symmetrically?

Lmao...Smdh.....You say we are the dumb ones lol.

For a start it wasn't free fall,    but don't let the facts get in the way of a good conspiracy.   

http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 01:44:31 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 14, 2017, 01:33:44 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 01:23:50 AM
Thats why I suggested an MMA match, fun, fair and no one gets "beat up."

You wouldn't have had the balls to talk to me the way you did here irl, we both know that, it would have never come to physicality.

Here is evidence of explosive demolition.

(https://s15.postimg.org/nn4n03x97/1489455004938.jpg)

Since no one will touch it.

Loose Change crap,  debunked years ago,   you should be ashamed to even try to present it as evidence.   

So, debunk it.

Edit for meme, I know you love them.

(https://s4.postimg.org/e4xhxapp9/Rayzorisanhero.jpg)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 01:51:14 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 14, 2017, 01:22:42 AM
Here's the reason for the collapse.  Since some are still interested.



Loose Change crap,  debunked years ago,   you should be ashamed to even try to present it as evidence.
(Edit. I feel really cheap and crap even for parroting that, yuck.)

Kek.

This is easy, I see why you do it.

Stop posting yt vids, use your own words and maths.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 14, 2017, 02:03:13 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 01:51:14 AM
Loose Change crap,  debunked years ago,   you should be ashamed to even try to present it as evidence.
(Edit. I feel really cheap and crap even for parroting that, yuck.)

Kek.

This is easy, I see why you do it.

Stop posting yt vids, use your own words and maths.

Ok,  so you didn't get the Loose Change reference,   Loose Change was a series of conspiracy based 911 documentaries,   that's where that idea of squibs came from,  windows blowing out below the collapse point.

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons

(http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/images/conspiracy_news1.gif)
(http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/images/conspiracy_news2.gif)
(http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/images/conspiracy_news3.gif)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 02:11:01 AM
I thought you were too scared to reply to my posts, sigh.

No you didn't debunk anything.

Why aren't (what looks like) shape charges evidence for explosive demolition?

Hint, if your link calls the people they are arguing against "morons" before I have even clicked it, I'm not gonna give it creedence.

If you were truly right you could actually beat us in debate instead of calling us dumb or crazy.

Why should we do mental cartwheels to accept the official story?

Quote
The fact that this man is alive...

...is proof that "Loose Change" is bullshit.

Wow, your sources are arguably as lame as you...

The fact John Davis is alive, proves the earth is a sphere.... You utter dumbshoe....
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 14, 2017, 02:15:44 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 01:51:14 AM
use your own words

So he presents a link lol..

Quote from: Rayzor on March 14, 2017, 02:03:13 AM
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons

This is the link you post as a rebuttal in your own words lol...

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 14, 2017, 02:16:56 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 02:11:01 AM
I thought you were too scared to reply to my posts, sigh.

No you didn't debunk anything.

Why aren't (what looks like) shape charges evidence for explosive demolition?

Hint, if your link calls the people they are arguing against "morons" before I have even clicked it, I'm not gonna give it creedence.

If you were truly right you could actually beat us in debate instead of calling us dumb or crazy.

Why should we do mental cartwheels to accept the official story?

With the upper floors collapsing,  it's not surprising that lower windows are blown out,   you'd think it suspicious if they weren't.   To leap to the conclusion that they were blown out by demolition charges doesn't add up,
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 02:19:13 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 14, 2017, 02:16:56 AM
With the upper floors collapsing,  it's not surprising that lower windows are blown out,   you'd think it suspicious if they weren't.   To leap to the conclusion that they were blown out by demolition charges doesn't add up,

Maybe not on it's own but when you add in witnesses that heard explosions, molten steel, close to free-fall and symmetrical collapse, structural resistance having a negligible effect on fall acceleration.

It starts begging questions.

Have a link since this is what we are doing apparently.

 
Eyewitness Evidence of Explosions in the Twin Towers
http://themindrenewed.com/in-the-media/713-news156
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 14, 2017, 02:25:06 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 02:19:13 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 14, 2017, 02:16:56 AM
With the upper floors collapsing,  it's not surprising that lower windows are blown out,   you'd think it suspicious if they weren't.   To leap to the conclusion that they were blown out by demolition charges doesn't add up,

Maybe not on it's own but when you add in witnesses that heard explosions, molten steel, close to free-fall and symmetrical collapse, structural resistance having a negligible effect on fall acceleration.

It starts begging questions.

Have a link since this is what we are doing apparently.

http://themindrenewed.com/in-the-media/713-news156

Read this before you keep going on about structural resistance and freefall. 

http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 02:25:56 AM
I read the entire document twice already today, I don't agree with their conclusions.

Just to get you started because I dont think you read and study these.

They had to halve the yield strength of the steel in the entire building to get a result that anywhere near matches reality, they openly admit this.

The tower was not 50% weakened 20 floors below where the plane hit it.

I also take issue to their calculations of the structural resistance provided by the compressed concrete.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 14, 2017, 02:29:56 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 14, 2017, 02:16:56 AM
With the upper floors collapsing,  it's not surprising that lower windows are blown out,   you'd think it suspicious if they weren't.   To leap to the conclusion that they were blown out by demolition charges doesn't add up,

Let's use 7 as an example. You see squib markers in a literal perfect line on the corner columns and center...That is IT...No where else. You see this during free fall time (even your precious NIST admits)....Hmmm, trying to remember what profession uses removing 80 percent of the center supporting mass, then cutting the base as a method?? Anybody?

Also, considering we only saw the markers at the needed supports (not entire floors) as well as we saw it during free fall that disqualifies the theory of the cause being compression.

One day I dream of someone presenting an argument that requires me to not be deliriously tired or sober.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 02:33:49 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 14, 2017, 02:29:56 AM
Hmmm, trying to remember what profession uses removing 80 percent of the center supporting mass, then cutting the base as a method?? Anybody?

Al Queada?

No wait, I know it.

Highrise demolition, thats right, not Al Queada, silly me.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 14, 2017, 02:34:41 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 14, 2017, 02:29:56 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 14, 2017, 02:16:56 AM
With the upper floors collapsing,  it's not surprising that lower windows are blown out,   you'd think it suspicious if they weren't.   To leap to the conclusion that they were blown out by demolition charges doesn't add up,

Let's use 7 as an example. You see squib markers in a literal perfect line on the corner columns and center...That is IT...No where else. You see this during free fall time (even your precious NIST admits)....Hmmm, trying to remember what profession uses removing 80 percent of the center supporting mass, then cutting the base as a method?? Anybody?

Also, considering we only saw the markers at the needed supports (not entire floors) as well as we saw it during free fall that disqualifies the theory of the cause being compression.

One day I dream of someone presenting an argument that requires me to not be deliriously tired or sober.

You didn't notice that the building was already falling when those windows blew out?    If it was demolition charges,  they were way way late in timing.  Sorry no demolition.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 02:37:11 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 14, 2017, 02:34:41 AM
You didn't notice that the building was already falling when those windows blew out?    If it was demolition charges,  they were way way late in timing.  Sorry no demolition.

Incorrect.

Wtc 1 and 2 were top down controlled demolitions. They were perfectly timed.

Sorry, demolition.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 14, 2017, 02:41:29 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 02:37:11 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 14, 2017, 02:34:41 AM
You didn't notice that the building was already falling when those windows blew out?    If it was demolition charges,  they were way way late in timing.  Sorry no demolition.

Incorrect.

Wtc 1 and 2 were top down controlled demolitions. They were perfectly timed.

Sorry, demolition.

Wtc 7 was a good old fashioned bottom up demolition.

You must learn to read properly,  we were discussing WTC7.     There is clear inwards deformation of the north wall BEFORE those windows blew out.   That's not what you would see if it was a demolition.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 14, 2017, 02:43:40 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 14, 2017, 02:34:41 AM
You didn't notice that the building was already falling when those windows blew out?    If it was demolition charges,  they were way way late in timing.  Sorry no demolition.

The center was still perfectly intact as well as in a state of free fall. So no compression

Thank you for helping me though...Yes it was already falling...Base first (we can see that with the penthouse movement) remove the center, top takes care of itself. I would say it isn't rocket science, but in a way it is. At least getting the timing is. Not to mention a little dumb luck
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 02:44:19 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 14, 2017, 02:41:29 AM
You must learn to read properly,  we were discussing WTC7. 

Sigh was on my last post.
Cut it here for you.

Wtc 7 was a good old fashioned bottom up demolition.

Edit. Vid for top down CD reference.



Way slower fall acceleration than wtc 1 and 2, these guys are rank amateurs.


Wtc 7s fall acceleration and symmetry are more than enough evidence for me.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 14, 2017, 02:57:09 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 14, 2017, 02:43:40 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 14, 2017, 02:34:41 AM
You didn't notice that the building was already falling when those windows blew out?    If it was demolition charges,  they were way way late in timing.  Sorry no demolition.

The center was still perfectly intact as well as in a state of free fall. So no compression

Thank you for helping me though...Yes it was already falling...Base first (we can see that with the penthouse movement) remove the center, top takes care of itself. I would say it isn't rocket science, but in a way it is. At least getting the timing is. Not to mention a little dumb luck

The first movement of the north wall was to buckle inwards,  not downwards.   Consistent with the center collapsing as per NIST's  report,  and substantiated by FDNY reports of the damage to the South and West.   

Finally,  if you want to press the demolition theory for WTC7,  you need a convincing explanation of why wait 7 hours,  and why were no explosions recorded on seismic recorders.   Further, why was everyone on the ground that day saying it was in danger of collapse.   

WTC7 is by far the weakest argument for conspiracy.  It fails the most basic tests.
 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 03:01:35 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 14, 2017, 02:29:56 AM
One day I dream of someone presenting an argument that requires me to not be deliriously tired or sober.

"And even though we face the difficulties, of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream."

To be fair Rayzor tried every trick in his playbook to turn this into a circlejerk against "conspiracy theorists." A few tried and were shut down, none have presented an argument except for "you're retarted" or "you're crazy"

Which is winning, how else can we see it. I don't think Rayzor could stop posting in this thread even if he wanted to now.

We've smashed the official story to bits, I am actually a little in awe of how much information is here.

No one can honestly say the official story doesn't have holes if they are honest and are willing to study on it, just like you have to study anything else you want to learn.

Even just reading though all NIST's stuff the intelligent and discerning reader should have a few "wait, what?" moments.

This is definitely not a conspiracy theory, we have far too much evidence. Anyone who pushes that rhetoric is either lying to themselves or everyone else.

Rayzor Wtc 7 is the smoking gun piece of evidence and you know it, look at you getting hysterical.  :-*
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 14, 2017, 03:09:22 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 14, 2017, 02:57:09 AM
The first movement of the north wall was to buckle inwards,  not downwards.   Consistent with the center collapsing as per NIST's  report,  and substantiated by FDNY reports of the damage to the South and West.   

Finally,  if you want to press the demolition theory for WTC7,  you need a convincing explanation of why wait 7 hours,  and why were no explosions recorded on seismic recorders.   Further, why was everyone on the ground that day saying it was in danger of collapse.   

WTC7 is by far the weakest argument for conspiracy.  It fails the most basic tests.

If the north exoskeleton were to buckle we would not see a collapse like we saw. You obviously have no idea of the design of the building nor how it shared it's loads.

As for seismic records, considering there were none close to the towers, however, readings of the closest records show evidence of controlled demo ...I am missing your point.

You have already been told many times of why wait 7 hours.

Also, don't play nice, you don't think I remember all the shit you have been running your mouth about towards me personally? How many times you have tried this "nice" approach then flipped script?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 14, 2017, 03:13:00 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 03:01:35 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 14, 2017, 02:29:56 AM
One day I dream of someone presenting an argument that requires me to not be deliriously tired or sober.

"And even though we face the difficulties, of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream."

To be fair Rayzor tried every trick in his playbook to turn this into a circlejerk against "conspiracy theorists." A few tried and were shut down, none have presented an argument except for "you're retarted" or "you're crazy"

Which is winning, how else can we see it. I don't think Rayzor could stop posting in this thread even if he wanted to now.

We've smashed the official story to bits, I am actually a little in awe of how much information is here.

No one can honestly say the official story doesn't have holes if they are honest and are willing to study on it, just like you have to study anything else you want to learn.

Even just reading though all NIST's stuff the intelligent and discerning reader should have a few "wait, what?" moments.

This is definitely not a conspiracy theory, we have far too much evidence. Anyone who pushes that rhetoric is either lying to themselves or everyone else.

Rayzor Wtc 7 is the smoking gun piece of evidence and you know it, look at you getting hysterical.  :-*

Let's exclude the 1000s of issues and non sense...

I have said it before...I will say it again.

Why do people give complete merit to a story that not even it's authors believed and called bullshit?

What is wrong with some people?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 03:16:48 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 14, 2017, 02:57:09 AM
The first movement of the north wall was to buckle inwards,  not downwards.   Consistent with the center collapsing as per NIST's  report,  and substantiated by FDNY reports of the damage to the South and West.   

Why does this sound like an employee answering a question he doesn't actually know?

Oh wait, nevermind.

Quote from: Rayzor on March 14, 2017, 02:57:09 AM
Finally,  if you want to press the demolition theory for WTC7,  you need a convincing explanation of why wait 7 hours,  and why were no explosions recorded on seismic recorders.   Further, why was everyone on the ground that day saying it was in danger of collapse.   

7 hours so less people noticed, the building and streets were evacuated zero casualties.

The seismic reports wouldn't necessarily show small explosions, we do expect to measure seismic activity on a regular demolition, but this was a different demolition than we have seen before. Nothing explains that molten steel at ground zero.

Key people were told to expect wtc 7's collapse and to let their subordinates know. This is not everyone on the ground. Saying "everyone on the ground expected it to fall" is naive in the extreme when it is the first and last time a building like wtc 7 had ever collapsed due to fire.  ::) ::)

Also a lot of people try to shill the possibility that (((they))) decided to demolish the building because it was unstable and unlikely to be repaired / could possibly start to slowly collapse.

Like you did earlier in the thread.

Quote from: Rayzor on March 14, 2017, 02:57:09 AM
WTC7 is by far the weakest strongest argument for conspiracy.  It fails the most basic tests. smashes the total progressive collapse hypothesis.

FTFY.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 03:21:43 AM




I'm sure Rayzor can explain that perfectly well.

Edit, the firemen on 9/11 were the definition of heros, I find it really hard listening to their recordings / testimony but it's worth the info.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 14, 2017, 03:27:37 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 14, 2017, 03:09:22 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 14, 2017, 02:57:09 AM
The first movement of the north wall was to buckle inwards,  not downwards.   Consistent with the center collapsing as per NIST's  report,  and substantiated by FDNY reports of the damage to the South and West.   

Finally,  if you want to press the demolition theory for WTC7,  you need a convincing explanation of why wait 7 hours,  and why were no explosions recorded on seismic recorders.   Further, why was everyone on the ground that day saying it was in danger of collapse.   

WTC7 is by far the weakest argument for conspiracy.  It fails the most basic tests.

If the north exoskeleton were to buckle we would not see a collapse like we saw. You obviously have no idea of the design of the building nor how it shared it's loads.

Go back and look at the video taken from a distance,  you will see the roof line is still fairly straight, just after the penthouse collapse.   Then look at the video taken from closer in, you will see a pronounced curve on the north wall just after the penthouse collapse.   That is proof that the north wall buckled inwards before collapsing,  no surprise a few windows blew out.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 14, 2017, 03:09:22 AM
As for seismic records, considering there were none close to the towers, however, readings of the closest records show evidence of controlled demo ...I am missing your point.
The seismographs were close enough and sensitive enough to pick up the collapse of WTC7 clearly,  but no explosions were picked up.


Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 14, 2017, 03:09:22 AM
You have already been told many times of why wait 7 hours.

You missed the word "convincing".   

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 14, 2017, 03:09:22 AM
Also, don't play nice, you don't think I remember all the shit you have been running your mouth about towards me personally? How many times you have tried this "nice" approach then flipped script?
The reply in kind policy is in effect,   whatever I think of you personally has no bearing on the arguments.   But don't resort to insults, and I'll do the same.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 03:36:35 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 14, 2017, 03:27:37 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 14, 2017, 03:09:22 AM
You have already been told many times of why wait 7 hours.

You missed the word "convincing".   

What, you mean like the NIST reports were convincing...lmao....thanks princess I needed a laugh....

Rayzor everyone can see you aren't an honest poster and have an agenda, I don't know why you continue.

>My opinion of you doesn't have a bearing on how I talk to you.

You, are just such a cuck.

I'm embarrassed for my gender.

Damn numales.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 14, 2017, 04:33:18 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 14, 2017, 03:27:37 AM
whatever I think of you personally has no bearing on the arguments.

I cannot adhere to this, I must respect the person I am arguing with even if we are 180 out. There are many people who I will never agree with on many things I would still do anything for and have endless respect for.

Not to mention, the words you have said to me, the times you have pretended to be nice just to flip script, the lies and false accusations etc etc... You have went too far, I have just been relaxing till I am in a bad mood.

However, main reason I have relaxed is I don't want people to get the wrong idea of "who I am" in personality and attitude here. Even though I think they would understand. 

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on March 14, 2017, 05:57:59 AM
Babyhighspeed is a professional structural engineer and knows exactly what happended and why, but won't make a public, peer-reviewed paper that could be published in important physic-magazines because...reasons...

Guess it's easyier to come up and hold bullshit on a flat-earth forum than out there, with real scientists, right?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 14, 2017, 06:09:11 AM
Quote from: User324 on March 14, 2017, 05:57:59 AM
Babyhighspeed is a professional structural engineer and knows exactly what happended and why, but won't make a public, peer-reviewed paper that could be published in important physic-magazines because...reasons...

Guess it's easyier to come up and hold bullshit on a flat-earth forum than out there, with real scientists, right?

Going for a record in useless posts in a row I see...

Let's go down the list... Have issued peer reviewed information (as well as many many others)

Worked on a team for many years with "real scientists" as well as people who specialized in other pertinent aspects.

I did not come here for 9/11 stuff, just some how ended up that way at one point.

I am not a Structural engineer, mechanical.

This is all info already known...You would know too if you could read more than a sentence. This is also found on more than this thread.

I think it would be fantastic if you crawled back into whatever hole you appeared from...As so far, every single person on this thread, even rayzor has been more useful than you.

Useless would not be considered descriptive enough
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 06:12:48 AM
Quote from: User324 on March 14, 2017, 05:57:59 AM
Babyhighspeed is a professional structural engineer and knows exactly what happended and why, but won't make a public, peer-reviewed paper that could be published in important physic-magazines because...reasons...

Guess it's easyier to come up and hold bullshit on a flat-earth forum than out there, with real scientists, right?

Mechanical engineer.

Reading skillz again lacking desu.

Here's a paper published in Europhysics.

pdf (https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016474p21.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwj3xLD4iNbSAhXJgLwKHUqAAloQFggZMAA&usg=AFQjCNEBsR_XEtevG4KH97vfbqFEfAxxfg&sig2=dO3sbrrIjyOmPCu9-Ee72w)

Another cheap shot at his credentials you guys are literally a flock of sheep trying to take on wolves.

Edit. This was so stupid it actually went over (under?) my head.

>Peer reviewed paper.

LMAO THAT'S MORE THAN NIST DID YOU TOTAL AND UTTER DUMBSHOE.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 07:15:39 AM
Quote from: User324 on March 14, 2017, 05:57:59 AM
make a public, peer-reviewed paper

On the note of peer review.

www.ae911truth.org has over 2500 professionals that want a new investigation, if this isn't a peer reviewed case for controlled demolition then you won't accept anything except your TV telling you that 9/11 was a Mossad/CIA false flag.

I'm not your TV mate.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on March 14, 2017, 08:07:51 AM
Quote
I did not come here for 9/11 stuff
Are you a flat earth believer?

@Dispute
http://www.skeptical-science.com/critical-thinking/scientific-proof-911-inside-job/

"Europhysics News is not a peer-reviewed science journal, it is just a magazine
The article does not contain output from a formal study, it is just a magazine article"
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on March 14, 2017, 08:16:01 AM
Quote from: User324 on March 14, 2017, 05:57:59 AM
THE NIST consists of professional structural engineers and SHOULD know exactly what happended and why, but won't make a public, peer-reviewed paper that could be published in important physic-magazines because...reasons...

Guess it's easyier to come up and hold bullshit on a flat-earth forum than out there, with real scientists, right?

Fixed your fucking claptrap, bullshit for you.

You can come on here and fucking whine about one member who offers conjecture, but won't fucking whine about ACTUAL FUCKING RESPONSIBLE INVESTIGATIVE ORGANIZATIONS WHO DO THE SAME THING YOU ACCUSE BHS OF DOING!

GFY AND QUITE THOROUGHLY!
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 08:18:57 AM
NIST didn't do a peer review either, what's your point.

NIST's report is arguably far less scientific.

Also please note that pdf pails in comparison to the evidence presented on this thread.

Now.

Quote from: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 07:15:39 AM
On the note of peer review.

www.ae911truth.org has over 2500 professionals that want a new investigation, if this isn't a peer reviewed case for controlled demolition then you won't accept anything except your TV telling you that 9/11 was a Mossad/CIA false flag.

I'm not your TV mate.

It is late and I should sleep.

I agree with totallackey. Also earth shape has nothing to do with 9/11 numbskull.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 14, 2017, 08:23:41 AM
Again....Another useless post from user...

Quote from: totallackey on March 14, 2017, 08:16:01 AM
Quote from: User324 on March 14, 2017, 05:57:59 AM
THE NIST consists of professional structural engineers and SHOULD know exactly what happended and why, but won't make a public, peer-reviewed paper that could be published in important physic-magazines because...reasons...

Guess it's easyier to come up and hold bullshit on a flat-earth forum than out there, with real scientists, right?

Fixed your fucking claptrap, bullshit for you.

You can come on here and fucking whine about one member who offers conjecture, but won't fucking whine about ACTUAL FUCKING RESPONSIBLE INVESTIGATIVE ORGANIZATIONS WHO DO THE SAME THING YOU ACCUSE BHS OF DOING!

^lol...

Now...

Quote from: totallackey on March 14, 2017, 08:16:01 AM
GFY AND QUITE THOROUGHLY!
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on March 14, 2017, 11:41:35 AM
Quote
GFY AND QUITE THOROUGHLY!
It's not healthy to be THAT upset :/

Quote
NIST didn't do a peer review either, what's your point.

NIST's report is arguably far less scientific
What do I have to do with that NIST thingy?


Quote
It is late and I should sleep.
Probably so, yes.


Quote
I agree with totallackey. Also earth shape has nothing to do with 9/11
Where did I say it has?

Anyway, I'm seriously wondering if babyhighspeed is a FE-Supporter. Because I could not imagine how anyone with an engineers-degree would believe the earth is flat.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on March 14, 2017, 12:51:23 PM
Quote from: User324 on March 14, 2017, 11:41:35 AM
Quote
GFY AND QUITE THOROUGHLY!
It's not healthy to be THAT upset :/

Quote
NIST didn't do a peer review either, what's your point.

NIST's report is arguably far less scientific
What do I have to do with that NIST thingy?


Quote
It is late and I should sleep.
Probably so, yes.


Quote
I agree with totallackey. Also earth shape has nothing to do with 9/11
Where did I say it has?

Anyway, I'm seriously wondering if babyhighspeed is a FE-Supporter. Because I could not imagine how anyone with an engineers-degree would believe the earth is flat.

Anyway, it seems your definition of healthy is to believe the NIST report.

Thank god you are not a doctor.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on March 14, 2017, 01:14:55 PM
Quote from: totallackey on March 14, 2017, 12:51:23 PM
Thank god you are not a doctor.
Might actually be I become one  ??? ;)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on March 14, 2017, 02:59:30 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 02:25:56 AM
They had to halve the yield strength of the steel in the entire building to get a result that anywhere near matches reality, they openly admit this.

Can you source this? I would like to read the primary source for this.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 14, 2017, 02:29:56 AM
Let's use 7 as an example. You see squib markers in a literal perfect line on the corner columns and center...That is IT...No where else.

A) From the videos (http://) I've seen, this isn't anywhere remotely close to being true.
B) You already admitted to me this was not a good argument. Why are you going back to it?

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 14, 2017, 02:43:40 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 14, 2017, 02:34:41 AM
You didn't notice that the building was already falling when those windows blew out?    If it was demolition charges,  they were way way late in timing.  Sorry no demolition.

The center was still perfectly intact as well as in a state of free fall. So no compression

A significant part of the center had already fallen prior to the total collapse. The "squib markers" didn't show until after the building had already started to fall. This is an awful argument.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 14, 2017, 03:13:00 AM
Why do people give complete merit to a story that not even it's authors believed and called bullshit?

That happens for parts of almost any large scale project/analysis. Some team members churn out lower quality stuff than others. That being said, I'd still like to read about what was said. Source?

Quote from: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 03:16:48 AM
(((they)))
Quote from: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 03:36:35 AM
You, are just such a cuck... Damn numales.

Alluding to your support of the alt-right & co definitely isn't going to help people take you seriously. Nor is accusing people of hating free speech and/or truth just because they don't agree with your assessment of the evidence. Specifically:

Quote from: disputeone on March 12, 2017, 02:55:41 PM
Not interested especially when people like you and Totes say specifically

"I won't read or consider your evidence, but you're wrong, I'm shmart sho I don't have to read or understand things, I am right you are wrong I won't read or accept any of your evidence."
Quote from: disputeone on March 09, 2017, 12:16:04 AM
You admitted yourself you dont want the truth.

??? [citations needed]
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on March 14, 2017, 03:08:30 PM
Also, does anyone have a good assessment of the fall rate of wtc1/2? I made a simplistic prediction of the acceleration for a building collapsing on itself (pancaking?), and I'm curious how close I got.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 03:10:59 PM
Totes do you own research, no offense.

Where did you get alt right from??
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 03:12:05 PM
Quote from: User324 on March 14, 2017, 11:41:35 AM
Anyway, I'm seriously wondering if babyhighspeed is a FE-Supporter. Because I could not imagine how anyone with an engineers-degree would believe the earth is flat.

www.ae911truth.org

You guys literally don't have an argument, do you.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on March 14, 2017, 03:39:00 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 03:10:59 PM
Totes do you own research, no offense.

Will do, but initial search didn't turn up anything very detailed, so I was just curious if others already had a good source.

Quote
Where did you get alt right from??

"(((they)))", "cuck" <-- favorite lingo of the alt-right.

Also, I would appreciate a response to this:

Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 14, 2017, 02:59:30 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 12, 2017, 02:55:41 PM
Not interested especially when people like you and Totes say specifically

"I won't read or consider your evidence, but you're wrong, I'm shmart sho I don't have to read or understand things, I am right you are wrong I won't read or accept any of your evidence."
Quote from: disputeone on March 09, 2017, 12:16:04 AM
You admitted yourself you dont want the truth.

??? [citations needed]

Baseless accusations aren't cool.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 03:42:33 PM
Both me and Bhs think the earth is most likely a sphere, personal insult is personal and incorrect.

There's a lot of context behind myself and Rayzor that you wouldn't get reading one post every 10 pages Totes. Actually read every 10th page of any book and write a paper on it, see how you go.

I don't like having buzzwords thrown at me. I can debase another mans masculinity without being "literally Hitler" can't I? Or are we so far gone already that anyone who doesn't fall in line with their TV is called crazy or evil?

I'll find the citations, its where I linked you to ae911truth and you were kike (meh I'd only read it if I was really really bored.)

I'll say it again, if you don't want the truth, then why are you here.

I'm not your TV I cant tell you the "truth" you all seem to want.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 14, 2017, 03:49:12 PM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 14, 2017, 03:08:30 PM
Also, does anyone have a good assessment of the fall rate of wtc1/2? I made a simplistic prediction of the acceleration for a building collapsing on itself (pancaking?), and I'm curious how close I got.

(https://s15.postimg.org/4r1rc1m2j/Fall_Rates.jpg)

From here http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf

Also has a good analysis of why the floors collapsed as they did.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 03:50:33 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 02:25:56 AM
I read the entire document twice already today, I don't agree with their conclusions.

Just to get you started because I dont think you read and study these.

They had to halve the yield strength of the steel in the entire building to get a result that anywhere near matches reality, they openly admit this.

The tower was not 50% weakened 20 floors below where the plane hit it.

I also take issue to their calculations of the structural resistance provided by the compressed concrete.

Rayzor crawl back into your hole.

You were eternally btfo in the thought experiment thread, why keep shilling?

Quote from: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 05:47:44 AM
How will Rayzor ever recover.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 14, 2017, 03:52:57 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 14, 2017, 04:33:18 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 14, 2017, 03:27:37 AM
whatever I think of you personally has no bearing on the arguments.

I cannot adhere to this, I must respect the person I am arguing with even if we are 180 out. There are many people who I will never agree with on many things I would still do anything for and have endless respect for.

Not to mention, the words you have said to me, the times you have pretended to be nice just to flip script, the lies and false accusations etc etc... You have went too far, I have just been relaxing till I am in a bad mood.

However, main reason I have relaxed is I don't want people to get the wrong idea of "who I am" in personality and attitude here. Even though I think they would understand.

My respect for fakes like you is zero,  but that just increases the motivation to expose the glaring flaws in your arguments.    Like the ridiculous WTC7 argument you put up.   

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 03:53:54 PM
You have no right calling anyone a fake.

Seriously enough with the keyboard hero shit.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on March 14, 2017, 03:56:15 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 03:42:33 PM
Both me and Bhs think the earth is most likely a sphere, personal insult is personal and incorrect.

There's a lot of context behind myself and Rayzor that you wouldn't get reading one post every 10 pages Totes. Actually read every 10th page of any book and write a paper on it, see how you go.

I don't like having buzzwords thrown at me. I can debase another mans masculinity without being "literally Hitler" can't I? Or are we so far gone already that anyone who doesn't fall in line with their TV is called crazy or evil?

I did not say you are literally Hitler. If there is an inside joke there that I don't get, then fine, my apologies. I have read most of the past 20 pages worth of posts though.

Quote
I'll find the citations, its where I linked you to ae911truth and you were kike (meh I'd only read it if I was really really bored.)

I said I'd only read the hypothetical flat-earth astronomers if I was really really bored. I specifically said I WOULD read your "expert" sources.

edit: source (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1879197#msg1879197)

Quote
I'll say it again, if you don't want the truth, then why are you here.

I'm not your TV I cant tell you the "truth" you all seem to want.

not agreeing with disputeone =/= not wanting the truth
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 14, 2017, 03:57:53 PM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 14, 2017, 03:39:00 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 03:10:59 PM
Where did you get alt right from??

"(((they)))", "cuck" <-- favorite lingo of the alt-right.

I pegged him for an alt-right looney when he started his anti-semitic rant,  well that,  and his,  conspiracy theorist beliefs and his "cuck" language gives it away.   "kike"   does anyone really use that as an insult?


 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on March 14, 2017, 04:01:47 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 14, 2017, 03:57:53 PM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 14, 2017, 03:39:00 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 03:10:59 PM
Where did you get alt right from??

"(((they)))", "cuck" <-- favorite lingo of the alt-right.

I pegged him for an alt-right looney when he started his anti-semitic rant,  well that,  and his,  conspiracy theorist beliefs and his "cuck" language gives it away.   "kike"   does anyone really use that as an insult?

I'm pretty sure that was just a typo for "like"
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 14, 2017, 04:07:37 PM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 14, 2017, 04:01:47 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 14, 2017, 03:57:53 PM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 14, 2017, 03:39:00 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 03:10:59 PM
Where did you get alt right from??

"(((they)))", "cuck" <-- favorite lingo of the alt-right.

I pegged him for an alt-right looney when he started his anti-semitic rant,  well that,  and his,  conspiracy theorist beliefs and his "cuck" language gives it away.   "kike"   does anyone really use that as an insult?

I'm pretty sure that was just a typo for "like"

Maybe,  but taken in context with his earlier anti-semitic rant I wouldn't be so sure.   

Anyway, how did those fall times compare with your calculations?


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 04:12:17 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 14, 2017, 03:57:53 PM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 14, 2017, 03:39:00 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 03:10:59 PM
Where did you get alt right from??

"(((they)))", "cuck" <-- favorite lingo of the alt-right.

I pegged him for an alt-right looney when he started his anti-semitic rant,  well that,  and his,  conspiracy theorist beliefs and his "cuck" language gives it away.   "kike"   does anyone really use that as an insult?

Again not disappointed, anti semetic rant apparently equals saying Mossad had a hand in 9/11. Coolio great logic.

JIDF I knew it.

Totes join Rayzor in his circlejerk, I am bored you two bore me.

Kike was a typo of like.

Edit another typo.

Rayzor stop calling me a looney or take the MMA match.

Faggot.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 04:17:49 PM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 14, 2017, 03:56:15 PM
Quote
I'll say it again, if you don't want the truth, then why are you here.

I'm not your TV I cant tell you the "truth" you all seem to want.

not agreeing with disputeone considering evidence = not wanting the truth

Ftfy and yes.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on March 14, 2017, 04:38:59 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 14, 2017, 04:07:37 PM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 14, 2017, 04:01:47 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 14, 2017, 03:57:53 PM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 14, 2017, 03:39:00 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 03:10:59 PM
Where did you get alt right from??

"(((they)))", "cuck" <-- favorite lingo of the alt-right.

I pegged him for an alt-right looney when he started his anti-semitic rant,  well that,  and his,  conspiracy theorist beliefs and his "cuck" language gives it away.   "kike"   does anyone really use that as an insult?

I'm pretty sure that was just a typo for "like"

Maybe,  but taken in context with his earlier anti-semitic rant I wouldn't be so sure.   

Anyway, how did those fall times compare with your calculations?

Not sure yet. I got my answer in terms of acceleration/floor instead of x/t. Converting now.

One somewhat interesting result I found was this:

Scenario 1) Assuming each floor absorbs the same amount of strain energy (i.e., vertical supports are stripped bare and left standing), the acceleration approaches 0.5 g, regardless of pretty much any other parameter. The strain energy and floor height affects how rapidly it approaches 0.5 g, but not the final acceleration.

Scenario 2) Assuming each floor absorbs strain energy proportional to the number of floors above it (i.e, vertical supports are being collapsed upon as well), the acceleration approaches 0.5*(1 - Estrain/(h*W)) or 0.5*( 1 - l*FoS/h)

---
Assumptions for my analysis:
1. Floors fall directly on top of each other.
2. Deformation energy of each floor is subtracted from total kinetic energy of above floors.
3. Deformation energy = max_load * fracture strain (purely plastic strain is assumed for the entire time the load is applied)
4. The floor breaks, and a period of freefall is entered until the next floor is struck.

l = fracture strain distance
FoS = factor of safety (max_load / working_load)
h = height between floors
W = weight of a single floor
---

(http://imgur.com/TilgGPN.png)

Scenario 1 is upper bound, scenario 2 is lower bound.

FoS = 40
l = 5 cm
h = 3 m

I was just guessing for these values.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 04:39:42 PM
That's more like it.

10/10.

I hope you keep digging Totes as I said before I don't want to force my views on anyone.

You are on the right track with the FoS. :-)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 04:43:53 PM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 14, 2017, 04:38:59 PM
Not sure yet. I got my answer in terms of acceleration/floor instead of x/t. Converting now.

One somewhat interesting result I found was this:

Scenario 1) Assuming each floor absorbs the same amount of strain energy (i.e., vertical supports are stripped bare and left standing), the acceleration approaches 0.5 g, regardless of pretty much any other parameter. The strain energy and floor height affects how rapidly it approaches 0.5 g, but not the final acceleration.

Scenario 2) Assuming each floor absorbs strain energy proportional to the number of floors above it (i.e, vertical supports are being collapsed upon as well), the acceleration approaches 0.5*(1 - Estrain/(h*W)) or 0.5*( 1 - l*FoS/h)

l = fracture strain
FoS = factor of safety (max_load / working_load)
h = height between floors
W = weight of a single floor

(http://imgur.com/TilgGPN.png)

Scenario 1 is upper bound, scenario 2 is lower bound.

FoS = 40
l = 5 cm
h = 3 m

I was just guessing for these values.

Please understand you have shown the impossibility of wtc 7s free-fall.

I am suitably impressed.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on March 14, 2017, 04:56:08 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 04:43:53 PM
Please understand you have shown the impossibility of wtc 7s free-fall.

I am suitably impressed.

Slow down there buddy. This has absolutely nothing to do with wtc 7. I did a pancaking analysis (similar to wtc 1 & 2). wtc 7 Buckled from the bottom. Nothing in common at all.

Also, purely by coincidence, and a quirk about how I calculated acceleration (the boundary of destruction propogates through the floor being struck instantly), this actually almost exactly matches freefall. I'm making some fixes now, and will re-upload.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 05:02:09 PM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 14, 2017, 04:38:59 PM
Scenario 1) Assuming each floor absorbs the same amount of strain energy (i.e., vertical supports are stripped bare and left standing), the acceleration approaches 0.5 g, regardless of pretty much any other parameter. The strain energy and floor height affects how rapidly it approaches 0.5 g, but not the final acceleration.

Scenario 2) Assuming each floor absorbs strain energy proportional to the number of floors above it (i.e, vertical supports are being collapsed upon as well), the acceleration approaches 0.5*(1 - Estrain/(h*W)) or 0.5*( 1 - l*FoS/h)

l = fracture strain
FoS = factor of safety (max_load / working_load)
h = height between floors
W = weight of a single floor

(http://imgur.com/TilgGPN.png)

Scenario 1 is upper bound, scenario 2 is lower bound.

FoS = 40
l = 5 cm
h = 3 m

I was just guessing for these values.

Speaks for itself.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on March 14, 2017, 06:40:24 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 05:02:09 PM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 14, 2017, 04:38:59 PM
Scenario 1) Assuming each floor absorbs the same amount of strain energy (i.e., vertical supports are stripped bare and left standing), the acceleration approaches 0.5 g, regardless of pretty much any other parameter. The strain energy and floor height affects how rapidly it approaches 0.5 g, but not the final acceleration.

Scenario 2) Assuming each floor absorbs strain energy proportional to the number of floors above it (i.e, vertical supports are being collapsed upon as well), the acceleration approaches 0.5*(1 - Estrain/(h*W)) or 0.5*( 1 - l*FoS/h)

l = fracture strain
FoS = factor of safety (max_load / working_load)
h = height between floors
W = weight of a single floor

(http://imgur.com/TilgGPN.png)

Scenario 1 is upper bound, scenario 2 is lower bound.

FoS = 40
l = 5 cm
h = 3 m

I was just guessing for these values.

Speaks for itself.

What exactly is it saying? Feel free to explain in your own words how this relates to wtc 7.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 06:52:57 PM
Shows structural resistance causes structural resistance.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on March 14, 2017, 07:09:36 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 06:52:57 PM
Shows structural resistance causes structural resistance.

Ok. And in my analysis, where did the "structural resistance" come from? (Hint: 2 sources)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 07:11:03 PM
The structure below and air resistance.

Quote from: NIST
In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass.

You also smashed this to bits, thanks.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 14, 2017, 07:47:36 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 07:11:03 PM
The structure below and air resistance.

Quote from: NIST
In other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass.

You also smashed this to bits, thanks.

You still have comprehension problems,  it actually agrees with  the NIST mechanism,   did you actually read the paper?

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 07:54:03 PM
It doesn't agree with the collapse acceleration desu.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on March 14, 2017, 08:01:32 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 07:11:03 PM
The structure below

Sort of. Be more specific.

Quote
and air resistance.

No. I didn't take this into account at all.

Quote from: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 07:54:03 PM
It doesn't agree with the collapse acceleration desu.

Sooooource. I have been looking for this :( 

Edit: FYI, I modelled the acceleration of the floor at the point of collapse (81 for wtc 2), not the top level. I just added the total uncollapsed height of floor 81 - 110 to the total to predict the total height, assuming that the top part of the building stayed rigid. Watching the video, this doesn't appear to be the case, so if your source is for the top part part of the building, the acceleration will probably be greater than what I predicted.

...desu???
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 14, 2017, 08:02:33 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 07:54:03 PM
It doesn't agree with the collapse acceleration desu.

Actually it does.   refer to the following plot of impact energy vs collapse time.

(https://s30.postimg.org/41zqmlp8x/impactvscollapsetime.jpg)

Note that the fraction of collapse energy to total energy decreases as the collapse progresses. 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 08:08:46 PM
Rayzor NIST claims the collapse was gaining energy. You and Totes have claimed it lost energy.

Wtf. Cognitive dissonance, seriously.

Totes here is a source.

wtc 1 and 2 report (https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.sustainable-design.ie/fire/NIST-NCSTAR-1-Collapse-Of-Towers.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwj3_tD-wtfSAhWKebwKHRwOA4sQFggvMAY&usg=AFQjCNF8fcbDDQam-6yPD7OJGWUPn23GEw&sig2=1HmPnpKChQKtDFHePOHVBQ)

Note on the first page they admit if the tower was built to code (it was) the collapse we saw wouldn't and couldn't have happened.

Seriously what does it take for people to question their TV.

Desu means tbh, desu.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 08:11:59 PM




These demolitions were far less effective, one top down CD (wtc 1 and 2) and a regular bottom up CD (wtc 7)



If the TV said the sky was red, would you look up at it?

Edit, this is brutal.

Sorry I got snippy with you Totes, intelligence and education doesn't exclude someone from group think.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crowd:_A_Study_of_the_Popular_Mind

No one questions that you are educated and intelligent.

Quote
In the book, Le Bon claims that there are several characteristics of crowd psychology: "impulsiveness, irritability, incapacity to reason, the absence of judgement of the critical spirit, the exaggeration of sentiments, and others...".[1] Le Bon claimed "that an individual immersed for some length of time in a crowd soon finds himself – either in consequence of magnetic influence given out by the crowd or from some other cause of which we are ignorant – in a special state, which much resembles the state of fascination in which the hypnotized individual finds himself in the hands of the hypnotizer."

Play close attention Rayzor is a skilled manipulater of this.

However I have seen it all too often and understand much more than he gives me credit for.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 14, 2017, 08:17:12 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 08:08:46 PM
Rayzor NIST claims the collapse was gaining energy. You and Totes have claimed it lost energy.

There's that comprehension problem again,  the  percentage of total energy to collapse a floor decreases,  BECAUSE the total energy of collapse is INCREASING as more floors are collapsed, not because the floors are weaker. 


Quote from: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 08:08:46 PM
Wtf. Cognitive dissonance, seriously.

Yep.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 08:21:56 PM
The top part is visibily destroyed before it could symmetrically pulverise the structure underneath it at close to free-fall. You have nothing.

More weight / momentum equals less structural resistance. Are we really still not past this?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 08:22:55 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 08:11:59 PM
Quote
In the book, Le Bon claims that there are several characteristics of crowd psychology: "impulsiveness, irritability, incapacity to reason, the absence of judgement of the critical spirit, the exaggeration of sentiments, and others...".[1] Le Bon claimed "that an individual immersed for some length of time in a crowd soon finds himself – either in consequence of magnetic influence given out by the crowd or from some other cause of which we are ignorant – in a special state, which much resembles the state of fascination in which the hypnotized individual finds himself in the hands of the hypnotizer."

Play close attention, Rayzor is a skilled manipulator of this.

However I have seen it all too often and understand much more than he gives me credit for.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 14, 2017, 08:26:10 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 08:22:55 PM
However I have seen it all too often and understand much more than he gives me credit for.

Considering how little you've understood throughout this thread,  and how little credit I've given you,  your statement is probably correct.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 08:34:06 PM
Another zero contribution post and ad hominem from Rayzor. Mum told me not to pick on kids that tried their best.

Good job Meg.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on March 14, 2017, 08:44:53 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 08:08:46 PM
Rayzor NIST claims the collapse was gaining energy. You and Totes have claimed it lost energy.

No, I definitely did not claim it lost energy. Kinetic Energy of the stack goes up every floor.

Quote
Wtf. Cognitive dissonance, seriously.

Speak for yourself. Your reading comprehension is awful. You keep putting words in my mouth and making false claims about an analysis that I performed, and that you clearly know very little about. It's rather annoying.

Quote
Totes here is a source.

wtc 1 and 2 report (https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.sustainable-design.ie/fire/NIST-NCSTAR-1-Collapse-Of-Towers.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwj3_tD-wtfSAhWKebwKHRwOA4sQFggvMAY&usg=AFQjCNF8fcbDDQam-6yPD7OJGWUPn23GEw&sig2=1HmPnpKChQKtDFHePOHVBQ)

Thanks. I've actually been going through that report for a while. It's rather thick. I'll find it eventually.

Quote
Note on the first page they admit if the tower was built to code (it was) the collapse we saw wouldn't and couldn't have happened.

No they don't. At least not on page 1 of the report I'm looking at (the first link).

Quote
Desu means tbh, desu.

(http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/340/205/4d5.png)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 08:57:29 PM
Sorry, the page of disclaimers, you need to pay attention to what they are saying.

I actually got #3 in WA in a literature competition when I was in highschool.

We can agree to disagree about my reading comprehension senpai.

Out of the loop.

https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/3rboeu/why_are_people_on_4chan_calling_each_other_senpai/

(https://s7.postimg.org/o7k9du47v/1489361748475.jpg)

Just kidding, I would prefer if you attacked my arguments instead of me.

I have shown the most likely cause of collapse of wtc 1 2 and 7 was CD if you want to believe the total progressive collapse hypothesis with less evidence that is your god given right.

I am sure you can make maths to fit NIST's conclusion, memba you made that working model based on a false premise? I don't doubt your mathematical ability for a second.

However reality is reality, compressed concrete and structural steel does slow fall acceleration, buildings are designed specifically to avoid what happended three times on 9/11.

Toodle-pip.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 09:05:09 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 08:21:56 PM
More weight / momentum equals less structural resistance. Are we really still not past this?

Also this, I do agree this is true.

Sorry if I misunderstood you, Rayzor has been twisting words and attacking personally since page one so we are needlessly defensive.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 14, 2017, 09:10:15 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 09:05:09 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 08:21:56 PM
More weight / momentum equals less structural resistance. Are we really still not past this?

Also this, I do agree this is true.

Sorry if I misunderstood you, Rayzor has been twisting words and attacking personally since page one so we are needlessly defensive.

The structural resistance doesn't change  much until you get to the 44 th floor (? or somewhere) that Babybullshit is so fond of,  then it increases.  but the momentum and energy of the collapse increases as the collapse progresses.   I can't believe you are still stuck on this.

Oh, and for the sake of interest, 

Desu:
A Japanese word commonly used to indicate the speaker is a retarded wannabe Japanese anime-whore

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on March 14, 2017, 09:19:14 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 08:57:29 PM
Sorry, the page of disclaimers, you need to pay attention to what they are saying.

I actually got #3 in WA in a literature competition when I was in highschool.

We can agree to disagree about my reading comprehension senpai.

Out of the loop.

https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/3rboeu/why_are_people_on_4chan_calling_each_other_senpai/

(https://s7.postimg.org/o7k9du47v/1489361748475.jpg)

What is going on? Does this make sense to anyone. Am I having a stroke? I smell crayons. Does anyone else smell crayons?

Quote
Just kidding, I would prefer if you attacked my arguments instead of me.

Don't dish what you can't take.

Quote
I have shown the most likely cause of collapse of wtc 1 2 and 7 was CD if you want to believe the total progressive collapse hypothesis with less evidence that is your god given right.

No, you have stated that the collapse of wtc 1, 2, and 7 was CD. I am going through the evidence provided, slowly but surely. The evidence that I have personally seen so far is bleak.

Quote
I am sure you can make maths to fit NIST's conclusion, memba you made that working model based on a false premise? I don't doubt your mathematical ability for a second.

No magic this time. I can tell you the exact steps if you want. It wasn't very complicated. Very simple conservation of energy and kinematics.

Quote
However reality is reality, compressed concrete and structural steel does slow fall acceleration, buildings are designed specifically to avoid what happended three times on 9/11.

Vague, intuition-based conclusions are not helpful.

Quote
Toodle-pip.

Papa plz
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 09:22:25 PM
Oh wow another ad hominem.

Impressive.

On a popular anonymous image sharing site tbh is automatically changed to desu, we picked up on this and now use desu as slang for tbh. Free internet culture lesson.

Like this site has filters if I call Rayzor a shit penguin, we know I actually mean penguin and not penguin.

Totes again, if you want to debate I will, if you want to make crayon jokes you are on your own.

It is a dangerous mistake to write someone off as dumb just because you disagree with him.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 09:24:50 PM
>No magic this time.

Lmao you still need Harry's wand senpai.

With all due respect Totes you are either a physicist or mathematician, calling structural engineers stupid for making conclusions about structural engineering is, well, stupid desu.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on March 14, 2017, 09:26:09 PM
Finally, converted to x/t, for your convenience:

(http://imgur.com/dffuac9.png)

FoS = 40 (max load / working load)
plastic failure strain = 5 cm
free space between floors = 3 m

The lower bound for each building assumes the strain energy for each floor is constant. The upper bound assumes the strain energy for each floor is proportional to the distance from the top.

Edit: If you extrapolate my data all the way to the ground, the lower bound estimate for each building hits the ground about 1 second before the data Rayzor provided. (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1881105#msg1881105)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 09:29:11 PM
It's just that NIST's total progressive collapse hypothesis makes no sense.

If I purposely forget everything I know about buildings and engineering then maybe it kinda makes sense.

I guess thats why 50% of people still believe the OS.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on March 14, 2017, 09:29:44 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 09:24:50 PM
>No magic this time.

Lmao you still need Harry's wand senpai.

You just got onto me for dismissing evidence without considering it. Falsely, I might add. And yet here you are, dismissing without considering it...

Quote
With all due respect Totes you are either a physicist or mathematician, calling structural engineers stupid for making conclusions about structural engineering is, well, stupid desu.

[citation needed] for calling structural engineers stupid
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on March 14, 2017, 09:31:44 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 09:29:11 PM
It's just that NIST's total progressive collapse hypothesis makes no sense.

If I purposely forget everything I know about buildings and engineering then maybe it kinda makes sense.

I guess thats why 50% of people still believe the OS.

Which part doesn't make sense? For which building? Be specific. Don't give me any intuition based answers. If you say "it looks symmetric, and I don't think it should look symmetric", I will roll my eyes quite vigorously.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 09:33:58 PM
The thermal explansion causing 100% loss of structural integrity instantly.

These buildings were fire engineered, the fire engineers would have gone to jail if this wasn't a false flag. Sprinklers or not.

Someone (every engineer) would have picked this weakness in the model and fixed it.

The idea of fire causing all supports to fail simultaneously is literally magick, more powerful magick than I am capable of, thats for sure.

Edit, their magick worked, look at everyone trying to defend the indefensible.

You will never accept alternatives to the TVs views on reality, well maybe one day, this is fine it doesn't bother me.

Do what thou wilt.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 09:38:57 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 04:39:42 PM
I hope you keep digging Totes as I said before I don't want to force my views on anyone.

You are on the right track with the FoS.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 09:44:42 PM
(https://s2.postimg.org/4mus7wsdl/20170315_124141.jpg)

Basement of a three story house, see the building had started to collapse cause it was an owner builder who thought he didn't need engineers.
He was wrong.

Notice it was progressively collapsing, the rhs is plumb the wall started to bow under the load.

The fact we see little to no deformation of all three structures during collapse is just another smoking gun piece of evidence for controlled demolition.

I could do this all day.

(https://s1.postimg.org/cmr8kgmhb/20170315_124629.jpg)

OHH NOOEESS!!!!!

(Joke, sorry)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on March 14, 2017, 09:48:21 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 09:33:58 PM
The thermal explansion causing 100% loss of structural integrity instantly.

Referring to wtc 7 I assume? Thermal expansion of horizontal beams applied a horizontal pressure to a vertical column, causing it to buckle. What part of that is implausable?

Quote
These buildings were fire engineered, the fire engineers would have gone to jail if this wasn't a false flag. Sprinklers or not.

Someone (every engineer) would have picked this weakness in the model and fixed it.

Hindsight is 20/20

Quote
The idea of fire causing all supports to fail simultaneously is literally magick, more powerful magick than I am capable of, thats for sure.

Are you still talking about wtc 7? You need to be more specific, because all supports didn't fail simultaneously for wtc 7.

Quote
Edit, their magick worked, look at everyone trying to defend the indefensible.

You claimed you didn't like to be called crazy. Claiming magic whenever someone doesn't agree with you is a good way to get called crazy.

Quote from: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 09:44:42 PM
The fact we see little to no deformation of all three structures during collapse is just another smoking gun piece of evidence for controlled demolition.

I could do this all day.

Completely different scale, materials, loads...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on March 14, 2017, 09:49:13 PM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 14, 2017, 09:29:44 PM
Quote
With all due respect Totes you are either a physicist or mathematician, calling structural engineers stupid for making conclusions about structural engineering is, well, stupid desu.

[citation needed] for calling structural engineers stupid

Still need a citation for this accusation.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 09:50:12 PM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 14, 2017, 09:49:13 PM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 14, 2017, 09:29:44 PM
Quote
With all due respect Totes you are either a physicist or mathematician, calling structural engineers stupid for making conclusions about structural engineering is, well, stupid desu.

[citation needed] for calling structural engineers stupid

Still need a citation for this accusation.

I retract it.

Have you visited ae911truth.org yet?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on March 14, 2017, 10:02:37 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 09:50:12 PM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 14, 2017, 09:49:13 PM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 14, 2017, 09:29:44 PM
[citation needed] for calling structural engineers stupid
Still need a citation for this accusation.
I retract it.

Appreciated.

Quote from: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 09:50:12 PM
Have you visited ae911truth.org yet?

Yes. I watched a few of the videos, but they didn't contain much substance. Just snippets of quotes. I'll get around to reading some of the articles eventually.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 10:03:14 PM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 14, 2017, 09:48:21 PM
Completely different scale, materials, loads...

Correct but both buildings were engineered the same, that is to be able to support 2 to 4 times its actual load.

Smoking gun piece of evidence stands untouched. Since page one.

Sorry Totes I like you as a person even if we are having a heated debate.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 10:04:57 PM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 14, 2017, 10:02:37 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 09:50:12 PM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 14, 2017, 09:49:13 PM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 14, 2017, 09:29:44 PM
[citation needed] for calling structural engineers stupid
Still need a citation for this accusation.
I retract it.

Appreciated.

Quote from: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 09:50:12 PM
Have you visited ae911truth.org yet?

Yes. I watched a few of the videos, but they didn't contain much substance. Just snippets of quotes. I'll get around to reading some of the articles eventually.

Appreciated.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 10:13:30 PM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 14, 2017, 09:48:21 PM
Are you still talking about wtc 7? You need to be more specific, because all supports didn't fail simultaneously for wtc 7.

At the point of free-fall there was 0% structural resistance, I've shown that, this means no or negligible structural integrity.

Which Imo is impossible to be caused by office fires.

Edit, actually I was talking about wtc 1 and 2s initial collapse, I will be more specific from now on.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on March 14, 2017, 10:18:14 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 10:03:14 PM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 14, 2017, 09:48:21 PM
Completely different scale, materials, loads...

Correct but both buildings were engineered the same, that is to be able to support 2 to 4 times its actual load.

Smoking gun piece of evidence stands untouched. Since page one.

I'm not even sure what your argument is at this point. You think the wtc collapse was staged because it collapses differently than your 3 story house??
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 14, 2017, 10:19:12 PM
F...I wish I wasn't so busy today and i didn't have to take a couple hours nap here in a second as there is alot going on here.

I will address one thing quickly though

Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 14, 2017, 02:59:30 PM

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 14, 2017, 02:29:56 AM
Let's use 7 as an example. You see squib markers in a literal perfect line on the corner columns and center...That is IT...No where else.

A) From the videos (http://) I've seen, this isn't anywhere remotely close to being true.
B) You already admitted to me this was not a good argument. Why are you going back to it? :-X

It is not an argument really needed but it is an anomaly that should not be written off. Apparently only squib markers at the exact location of corner supports and center supports, upper middle 80 percent only, during its free fall period before any compression takes place is completely natural to you.


As for RAYZOR....I am done with that useless sack of shit, I have seen my last personal attack and lie from him I can stand towards others and myself. I have been holding back for reasons stated before. Now I don't care... The forum may think I am an arrogant SOB afterwards, just know it isn't who I am...Just this worthless pile of lying horseshit needs to be snubbed. This is the only way to do it...Can't kick his ass because he is a bitch, nor any other option available in real life...So proving he is a nobody is the only option available


So you want to call me out as always...Prove it...Prove what you are fuck head. I will follow suit, no more fucking excuses, attacks, etc etc.... I am looking forward to embarrassing you to the fullest extent in every aspect.

So let's get this started, no pussing out, no excuses.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 10:29:39 PM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 14, 2017, 10:18:14 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 10:03:14 PM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 14, 2017, 09:48:21 PM
Completely different scale, materials, loads...

Correct but both buildings were engineered the same, that is to be able to support 2 to 4 times its actual load.

Smoking gun piece of evidence stands untouched. Since page one.

I'm not even sure what your argument is at this point. You think the wtc collapse was staged because it collapses differently than your 3 story house??

Yes.

The fact we saw no deformation of the structure prior or during the collapse is irrefutable proof for controlled demolition.

Concrete and steel are concrete and steel, no magick wand can wave that away.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 14, 2017, 10:19:12 PM
As for RAYZOR....I am done with that useless sack of shit, I have seen my last personal attack and lie from him I can stand towards others and myself. I have been holding back for reasons stated before. Now I don't care... The forum may think I am an arrogant SOB afterwards, just know it isn't who I am...Just this worthless pile of lying horseshit needs to be snubbed. This is the only way to do it...Can't kick his ass because he is a bitch, nor any other option available in real life...So proving he is a nobody is the only option available


So you want to call me out as always...Prove it...Prove what you are fuck head. I will follow suit, no more fucking excuses, attacks, etc etc.... I am looking forward to embarrassing you to the fullest extent in every aspect.

So let's get this started, no pussing out, no excuses.

God I love you.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 14, 2017, 10:36:37 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 14, 2017, 10:19:12 PM
As for RAYZOR....I am done with that useless sack of shit, I have seen my last personal attack and lie from him I can stand towards others and myself. I have been holding back for reasons stated before. Now I don't care... The forum may think I am an arrogant SOB afterwards, just know it isn't who I am...Just this worthless pile of lying horseshit needs to be snubbed. This is the only way to do it...Can't kick his ass because he is a bitch, nor any other option available in real life...So proving he is a nobody is the only option available


So you want to call me out as always...Prove it...Prove what you are fuck head. I will follow suit, no more fucking excuses, attacks, etc etc.... I am looking forward to embarrassing you to the fullest extent in every aspect.

So let's get this started, no pussing out, no excuses.

No need,  I've already proven that you are a know nothing blowhard and bullshit artist  who's never had any formal engineering training.   The only people you are fooling on here are the loopy conspiracy nutters.   




Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 14, 2017, 10:50:15 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 14, 2017, 10:36:37 PM
No need,  I've already proven that you are a know nothing blowhard and bullshit artist  who's never had any formal engineering training.   The only people you are fooling on here are the loopy conspiracy nutters.

No you fucking coward.... You got the balls to say shit like that, fucking back it up pussy.

Let's go!! I already have posted alot of hard personalized evidence in the past (while you have never posted a thing besides your fucked off coward words), I will continue though...Be a man for once..You got the mouth, now prove you got the backing.

Anything you want...Takes me two seconds, from college transcripts, to account overviews, to anything business wise to fuck whatever...You name it.... All personalized just how you want it.

I am excited to trump you in every plausible way....And hey, if you Trump me, then everyone will know to listen to rayzor.

So man up pussy....Let's begin. There will be a few hour delay till I get back, but only a couple.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 11:08:17 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 14, 2017, 10:50:15 PM
No you fucking coward.... You got the balls to say shit like that, fucking back it up pussy.

How will Rayzor ever recover.

Quick example, I am an electrical / mechanical fitter I specialize in elevators and have an interest in engineering.

(https://s8.postimg.org/sfwru2s85/20170315_140354.jpg)

This lift is a joke I hate homies, everything is built shitty and small.
150mm per second hydraulic direct drive, yuck, so slow and gay.

I can speak with authority about elevators and have a great deal of experience with engineering / construction in general.

Wasn't that fun and easy.

Your turn (((Rayzor)))
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 14, 2017, 11:22:12 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 14, 2017, 10:50:15 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 14, 2017, 10:36:37 PM
No need,  I've already proven that you are a know nothing blowhard and bullshit artist  who's never had any formal engineering training.   The only people you are fooling on here are the loopy conspiracy nutters.

No you fucking coward.... You got the balls to say shit like that, fucking back it up pussy.

Let's go!! I already have posted alot of hard personalized evidence in the past (while you have never posted a thing besides your fucked off coward words), I will continue though...Be a man for once..You got the mouth, now prove you got the backing.

Anything you want...Takes me two seconds, from college transcripts, to account overviews, to anything business wise to fuck whatever...You name it.... All personalized just how you want it.

I am excited to trump you in every plausible way....And hey, if you Trump me, then everyone will know to listen to rayzor.

So man up pussy....Let's begin. There will be a few hour delay till I get back, but only a couple.

Ok,  let's start with a question about something you posted,  that you never answered.

Quote from: Rayzor on March 05, 2017, 08:28:19 PM
I think I've said it more than once,  don't make any assumptions about what I do or don't understand.   Let's start with you clarifying what you meant by this post.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 02, 2017, 09:59:34 PM
Even mixing contamination with aluminum it works in a way of water and oil...You will still see it clearly. That was in no way aluminum we saw pouring out.

Optical d->s2 transition is the main reason, which is why it comes out as it does in the sun.

[Ne] 3s22 3p11  Is typical aluminum, though it is one of the only metals with no d valence electrons...I have always found that interesting, though Fresnel equations help to solve it. It is still an interesting metal.

Though I know it's RI is 1.1978..I don't know what it is when in liquid form, but going off its transition as a liquid, I doubt it is much different liquid or solid.

Thanks for the reminder,  I was going to ask you to elaborate on what you were trying to say,   apart from the fact that you got the electron structure wrong,  [Ne]3s2 3p1   but that's just nit picking,   the lack of valence electrons in the d shell seem a bit spurious,  it's only Atomic number 13,  you don't get d shell electrons,  and anyway why do you think that matters?   But also you forgot that Lithium, Sodium, Potassium, Magnesium, and Beryllium are all metals without d shell electrons. 

Can you clarify what you meant.   I'm just confused by what you are trying to say.   I would have probably just said that Aluminium has low emissivity,  leave aside the electron transitions as just unnecessary detail.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 11:26:27 PM
No, see you have to prove something about yourself, like I did and Bhs has done multiple times before.

Fail.

Edit. Rayzor giving you a .00001% chance of not being JIDF, how high on the autism spectrum do you score?

I could understand if you are a full blown Autist, I don't mean it as in insult to autistic people, I have been open and honest about my struggles.

Edit. He meant, aluminum has a low emissivity, obviously.

As for the d shell electrons, Aluminium is used to build things whereas Lithium, Sodium, Potassium, Magnesium, and Beryllium aren't.

Now, how about all the times you called Bhs a fraud, gonna put your money where your mouth is or keep shilling?

Nevermind, I know.

If Ally still confuses you.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 11:51:40 PM
If you literally have a carer and disability pension for your Autism and play with metal for fun then I am sorry for treating you the way I would treat a similar person to me, perhaps more sympathy was in order.

I'm thinking about it now and it fits like a key in a lock, not as neat as you being a shill but still pretty neat.

I'm not insulting Autistic people I have Bipolar, I know that everyone has different struggles.

Just curious, you aren't that dumb but you either can't or won't understand peoples meanings.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 14, 2017, 11:59:27 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 11:26:27 PM
No, see you have to prove something about yourself, like I did and Bhs has done multiple times before.

Not needed,  My qualifications and experience aren't on trial here,  but  Babybullshit certainly is.   He claims qualifications that his posts on here clearly deny. 

What's more he consistently tries to baffle people with obfusticated word salad diatribes whenever he is cornered.   Witness the debacle about point loads in Master_Evar's problem.

Enough is enough,  his posts tell a vastly different story to his claims of having engineering qualifications.





Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 15, 2017, 12:07:34 AM
So you won't back up your claims.

Ok.

So I have Bhs who has proved heaps about himself, got some nice cars and bikes to say the least.

And Rayzor who has proved nothing about himself and asks for my blind trust.


Hmmmmm, who to believe, who to believe?


For the record he was 100% right about M.E's thought experiment, there was not enough information for a valid prediction, what's your point?

M.E's hypothetical 2d maths was unquestionably correct for a hypothetical 2d situation.

Quit shilling, shill.

Edit for dank meme.

(https://s13.postimg.org/wzrzt67tz/1489296171899.png)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 15, 2017, 12:30:10 AM
You've claimed multiple times you are more qualified than the Engineers and Architects that call BS on the OS. Also gone as far as to called trained professionals making assertions about their professions "conspiracy nuts"

Prove you are more qualified than 2500 architects and engineers.

Go on then, do your work.

Go on, we are all waiting.

I'm going to make the claim I am more qualified to speak on engineering issues than you currently, prove me wrong, if you can.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 15, 2017, 12:32:23 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 15, 2017, 12:30:10 AM
I'm going to make the claim I am more qualified to speak on engineering issues than you currently, prove me wrong, if you can.

LOL   What are the dimensions of a point load,  and how many types of point load are there?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 15, 2017, 12:36:01 AM
So you can't prove me wrong, noted.

A point load doesn't exist in reality.

In reality all loads have dimensions.

So there are either an infinite number of possible point loads or zero, depending if you are talking hypothetically or about reality.

Quote from: disputeone on March 15, 2017, 12:30:10 AM
I'm going to make the claim I am more qualified to speak on engineering issues than you currently, prove me wrong, if you can.

This stands. "LOL" doesn't debunk it, unfortunately for you.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on March 15, 2017, 12:38:16 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 14, 2017, 10:50:15 PM

Anything you want...Takes me two seconds, from college transcripts, to account overviews, to anything business wise to fuck whatever...You name it.... All personalized just how you want it.

I'd like to see your PHD in engineering. Of course with personal data blurred out, but with a post-it nearby with "babyhighspeed" on it.



Anyway, it's really entertaining to see lot's of reasonable, intelligent arguments and then disputeone trying to answer them, without actually understanding anything.
Where I'm from, we have a saying that goes "Cobbler, stick to your last.". Might be this is appropriate here, since a fitter thinks he knows stuff better than engineers?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 15, 2017, 12:39:18 AM
Nothing to contribute again user.

Here are some PhD's that question the official story, also my sister is doing her PhD currently.

www.ae911truth.org
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on March 15, 2017, 12:43:05 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 15, 2017, 12:39:18 AM
Also my sister is doing her PhD currently.

So what? I'm sure she doesn't believe your crap...

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 15, 2017, 12:43:51 AM
Quote from: User324 on March 15, 2017, 12:43:05 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 15, 2017, 12:39:18 AM
Also my sister is doing her PhD currently.

So what? I'm sure she doesn't believe your crap...

She does, actually.


Also in straya even engineers know not to mess with the guys that actually build the shit they design.

Aren't you some student who lives at home with zero life experience?

Figures.

Contribute or gtfo mate.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 15, 2017, 12:44:39 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 15, 2017, 12:36:01 AM
So you can't prove me wrong, noted.

A point load doesn't exist in reality.

In reality all loads have dimensions.

So there are either an infinite number of possible point loads or zero, depending if you are talking hypothetically or about reality.

Quote from: disputeone on March 15, 2017, 12:30:10 AM
I'm going to make the claim I am more qualified to speak on engineering issues than you currently, prove me wrong, if you can.

This stands. "LOL" doesn't debunk it, unfortunately for you.

You just made a complete fool of yourself.   No help from me needed.  LOL   


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on March 15, 2017, 12:47:27 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 15, 2017, 12:43:51 AM
She does, actually.
Good to know that "she does"  ;)
No, seriously, I'm sure she doesn't really believe your talks, and if, I'm rather sure she hasn't ever look herself at the "evidence"...anyway, where is she getting her PHD? Which subject?

Quote from: disputeone on March 15, 2017, 12:43:51 AM
Aren't you some student who lives at home with zero life experience?
I'm a student that doesn't live at home and that does have life experience.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 15, 2017, 12:52:08 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 15, 2017, 12:44:39 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 15, 2017, 12:36:01 AM
So you can't prove me wrong, noted.

A point load doesn't exist in reality.

In reality all loads have dimensions.

So there are either an infinite number of possible point loads or zero, depending if you are talking hypothetically or about reality.

Quote from: disputeone on March 15, 2017, 12:30:10 AM
I'm going to make the claim I am more qualified to speak on engineering issues than you currently, prove me wrong, if you can.

This stands. "LOL" doesn't debunk it, unfortunately for you.

You just made a complete fool of yourself.   No help from me needed.  LOL

Sorry what?
"LOL" still  doesn't debunk it, sorry mate.

Quote from: disputeone on March 14, 2017, 04:02:45 AM
Quote
First of all Point loads, as well as Edge loads in 3D are singularities, hence are NOT good practice, but sometimes you can use the results if you do NOT analyse in detail the local stress concentration.

https://www.comsol.com/community/forums/general/thread/19508/

Not sure if that helps.

Quote
The problem with sharp internal corners/edges and point loads is that they are sources of numerical singularities. This means that these locations are incapable of predicting accurate results even with accurate input data and a very fine mesh.

https://caeai.com/blog/why-worry-about-sharp-corners-and-point-loads

I'm sure that is relevant.

Quote
Some articles say that never assume single point load or support upon your model, because it will introduce stress singularity. Sounds reasonable. But I remember the FEA will always parse the load or restraint to each node, when the matrix function Kx=F is being built. How to explain this? The load will always appear in the equation with the form of point load.

http://www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=123871

Quote
A force applied to a single point on a solid will locally give infinite stresses. This is the classical Boussinesq-Cerruti problem in the theory of elasticity, where the stresses vary as the inverse of the distance from the loaded point.
In the real world, point loads do not exist. The force is always distributed over a certain area.

https://www.comsol.com/blogs/singularities-in-finite-element-models-dealing-with-red-spots/


For the record I didn't doubt you Senpai.

User if all you have is ad hominems take it to AR. Please.

Psychology, she has looked at the evidence, I showed it to her.

It has nothing to do with engineering, however educated people do call BS on the official story. I have provided plenty of links.

Keep it on topic.

Also this.

Quote from: disputeone on March 15, 2017, 12:30:10 AM
I'm going to make the claim I am more qualified to speak on engineering issues than you currently, prove me wrong, if you can.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 15, 2017, 12:57:55 AM
Sorry Bhs, I wanted to see (((Rayzor))) call you out.

Looks like all he has is "LOL"

Very sad.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on March 15, 2017, 01:00:30 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 15, 2017, 12:52:08 AM
User if all you have is ad hominems take it to AR. Please.
Funny that you seem to know that two latin words you're so proud of knowing you feel like you got to use them all the time.


Quote from: disputeone on March 15, 2017, 12:52:08 AM
Psychology, she has looked at the evidence, I showed it to her.

It has nothing to do with engineering, however educated people do call BS on the official story.
Keep telling that to yourself, but it won't make it true.
 And yeah, what would it have to do with engineering. How dumb of me to think that!

Anyway, I quickly went to the page you're so proud of, that 911truth thing.

"Who we are"
--> Guy with "bachelor of arts and bechelor of architecture" (lol)
--> One with "BS in civil engineering"
--> One with "undegraduate degree in architecture" (lol)
--> The president, "member of the american institute of architects" (lol)
--> A women with "bachelor of science"

WOW, that overwhelming! I guess now I just HAVE to believe them!
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 15, 2017, 01:02:19 AM
Way more support than the NIST report has.

Seriously, AR.

You have literally contributed nothing.

This goes for you too.

Quote from: disputeone on March 15, 2017, 12:30:10 AM
You've claimed multiple times you are more qualified than the Engineers and Architects that call BS on the OS. Also gone as far as to call trained professionals making assertions about their professions "conspiracy nuts"

Prove you are more qualified than 2500 architects and engineers.

Go on then, do your work.

Go on, we are all waiting.

I'm going to make the claim I am more qualified to speak on engineering issues than you currently, prove me wrong, if you can.

crickets.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on March 15, 2017, 01:11:13 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 15, 2017, 01:02:19 AM
You have literally contributed nothing.

You're talking to a mirror?
I guess the crazy assumption wasn't too far off...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 15, 2017, 01:13:51 AM
Quote from: User324 on March 15, 2017, 12:38:16 AM
a fitter thinks he knows stuff better than engineers?

Citation or gtfo.

AR.

If you wanna insult me personally have the balls to do it to my face.

Pussy.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on March 15, 2017, 01:41:07 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 15, 2017, 01:13:51 AM
Quote from: User324 on March 15, 2017, 12:38:16 AM
a fitter thinks he knows stuff better than engineers?

Citation or gtfo.

AR.

If you wanna insult me personally have the balls to do it to my face.

Pussy.

Seriously, you take it way too hard. It's definitely not healthy or good for you.
You need some personal distance if you want to argue on the internet.

But hey, it might actually be fun to stop the insulting madness and start a discussion. My proposal is:

You make a list with all YOUR arguments & evidence why you think 9/11 is false flag. Thus we have a 'common basic' that could be discussed.
Citations where they are needed, but please no 45min videos with the arguments in it. I mean if they have good arguments, fine, but take the argument itself into the list and post the video as a source (and NOT as where we can find your argument).

Thank you and have a nice day.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 15, 2017, 01:43:56 AM
Quote from: User324 on March 15, 2017, 01:41:07 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 15, 2017, 01:13:51 AM
Quote from: User324 on March 15, 2017, 12:38:16 AM
a fitter thinks he knows stuff better than engineers?

Citation or gtfo.

AR.

If you wanna insult me personally have the balls to do it to my face.

Pussy.

You make a list with all YOUR arguments & evidence why you think 9/11 is false flag. Thus we have a 'common basic' that could be discussed.


Thank you and have a nice day.

You still need to give me a citation as to where I claimed to know more than engineers. Or retract your insult.

Here is a list of arguments for foul play.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.0

I don't respect you nearly enough to start this from page one again, nowhere near.

Have a nice day.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sceptimatic on March 15, 2017, 02:07:38 AM
No matter how many people come into this topic to try and push building loads and tolerances with fires or planes or whatever and tell people that 3 buildings all collapse due to anything but controlled demolition, then they can only be three things.

1. A genuine believer in news stories...any news stories and also a believer in official lines, no matter what.
These people can be genuine but extremely naive and gullible.

2. People who follow stories and simply parrot them as true as long as the mass audience is also doing the same. It's called a safety in number s stance, which can give even the most lonely people a sense of belonging.
Basically these people can see the official lines are more than blurred and know that the truth is hidden and investigated by the minority. The problem is that most people do not want to ever enter into a minority stance, because it leaves them vulnerable and open to ridicule that their confidence cannot envelope.
Basically most of these people are inherently decent people but basically follow the lies by proxy.

3.The clear shills. The Rayzors of the world. The clear intelligent liars that do it by the book and are happy to do it, mainly because they enjoy following protocol.
These people are here for no other reason than to batter down those who can see common sense and logic to what happened.
They basically try to ensure that any reader focuses on the mainstream official lines and not the common sense displayed by those arguing against the so called official report.

We keep getting told by these so called scientists about laws of physics and also percentages of what makes coincidence or happenstance and yet all of this was blown right out of the water on that very day, from morning to late afternoon.

The way I see it all is quite simple. I'm not going to argue against people like Rayzor and his/her like, because there really isn't an argument that is going to go anywhere other than constant attempts to sell the official story, with absolutely no chance of change, no matter what evidence is put forward.
If the official story was a paper plane thrown by a kid out of a school window, shattered the glass of the building and caused the collapse, then you can bet your bottom dollar that Rayzor would be telling you all how and why a paper plane can do exactly that.

Those of you who genuinely know that that day was not how it was portrayed, need to only deal with those who have a mind to question it. Dealing with people like Rayzor and co is like trying to piss in a toilet bowl that's been cling film wrapped.  ;D
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 15, 2017, 03:01:38 AM
Quote from: sceptimatic on March 15, 2017, 02:07:38 AM
No matter how many people come into this topic to try and push building loads and tolerances with fires or planes or whatever and tell people that 3 buildings all collapse due to anything but controlled demolition, then they can only be three things.

1. A genuine believer in news stories...any news stories and also a believer in official lines, no matter what.
These people can be genuine but extremely naive and gullible.

2. People who follow stories and simply parrot them as true as long as the mass audience is also doing the same. It's called a safety in number s stance, which can give even the most lonely people a sense of belonging.
Basically these people can see the official lines are more than blurred and know that the truth is hidden and investigated by the minority. The problem is that most people do not want to ever enter into a minority stance, because it leaves them vulnerable and open to ridicule that their confidence cannot envelope.
Basically most of these people are inherently decent people but basically follow the lies by proxy.

3.The clear shills. The Rayzors of the world. The clear intelligent liars that do it by the book and are happy to do it, mainly because they enjoy following protocol.
These people are here for no other reason than to batter down those who can see common sense and logic to what happened.
They basically try to ensure that any reader focuses on the mainstream official lines and not the common sense displayed by those arguing against the so called official report.

We keep getting told by these so called scientists about laws of physics and also percentages of what makes coincidence or happenstance and yet all of this was blown right out of the water on that very day, from morning to late afternoon.

The way I see it all is quite simple. I'm not going to argue against people like Rayzor and his/her like, because there really isn't an argument that is going to go anywhere other than constant attempts to sell the official story, with absolutely no chance of change, no matter what evidence is put forward.
If the official story was a paper plane thrown by a kid out of a school window, shattered the glass of the building and caused the collapse, then you can bet your bottom dollar that Rayzor would be telling you all how and why a paper plane can do exactly that.

Those of you who genuinely know that that day was not how it was portrayed, need to only deal with those who have a mind to question it. Dealing with people like Rayzor and co is like trying to piss in a toilet bowl that's been cling film wrapped.  ;D

Or the fourth option you missed,  the truth.




Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 15, 2017, 03:07:47 AM
Yes, the "fourth" option...

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 15, 2017, 02:07:38 AM
3.The clear shills. The Rayzors of the world. The clear intelligent liars that do it by the book and are happy to do it, mainly because they enjoy following protocol.
These people are here for no other reason than to batter down those who can see common sense and logic to what happened.
They basically try to ensure that any reader focuses on the mainstream official lines and not the common sense displayed by those arguing against the so called official report.

We keep getting told by these so called scientists about laws of physics and also percentages of what makes coincidence or happenstance and yet all of this was blown right out of the water on that very day, from morning to late afternoon.

Boy, he's sure got your number Rayzor.

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 15, 2017, 02:07:38 AM
If the official story was a paper plane thrown by a kid out of a school window, shattered the glass of the building and caused the collapse, then you can bet your bottom dollar that Rayzor would be telling you all how and why a paper plane can do exactly that.

 ;D  ;D  ;D

Also this, again.

Quote from: disputeone on March 15, 2017, 01:02:19 AM
I'm going to make the claim I am more qualified to speak on engineering issues than you currently, prove me wrong, if you can.

crickets...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: PawnedScum on March 15, 2017, 04:06:43 AM
I once lived on the same neighborhood of a building that was brought down by controlled demolition. I took them literally weeks to prepare it and lots of material surrounding the beams was removed to install the charges.  One of my neighbors spent a lot of time talking to the crew during their lunch breaks and he said one of their most important considerations was (besides bringing the building down safely and contained) dust control.

So my question is...how were any of the WTC buildings prepared for demolition without anyone knowing (there were wires everywhere on that building before they blew it where I lived). And secondly, there seems to have been little effort to control the dust if the building was in fact prepped for a controlled demolition.

I won't address the "planes were CGI" or "Cruise Missiles", as I hope the serious 9/11 truth theory doesn't propagate that belief.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 15, 2017, 04:17:58 AM
Quote from: PawnedScum on March 15, 2017, 04:06:43 AM
I once lived on the same neighborhood of a building that was brought down by controlled demolition. I took them literally weeks to prepare it and lots of material surrounding the beams was removed to install the charges.  One of my neighbors spent a lot of time talking to the crew during their lunch breaks and he said one of their most important considerations was (besides bringing the building down safely and contained) dust control.

So my question is...how were any of the WTC buildings prepared for demolition without anyone knowing (there were wires everywhere on that building before they blew it where I lived). And secondly, there seems to have been little effort to control the dust if the building was in fact prepped for a controlled demolition.

I won't address the "planes were CGI" or "Cruise Missiles", as I hope the serious 9/11 truth theory doesn't propagate that belief.

This has been addressed here.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.0

There's a lot of good information there.

I'll give you a tip, look into the companies who were working and renting space in the wtc complex at the time, this is quite the rabbit hole.

There was plenty of space and time to prepare it.

The Pentagon missile was a missile, no one who considers the available evidence can claim otherwise.

I think planes hit wtc 1 and 2 personally, but not the way we were told.

I appreciate your honest curiosity, thanks.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 15, 2017, 04:20:09 AM
Besides, you are asking the wrong questions, I think a better question would be why a passenger plane and a tank of jet fuel can accomplish far better than what "took them literally weeks to prepare it and lots of material surrounding the beams was removed to install the charges."

I would love an honest answer to this post.

Edit, if you look into the companies working in the wtc and are curious, look into the start of the war on freedom terrorism, the WMD's the anthrax attacks. It's all connected to the same criminals.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: PawnedScum on March 15, 2017, 04:34:36 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 15, 2017, 04:20:09 AM
Besides, you are asking the wrong questions, I think a better question would be why a passenger plane and a tank of jet fuel can accomplish far better than what "took them literally weeks to prepare it and lots of material surrounding the beams was removed to install the charges."

I would love an honest answer to this post.

Edit, if you look into the companies working in the wtc and are curious, look into the start of the war on freedom terrorism, the WMD's the anthrax attacks.

Well, I have read this once from front to back, guess I'll do it again.  As for the missile at the pentagon, there is evidence of clipped light poles, vehicles and trees leading to the impact site, something I don't think a cruise missile would have accomplished (no real wings on a cruise missile, just fins).

As for the last question, there were a lot of other flammable things in the building once the jet fuel got it going with multiple electrical, plumbing and HVAC chases to help spread the fires to multiple floors.  I'm not a structural engineer, but it seems logical to me that the weight of the building above would cause serious problems if any one or two floors collapsed below it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 15, 2017, 04:37:52 AM
Oh and about the dust, sorry, I thought this was obvious, they didnt intend to make it look like a CD so why take measures to control the dust.

The buildings had to be completely destroyed to destroy all physical evidence.

Look into how hard it is to completely destroy a building with a standard CD, I've posted plenty of good videos.

Look into how many people on ground zero got leukaemia from ground zero.

Look into what the term ground zero was exclusively used for before 9/11.
Rayzor knows

You could literally drown in evidence for foul play.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 15, 2017, 04:46:38 AM
Quote from: PawnedScum on March 15, 2017, 04:34:36 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 15, 2017, 04:20:09 AM
Besides, you are asking the wrong questions, I think a better question would be why a passenger plane and a tank of jet fuel can accomplish far better than what "took them literally weeks to prepare it and lots of material surrounding the beams was removed to install the charges."

I would love an honest answer to this post.

Edit, if you look into the companies working in the wtc and are curious, look into the start of the war on freedom terrorism, the WMD's the anthrax attacks.

Well, I have read this once from front to back, guess I'll do it again.  As for the missile at the pentagon, there is evidence of clipped light poles, vehicles and trees leading to the impact site, something I don't think a cruise missile would have accomplished (no real wings on a cruise missile, just fins).

As for the last question, there were a lot of other flammable things in the building once the jet fuel got it going with multiple electrical, plumbing and HVAC chases to help spread the fires to multiple floors.  I'm not a structural engineer, but it seems logical to me that the weight of the building above would cause serious problems if any one or two floors collapsed below it.

Alright sorry I didn't realize you read the entire thread, my apologies.

I think Bhs covered it or at least touched on it, we were trying to keep the debate away from speculation.

Basically the towers office space was owned / rented out to people who directly profited from 9/11, there was all the time and space they needed to prep.

Especially wtc 7.

The clipped light poles for the Pentagon plane are evidence, granted, but there's no way to conclusively prove that it was caused by a plane.

I believe the evidence for a missile outweighs the evidence for a plane.

A plane should have done damage similar to what we saw on wtc 1 and 2 theoretically.





As for causing serious problems, absolutely no doubt, 100% paid.

Just not the collapses we saw, two top down CD's and one bottom up CD.



This video shows a top down and a bottom up CD side by side.

It wasn't as fast, as effective or as efficient as 9/11 and these guys are professionals, they are showing off in this video.

I really appreciate your honesty, thanks again.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 15, 2017, 05:11:20 AM
Quote from: PawnedScum on March 15, 2017, 04:34:36 AM
As for the last question, there were a lot of other flammable things in the building once the jet fuel got it going with multiple electrical, plumbing and HVAC chases to help spread the fires to multiple floors.

Look into fireproofing and the steps tradesman take on large jobs held to building code to fireproof their work, it's nearly a trade in itself, everything is completely over engineered.

The towers may well have collapsed on their own if they were left to run their course but I think it would end up more like wtc 5.

(https://s17.postimg.org/puhil53pb/wtc5_fire_floors.jpg)

(https://s13.postimg.org/68xbhh8h3/www_angelfire_com_ny5_wtc911video_flames.jpg)

Remember that was the first time fires had ever brought down similar buildings, much less three in a row, much much less looking like perfect demolitions and falling faster than nearly all controlled demolitions by far.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on March 15, 2017, 10:46:01 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 15, 2017, 01:13:51 AM
Quote from: User324 on March 15, 2017, 12:38:16 AM
a fitter thinks he knows stuff better than engineers?
Citation or gtfo.
[...]
You still need to give me a citation as to where I claimed to know more than engineers. Or retract your insult.
Oh dear, so you want a citation for something I assumed you were thinking? What? How is that possible? I have never claimed that YOU said you know stuff better than engineers. Get your facts straight (that's actually a very common problem with flatties & conspiracy-theorists in general)!


Quote from: sceptimatic on March 15, 2017, 02:07:38 AM
No matter how many people come into this topic to try and push building loads and tolerances with fires or planes or whatever and tell people that 3 buildings all collapse due to anything but controlled demolition, then they can only be three things.
Wow, you're sooooo bigoted, what you're doing couldn't even be called pigeonholing.

Quote
I'm going to make the claim I am more qualified to speak on engineering issues than you currently, prove me wrong, if you can.
I guess this wasn't adressed to me, but anyway: I have studied engineering for one year, so I think I'd be at least as qualified to speak about this matter as you are.

Quote
Remember that was the first time fires had ever brought down similar buildings, much less three in a row, much much less looking like perfect demolitions and falling faster than nearly all controlled demolitions by far.
Are you joking right now? I mean, it was not like fires had brought those buildings down. I think I remember there was something else involved...like some planes?
Anyway, how many controlled demolitions have you analyzed so that you could make a statement like "falling faster than nearly all controlled demolitions by far."

Quote
I don't respect you nearly enough to start this from page one again, nowhere near.
I expected some cheap excuse like this. Because obiously you couldn't make a list that wouldn't be debunked within a very short amount of time.

Quote
Look into how many people on ground zero got leukaemia from ground zero.
Sounds interesting. Sources?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on March 15, 2017, 10:58:18 AM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 14, 2017, 03:08:30 PM
Also, does anyone have a good assessment of the fall rate of wtc1/2? I made a simplistic prediction of the acceleration for a building collapsing on itself (pancaking?), and I'm curious how close I got.

How can you predict something that already happened?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on March 15, 2017, 11:31:49 AM
Quote from: totallackey on March 15, 2017, 10:58:18 AM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 14, 2017, 03:08:30 PM
Also, does anyone have a good assessment of the fall rate of wtc1/2? I made a simplistic prediction of the acceleration for a building collapsing on itself (pancaking?), and I'm curious how close I got.

How can you predict something that already happened?

Don't play stupid, as long as he does not have the information about the outcome he can predict it (=the outcome) independent of whether the outcome is in the past, present or future.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: PawnedScum on March 15, 2017, 02:42:50 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 15, 2017, 05:11:20 AM
Quote from: PawnedScum on March 15, 2017, 04:34:36 AM
As for the last question, there were a lot of other flammable things in the building once the jet fuel got it going with multiple electrical, plumbing and HVAC chases to help spread the fires to multiple floors.

Look into fireproofing and the steps tradesman take on large jobs held to building code to fireproof their work, it's nearly a trade in itself, everything is completely over engineered.

The towers may well have collapsed on their own if they were left to run their course but I think it would end up more like wtc 5.

(https://s17.postimg.org/puhil53pb/wtc5_fire_floors.jpg)

(https://s13.postimg.org/68xbhh8h3/www_angelfire_com_ny5_wtc911video_flames.jpg)

Remember that was the first time fires had ever brought down similar buildings, much less three in a row, much much less looking like perfect demolitions and falling faster than nearly all controlled demolitions by far.
Okay, something else that I haven't seen discussed much.  Could it be that the building was not in fact built to specs and with 'crooked' inspectors through various stages of the construction.  The early days when they exploded the van in the basement did a lot more damage then anyone expected based on the size of the explosion.  One of the issues that I have with this thread is that it appears to 'pile on' numbers of things to build the entire conspiracy.  In my opinion, the higher level of detail and complexity in the conspiracy, the more likely that someone will leak something that is paramount to admission.  Most people would easily buy that they cut corners to save dollars and that is what ultimately led to the downfall of the buildings.  That and the airplanes and fires.

I would like to see the frames where the plane disappears before striking the building.  I watched that live on CNN and in my early days was a projectionist.  I have ruined many people's movie experience in the past by showing them the queue dots burned into the film to show when to change a reel.  I'm very sensitive to anything that happens visually with television signals and many times have pointed out jittering on peoples own TVs that they didn't notice.  If BHS could point me to the proper place for the original video that shows the missing plane that hit the building, I would very much like to see that again with closer scrutiny.  I did a quick search and found a bunch but it's hard to tell what is original and what has been tampered with.

Sorry getting long winded here so will post another about something else that I would like to ask about.

Edited to change a name.  Had originally asked for Rayzor to provide a link to the video but meant BHS
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 15, 2017, 03:04:19 PM
User, I'm not playing your game.

I'll get to your post pwnd.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 15, 2017, 03:14:26 PM
Quote from: PawnedScum on March 15, 2017, 02:42:50 PM
Okay, something else that I haven't seen discussed much.  Could it be that the building was not in fact built to specs and with 'crooked' inspectors through various stages of the construction.

I think this is unlikely for all three buildings.

Quote from: PawnedScum on March 15, 2017, 02:42:50 PM
The early days when they exploded the van in the basement did a lot more damage then anyone expected based on the size of the explosion.  One of the issues that I have with this thread is that it appears to 'pile on' numbers of things to build the entire conspiracy.  In my opinion, the higher level of detail and complexity in the conspiracy, the more likely that someone will leak something that is paramount to admission.

You think too many people would have to be involved to keep it secret? It's not really a secret tho, 50% of people thereabouts question the OS.

Quote from: PawnedScum on March 15, 2017, 02:42:50 PM
Most people would easily buy that they cut corners to save dollars and that is what ultimately led to the downfall of the buildings.  That and the airplanes and fires.

Only with a strong desire to believe the official story, too many logical jumps for me.

Quote from: PawnedScum on March 15, 2017, 02:42:50 PM
I would like to see the frames where the plane disappears before striking the building.  I watched that live on CNN and in my early days was a projectionist.  I have ruined many people's movie experience in the past by showing them the queue dots burned into the film to show when to change a reel.  I'm very sensitive to anything that happens visually with television signals and many times have pointed out jittering on peoples own TVs that they didn't notice.  If BHS could point me to the proper place for the original video that shows the missing plane that hit the building, I would very much like to see that again with closer scrutiny.  I did a quick search and found a bunch but it's hard to tell what is original and what has been tampered with.

Easy to find.





It seems like you are arguing from incredulity currently but you have been honest and polite so far.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: PawnedScum on March 15, 2017, 03:27:55 PM
The old saying from Missouri holds true for me....it is the show me state.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 15, 2017, 03:38:38 PM
pawnedscum

Your post seems like you could be sincere, however, until I know for sure I won't waste too much time.

As for issues with the planes visually, there are pictures and videos here of the plane vanishing in the building, entering like the building is not even there, etc etc etc. Also, if you google or look on YouTube it is easy to find. You can also look for missing wings and other impossibilities in reality.

As for the possibility of there being short cuts taken during construction...Highly unlikely. Even if they wanted to, there are a 1000 certs that must be met by multiple agencies. Then 1000s of inspections during their time standing.

Even if you could someone how pay everyone off to close one eye...You can only cut so many corners with physics until the buildings will no longer stand.

For example, there was a serious building fire in uptown (4 story condo, concrete base, wood frame, steel spine) that I was one of 4 people hired to examine after the fire was extinguished (almost 32 hours) to examine it's safety for fire investigators. (This is actually what was occupying my time when rayzor lied about me abandoning dispute)..

My whole point, part of that investigation when either condemning a building for demo, or giving thumbs up for safety is pulling all the previous inspection reports, looking at decades of inspector notes (example, if they are not liking something, yet it is still within spec they will make a note for the future inspectors).....The paper trail for any commercial building (especially buildings taller than 2 stories) is long, tough to hide, and involves many people and agencies.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: PawnedScum on March 15, 2017, 03:40:49 PM
okay, another long post.

I feel I should first disclose that I came to this site to do research for a character I'm adding in my next book.  I had originally thought to use a 'Flat Earth' believer but there are not too many of those it appears. I'm leaning toward a conspiracy theorist in general now and the book is not about 9/11, in fact it takes place many years before, but ironically does have a tie in to the whole 9/11 experience.

I'm trying to be honest and polite so thanks for noticing.

Now my other thoughts.

There are radar installations throughout the world (Pave Paws) that are specifically designed to detect, track, and monitor surface to air launches across the globe (sorry flat earther's). I have a brother who was an airman at one for many years and since then has been a civilian contractor at one of those sites (I think there are six of them).  They specifically do not monitor civilian or even military aircraft and filter them out.  I have asked him previously about 9/11 and he is a stickler for rules and simply wont discuss his business but did admit that if there had been a launch of a cruise missile type device, they would have detected it.  So that entire group of people, both military and civilian personnel, would also have to be in on some kind of cover up of a missile based attack on the buildings. Those protocols are automated processes in the event of a detection.

I believe the 4 planes were high jacked.  I believe three of those planes hit their targets.  We can debate what happened after that on this forum and many others for a long time it appears.  The fourth plane, well, let's just say I'm open to the idea that 'we' shot it down before it could reach it's target and the official story may not be accurate for many reasons.

I did find a site which went into depth on the supposed flight path of the Pentagon plane and if the angle was possible.  It was thorough and it was there that the sheared lamp poles and trees, even a vehicle, was first brought to my attention.  It seems plausible that a plane did in fact hit the Pentagon at least based on the proposed flight path described.

Looking forward to answers and I'm not easily offended, so if I get out of line, just point it out.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 15, 2017, 03:43:54 PM
Thats what you believe, thats fine, who am I to argue against it.

Have a nice day good luck with your book.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 15, 2017, 03:51:03 PM
That's fine pawnedscum I respect your beliefs. Just know, a belief in something does not mean it is accurate in reality (I could rebuttal your recent claim, however, you seem satisfied in your beliefs, and don't seem to be looking for any sort of justification or solidification, so I digress)

You have been nice thus far...So I say take care good sir and much luck and wishes.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 15, 2017, 04:24:39 PM
Quote from: PawnedScum on March 15, 2017, 02:42:50 PM

Okay, something else that I haven't seen discussed much.  Could it be that the building was not in fact built to specs and with 'crooked' inspectors through various stages of the construction.  The early days when they exploded the van in the basement did a lot more damage then anyone expected based on the size of the explosion.  One of the issues that I have with this thread is that it appears to 'pile on' numbers of things to build the entire conspiracy.  In my opinion, the higher level of detail and complexity in the conspiracy, the more likely that someone will leak something that is paramount to admission.  Most people would easily buy that they cut corners to save dollars and that is what ultimately led to the downfall of the buildings.  That and the airplanes and fires.


That was the subject of fairly detailed investigation,  and there was no evidence of short cuts or substandard building practices,  the steel recovered from the site met all the specifications, and in most cases exceeded the design specs. 

Quote from: PawnedScum on March 15, 2017, 02:42:50 PM
I would like to see the frames where the plane disappears before striking the building.  I watched that live on CNN and in my early days was a projectionist.  I have ruined many people's movie experience in the past by showing them the queue dots burned into the film to show when to change a reel.  I'm very sensitive to anything that happens visually with television signals and many times have pointed out jittering on peoples own TVs that they didn't notice.  If BHS could point me to the proper place for the original video that shows the missing plane that hit the building, I would very much like to see that again with closer scrutiny.  I did a quick search and found a bunch but it's hard to tell what is original and what has been tampered with.

Sorry getting long winded here so will post another about something else that I would like to ask about.

Edited to change a name.  Had originally asked for Rayzor to provide a link to the video but meant BHS

I posted a link earlier to a slow motion version of UA175 hitting  WTC2,   but if you are looking for BHS's video where the plane that disappeared without leaving a mark,  I've yet to see it.

Here's a related paper from Journal of Impact Engineering.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/257239481_How_the_airplane_wing_cut_through_the_exterior_columns_of_the_World_Trade_Center

You might need academic log in credentials to access the whole paper,  but the abstract is readily available.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 15, 2017, 04:25:07 PM
How will Rayzor ever recover?

(https://s28.postimg.org/s78rgvkzx/20170316_072749.png)

I'll let you guys know if they give me the article.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 15, 2017, 05:08:39 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 15, 2017, 04:25:07 PM
How will Rayzor ever recover?

Recovering from the garbage you post is easy,  I just  have you on ignore, and only look at what you post when I need a laugh.   

BTW,   what does your employer think about you spending all day on flat earth forums?   

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 15, 2017, 05:15:19 PM
How will Rayzor ever recover.

I'm one of the best at my job in WA and probably Aus, I can afford to post on a FE website during my breaks.

Sorry, did you have a point?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 15, 2017, 05:51:53 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 15, 2017, 05:08:39 PM
BTW,   what does your employer think about you spending all day on flat earth forums?   

It's financial freedom...I could do this till the end of my time and not work if I wanted to...

Fucking weasel, prove something or make your exit...I would say before you lost all your dignity..But that ship has sailed many moons ago.

(Or you can apologize for being a pecker head, and start acting normal..But I am not hedging any bets on that)

Quote from: disputeone on March 15, 2017, 05:15:19 PM
How will Rayzor ever recover.



Also..

Quote from: disputeone on March 15, 2017, 05:15:19 PM
I'm one of the best at my job in WA and probably Aus

Do they do calls to the states lol...These piece of garbage Westinghouse elevators are always having issues. It is obvious the company attempting to fix them now has no fucking idea what they are doing.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 15, 2017, 05:54:23 PM
You want Italian lifts.

Otis and Schindler are using Chinese lifts now and they are crap quality.

I'm leading hand for a small company, just do work in WA unfortunately. ;D

Hence also why I do what I want as long as the job is done well and on time.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 15, 2017, 06:06:06 PM
Also this.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 15, 2017, 05:51:53 PM
Fucking weasel, prove something or make your exit...I would say before you lost all your dignity..But that ship has sailed many moons ago.

And this.

Quote from: disputeone on March 15, 2017, 12:30:10 AM
I'm going to make the claim I am more qualified to speak on engineering issues than you currently, prove me wrong, if you can.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 15, 2017, 06:33:43 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 15, 2017, 04:24:39 PM
Quote from: PawnedScum on March 15, 2017, 02:42:50 PM

Okay, something else that I haven't seen discussed much.  Could it be that the building was not in fact built to specs and with 'crooked' inspectors through various stages of the construction.  The early days when they exploded the van in the basement did a lot more damage then anyone expected based on the size of the explosion.  One of the issues that I have with this thread is that it appears to 'pile on' numbers of things to build the entire conspiracy.  In my opinion, the higher level of detail and complexity in the conspiracy, the more likely that someone will leak something that is paramount to admission.  Most people would easily buy that they cut corners to save dollars and that is what ultimately led to the downfall of the buildings.  That and the airplanes and fires.


That was the subject of fairly detailed investigation,  and there was no evidence of short cuts or substandard building practices,  the steel recovered from the site met all the specifications, and in most cases exceeded the design specs. 

Anyone else notice whenever Rayzor actually makes a point, it supports the controlled demolition hypothesis?

This and molten ally.

Thanks Meg.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 15, 2017, 06:56:53 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 15, 2017, 05:51:53 PM
Fucking weasel, prove something or make your exit...I would say before you lost all your dignity..But that ship has sailed many moons ago.

I've proven you to be a know nothing  fraud,  so now all you have left is a barrage of insults,  your reputation is shot and you've done it all yourself,   how does that make you feel?



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 15, 2017, 07:03:58 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 15, 2017, 06:56:53 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 15, 2017, 05:51:53 PM
Fucking weasel, prove something or make your exit...I would say before you lost all your dignity..But that ship has sailed many moons ago.

I've proven you to be a know nothing  fraud,  so now all you have left is a barrage of insults,  your reputation is shot and you've done it all yourself,   how does that make you feel?

Yawn, you haven't proven anything.

His reputation is fine, I actually gained some extra respect, he got a problem, approached it like an engineer and told you it wasn't an accurate representation of reality and not enough info was given. Then stood his ground.

Sorry, what was that about insults and a ruined reputation?

Quote from: disputeone on March 15, 2017, 06:06:06 PM
Also this.
Quote from: disputeone on March 15, 2017, 12:30:10 AM
I'm going to make the claim I am more qualified to speak on engineering issues than you currently, prove me wrong, if you can.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 15, 2017, 07:47:14 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 15, 2017, 07:03:58 PM

His reputation is fine, I actually gained some extra respect, he got a problem, approached it like an engineer and told you it wasn't an accurate representation of reality and not enough info was given. Then stood his ground.


Respect from someone who doesn't know 2D from 3D is not something to aspire to.    But then again neither did he it seems.   


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 15, 2017, 07:57:18 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 15, 2017, 06:56:53 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 15, 2017, 05:51:53 PM
Fucking weasel, prove something or make your exit...I would say before you lost all your dignity..But that ship has sailed many moons ago.

I've proven you to be a know nothing  fraud,  so now all you have left is a barrage of insults,  your reputation is shot and you've done it all yourself,   how does that make you feel?

( Disclaimer to all normal FES members please know the following is not my attitude in life, nor the way I carry myself. Rayzor is just a rare exception to the rules. If this were face to face, I would have already taken him out back and beat him with a sack of oranges, unfortunately none of the preferred options are available)

With that said....

So fuck head, big words as always with nothing to back them up. Well my hard work and reputation had me out of highschool at 15, college 22(23 technically.. staring at my two degrees right now behind me).. My reputation and my company's rep of hard work and excellence (even when something gets fucked, always make it right) has afforded me multiple shops (which one I am sitting in this very moment, wanna see ;) ) full of so many fun toys and equipment (one shop has about 2 million dollars worth of cars and motorcycles that sit and gather dust)..A house and a penthouse (yes the house is up for sale though, never have enough shits to have two houses, would rather donate)..If I wanted to retire this very moment and post on FES till the end of ages I could... Connected within the city and do my part to pull my weight...If I had issues, there are five people I could call this very second and borrow 10 million dollars just on a hand shake...Why? My reputation, I have had high end customers, with some amazing work since the day I opened (I was one of a couple called to do the fire inspection to determine if the condos were safe after the fire I mentioned by the city)...Why? Reputation....(yes I had to fight for them when I was new, but never let them down and kept them).

I could go on...But I am tired of talking about myself even if it's for a point.

Why do I care about my reputation, even on an obscure website? So much so I will take the time to send custom pictures on a FES forum (or write on one of my Lamborghinis with permanent marker to make a point as I did for a user here?)?? Because I have a reputation, and I do not take it lightly when someone calls me out (only happens on line for some reason) so I will take the time to shut their little asses up.

Someone like yourself that has nothing, does nothing, no rep, nor have not accomplished anything, relies on calling people names and degrading them instead of working on yourself...So you wouldn't get it, nor will people like you ever get it.


As for time...Doesn't take that long most of that time a minute or two to prove something (truth is easy)...There was only one time I took an actual extended amount of time, and that was about 45 minutes on a Sunday, doing an exact list of things asked for by a member here..I was actually given shit for it by another member for being on a "chain" or something like that. I didn't regret it though.....However, I imagine proving something for a shitty little lying no one would be an impossible thing.


You have been weighed and measured, but found lacking rayzor...You are outclassed and out matched on all levels, no form of insults or personal attacks of others can hide this fact.

Now be gone

Edit* Forgot to answer your beginning question. I feel great...Thanks for asking  ;D
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 15, 2017, 08:11:12 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 15, 2017, 07:57:18 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 15, 2017, 06:56:53 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 15, 2017, 05:51:53 PM
Fucking weasel, prove something or make your exit...I would say before you lost all your dignity..But that ship has sailed many moons ago.

I've proven you to be a know nothing  fraud,  so now all you have left is a barrage of insults,  your reputation is shot and you've done it all yourself,   how does that make you feel?

( Disclaimer to all normal FES members please know the following is not my attitude in life, nor the way I carry myself. Rayzor is just a rare exception to the rules. If this were face to face, I would have already taken him out back and beat him with a sack of oranges, unfortunately none of the preferred options are available)

With that said....

So fuck head, big words as always with nothing to back them up. Well my hard work and reputation had me out of highschool at 15, college 22(23 technically.. staring at my two degrees right now behind me).. My reputation and my company's rep of hard work and excellence (even when something gets fucked, always make it right) has afforded me multiple shops (which one I am sitting in this very moment, wanna see ;) ) full of so many fun toys and equipment (one shop has about 2 million dollars worth of cars and motorcycles that sit and gather dust)..A house and a penthouse (yes the house is up for sale though, never have enough shits to have two houses, would rather donate)..If I wanted to retire this very moment and post on FES till the end of ages I could... Connected within the city and do my part to pull my weight...If I had issues, there are five people I could call this very second and borrow 10 million dollars just on a hand shake...Why? My reputation, I have had high end customers, with some amazing work since the day I opened (I was one of a couple called to do the fire inspection to determine if the condos were safe after the fire I mentioned by the city)...Why? Reputation....(yes I had to fight for them when I was new, but never let them down and kept them).

I could go on...But I am tired of talking about myself even if it's for a point.

Why do I care about my reputation, even on an obscure website? So much so I will take the time to send custom pictures on a FES forum (or write on one of my Lamborghinis with permanent marker to make a point as I did for a user here?)?? Because I have a reputation, and I do not take it lightly when someone calls me out (only happens on line for some reason) so I will take the time to shut their little asses up.

Someone like yourself that has nothing, does nothing, no rep, nor have not accomplished anything, relies on calling people names and degrading them instead of working on yourself...So you wouldn't get it, nor will people like you ever get it.


As for time...Doesn't take that long most of that time a minute or two to prove something (truth is easy)...There was only one time I took an actual extended amount of time, and that was about 45 minutes on a Sunday, doing an exact list of things asked for by a member here..I was actually given shit for it by another member for being on a "chain" or something like that. I didn't regret it though.....However, I imagine proving something for a shitty little lying no one would be an impossible thing.


You have been weighed and measured, but found lacking rayzor...You are outclassed and out matched on all levels, no form of insults or personal attacks of others can hide this fact.

Now be gone

Edit* Forgot to answer your beginning question. I feel great...Thanks for asking  ;D

Self promotion is poor praise.   You just can't help yourself can you.   Your true character shows through loud and clear in the way you puff yourself up to pretend to be something you clearly are not.

I imagine an obscure flat earth forum is one place you might find a few crazy numnuts to impress with your bullshit claims.   ROTFL.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 15, 2017, 08:16:10 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 15, 2017, 07:47:14 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 15, 2017, 07:03:58 PM

His reputation is fine, I actually gained some extra respect, he got a problem, approached it like an engineer and told you it wasn't an accurate representation of reality and not enough info was given. Then stood his ground.


Respect from someone who doesn't know 2D from 3D is not something to aspire to.    But then again neither did he it seems.

Citation please, you were the one getting confused.

Quote from: disputeone on March 15, 2017, 07:56:22 PM
Do you still claim this line is one dimensional?

(https://s11.postimg.org/jxnnh0xz7/20170316_102207.jpg)

Quote
In physics and mathematics, two-dimensional space or bi-dimensional space is a geometric model of the planar projection of the physical universe. The two dimensions are commonly called length and width. Both directions lie in the same plane.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-dimensional_space

Quote
In physics and mathematics, a sequence of n numbers can be understood as a location in n-dimensional space. When n = 1, the set of all such locations is called a one-dimensional space. An example of a one-dimensional space is the number line, where the position of each point on it can be described by a single number

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-dimensional_space

How will Rayzor ever recover?

(https://s15.postimg.org/phtacbzi3/the_first_step_to_recovery_is_admitting_youre_a.jpg)

Come take my crayons, bitch.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 15, 2017, 08:17:59 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 13, 2017, 10:49:57 PM
Fall acceleration of building 7.

You are going to end this a jibbering mess of failed insults and logic.

But you asked for it.

Mods can we move to tech and alt please. ty.

Oh and since you dont like self promotion, here.

I think Bhs is much, much brighter than the engineers who design my elevators.

Happy?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 15, 2017, 08:22:16 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 15, 2017, 08:11:12 PM
Self promotion is poor praise.   You just can't help yourself can you.   Your true character shows through loud and clear in the way you puff yourself up to pretend to be something you clearly are not.

I imagine an obscure flat earth forum is one place you might find a few crazy numnuts to impress with your bullshit claims.   ROTFL.

Not claims when I prove it bitch maid. Just stating facts.

Plus, you are the only one who has gotten talk like that loser. I posted my disclaimer up top.

Gone prove anything?

Of course not loser.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 15, 2017, 09:47:43 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 15, 2017, 08:22:16 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 15, 2017, 08:11:12 PM
Self promotion is poor praise.   You just can't help yourself can you.   Your true character shows through loud and clear in the way you puff yourself up to pretend to be something you clearly are not.

I imagine an obscure flat earth forum is one place you might find a few crazy numnuts to impress with your bullshit claims.   ROTFL.

Not claims when I prove it bitch maid. Just stating facts.

Plus, you are the only one who has gotten talk like that loser. I posted my disclaimer up top.

Gone prove anything?

Of course not loser.

Ok,  here's the main problem.    When you post,  you consistently get things wrong,  you swap words around at random to the point that your posts end up meaningless word salad in the technical sense,  sure, toss in a few buzzwords and it impresses the hell out of people like dipstickone,  but he doesn't know shit from clay when it comes to engineering.  I don't care what you have to say about how many houses you have or cars you own, that means nothing to me,  the fact that you think it's important tells me something about who you are,  and who you think you are. 

What disturbs me is that lack of basic knowledge that you exhibit consistently,  and that pretty much destroys your entire narrative.   

It's possible that you could blame everything on auto-correct,  inability to type equations with the bbedit limitations,  or perhaps you are dyslexic,   I  have my opinion,  which you already know,   and the only way that would change is if your posts started making sense.   

Long self-promoting rants and crazed insults won't change the opinion that I and others have formed.




 

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 15, 2017, 10:05:17 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 15, 2017, 09:47:43 PM
ad hominems.

Do better.

Who is this "I and others"? From where I'm standing it's just you.

I've proven I'm far more qualified to speak on engineering than you.

What have you done?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 15, 2017, 10:09:18 PM
He's stated multiple times he's dyslexic, lots of very intelligent technical people are.

My friend irl has dyslexia, ask him to fix something, easy done, ask him to spell something or put his ideas into text, he struggles more.

We have been honest, how high on the Autism spectrum do you score?

(https://s18.postimg.org/68q26oot5/images_4.jpg)

Be honest, we won't judge, you are clearly high functioning.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 15, 2017, 10:31:15 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 15, 2017, 09:47:43 PM
Ok,  here's the main problem.    When you post,  you consistently get things wrong,  you swap words around at random to the point that your posts end up meaningless word salad in the technical sense,  sure, toss in a few buzzwords and it impresses the hell out of people like dipstickone,  but he doesn't know shit from clay when it comes to engineering.  I don't care what you have to say about how many houses you have or cars you own, that means nothing to me,  the fact that you think it's important tells me something about who you are,  and who you think you are. 

What disturbs me is that lack of basic knowledge that you exhibit consistently,  and that pretty much destroys your entire narrative.   

It's possible that you could blame everything on auto-correct,  inability to type equations with the bbedit limitations,  or perhaps you are dyslexic,   I  have my opinion,  which you already know,   and the only way that would change is if your posts started making sense.   

Long self-promoting rants and crazed insults won't change the opinion that I and others have formed.

Let me make this brief as I am about to go out..

I had a disclaimer on the top of my post, of course you ignored it liar. I have never fully blown up like that at anyone here, you are special because you continually call me out personally.

It's not buzz words that impress dispute, it's the fact I am willing to prove what I say (and have proven) about myself. I am someone of action, not a spineless, lying coward. He is someone of action, I respect that equally.

Saying something is much different than proving it with evidence. You cannot do this because you have nothing to prove. There is no way to hide that fact. Even this post I am replying to is another deflection.

I have said many times I am most proud of my experience in life and the charities I chair, if I wanted to be money hungry I would be fair more advanced in that area than I am now. I could careless...So don't put words in my mouth bitch maid..

I don't know how to type equations here, if someone were to tell me I would do it.

Yes I don't proof read...yes..I am dyslexic...I do score low to moderate on the autism scale..But just like I fight dyslexia head on, I do the same with autism symptoms. That is actually one of the reasons I got my penthouse in down town, so I am forcing myself to be surrounded by people. Or why I go to a bar alone at times, just to put myself in very comfortable positions to learn to fight it. If making fun of spelling errors or grammar issues, when I have said a million times they are not my strong suit...Or make fun of mental issues like you always do...This just goes on to prove you are garbage to the core.

Yes...Dispute is more qualified to speak about these subjects than you.

Now prove something or go back into the pile of garbage you came out of.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 15, 2017, 10:37:25 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 15, 2017, 10:31:15 PM
It's not buzz words that impress dispute, it's the fact I am willing to prove what I say (and have proven) about myself. I am someone of action, not a spineless, lying coward. He is someone of action, I respect that equally.

Can confirm.

@Bhs one day I will come to the pub with you, buy you a beer and be your wing-man.

I reckon I'd do pretty well in the states with my accent ;D
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 15, 2017, 10:39:08 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 15, 2017, 10:09:18 PM
We have been honest, how high on the Autism spectrum do you score?

I've never thought to do the test,  till now, but since you keep raising the question,   I scored 10  on the following scale. 

0-11 low result – indicating no tendency at all towards autistic traits.
11-21 is the average result that people get (many women average around 15 and men around 17)
22-25 shows autistic tendencies slightly above the population average
26-31 gives a borderline indication of an autism spectrum disorder. It is also possible to have aspergers or mild autism within this range.
32-50 indicates a strong likelihood of Asperger syndrome or autism.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 15, 2017, 10:41:10 PM
Well why do posters like Bhs, Bullwinkle and Rab understand posts so much better than you do, seems counter intuitive.

Well if it wasn't autism you are a shill, confirmed.

Now.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 15, 2017, 10:31:15 PM
prove something or go back into the pile of garbage you came out of.

Please.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 15, 2017, 10:55:58 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 15, 2017, 10:31:15 PM
Now prove something or go back into the pile of garbage you came out of.

Do you make many friends in bars with that approach?   

Just for the record I was in the research business for years before you were even born,  I've worked with people all over the world on hundreds of projects in dozens of countries,  these days I just do consulting work, but mostly with clients in Europe,   and a few around Australia.   Two of my kids have PhD's.     Spent some time at CERN on a project,  that was a highlight.

Yes, I've worked with loud mouthed Americans many times,  they are nearly always long on promises and short on delivery.   You remind me of those types,  all mouth no substance.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 15, 2017, 10:57:54 PM
We all have different strengths and weaknesses, I am good with people language and logic, I am bad at maths very bad at maths, I really have to push myself and concentrate in maths.

I got a good score in maths during school cause I applied myself, English was all A's all the time without ever having to put effort in, I won a few writing and comprehension competitions for my school, making friends was also just as easy I have very good social skills.

Rayzors just an absolute total scumbag.

Quote from: Rayzor on March 15, 2017, 10:55:58 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 15, 2017, 10:31:15 PM
Now prove something or go back into the pile of garbage you came out of.

Do you make many friends in bars with that approach?   

Just for the record I was in the research business for years before you were even born,  I've worked with people all over the world on hundreds of projects in dozens of countries,  these days I just do consulting work, but mostly with clients in Europe,   and a few around Australia.   Two of my kids have PhD's.     Spent some time at CERN on a project,  that was a highlight.

Yes, I've worked with loud mouthed Americans many times,  they are nearly always long on promises and short on delivery.   You remind me of those types,  all mouth no substance.

Prove it, go on then, do your work, how dare you accuse me of lacking substance.

Quote from: Rayzor on March 15, 2017, 10:55:58 PM

Do you make many friends in bars with that approach?   

Standing up for my mates?

Yeah heaps of friends, gets me laid heaps too.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 15, 2017, 11:00:43 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 15, 2017, 10:57:54 PM
We all have different strengths and weaknesses, I am good with people language and logic, I am bad at maths very bad at maths, I really have to push myself and concentrate in maths.

I got a good score in maths during school cause I applied myself, English was all A's all the time without ever having to put effort in, I won a few writing and comprehension competitions for my school, making friends was also just as easy I have very good social skills.

Rayzors just an absolute total scumbag.

Quote from: Rayzor on March 15, 2017, 10:55:58 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 15, 2017, 10:31:15 PM
Now prove something or go back into the pile of garbage you came out of.

Do you make many friends in bars with that approach?   

Just for the record I was in the research business for years before you were even born,  I've worked with people all over the world on hundreds of projects in dozens of countries,  these days I just do consulting work, but mostly with clients in Europe,   and a few around Australia.   Two of my kids have PhD's.     Spent some time at CERN on a project,  that was a highlight.

Yes, I've worked with loud mouthed Americans many times,  they are nearly always long on promises and short on delivery.   You remind me of those types,  all mouth no substance.

Prove it, go on then, do your work, how dare you accuse me of lacking substance.

Are you a loud mouth American?   I thought you were Australian?     Or is it that your reading  comprehension issue again?   

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 15, 2017, 11:04:06 PM
So you won't prove anything about yourself?

Noted.

I said the same thing to you so I figured I'd answer.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 15, 2017, 11:17:07 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 15, 2017, 10:55:58 PM
Do you make many friends in bars with that approach?   

Just for the record I was in the research business for years before you were even born,  I've worked with people all over the world on hundreds of projects in dozens of countries,  these days I just do consulting work, but mostly with clients in Europe,   and a few around Australia.   Two of my kids have PhD's.     Spent some time at CERN on a project,  that was a highlight.

Yes, I've worked with loud mouthed Americans many times,  they are nearly always long on promises and short on delivery.   You remind me of those types,  all mouth no substance.

Well I don't have that attitude towards people not calling me out. And sometimes i go just to force myself in a situation just to observe and be around people, sometimes I go and make friends and am rowdy. Depends on what manic mood I am in.

Also I am Texan... Not just American. We can be loud mouthed at times but have substance as well. When called out we will back it up to idiots (such as this situation)...

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 15, 2017, 11:30:48 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 15, 2017, 11:17:07 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 15, 2017, 10:55:58 PM
Do you make many friends in bars with that approach?   

Just for the record I was in the research business for years before you were even born,  I've worked with people all over the world on hundreds of projects in dozens of countries,  these days I just do consulting work, but mostly with clients in Europe,   and a few around Australia.   Two of my kids have PhD's.     Spent some time at CERN on a project,  that was a highlight.

Yes, I've worked with loud mouthed Americans many times,  they are nearly always long on promises and short on delivery.   You remind me of those types,  all mouth no substance.

Well I don't have that attitude towards people not calling me out. And sometimes i go just to force myself in a situation just to observe and be around people, sometimes I go and make friends and am rowdy. Depends on what manic mood I am in.

Also I am Texan... Not just American. We can be loud mouthed at times but have substance as well. When called out we will back it up to idiots (such as this situation)...

Yes  that was a bit harsh,   I have some very good American friends,  generous,  and kind people,   I've been to Texas a few times,  once to  visit people  in  New Braunfels,  also Austin once. 

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 15, 2017, 11:42:10 PM
So, you're not going to prove anything you've claimed about yourself?

I've never met anyone so spineless.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 15, 2017, 11:59:42 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 15, 2017, 11:42:10 PM
So, you're not going to prove anything you've claimed about yourself?

I've never met anyone so spineless.

No need,   I have nothing I feel I need to prove.   It makes no difference to the debate.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 16, 2017, 12:05:45 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 15, 2017, 11:59:42 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 15, 2017, 11:42:10 PM
So, you're not going to prove anything you've claimed about yourself?

I've never met anyone so spineless.

No need,   I have nothing I feel I need to prove.   It makes no difference to the debate.

Ok you refuse to prove anything you've said about yourself, we absolutely smashed you in debate and now you want to try an argument from authority without presenting proof of your authority.

WoW.

So sad.

(https://s13.postimg.org/pef021rd3/takemycrayonsbitch.jpg)

I mean, you are a professional keyboard warrior so...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 16, 2017, 12:06:42 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 16, 2017, 12:01:31 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 15, 2017, 11:59:42 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 15, 2017, 11:42:10 PM
So, you're not going to prove anything you've claimed about yourself?

I've never met anyone so spineless.

No need,   I have nothing I feel I need to prove.   It makes no difference to the debate.

Ok you refuse to prove anything you've said about yourself, we absolutely smashed you in debate and now you want to try an argument from authority without presenting proof of your authority.

WoW.

So sad.

There's that reality disconnect again,  you failed completely to prove anything.   Not one of your loopy CD ideas has stood up.   

As far as argument from authority,  care to cite when I did that.   



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 16, 2017, 12:08:51 AM
When you claimed you knew more than 2500 architects and engineers put together so that you didn't have to debunk anything and just said "LOL"

I consider that an argument from authority.

We tore shreds off the O/S deal with it.

If you want to make quips at me or my friends mental issues I will once again invite you to do it in person.

(https://s13.postimg.org/pef021rd3/takemycrayonsbitch.jpg)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 16, 2017, 12:17:16 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 16, 2017, 12:08:51 AM
When you claimed you knew more than 2500 architects and engineers put together so that you didn't have to debunk anything and just said "LOL"

I consider that an argument from authority.

We tore shreds off the O/S deal with it.

If you want to make quips at me or my friends mental issues I will once again invite you to do it in person.


Your mental problems are yours and yours alone,   don't involve me in your mental issues.   

So you don't understand  that  claiming  that there are 2500 architects and engineers who support a 911 enquiry is actually a real  "appeal to authority" 

LOL is not the correct response to such an argument,  ROTFLMAO is closer to the correct response. 

Your logic is flawed.   As far as "tearing strips off the OS"   is there another thread somewhere where that happened?   Voting results say otherwise.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 16, 2017, 12:30:48 AM
Yes but those architects and engineers prove that they are qualified to speak on structural matters, as Bhs and Myself have done.

That vote isn't indicative of the debate, sorry to burst your bubble on that one. Two people I respect voted for the OS yet have said we won the debate.

Go figure.

Now.

(https://s13.postimg.org/pef021rd3/takemycrayonsbitch.jpg)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 16, 2017, 12:37:01 AM
Quote from: sceptimatic on March 15, 2017, 02:07:38 AM
2. People who follow stories and simply parrot them as true as long as the mass audience is also doing the same. It's called a safety in number s stance, which can give even the most lonely people a sense of belonging.
Basically these people can see the official lines are more than blurred and know that the truth is hidden and investigated by the minority. The problem is that most people do not want to ever enter into a minority stance, because it leaves them vulnerable and open to ridicule that their confidence cannot envelope.
Basically most of these people are inherently decent people but basically follow the lies by proxy.

Scepti knows.

To be fair it takes courage to be called crazy for 70 (edit nearly 80) pages smashing the OS without your opponent presenting an argument.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 16, 2017, 01:04:09 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 16, 2017, 12:30:48 AM
Yes but those architects and engineers prove that they are qualified to speak on structural matters, as Bhs and Myself have done.


Another reality disconnect,  you didn't notice that your credibility was shot to ribbons by simple questions on structural mechanics.    That proves you are delusional.

After all you are the guy who thinks a point has one dimension and a line has two.    Not good qualifications for an expert on structural mechanics.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 16, 2017, 01:26:44 AM
Let me try one of your arguments.

ROTFLMFAO.

Wow that really does take no effort or intelligence, I see why you do it.

Cease and desist your shillary, shill.

Edit. Never claimed to be an expert in structural mechanics, just that I have a lot of experience and knowledge on buildings especially multi story buildings.

Which I have proved, absolutely no doubt about that.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 16, 2017, 03:56:46 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 16, 2017, 01:04:09 AM
Another reality disconnect,  you didn't notice that your credibility was shot to ribbons by simple questions on structural mechanics.    That proves you are delusional.

Sorry, what?

So, by your logic, you are delusional now?

Quote from: disputeone on March 16, 2017, 03:40:20 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 15, 2017, 11:30:27 PM
Quote from: Master_Evar on March 15, 2017, 11:28:09 PM
Yes, but BHS still says it would be incorrect in reality (yes it wouldn't be 100% accurate, but with the right tools you could get really accurate.). He says it is correct, but it isn't even "remotely viable", as in it is completely different from what you would get in reality. That is contradictory to me, as I want an answer that would be accurate in reality. I think it is accurate in reality, but he won't admit it himself. So then he'll have to provide an answer which would be accurate in reality.

I think he would admit in his situation in reality you would get the loads he predicted, pretty sure he said it.

I 100% retract that statement, I was wrong, Sorry Bhs, it is useless 2d maths in engineering. Not taking away from your skill in mathematics Master Evar.

This absolutely nowhere near reflects reality, in fact, it is a joke.

I get it now senpai, you guys can call me whatever you like, however I am not dumb.

(https://s7.postimg.org/taxp9ur57/20170316_182714.jpg)

Master Evar your original results for your thought experiment may reflect reality to a degree, however we can see applying that method to Bhs thought experiment absolutely nowhere near reflects reality.

North 192.5
South 137.5
East 55
West 55

The West, North and East bolts would share the load and the South bolt would experience negative loading in reality, the predictions absolutely nowhere near reflects this.

Dimensions of a load absolutely do matter in reality.

Checkmate.

How will Rayzor ever recover.

Pro-tip. admitting you were wrong, I do it all the time.

Please note that this post, unlike yours, took both effort and intelligence.

You can either apologize or fuck off mate.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 16, 2017, 04:39:27 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 16, 2017, 03:56:46 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 16, 2017, 01:04:09 AM
Another reality disconnect,  you didn't notice that your credibility was shot to ribbons by simple questions on structural mechanics.    That proves you are delusional.

Sorry, what?

So, by your logic, you are delusional now?
Please note that this post, unlike yours, took both effort and intelligence.

You realise you just shot down your engineering friend.  It was BHS's answer to a problem he posed himself,  that you are now claiming  is incorrect.


Quote from: disputeone on March 16, 2017, 03:56:46 AM
You can either apologize or fuck off mate.
My sentiments exactly.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 16, 2017, 05:15:06 AM
For a point load, I claim his calculations are correct.

Its an apt 2d beam load calculation just not applicable in reality, which is funny because that's what Bhs has been saying forever.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 16, 2017, 07:29:28 AM
Quote from: why didnt NIST get peer reviewed
(https://image.ibb.co/hq1Udv/Screenshot_20170316_222106.png)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: hoppy on March 16, 2017, 10:39:34 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 15, 2017, 11:59:42 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 15, 2017, 11:42:10 PM
So, you're not going to prove anything you've claimed about yourself?

I've never met anyone so spineless.

No need,   I have nothing I feel I need to prove.   It makes no difference to the debate.
Maybe you can tell us about the fondue at CERN.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 16, 2017, 10:51:34 PM
Quote from: hoppy on March 16, 2017, 10:39:34 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 15, 2017, 11:59:42 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 15, 2017, 11:42:10 PM
So, you're not going to prove anything you've claimed about yourself?

I've never met anyone so spineless.

No need,   I have nothing I feel I need to prove.   It makes no difference to the debate.
Maybe you can tell us about the fondue at CERN.

Thanks for the reminder,  that was a classic thread,   poor  Papa Legless never stood a chance.    Don't forget to make the fondue with crémant.   LOL



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on March 16, 2017, 11:16:51 PM
Good job disputeone, keep bragging and calling others names instead of favouring a serious discussion.
Still waiting for your list, but yeah, I see you prefer the dirty Kindergarten way of talking to eachother.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 16, 2017, 11:23:56 PM
Quote from: User324 on March 16, 2017, 11:16:51 PM
Good job disputeone, keep bragging and calling others names instead of favouring a serious discussion.
Still waiting for your list, but yeah, I see you prefer the dirty Kindergarten way of talking to eachother.

I don't think you have any ground to stand on insulting anyone's "discussion"....

You have literally contributed zilch to this thread. Stage left please
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 16, 2017, 11:49:14 PM
Quote from: User324 on March 16, 2017, 11:16:51 PM
Good job disputeone, keep bragging and calling others names instead of favouring a serious discussion.
Still waiting for your list, but yeah, I see you prefer the dirty Kindergarten way of talking to eachother.

One year in a classroom makes you much more qualified than ten years in the field hey?

Great logic.

I think you are just pissed off no one has touched our arguments yet.

Pick a point and debunk it. Here is a quick list to get you started.

 
KEY EVIDENCE

Rapid onset of destruction,

Constant acceleration at or near free-fall through what should have been the path of greatest resistance,

Numerous eyewitness accounts of explosions including 118 FDNY personnel,

Lateral ejection of multi-ton steel framing members distances of 600 feet at more than 60 mph,

Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete, and large volumes of expanding pyroclastic-like dust clouds,

Isolated explosive ejections 20 to 60 stories below the “crush zone,”

Total destruction and dismemberment of all three buildings, with 220 floors each an acre in size missing from the Twin Towers’ debris pile,

Several tons of molten steel/iron found in the debris piles,

Evidence of thermite incendiaries on steel beams,

Nanothermite composites and iron microspheres found in WTC dust samples.

http://www.ae911truth.org/gallery/evidence.html

If you want my own words you can find arguments in my own words in this very thread, pick one and debunk it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 17, 2017, 01:00:08 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 16, 2017, 11:49:14 PM
KEY EVIDENCE

Rapid onset of destruction,
Not true,  delayed by 7 hours is hardly rapid,  WTC1 and 2 delayed significantly as well.   


Quote from: disputeone on March 16, 2017, 11:49:14 PM
Constant acceleration at or near free-fall through what should have been the path of greatest resistance,
Not true,  readily available data shows slower than free-fall,  you can even see debris falling faster than the collapse.

Quote from: disputeone on March 16, 2017, 11:49:14 PM
Numerous eyewitness accounts of explosions including 118 FDNY personnel,
No seismic backup of that evidence, and buildings falling tend to make a lot of noise.

Quote from: disputeone on March 16, 2017, 11:49:14 PM
Lateral ejection of multi-ton steel framing members distances of 600 feet at more than 60 mph,
A few hundred thousand tonnes of building has a lot of potential energy,  no surprise.

Quote from: disputeone on March 16, 2017, 11:49:14 PM
Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete, and large volumes of expanding pyroclastic-like dust clouds,
It wasn't all pulverized,  and given the energies involved in the collapse, it's not surprising.

Quote from: disputeone on March 16, 2017, 11:49:14 PM
Isolated explosive ejections 20 to 60 stories below the “crush zone,”
Collapsing buildings blow out windows,  and the so called "squibs"  are not in locations or timing to be indicative of demolition.

Quote from: disputeone on March 16, 2017, 11:49:14 PM
Total destruction and dismemberment of all three buildings, with 220 floors each an acre in size missing from the Twin Towers’ debris pile,
Citation needed,  the Staten Island cleanup crew would disagree as well.

Quote from: disputeone on March 16, 2017, 11:49:14 PM
Several tons of molten steel/iron found in the debris piles,
Good question,  I suspect Aluminium fires,  but not relevant to collapse.

Quote from: disputeone on March 16, 2017, 11:49:14 PM
Evidence of thermite incendiaries on steel beams,
The beam you are referring to was cut with a thermal lance during clean up not thermite.

Quote from: disputeone on March 16, 2017, 11:49:14 PM
Nanothermite composites and iron microspheres found in WTC dust samples.
http://www.ae911truth.org/gallery/evidence.html
The red grey "nanothermite'  turned out to be red iron oxide primer and grey metal primer.


Quote from: disputeone on March 16, 2017, 11:49:14 PM
If you want my own words you can find arguments in my own words in this very thread, pick one and debunk it.

All debunked over and over,  but it's a waste of time and effort,  they just keep popping up like whack-a-mole.


The questions the controlled demolition conspiracy theorists can't answer.

1.  How come the collapse started on the exact floors that were impacted by the aircraft?
2.  Why the delay after the aircraft impact and collapse?
3.  Why even bother to demolish WTC7 when it was going to collapse itself anyway.



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 17, 2017, 01:50:07 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 17, 2017, 01:00:08 AM
Not true,  readily available data shows slower than free-fall,  you can even see debris falling faster than the collapse.

7 reached free fall...Even NIST admitted. 1 and 2 was close.

Quote
No seismic backup of that evidence, and buildings falling tend to make a lot of noise.
Incorrect again...Also remember the 1000s and 1000s of testimonials stricken from the report?

Quote
A few hundred thousand tonnes of building has a lot of potential energy,  no surprise.

Except it wasn't a few hundred thousand tons. It was 75k tons "vaporizing" 425k tons...Negative, doesn't work.

Quote
It wasn't all pulverized,  and given the energies involved in the collapse, it's not surprising.
Mostly...Even NIST and others said it was "all over the city in the dust"..this was their answer...This doesn't even include lack of bodies, office things etc etc etc...By God the passport hung in there.

Quote
Collapsing buildings blow out windows,  and the so called "squibs"  are not in locations or timing to be indicative of demolition.
Wrong again...They were in perfect positions on 7. Only there too...No where else, so it wasn't compression. Also, conveniently this happened during its free fall point...Which is impossible as well as proving it wasn't compression. (Can't have compression with only gravity as a force during free fall)

Quote
Citation needed,  the Staten Island cleanup crew would disagree as well.
The clean up was quick, violating most regulations for investigations, as well as it was documented how much mass was missing.

Quote
Good question,  I suspect Aluminium fires,  but not relevant to collapse.
We have proven here obviously it was not aluminum. Also there was nothing that could burn that hot that was supposed to be there. Then holding the same temperature for months and months...Lol...no

Quote
The beam you are referring to was cut with a thermal lance during clean up not thermite.

The lances they used did not create slag like that.

Quote
The red grey "nanothermite'  turned out to be red iron oxide primer and grey metal primer.

Incorrect again...Though I don't need thermite for the story. It is just speculation.


Quote
All debunked over and over
Lol obviously not.

Quote
The questions the controlled demolition conspiracy theorists can't answer.

1.  How come the collapse started on the exact floors that were impacted by the aircraft?
2.  Why the delay after the aircraft impact and collapse?
3.  Why even bother to demolish WTC7 when it was going to collapse itself anyway.

These questions have already been answered multiple times...Get off your boot loop.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 17, 2017, 02:16:06 AM
Lmao get wrecked.

How will Rayzor ever recover.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 17, 2017, 02:27:26 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 17, 2017, 01:00:08 AM
1.  How come the collapse started on the exact floors that were impacted by the aircraft?

Top down controlled demolition explains the colapse point how many times do I have to show you?

computer piloted planes / drones dressed up like planes crashed into the exact floors, easy work for a clever script.

Quote from: Rayzor on March 17, 2017, 01:00:08 AM
2.  Why the delay after the aircraft impact and collapse?

So NIST can claim fires as the reasons of collapse, even less people would accept the O/S if the buildings colapsed minutes after the impacts.

Then you can blur the lines of what actually caused the collapse, your poll and NIST claim fires caused the collapse but when we show that's impossible you switch to the planes causing the collapse.

Smdh

Quote from: Rayzor on March 17, 2017, 01:00:08 AM
3.  Why even bother to demolish WTC7 when it was going to collapse itself anyway.

First off that's a blind assertion, you don't know that, a proper damage assessment hadn't been done before it was demolished.

Secondly to destroy physical evidence, memba? That was what you wanted after you realised Bhs and Myself were going to flay you in debate.

"Direct physical evidence of demolition charges." Difficult to do when all three buildings were totally destroyed in their demolition. Impossible actually, that's why I called you out on it.




Do you play chess?

Here.

http://classics.mit.edu/Tzu/artwar.html

https://archive.org/stream/MiyamotoMusashi-BookOfFiveRingsgoRinNoSho/Book_of_Five_Rings_djvu.txt

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1232/1232-h/1232-h.htm

These books are great starting points.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 17, 2017, 02:33:06 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 17, 2017, 02:27:26 AM

Quote from: Rayzor on March 17, 2017, 01:00:08 AM
3.  Why even bother to demolish WTC7 when it was going to collapse itself anyway.

First off that's a blind assertion, you don't know that, a proper damage assessment hadn't been done before it was demolished.

Secondly to destroy physical evidence, memba? That was what you wanted after you realised Bhs and Myself were going to flay you in debate.

"Direct physical evidence of demolition charges." Difficult to do when all three buildings were totally destroyed in their demolition. Impossible actually, that's why I called you out on it.


Everone knew it was going to collapse,  the FDNY  measured the bulge in the SW corner and concluded it was unstable, and pulled every body back hours before it collapsed.

Why would there be any evidence of CD to destroy, when it was going to collapse anyway,  that just makes no sense on any level, no matter how much of a conspiracy theorist you happen to be.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 17, 2017, 02:36:08 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 17, 2017, 02:33:06 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 17, 2017, 02:27:26 AM

Quote from: Rayzor on March 17, 2017, 01:00:08 AM
3.  Why even bother to demolish WTC7 when it was going to collapse itself anyway.

First off that's a blind assertion, you don't know that, a proper damage assessment hadn't been done before it was demolished.

Secondly to destroy physical evidence, memba? That was what you wanted after you realised Bhs and Myself were going to flay you in debate.

"Direct physical evidence of demolition charges." Difficult to do when all three buildings were totally destroyed in their demolition. Impossible actually, that's why I called you out on it.


Everone knew it was going to collapse.

Complete lie, "everyone" lmao nice try at group-think, unstable doesn't always equal collapse, sorry.

Unstable DEFINITELY doesn't ever equal collapse at freefall symmetrically through the path of greatest resistance.

9/11 was a false flag, why are you even still trying honestly.

Believe what you want to believe but don't pretend you have a point.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 17, 2017, 02:44:58 AM
I see the old rayzor is back, just name calling again ::)

This has to be a show...It needed the world to watch be be angry, build hatred so they would do what was needed. Fear is the number one way to control someone. Then combine that with group think and you are in trouble.

So one, they couldn't use their story of fire bringing the buildings down if it was immediate, not to mention, you would not be able to convince even the most slow witted idiot that 2 planes can demo 2 million tons of mass instantly lol. Not to mention, that quick, you wouldn't be able to get the world to watch and become emotional.

As for 7, that just needed to be gone. It had evidence for the missing money like the Pentagon nonsense...As well to be a perfect place to monitor or control the stuff going on in 1 and 2. Witness accounts can suggest this as well.

The tower was suspected to fall because 2 have just fallen...I would think the same thing...If I just lost a bunch of friends and colleagues...I wouldn't think rationally either. They though 6 and others was going to collapse as well. Not just 7.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 17, 2017, 02:50:07 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 17, 2017, 02:44:58 AM
I see the old rayzor is back, just name calling again ::)

This has to be a show...It needed the world to watch be be angry, build hatred so they would do what was needed. Fear is the number one way to control someone. Then combine that with group think and you are in trouble.

So one, they couldn't use their story of fire bringing the buildings down if it was immediate, not to mention, you would not be able to convince even the most slow witted idiot that 2 planes can demo 2 million tons of mass instantly lol. Not to mention, that quick, you wouldn't be able to get the world to watch and become emotional.

As for 7, that just needed to be gone. It had evidence for the missing money like the Pentagon nonsense...As well to be a perfect place to monitor or control the stuff going on in 1 and 2. Witness accounts can suggest this as well.

The tower was suspected to fall because 2 have just fallen...I would think the same thing...If I just lost a bunch of friends and colleagues...I wouldn't think rationally either. They though 6 and others was going to collapse as well. Not just 7.

What name calling?

Just read back what you wrote,  and ask yourself is this a reasonable basis to assume conspiracy.   It's a reach in every sense of the word.   Why reject the simplest explanation in favour of a complex unlikely web of circumstances.   If you are only ever looking for conspiracy, you'll find it everywhere.   

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 17, 2017, 02:52:46 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 17, 2017, 02:50:07 AM
Why reject the simplest explanation in favour of a complex unlikely web of circumstances.

I totally agree, you are the conspiracy theorist here.

Why reject a simple explanation for something that at the time defied everything we knew about aeroplanes, jet fuel, buildings and fires.

There is only one reason, fear.

Why do you say we see conspiracy everywhere, please cite anything except 9/11 to back up this unfounded statement.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 17, 2017, 02:55:20 AM
This is reasonable whenever added with the 1000s of other things. Either with Structural, the back end story, the 1000s of almost impossible Coincidences, the 100s of violations in physics, the people who had everything to gain just so happened to be caught in lie after lie.

Etc etc etc.... So yes.

Also, if you want to go into the simple solution, which is what your name stands for. Just watch the footage, and you can easily come up with controlled demolition...Looks exactly like it, so there is your "most obvious answer"

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 17, 2017, 02:57:40 AM
Exactly.

The most simple explanation is often correct.

As was stated on page one, the mechanics alone dictate controlled demolition.

The rest is gravy.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 17, 2017, 04:08:52 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 17, 2017, 02:55:20 AM
This is reasonable whenever added with the 1000s of other things. Either with Structural, the back end story, the 1000s of almost impossible Coincidences, the 100s of violations in physics, the people who had everything to gain just so happened to be caught in lie after lie.

Etc etc etc.... So yes.

Also, if you want to go into the simple solution, which is what your name stands for. Just watch the footage, and you can easily come up with controlled demolition...Looks exactly like it, so there is your "most obvious answer"

Controlled demolition is not the simplest answer, in fact it's the most complex and unlikely.   It implies that someone other than the hijackers deliberately murdered 3000 people in cold blood, that every  government department involved was somehow complicit.  And that the subsequent cover up involving thousands of people has been 100% effective.   

Further it implies that explosives were somehow planted on the exact floor that the planes hit, and that there was an inexplicable delay before detonation, that somehow no evidence of explosives was ever found.

And so on and on it goes.   No controlled demolition is most definitely NOT the simplest answer.   It's the most complex.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 17, 2017, 04:12:32 AM
Lol, lie more Rayzor, I'm glad you had a fun time on your tour of Cern, did the tour guide let you hold his hand.

Lmao.

Btw 9/11 was a CIA / Mossad false flag.

Hi JIDF ;) ;) ;)

Come at me.

Did you know they admit they have shills working to fight against people who think Israel had anything to do with 9/11?

I wonder why they care so much?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 17, 2017, 04:26:03 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 17, 2017, 04:08:52 AM
Controlled demolition is not the simplest answer, in fact it's the most complex and unlikely.   It implies that someone other than the hijackers deliberately murdered 3000 people in cold blood, that every  government department involved was somehow complicit.  And that the subsequent cover up involving thousands of people has been 100% effective.   

Further it implies that explosives were somehow planted on the exact floor that the planes hit, and that there was an inexplicable delay before detonation, that somehow no evidence of explosives was ever found.

And so on and on it goes.   No controlled demolition is most definitely NOT the simplest answer.   It's the most complex.

None of this is remotely hard to deal with...The buildings were mostly empty. Many reports of people working and unusual power outages (in case you didn't know, power outages are very rare for commercial skyscrapers, especially in areas where there is data collection and storage) many planned ahead of time. The people who are likely behind it had ownership stake in the security company for the towers. So pre planting is easy.

The cover up hasn't been effective at all...Many government employees have spoken out, many have been "suicided"...Makes a clear point to others with wise ideas. Not to mention all the groups filled with government employees and other qualified individuals speaking out.

There was evidence of explosives, that was not allowed or even allowed to be searched for in the official report. There could have been a literal bomb laying in the rubble and it would have been stricken. (We don't even know everything sticker, because they won't tell us, we just know 1000s upon 1000s of testimonials and evidence has been stricken. They had a story they must tell)

And again. From a simplistic view...Just watch them collapse, everyone was thinking and saying "demolition".... First thing that came to mind, because it is what it looked like and the most obvious answer.

That is why it takes so much magic, omission and lies to defend the official story. It's because you are defending something not plausible in reality, something that isn't the easiest answer, a unicorn.


I bet if the government would have said "the terrorist infiltrated the security and planted bombs in the building" no one would have questioned it. Why?? Because it make sense from what we saw.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 17, 2017, 04:30:10 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 17, 2017, 04:08:52 AM
Controlled demolition is not the simplest answer, in fact it's the most complex and unlikely. 

Incorrect.

Quote from: Rayzor on March 17, 2017, 04:08:52 AM
It implies that someone other than the hijackers deliberately murdered 3000 people in cold blood

So? Guys in a cave pull of the most intricate attack on America ever.

Or dirty goverment agencies with the full power of our black op technology?

Hmmmmmmm?

Quote from: Rayzor on March 17, 2017, 04:08:52 AM
that every  government department involved was somehow complicit.  And that the subsequent cover up involving thousands of people has been 100% effective.

Incorrect on both counts watch the videos of the fireman and police officers, emergency response teams etc, some of true heros and true victims of the day.

Its about 50/50 international opinion at the moment, nowhere near 100% effective.

Please see this thread where we systematically destroyed your "arguments" and the OS.   

Quote from: Rayzor on March 17, 2017, 04:08:52 AM
Further it implies that explosives were somehow planted on the exact floor that the planes hit, and that there was an inexplicable delay before detonation, that somehow no evidence of explosives was ever found.

The delay isn't inexplicable, I already explained it to you, it's simple, neat and fits like a key in a lock, much like the controlled demolition hypothesis.

Quote from: Rayzor on March 17, 2017, 04:08:52 AM
And so on and on it goes.   No controlled demolition is most definitely NOT the simplest answer.   It's the most complex.

Sorry you didn't actually show that.

Edit.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 17, 2017, 04:26:03 AM
I bet if the government would have said "the terrorist infiltrated the security and planted bombs in the building" no one would have questioned it. Why?? Because it make sense from what we saw.

Not even Rayzor would argue for a fire induced total progressive collapse hypothesis if that was the case.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 17, 2017, 04:37:11 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 17, 2017, 04:26:03 AM
And again. From a simplistic view...Just watch them collapse, everyone was thinking and saying "demolition".... First thing that came to mind, because it is what it looked like and the most obvious answer.

I don't see it,  how many times have you or anyone seen a large 110 story skyscraper collapse,  the only point of reference is videos people have seen of demolitions,   so of course it looks superficially like a demolition,  it looks like a collapsing building, and we have only ever seen that in controlled demolitions. 

The detail of how it collapsed,  where the collapse started from, and  how the collapse progressed,  didn't look like a demolition,  finally if it was a demolition,  why did they leave the center core, alone it was still standing 20-30 stories high at the end. 

Once you start down the conspiracy track you start to see conspiracies everywhere,  even disputeone thinks I'm some kind of Israeli shill  or something.   That's his worry,  not my problem.


 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 17, 2017, 04:41:09 AM
> doesn't have an argument.

> tries group think

> it's only him defending the OS.

kek.

> doesn't have an argument.

> tries group think

> it's only him defending the OS.

kek.

Quote from: Rayzor on March 17, 2017, 04:37:11 AM
The detail of how it collapsed,  where the collapse started from, and  how the collapse progressed,  didn't look like a demolition,  finally if it was a demolition,  why did they leave the center core, alone it was still standing 20-30 stories high at the end.



Wtc 2 on the left, wtc 7 on the right.

Doesn't look like a controlled demolition you say?

Sure..... I can understand why you would say it doesn't look like a controlled demolition...............I mean  anyone can see it for themselves....

Just wow.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 17, 2017, 04:49:33 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 17, 2017, 04:41:09 AM


That looked nothing like WTC1 or 2,  not sure what the point of you posting something that proves my point was?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 17, 2017, 04:52:49 AM
I know right, that video was way slower and less efficient than wtc 2 and 7, those guys must be amateurs.

Wtc 2 and 7 were far faster and much more symmetrical.

For shame.

Dude just give up, if they will let you. :-X

Sure..... I can understand why you would say it doesn't look like a controlled demolition...............I mean  anyone can see it for themselves....
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 17, 2017, 05:02:01 AM
Well no..I have never been involved in demoing a building that tall, nor have I ran plane into a building either. However, I have been involved in demoing a building about as tall as 7. Steel framed as well.

Also, forecasting is one of my specialties, that is why I have the programs I have. Also a few of my extra curricular certs specialize in that. As I said before, just a few weeks ago I was part of a couple man engineering team to make the call on the condo fire here to see if it was safe for fire investigators to enter. Burned for almost two days, not a full collapse (concrete base and first floor, wood skeleton, steel spine, 4 stories).. Unfortunately it was a no, even with a death inside. All those people are going to lose all of their belongings, they are going to demo it.

I know what I am looking at, my mind can process and predict well, my programs even better.

I also know that 15 percent of a top of a structure cannot pulverize 85 percent of the bottom part. Especially the lower 44....The physics don't work. I also know what I saw on 7, it had every sign of a CD.

I can speak from models, from experience, from education, and from common sense...What we saw is in no way possible the way we are supposed to believe. 1 and 2 is a no...7 is a resounding no.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on March 17, 2017, 05:36:21 AM
You guys are funny as hell!
I really regret I'm not having the time to read all you wrote let alone replying to it...
Maybe next weekend  ;D
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 17, 2017, 05:43:56 AM
Quote from: User324 on March 17, 2017, 05:36:21 AM
You guys are funny as hell!
I really regret I'm not having the time to read all you wrote let alone replying to it...
Maybe next weekend  ;D

How insecure about themselves does a poster need to be, so they are able write BS like this.

If you are unhappy we won the debate then please, by all means, present an argument.

Fall acceleration and symmetry of wtc 7

My hypothesis is a controlled demolition.

Show me why fires reflect reality more accurately than a controlled demolition.

I am especially interested in its plumb symmetrical collapse and it's 2.25 second period of free-fall.

We are waiting.

Edit.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 17, 2017, 05:02:01 AM
I can speak from models, from experience, from education, and from common sense...What we saw is in no way possible the way we are supposed to believe. 1 and 2 is a no...7 is a resounding no joke.

Ftfy ;D
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on March 17, 2017, 05:52:42 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 17, 2017, 05:43:56 AM
How insecure about themselves does a poster need to be, so they are able write BS like this.

If you are unhappy we won the debate

This
Quote
You guys are funny as hell!
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 17, 2017, 05:59:13 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 17, 2017, 05:43:56 AM
then please, by all means, present an argument.

See, you missed the next and most important part princess ;).

Quote from: User324 on March 17, 2017, 05:52:42 AM
You guys are funny as hell!

Please note this has been your best argument all thread. Even worse than Rayzors, at least he had the common sense to play the crazy card. ::) ::)

Toodle-pip.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on March 17, 2017, 06:08:13 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 17, 2017, 05:59:13 AM
Please note this has been your best argument all thread
What is that supposed to mean?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 17, 2017, 06:19:48 AM
If you gave it your best then I apologize.

Here, have a star ☆

If the word confused you.

argument
ˈɑːɡjʊm(ə)nt/
noun

2.
a reason or set of reasons given in support of an idea, action or theory.
"there is a strong argument for submitting a formal appeal on 9/11."
synonyms:   reasoning, line of reasoning, logic, case.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on March 17, 2017, 06:50:18 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 17, 2017, 06:19:48 AM
If you gave it your best then I apologize.

Here, have a star ☆

If the word confused you.

argument
ˈɑːɡjʊm(ə)nt/
noun

2.
a reason or set of reasons given in support of an idea, action or theory.
"there is a strong argument for submitting a formal appeal on 9/11."
synonyms:   reasoning, line of reasoning, logic, case.
Thank you, now I understand: Since all you're doing in this thread is posting laughable stuff, my best (=truest/most valid) argument is that you're being funny.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 17, 2017, 06:58:11 AM
Well good on you, using a smart device of some kind all by yourself.

If you wanna just say "Nuh-uh" then please keep it to yourself.

Quote from: disputeone on March 17, 2017, 05:43:56 AM

Fall acceleration and symmetry of wtc 7.

My hypothesis is a controlled demolition.

Show me why fires reflect reality more accurately than a controlled demolition.

I am especially interested in its plumb symmetrical collapse and it's 2.25 second period of free-fall.

We are waiting.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on March 17, 2017, 07:02:47 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 17, 2017, 04:37:11 AM
The detail of how it collapsed,
Top down.

Answered for the umpteenth time...

Detailed enough to fit the video evidence.
Quote from: Rayzor on March 17, 2017, 04:37:11 AM
where the collapse started from
At the impact zones.

Answered for the umpteenth time.

Quote from: Rayzor on March 17, 2017, 04:37:11 AM
and  how the collapse progressed
Just like it looked like on video.
Quote from: Rayzor on March 17, 2017, 04:37:11 AM
didn't look like a demolition
Yes it did. 
Quote from: Rayzor on March 17, 2017, 04:37:11 AM
finally if it was a demolition,  why did they leave the center core, alone it was still standing 20-30 stories high at the end.
I don't think there is any evidence of this assertion. 

Quote from: Rayzor on March 17, 2017, 04:37:11 AM
Once you start down the conspiracy track you start to see conspiracies everywhere,  even disputeone thinks I'm some kind of Israeli shill  or something.

Israeli?

Probably not.

Shill?

Definitely.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on March 17, 2017, 07:07:41 AM
Quote from: User324 on March 17, 2017, 06:50:18 AM
Thank you, now I understand: Since all you're doing in this thread is posting laughable stuff, my best (=truest/most valid) argument is that you're being funny.

What is fucking laughable about the institutions and commissions credited with providing explanations as to why three buildings were destroyed on 9/11 as the result of only planes and fires, NOT PROVIDING A FUCKING EXPLANATION!?!?

I am blaming you for my failure to live up to my commitment toward maintaining decent behavior in the upper fora, you sick fucking ignorant bastard.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 17, 2017, 07:12:26 AM
I think your language is quite justified there.

Anyone who can say the collapses didn't look like controlled demolitions especially building 7 is either ignorant, lying to themselves, or pushing an agenda lying to others.

This thread is 80 pages now, I think we can safely rule out #1 and #2.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 17, 2017, 07:43:23 AM
Quote from: User324 on March 17, 2017, 06:50:18 AM
Thank you, now I understand: Since all you're doing in this thread is posting laughable stuff, my best (=truest/most valid) argument is that you're being funny.

Present something that is not laughable and maybe your luck will change punkin

Quote from: totallackey on March 17, 2017, 07:07:41 AM
I am blaming you for my failure to live up to my commitment toward maintaining decent behavior in the upper fora, you sick fucking ignorant bastard.

Ha ha ha ha!!!

I think you have done pretty well compared to some of your older posts.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on March 17, 2017, 08:49:49 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 17, 2017, 07:43:23 AM
and maybe your luck will change
I'm pretty happy with my luck right now  ;)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on March 17, 2017, 09:34:35 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 15, 2017, 10:05:17 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 15, 2017, 09:47:43 PM
ad hominems. [(Long self-promoting rants and crazed insults won't change the opinion that I and others have formed.)]

Do better.

Who is this "I and others"? From where I'm standing it's just you.

* raises hand *

I'll continue to try to judge the evidence on its own merit, but the opinion that I have formed is that you and Bhs are not judging the evidence in a rational/unbiased manner.

Also, although Rayzor has tossed around his fair share of insults, the vast majority of the "ad hominems" seem to be coming from you and Bhs.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 17, 2017, 09:41:14 AM
Not an argument against any of the points raised against the official story but thanks.

Did you see how Bhs was called a fraud in an attempt to poison the well for thirty pages, I kinda threw my respect for Rayzor out the window after that to be perfectly honest.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on March 17, 2017, 09:41:21 AM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 17, 2017, 09:34:35 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 15, 2017, 10:05:17 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 15, 2017, 09:47:43 PM
ad hominems. [(Long self-promoting rants and crazed insults won't change the opinion that I and others have formed.)]

Do better.

Who is this "I and others"? From where I'm standing it's just you.

* raises hand *

I'll continue to try to judge the evidence on its own merit, but the opinion that I have formed is that you and Bhs are not judging the evidence in a rational/unbiased manner.

Also, although Rayzor has tossed around his fair share of insults, the vast majority of the "ad hominems" seem to be coming from you and Bhs.

100% agreed. In my country there is a saying that goes like "who sits in the glass house should not throw stones"...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 17, 2017, 09:48:38 AM
To he totally fair I treated Aisantaros in a very similar manner because he was being about a quarter as dishonest as Rayzor was in an attempt to discredit Bhs instead of attacking any of his arguments.

I have spent more time debating everyone on 9/11 than Bhs because everyone has been too scared to, instead they've just tried to discredit him.

Everyone on this thread except you totes I think its just been me and you on this debate?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 17, 2017, 09:52:26 AM
And I'm being honest, Totes, if you wanted to defend a flat earth, I'm not sure I could win a debate for a spherical earth.

I have no delusions that you are very bright.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 17, 2017, 10:01:23 AM
I mean we went through literally 40 pages of Bhs getting called every name under the sun.

To come to the conclusion that he was correct in his very first reply.

Quote from: disputeone on March 17, 2017, 01:00:07 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on March 17, 2017, 12:56:47 AM
And here's a real nightmare, but something very fascinating: It's fucking unsolvable.

You memba how Bhs said this in his first reply addressing the thought experiment?

I memba.

Something something not enough variables.

I never said your calculations wouldn't reflect reality in your original situation Evar.

No disrespect to Evar, but Rayzor jumped on it like a rabid dog.

Kinda disenchanted with the whole thing tbh.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sceptimatic on March 17, 2017, 10:18:30 AM
I now believe 9/11 happened exactly how we were told by official sources. I don't think there's any argument about that now.
Rayzor and crew have managed to make it all add up perfectly.
Well done to them. Some smart people we have.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on March 17, 2017, 10:18:37 AM
Quote from: dispute "the tard" one
Anyone who can say the collapses didn't look like controlled demolitions especially building 7 is either ignorant, lying to themselves, or pushing an agenda lying to others.
That's why you suck at debating.

You think there are two options:
1. Agreeing with your opinion --> This person is right (e.g. buildin 7 collapse was controlled demolition)
2. Not agreeing with your opinion --> Person is ignorant, lying, shill,... (e.g. building 7 collapse was not controlled demolition)

It seems like you (and most of the flatties) cannot live with that there are other points of view and that their (yours/the flatties) opinion is not "the truth".

That's what makes debating you (or flatties/ conspiracy theorists in general) really annoying and pretty pointless. That's also why people like you are so often convinced they "won" the debate,
Quote
If you are unhappy we won the debate

but actually their stupidity, stubbornness and incredible amount of insults did just lead to everyone leaving the discussion.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 17, 2017, 10:24:31 AM
I understand different points of view.

I don't understand someone saying that "wtc 7s collapse didn't look like a controlled demolition" that's dishonest.

I haven't said anyone is a shill except Rayzor, he is, reality hurts.

Reminder you still haven't presented an argument.


Fall acceleration and symmetry of wtc 7.

My hypothesis is a controlled demolition.

Show me why fires reflect reality more accurately than a controlled demolition.

I am especially interested in its plumb symmetrical collapse and its 2.25 second period of free-fall.

User? Totes?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 17, 2017, 10:27:12 AM
crickets...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on March 17, 2017, 10:29:40 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 17, 2017, 09:41:14 AM
Not an argument against any of the points raised against the official story but thanks.

Did you see how Bhs was called a fraud in an attempt to poison the well for thirty pages, I kinda threw my respect for Rayzor out the window after that to be perfectly honest.

I'm not sure about "fraud" and "thirty pages" (edit: I skipped most of the "Master_ever's challenge" posts), but I have seen Rayzor call into question Bhs's engineering abilities/credentials. On the other hand, these types of responses are quite common from you:

Quote from: disputeone on March 17, 2017, 07:12:26 AM
Anyone who can say the collapses didn't look like controlled demolitions especially building 7 is either ignorant, lying to themselves, or pushing an agenda lying to others.

This thread is 80 pages now, I think we can safely rule out #1 and #2.

So yeah, stone throwing in glass houses.

Quote from: disputeone on March 17, 2017, 09:48:38 AM
To he totally fair I treated Aisantaros in a very similar manner because he was being about a quarter as dishonest as Rayzor was in an attempt to discredit Bhs instead of attacking any of his arguments.

I have seen Rayzor directly attack Bhs's arguments numerous times. Isn't this dishonest of you to say otherwise? Again, stone throwing in glass houses.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 17, 2017, 10:32:29 AM
That's cool I get that, I never said I wasn't a dick, 100% total dick but I've been honest.

Quote from: disputeone on March 17, 2017, 10:24:31 AM
Fall acceleration and symmetry of wtc 7.

My hypothesis is a controlled demolition.

Show me why fires reflect reality more accurately than a controlled demolition.

I am especially interested in its plumb symmetrical collapse and its 2.25 second period of free-fall.

User? Totes?

Can you say, that the collapse of wtc 7 didn't look like a controlled demolition? I am curious actually.

Edit. Rayzors "direct attack" of Bhs' arguments was "muh NIST report."
I challenge you to cite otherwise.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on March 17, 2017, 10:38:28 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 17, 2017, 10:24:31 AM
I don't understand someone saying that "wtc 7s collapse didn't look like a controlled demolition" that's dishonest.
How many building have you observed that did collapse due to a plane flying into them + fires + debris parts? Or how can you judge how it should look? I guess it's just your opinion that it should look different from what we see on those videos.

Quote from: disputeone on March 17, 2017, 10:24:31 AM
Show me why fires reflect reality more accurately than a controlled demolition.
Show me why controlled demolition reflects reality more accurately than fires + debris parts + plane flying into the building leading to a "natural" collapse.
Burden of proof is on you since "in dubio pro reo".

Quote from: disputeone on March 17, 2017, 10:24:31 AM
I am especially interested in its plumb symmetrical collapse and it's 2.25 second period of free-fall.
Source for the 2.5 sec free fall? What do you mean by that?
 It was no perfect symmetrical collapse. What makes you assume that in reality a building should not collapse more or less symetrical? Think about it: In the first moment of collapse, lets say the walls on the left side of the building start to let go. So now the building would be supported on the right side only, meaning there is much more pressure then it can hold, leading to the other side giving away, too. So that would lead to a more-or-less symmetrical collapse, no?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 17, 2017, 10:48:32 AM
One, you didn't answer the question, tell me, honestly, can you say, building 7s collapse, didn't look like a controlled demolition.

Y/N

As for showing you why controlled demolition more accurately matches reality I have a 2.25 second free-fall and plumb symmetrical collapse. Your turn.

My citation for the 2.25 seconds of free-fall is the NIST report, you utter ignorant moron.

Quote
Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity

https://www.nist.gov/pba/questions-and-answers-about-nist-wtc-7-investigation

As for symmetry, free-fall through the path of greatest resistance (symmetry) is impossible, it's physics, dumbshoe.

Asymmetrical damage will not lead to symmetrical collapse in all cases except wtc 7 it seems.

http://www.ae911truth.org/news/199-news-media-events-60-structural-engineers.html

I would suggest doing a few minutes research.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on March 17, 2017, 10:53:27 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 17, 2017, 10:24:31 AM
Fall acceleration and symmetry of wtc 7.

My hypothesis is a controlled demolition.

Show me why fires reflect reality more accurately than a controlled demolition.

Rough sequence of events according to NIST:

1. Fire
2. Horizontal beams expanded due to heat
3. Expanded horizontal beams applied horizontal displacement of central vertical columns
4. Central vertical columns buckled, starting with column 79 (if memory serves) and progressing East to West.
5. Most of the central part of the building collapsed, leaving outer shell standing.
6. Outer vertical columns buckled near base, resulting in the observed collapse, including a 2 second period of freefall.

Which part of that sequence do you take issue with?

Quote from: disputeone on March 17, 2017, 10:32:29 AM
Can you say, that the collapse of wtc 7 didn't look like a controlled demolition? I am curious actually.

It resembles a controlled demolition, sure.

Quote
Edit. Rayzors "direct attack" of Bhs' arguments was "muh NIST report."
I challenge you to cite otherwise.

I'm not sure which "arguments" you are referring to specifically, but page 79 was full of directly-addressed arguments.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on March 17, 2017, 11:07:07 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 17, 2017, 10:48:32 AM
One, you didn't answer the question, tell me, honestly, can you say, building 7s collapse, didn't look like a controlled demolition.
Obviously it does reminiscent of a controlled demolition. We are wired to find patterns (even if they are not real) so since a controlled demolition is the closest "point of reference" we know, it reminds us of that. This does, of course, in no way mean it actually was controlled demolition (nor does it mean it wasn't).


Quote from: disputeone on March 17, 2017, 10:48:32 AM
As for showing you why controlled demolition more accurately matches reality I have a 2.25 second free-fall and plumb symmetrical collapse. Your turn.
How do you calculate "free fall"; i mean it's not like "free fall" is a simple thing. How would you take parameters for air resistance of the collapsing part? How would you make sure you actually observe the real acceleration of the falling part since for that you'd need to know its centre of gravity AND observe that. If you focuse on any outer part inaccuracy would have to be taken into account (additional to the air-restistance-guess used to calculated supposed free fall rate)
Considering that at the early stages...
(https://s15.postimg.org/4r1rc1m2j/Fall_Rates.jpg)
... the lines obviously are very close (since it starts to fall with v=0 at t=0) a realistic error rate probably discards all conclusions you think you could make expecially in the first moments of the collapse.


Quote from: disputeone on March 17, 2017, 10:48:32 AM
As for symmetry, free-fall through the path of greatest resistance (symmetry) is impossible, it's physics, dumbshoe.
Thats wrong. Physics says that gravitational froce points into the center of the earth. So for it to not collaps straight down you'd need a great enough force to pull it to one side. This force might occure or might not. But generally there is no need for it to not-collapse straight down; it's just not true to say so.
For it to slide to one side that force might be due to a leaning ground; but if the ground is rectangular to the force of gravity, this force is 0 since m*g*cos(90)=0.



Edit: Do you realize you're the only one still on the insulting-kindergarten-train while we actually switched to a serious discussion? You might stop it too, makes you look better :)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 17, 2017, 11:12:01 AM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 17, 2017, 10:53:27 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 17, 2017, 10:24:31 AM
Fall acceleration and symmetry of wtc 7.

My hypothesis is a controlled demolition.

Show me why fires reflect reality more accurately than a controlled demolition.

Rough sequence of events according to NIST:

1. Fire
2. Horizontal beams expanded due to heat
3. Expanded horizontal beams applied horizontal displacement of central vertical columns
4. Central vertical columns buckled, starting with column 79 (if memory serves) and progressing East to West.
5. Most of the central part of the building collapsed, leaving outer shell standing.
6. Outer vertical columns buckled near base, resulting in the observed collapse, including a 2 second period of freefall.

Which part of that sequence do you take issue with?

1. I like fire.

2. Building 7 was fire engineered to withstand the heat, originally it was preposed that the collapse was due to already unstable foundation because a fire induced collapse we saw was so unlikely.

3. Not enough heat and intensity to expand metal beams sufficiently through concrete to do that in any way that could cause free-fall.

4. Asymmetrical damage and single beam failure leading to symmetrical free-fall is impossible, sorry reality.

5. All video evidence shows otherwise, sheer scale of dust shows massive pulverization of concrete.

6. Reinforced concrete core smashes all hopes and dreams of free-fall, sorry, reality.

Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 17, 2017, 10:53:27 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 17, 2017, 10:32:29 AM
Can you say, that the collapse of wtc 7 didn't look like a controlled demolition? I am curious actually.

It resembles a controlled demolition, sure.

I appreciate that.

Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 17, 2017, 10:53:27 AM
Quote
Edit. Rayzors "direct attack" of Bhs' arguments was "muh NIST report."
I challenge you to cite otherwise.

I'm not sure which "arguments" you are referring to specifically, but page 79 was full of directly-addressed arguments.

I'll check it out.

Oh, I see it, that one post that got debunked, alright give him an A for effort on that one, my apologies.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 17, 2017, 11:16:09 AM
Quote from: User324 on March 17, 2017, 11:07:07 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 17, 2017, 10:48:32 AM
As for symmetry, free-fall through the path of greatest resistance (symmetry) is impossible, it's physics, dumbshoe.
Thats wrong. Physics says that gravitational froce points into the center of the earth. So for it to not collaps straight down you'd need an great enough force to pull it to one side. This force might occure or might not. But generally there is no need for it to not-collapse straight down; it's just not true to say so.

Not at free-fall dumbshoe.

"We" lmao, I respect Totes, why are you here, you haven't even read the NIST reports, how dare you call me stupid when you try to debate from a position of absolute ignorance.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 17, 2017, 11:32:52 AM
Quote from: User324 on March 17, 2017, 11:07:07 AM
How do you calculate "free fall"

About 9.8m/s2 NIST claims it, not me.

Quote from: NIST
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)

https://www.nist.gov/pba/questions-and-answers-about-nist-wtc-7-investigation

I would suggest doing a few minutes research.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on March 17, 2017, 11:39:37 AM
User324, he is talking about building 7, not wtc1 or 2.

---

Edit: my original post is in red

Quote from: disputeone on March 17, 2017, 11:12:01 AM
1. Fire
1. I like fire.

same

Quote
2. Horizontal beams expanded due to heat
2. Building 7 was fire engineered to withstand the heat, originally it was preposed that the collapse was due to already unstable foundation because a fire induced collapse we saw was so unlikely.

"engineered to withstand heat" =/= invulnerable to all sources of heat. This is just naive.

Quote
3. Expanded horizontal beams applied horizontal displacement of central vertical columns
3. Not enough heat and intensity to expand metal beams sufficiently through concrete to do that in any way that could cause free-fall buckling of beam 79. (Don't skip steps!)

NIST seems to think otherwise. Source?

Quote
4. Central vertical columns buckled, starting with column 79 (if memory serves) and progressing East to West.
4. Asymmetrical damage and single beam failure leading to symmetrical free-fall progressive buckling of central columns from east to west (don't skip steps!!) is impossible, sorry reality.

See bolded correction.

Quote
5. Most of the central part of the building collapsed, leaving outer shell standing.
5. All video evidence shows otherwise, sheer scale of dust shows massive pulverization of concrete.(not relevant to the point #5)

video evidence of east-center part collapsing ~8 seconds before the rest. (http://)

Quote
6. Outer vertical columns buckled near base, resulting in the observed collapse, including a 2 second period of freefall.
6. Reinforced concrete core smashes all hopes and dreams of free-fall, sorry, reality.

Are you referring to the "concrete core" that had already collapsed according to the NIST report? Be specific. Your arguments are way too vague.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 17, 2017, 11:52:35 AM
I didn't say invulnerable I said they wouldn't expand to a degree that caused failure, NIST ignored the actuality of the structure and built a computer model to model something that nowhere near represented reality.

Source.
(https://s17.postimg.org/k1ipr3g4v/Screenshot_20170318_024333.png)

The only progressive failure was the columns being sequentially cut or destroyed as the building goes down.

The idea of the building failing progressively from the inside leaving the outside looking perfectly intact is not reality.

The top part collapsing before free-fall is nothing but more evidence of controlled demolition. If the column had honestly failed, pro-tip, reinforced concrete doesn't fail under fire. We would have seen a true progressive collapse, that is, not symmetrical gravitational acceleration.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on March 17, 2017, 12:24:37 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 17, 2017, 11:52:35 AM
I didn't say invulnerable I said they wouldn't expand to a degree that caused failure, NIST ignored the actuality of the structure and built a computer model to model something that nowhere near represented reality.

Source.
(https://s17.postimg.org/k1ipr3g4v/Screenshot_20170318_024333.png)

That source does not support your conclusion. It's not even related. You claimed to be good at logic. Please make sure your sources/evidence logically supports your stated conclusion.

Quote
The only progressive failure was the columns being sequentially cut or destroyed as the building goes down.

Which columns? Exterior or interior? Be specific. Also, source?

Quote
The idea of the building failing progressively from the inside leaving the outside looking perfectly intact is not reality.

Source? Evidence? Anything? The video I provided clearly shows the east-top-center collapsing several seconds before the exterior. This corroborates the NIST report. Is there a reason you think this specific assertion by the NIST is untrue, other than general mistrust of the NIST?

Quote
The top part collapsing before free-fall is nothing but more evidence of controlled demolition. If the column had honestly failed, pro-tip, reinforced concrete doesn't fail under fire. We would have seen a true progressive collapse, that is, not symmetrical gravitational acceleration. This has nothing to do with your previous sentence. You claimed to be good at logic. Please make sure statements follow logically.

Column 79 didn't fall directly due to heat. It buckled due to horizontal forces resulting from other beams expanding due to heat. Please stop unfairly representing the opposing arguments.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on March 17, 2017, 01:41:29 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 17, 2017, 11:16:09 AM
Quote from: User324 on March 17, 2017, 11:07:07 AM
Thats wrong. Physics says that gravitational froce points into the center of the earth. So for it to not collaps straight down you'd need a great enough force to pull it to one side. This force might occure or might not. But generally there is no need for it to not-collapse straight down; it's just not true to say so.
For it to slide to one side that force might be due to a leaning ground; but if the ground is rectangular to the force of gravity, this force is 0 since m*g*cos(90)=0.


Not at free-fall dumbshoe.

"We" lmao, I respect Totes, why are you here, you haven't even read the NIST reports, how dare you call me stupid when you try to debate from a position of absolute ignorance.

You have either not understood what I said or intentionally ignored it. Please read it again. I have added the last part in my edit, you might missed that one.
Also names-calling does make you look like a immature kid. I suggest to stop it in favour of a serious debate - if that is what you want?

Also you did not respond to my point
Quote
How many building have you observed that did collapse due to a plane flying into them + fires + debris parts? Or how can you judge how it should look? I guess it's just your opinion that it should look different from what we see on those videos.


Quote from: disputeone on March 17, 2017, 11:32:52 AM
Quote from: User324 on March 17, 2017, 11:07:07 AM
How do you calculate "free fall"
About 9.8m/s2 NIST claims it, not me.ut-nist-wtc-7-investigation
You cannot reach gravitational acceleration since there is at least air resistance.

Please read the report you used as reference
Quote
The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:
Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity

This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.

There is no inconsistency with what you'd expect to happen.
Also I suggest you read again what I wrote about the acceleration
Quote
How do you calculate "free fall"; i mean it's not like "free fall" is a simple thing. How would you take parameters for air resistance of the collapsing part? How would you make sure you actually observe the real acceleration of the falling part since for that you'd need to know its centre of gravity AND observe that. If you focuse on any outer part inaccuracy would have to be taken into account (additional to the air-restistance-guess used to calculated supposed free fall rate)
Considering that at the early stages the lines obviously are very close (since it starts to fall with v=0 at t=0) a realistic error rate probably discards all conclusions you think you could make expecially in the first moments of the collapse
It makes perfectly sense that there was an acceleration observed that was more or less, within the error rate matching gravitational acceleration. They even used the words "essentially in free fall", "estimation" and "negligible support" making it very clear that those are approximations and not absolute values. I seriously fail to understand how you could misinterpret that.

Quote
User324, he is talking about building 7, not wtc1 or 2.
I am aware of that, I did not find the same or similair graphs for wtc 7. Since it was for illustration only (showing how close the lines would be) the graph was perfectly fine for the purpose.

Quote
The idea of the building failing progressively from the inside leaving the outside looking perfectly intact is not reality.
So, you are the one defining reality? Are you god? It is sort of amusing that you claim to know what should supposedly happen and what is reality while it's actually only your opinon you're selling as reality or the absolute truth.


P.s.
Quote from: disputeone
If you are unhappy we won the debate then please, by all means, present an argument.
As soon as I start giving you valid arguments, you block everything and keep names-calling. That was exactly what I meant when I wrote
Quote
It seems like you (and most of the flatties) cannot live with that there are other points of view and that their (yours/the flatties) opinion is not "the truth".
That's what makes debating you (or flatties/ conspiracy theorists in general) really annoying and pretty pointless. That's also why people like you are so often convinced they "won" the debate, but actually their stupidity, stubbornness and incredible amount of insults did just lead to everyone leaving the discussion.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 17, 2017, 04:02:24 PM
Quote from: totallackey on March 17, 2017, 07:02:47 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 17, 2017, 04:37:11 AM
finally if it was a demolition,  why did they leave the center core, alone it was still standing 20-30 stories high at the end.
I don't think there is any evidence of this assertion. 

Here you go.  WTC1

(https://s11.postimg.org/8eygko9w3/columns.jpg)


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 17, 2017, 08:05:58 PM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 17, 2017, 12:24:37 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 17, 2017, 11:52:35 AM
I didn't say invulnerable I said they wouldn't expand to a degree that caused failure, NIST ignored the actuality of the structure and built a computer model to model something that nowhere near represented reality.

Source.
(https://s17.postimg.org/k1ipr3g4v/Screenshot_20170318_024333.png)

That source does not support your conclusion. It's not even related. You claimed to be good at logic. Please make sure your sources/evidence logically supports your stated conclusion.

It just absolutely supports my conclusion. NIST didn't release their data because their data is obviously inaccurate.

Logic?

Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 17, 2017, 12:24:37 PM
Quote
The only progressive failure was the columns being sequentially cut or destroyed as the building goes down.

Which columns? Exterior or interior? Be specific. Also, source?

Initially the centre columns as I said, reinforced concrete core smashes any hope of free-fall.

You want an official source saying 9/11 was a false flag??

Lol, that's so Rayzor.

Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 17, 2017, 12:24:37 PM
Quote
The idea of the building failing progressively from the inside leaving the outside looking perfectly intact is not reality.

Source? Evidence? Anything? The video I provided clearly shows the east-top-center collapsing several seconds before the exterior. This corroborates the NIST report. Is there a reason you think this specific assertion by the NIST is untrue, other than general mistrust of the NIST?

Sources.

10 years experience working on buildings.

All structural engineering.

All mechanical engineering.

A building interior and exterior are linked, it is not like a china doll. The indside supports are linked to the outside supports.

Also I am claiming concrete as a source.

Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 17, 2017, 12:24:37 PM
Quote
The top part collapsing before free-fall is nothing but more evidence of controlled demolition. If the column had honestly failed, pro-tip, reinforced concrete doesn't fail under fire. We would have seen a true progressive collapse, that is, not symmetrical gravitational acceleration. This has nothing to do with your previous sentence. You claimed to be good at logic. Please make sure statements follow logically.

Column 79 didn't fall directly due to heat. It buckled due to horizontal forces resulting from other beams expanding due to heat. Please stop unfairly representing the opposing arguments.

Ok it buckled (bent)
Quote
bend and give way under pressure or strain.
"the earth buckled under the titanic stress"
so bending metal causes free-fall symmetrical collapse?

I am not the one being irrational, I know this is hard to think about but I will ask that we don't debate by covering our eyes and ears.

Quote from: User324 on March 17, 2017, 01:41:29 PM

Shut up Meg.

NIST says gravitational acceleration, I am sorry for using official sources and information, perhaps you would like to re-write the NIST report, as you don't seem to want to use its conclusions.

Now.

Minor asymmetrical damage leading to major failure and symmetrical collapse at free-fall.

Impossible.

Absolutely untouched since page one.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 17, 2017, 08:10:49 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 17, 2017, 08:05:58 PM
Minor asymmetrical damage leading to major failure and symmetrical collapse at free-fall.

Impossible.

Absolutely untouched since page one.

Untouched except for the many times I've debunked it.   Learn to read, and stop making false claims.

.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 17, 2017, 08:13:00 PM
You're lying again, like when you said you worked at CERN.

How does eating your words about Bhs Feel?

(https://s24.postimg.org/5iccn6zhh/9v_P4dt9_XNo_Er_Z20_Qf4x_W7_B_5pb_Ja_TEe_Vxs_Dw_Pim_SV11_Mk_SVi.gif)

Edit.

Even Totes can't touch it, best he's got is "the NIST report is maybe possible."

Absolutely speaks volumes.

Edit. Cern not Nist lol sorry been reading too much NIST.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 17, 2017, 08:28:56 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 17, 2017, 08:13:00 PM
You're lying again, like when you said you worked at CERN.

How does eating your words about Bhs Feel?

(https://s24.postimg.org/5iccn6zhh/9v_P4dt9_XNo_Er_Z20_Qf4x_W7_B_5pb_Ja_TEe_Vxs_Dw_Pim_SV11_Mk_SVi.gif)

Edit.

Even Totes can't touch it, best he's got is "the NIST report is maybe possible."

Absolutely speaks volumes.

Edit. Cern not Nist lol sorry been reading too much NIST.

After a while everyone becomes immune to your lies,  yes I worked on a project at CERN,   yes I solved Master_Evar's  weight distribution problem.  The fact that you missed it,  says something  very interesting about you.

I think you must have a serious reading comprehension problem.  I've been saying it for a while now,  and you keep proving it with your weird reality disconnects. 

Every time you start down this path,  you end up having a melt down.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 17, 2017, 08:29:41 PM
Quote from: sceptimatic on March 17, 2017, 10:18:30 AM
I now believe 9/11 happened exactly how we were told by official sources. I don't think there's any argument about that now.
Rayzor and crew have managed to make it all add up perfectly.
Well done to them. Some smart people we have.

Take a bow Rayzor.

You have truly proven the official story has absolutely no holes and is completely water tight. /sarcasm.

Lmao.

Edit, dude you posted a visitors pass, lmao, claims to be a shyintizt, shows. Cern tour pass, wanna see my tour pass to the zoo?

You've been lying I've been nothing but honest.

You didn't "solve" the thought experiment, it's unsolvable.

Quote from: Master_Evar on March 17, 2017, 12:56:47 AM
And here's a real nightmare, but something very fascinating: It's fucking unsolvable.

kek.

Lie more.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 17, 2017, 08:41:04 PM
If you guys can't seperate my attitude with Rayzor and honest posters, then you can think I'm a dick, l'll wear that.

I have a passion for truth and justice.
I dislike those that would willingly fight against it.

(https://s10.postimg.org/xjimpy18p/Cern_Pass.jpg)

> Says clearly to stay with your group.

> Claims it wasn't a tour.

Lmao.

Edit.

Oh and Totes, credit where credit is due, this goes both ways good credit and bad credit.

Quote from: disputeone on March 17, 2017, 04:02:10 AM
Totes, Jack Black and Itsatorus are scientists no doubt about that.

Rayzor is just a dick.

I'm not naive.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 17, 2017, 09:25:28 PM
(https://s10.postimg.org/exgez9v21/concrete.jpg)

Quote
It is a non-combustible material (i.e. it does not burn), and has a slow rate of heat transfer. Concrete ensures that structural integrity remains, fire compartmentation is not compromised and shielding from heat can be relied upon.

http://www.concretecentre.com/Performance-Sustainability-(1)/Fire-Resistance.aspx

lol, concrete.

It's just way too easy to smash the OS on wtc 7, yawn.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on March 17, 2017, 09:25:52 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 17, 2017, 08:05:58 PM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 17, 2017, 12:24:37 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 17, 2017, 11:52:35 AM
I didn't say invulnerable I said they wouldn't expand to a degree that caused failure, NIST ignored the actuality of the structure and built a computer model to model something that nowhere near represented reality.

Source.
(https://s17.postimg.org/k1ipr3g4v/Screenshot_20170318_024333.png)

That source does not support your conclusion. It's not even related. You claimed to be good at logic. Please make sure your sources/evidence logically supports your stated conclusion.

It just absolutely supports my conclusion. NIST didn't release their data because their data is obviously inaccurate.

Logic?

This is pure speculation.

Quote
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 17, 2017, 12:24:37 PM
Quote
The only progressive failure was the columns being sequentially cut or destroyed as the building goes down.

Which columns? Exterior or interior? Be specific. Also, source?

Initially the centre columns as I said, reinforced concrete core smashes any hope of free-fall.

This is pure speculation, which doesn't even agree with the video evidence I provided.

Quote
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 17, 2017, 12:24:37 PM
Quote
The idea of the building failing progressively from the inside leaving the outside looking perfectly intact is not reality.

Source? Evidence? Anything? The video I provided clearly shows the east-top-center collapsing several seconds before the exterior. This corroborates the NIST report. Is there a reason you think this specific assertion by the NIST is untrue, other than general mistrust of the NIST?

Sources.

10 years experience working on buildings.

All structural engineering.

All mechanical engineering.

A building interior and exterior are linked, it is not like a china doll. The indside supports are linked to the outside supports.

Also I am claiming concrete as a source.

Here is the problem with arguments from authority: once you lose credibility as an expert, you lose your argument. You have made so many illogical, speculative, and biased arguments that I am not going to take seriously any argument that requires me to trust your own judgement.

And for the record, I know the "interior and exterior are linked." Here's the thing about stuff that has been on fire for 7 hours: stuff breaks.

Quote
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 17, 2017, 12:24:37 PM
Quote
The top part collapsing before free-fall is nothing but more evidence of controlled demolition. If the column had honestly failed, pro-tip, reinforced concrete doesn't fail under fire. We would have seen a true progressive collapse, that is, not symmetrical gravitational acceleration. This has nothing to do with your previous sentence. You claimed to be good at logic. Please make sure statements follow logically.

Column 79 didn't fall directly due to heat. It buckled due to horizontal forces resulting from other beams expanding due to heat. Please stop unfairly representing the opposing arguments.

Ok it buckled (bent)
Quote
bend and give way under pressure or strain.
"the earth buckled under the titanic stress"
so bending metal causes free-fall symmetrical collapse?

No, the bending of column 79 caused the center to collapse, not necessarily at free-fall or symmetrically. Please stop trying to skip steps.

Quote
I am not the one being irrational, I know this is hard to think about but I will ask that we don't debate by covering our eyes and ears.

Yes, you are being incredibly irrational. Trying to pass off speculation as evidence is not rational.

Quote
Minor asymmetrical damage leading to major failure and symmetrical collapse at free-fall.

Impossible.

Absolutely untouched since page one.

A) It wasn't symmetrical. It was leaning south. Also, the center of the northern face sagged well below the corners.
B) What's to touch? You just keep asserting that it is impossible. Repeating it over and over again doesn't make it true. I see no reason to think that it is impossible.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 17, 2017, 09:38:42 PM
I'm not claiming to be an expert.
Not at all.
Concrete is the expert.

This destroys the free-fall due to fire induced total progressive collapse Totes. It just does, a reinforced concrete core won't fail to fire. I am deeply sorry about this.

Quote from: disputeone on March 17, 2017, 09:25:28 PM
(https://s10.postimg.org/exgez9v21/concrete.jpg)

Quote
It is a non-combustible material (i.e. it does not burn), and has a slow rate of heat transfer. Concrete ensures that structural integrity remains, fire compartmentation is not compromised and shielding from heat can be relied upon.

http://www.concretecentre.com/Performance-Sustainability-(1)/Fire-Resistance.aspx

lol, concrete.

I get a bit of shit of shit for how cool I think the EM drive is, for ages we were like "it's impossible defies physics, not peer reviewed, bunk"

Then after peer review a lot of us are still saying, "it's impossible, defies physics, bunk."

I am sure you know that peer review isn't "proof" it's pretty much just showing your hypothesis to a bunch of guys who are qualified to review it and they say if the experiment / hypothesis is stupid or not.

Well apparently the experiment / hypothesis for the EM drive doesn't look that stupid.

Do you know what was never peer reviewed? Fire induced total progressive collapse.

See for me I am still on the "it's impossible, defies physics, not peer reviewed, bunk."

Sorry for the OT but it doesn't seem like you want to talk about the specifics of wtc 7 and the fire and collapse.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on March 17, 2017, 09:47:23 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 17, 2017, 09:38:42 PM
I'm not claiming to be an expert.
Not at all.

"Sources. 10 years experience working on buildings."

Quote
Concrete is the expert.

This destroys the free-fall due to fire induced total progressive collapse Totes. It just does, a reinforced concrete core won't fail to fire. I am deeply sorry about this.

I refuted this already a few posts ago.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 17, 2017, 09:53:56 PM
Can you cite where you showed how fire could cause the reinforced concrete core to fail to the extent of a 2.25 second free-fall of the entire building?

Quote from: disputeone on March 17, 2017, 09:25:28 PM
(https://s10.postimg.org/exgez9v21/concrete.jpg)

Quote
It is a non-combustible material (i.e. it does not burn), and has a slow rate of heat transfer. Concrete ensures that structural integrity remains, fire compartmentation is not compromised and shielding from heat can be relied upon.

http://www.concretecentre.com/Performance-Sustainability-(1)/Fire-Resistance.aspx

lol, concrete.

Show me that fire is more likely to have caused what we saw than controlled demolition.

>central supports destroyed, massive pulverization of concrete under what was supposedly only gravitational potential energy.

>other supports destroyed causing a symmetrical 2.25 second free-fall of the entire remaining building.

>squibs clearly seen only where we would expect them on a controlled demolition, squibs seen during period of free-fall ruling out explosive compression.

See for me I am still on the "it's impossible, defies physics, not peer reviewed, bunk."
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 17, 2017, 10:03:24 PM
Also, Totes, come on man, absolutely no deformation of the outer structure after the reinforced concrete core supposedly "progressively collapsed" just straight down, symmetrical free-fall into the path of greatest resistance?

You know something is wrong with it, I know you know, however our beliefs and opinions are our own.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 17, 2017, 10:43:17 PM
Quote
February 19, 1989:
Before it moves into a new office tower in downtown Manhattan (WTC7), Salomon Brothers, the brokerage firm, intends to spend nearly two years and more than 200 million cutting out floors, adding elevators, reinforcing steel girders, upgrading power supplies and making other improvements in its million square feet of space.... "We were driven very much by technology. We had to find a building that could accommodate our needs, including major-sized trading floors." explained Gedale B. Horowitz, a senior executive director of Salomon. Much of the new electrical, air-conditioning and mechanical equipment will serve three double-height trading floors. To create the extra height, workers are removing most of three existing floors, using jackhammers to demolish concrete slabs and torches to remove steel decking and girders beneath the concrete. In some office buildings, that alteration would be impossible, but Silverstein Properties tried to second-guess the needs of potential tenants when it designed Seven World Trade Center as a speculative project. "@@We built in enough redundancy to allow entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity, on the assumption that someone might need double-height floors@@," said Larry Silverstein, president of the company. "Sure enough, Salomon had that need." More than 375 tons of steel - requiring 12 miles of welding - will be installed to reinforce floors for Salomon's extra equipment.

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/02/19/realestate/commercial-property-salomon-solution-building-within-building-cost-200-million.html

Quote
Due to the effectiveness of the spray-applied fire-resistive material (SFRM) or fireproofing, the highest steel column temperatures in WTC 7 only reached an estimated 300 degrees Celsius (570 degrees Fahrenheit), and only on the east side of the building did the steel floor beams exceed 600 degrees Celsius (1,100 degrees Fahrenheit). However, fire-induced buckling of floor beams and damage to connections—which caused buckling of a critical column initiating collapse—occurred at temperatures below approximately 400 degrees Celsius (where thermal expansion dominates.

https://www.nist.gov/el/faqs-nist-wtc-7-investigation

LoL.

Quote
In this paper, the effects of elevated temperatures on the compressive strength stress–strain relationship (stiffness) and energy absorption capacities (toughness) of concretes are presented. High-performance concretes (HPCs) were prepared in three series, with different cementitious material constitutions using plain ordinary Portland cement (PC), with and without metakaolin (MK) and silica fume (SF) separate replacements. Each series comprised a concrete mix, prepared without any fibers, and concrete mixes reinforced with either or both steel fibers and polypropylene (PP) fibers. The results showed that after exposure to 600 and 800 °C, the concrete mixes retained, respectively, 45% and 23% of their compressive strength, on average

The steel-fiber-reinforced concretes also showed the highest energy absorption capacity after the high-temperature exposure

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0008884604000900

There, citations.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 17, 2017, 10:56:15 PM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 17, 2017, 09:25:52 PM
A) It wasn't symmetrical. It was leaning south. Also, the center of the northern face sagged well below the corners.

Lulzy.

That's about as good as you get in reality.

(https://s7.postimg.org/86vdzwpx7/1489456706844.gif)





Wtc 5 did ok.

(https://s21.postimg.org/epcc0gquf/wtc5_fire_floors_1.jpg)

(https://s14.postimg.org/ym57r3gzl/230806wtc1a.jpg)

Wtc 6 didn't fall either, much less free-fall.

(https://s9.postimg.org/mam3748of/230806building6.jpg)

It suffered what we used to call a progressive collapse before 9/11
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on March 17, 2017, 11:04:24 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 17, 2017, 09:53:56 PM
Can you cite where you showed how fire could cause the reinforced concrete core to fail to the extent of a 2.25 second free-fall of the entire building?
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 17, 2017, 12:24:37 PM
Column 79 didn't fall directly due to heat. It buckled due to horizontal forces resulting from other beams expanding due to heat. Please stop unfairly representing the opposing arguments.

I'm not sure what you mean by "concrete core". Where exactly was this concrete core located? Can you point it out on a floor diagram or schematic? Regardless, concrete may be great under compression, but it generally sucks under tension and shear.

Quote
Show me that fire is more likely to have caused what we saw than controlled demolition.

Off topic, but if you insist. Why on earth would they let it burn for 7 hours before blowing it up? That is introducing a ton of risk. What if some of their demo rigging had been destroyed by the fire?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on March 17, 2017, 11:14:26 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 17, 2017, 10:56:15 PM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 17, 2017, 09:25:52 PM
A) It wasn't symmetrical. It was leaning south. Also, the center of the northern face sagged well below the corners.

Lulzy.

That's about as good as you get in reality.

(https://s7.postimg.org/86vdzwpx7/1489456706844.gif)

That's because that shot is taken from the north. It is leaning away from you. Shots taken from the west show the lean. Also, notice the obvious sag in the middle of the northern edge.

As for the "squibs"... that youtube video falsely represents the location of the squibs with a low resolution shot. The better resolution videos (like the gif above) show a much more scattered collection of "squibs" which appear AFTER it starts to fall.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 17, 2017, 11:31:24 PM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 17, 2017, 11:04:24 PM
Quote
Show me that fire is more likely to have caused what we saw than controlled demolition.

Off topic, but if you insist. Why on earth would they let it burn for 7 hours before blowing it up?

So you can say "Why on earth would they let it burn for 7 hours before blowing it up?"

Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 17, 2017, 11:04:24 PM
That is introducing a ton of risk. What if some of their demo rigging had been destroyed by the fire?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_shield

memba when you said the firemen were cool to stand on the floor of the temperatures causing molten metal (steel proven not to be ally again and again, most notably by Rayzor) cause they had fireman suits on.

Smdh.

Honestly.

It's not you, no one can actually defend the OS on wtc 7, it's an untenable position, I don't blame you for using bad arguments.

Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 17, 2017, 11:04:24 PM
I'm not sure what you mean by "concrete core". Where exactly was this concrete core located? Can you point it out on a floor diagram or schematic?

Sure.

http://www2.ae911truth.org/downloads/NIST_WTC7_FOIA_11-209.zip

http://www2.ae911truth.org/downloads/NIST_WTC7_FOIA_12-009.zip

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center

Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 17, 2017, 11:04:24 PM
Regardless, concrete may be great under compression, but it generally sucks under tension and shear.

Paid, but we saw it get completely pulverized.

Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 17, 2017, 11:14:26 PM
The better resolution videos (like the gif above) show a much more scattered collection of "squibs" which appear AFTER it starts to fall.

Yes, squibs during free-fall eliminating the possibility of explosive compression. Scary right?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 17, 2017, 11:31:28 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 17, 2017, 08:41:04 PM
If you guys can't seperate my attitude with Rayzor and honest posters, then you can think I'm a dick, l'll wear that.

I have a passion for truth and justice.
I dislike those that would willingly fight against it.

(https://s10.postimg.org/xjimpy18p/Cern_Pass.jpg)

> Says clearly to stay with your group.

> Claims it wasn't a tour.

Lmao.

Edit.

Oh and Totes, credit where credit is due, this goes both ways good credit and bad credit.

Quote from: disputeone on March 17, 2017, 04:02:10 AM
Totes, Jack Black and Itsatorus are scientists no doubt about that.

Rayzor is just a dick.

I'm not naive.

Yes you are,   I was there working on a project with my son and the CERN annual open day just happened to be at the end of that week.   Which gave us the opportunity to do underground tours of the CMS detector and the ALICE detector.   

I'm long past having to prove myself,  you on the other hand, have yet to prove yourself capable of holding a debate without continually misunderstanding what's been written,  and then misrepresenting the others arguments. 

WTC7  was not a symmetrical collapse,  and it doesn't look like a controlled demolition no matter how many times you keep saying it doesn't make it any more or less than your personal opinion, whch carries zero weight in the argument.

I wonder how many more times you will keep saying the same stuff over and over.








 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 17, 2017, 11:39:08 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 17, 2017, 11:31:28 PM
WTC7  was not a symmetrical collapse,  and it doesn't look like a controlled demolition.

Shut up shill, did the tour guide let you hold his hand?

Here.

Quote from: disputeone on March 17, 2017, 10:56:15 PM
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 17, 2017, 11:48:10 PM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 17, 2017, 09:25:52 PM
I see no reason to think that it is impossible.

>Air resistance causing a negligible effect on fall acceleration.

>Steel and Concrete also causing a negligible effect on fall acceleration.

LoL



"Although the labourer is massive he has no chance of digging through three metres of concrete"
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 18, 2017, 12:43:32 AM
People's "replies" in this thread lol... Although I am currently moderately blitz, I will still chime in with a comment.
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 17, 2017, 05:02:01 AM
Well no..I have never been involved in demoing a building that tall, nor have I ran plane into a building either. However, I have been involved in demoing a building about as tall as 7. Steel framed as well.

Also, forecasting is one of my specialties, that is why I have the programs I have. Also a few of my extra curricular certs specialize in that. As I said before, just a few weeks ago I was part of a couple man engineering team to make the call on the condo fire here to see if it was safe for fire investigators to enter. Burned for almost two days, not a full collapse (concrete base and first floor, wood skeleton, steel spine, 4 stories).. Unfortunately it was a no, even with a death inside. All those people are going to lose all of their belongings, they are going to demo it.

I know what I am looking at, my mind can process and predict well, my programs even better.

I also know that 15 percent of a top of a structure cannot pulverize 85 percent of the bottom part. Especially the lower 44....The physics don't work. I also know what I saw on 7, it had every sign of a CD.

I can speak from models, from experience, from education, and from common sense...What we saw is in no way possible the way we are supposed to believe. 1 and 2 is a no...7 is a resounding no.

I suppose that would be a repost over a comment. However my comment is the repost...what were we talking about again?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on March 18, 2017, 12:49:17 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 17, 2017, 11:31:28 PM
you on the other hand, have yet to prove yourself capable of holding a debate without continually misunderstanding what's been written,  and then misrepresenting the others arguments. 

^

Quote from: disputeone on March 17, 2017, 11:31:24 PM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 17, 2017, 11:04:24 PM
I'm not sure what you mean by "concrete core". Where exactly was this concrete core located? Can you point it out on a floor diagram or schematic?

Sure.

http://www2.ae911truth.org/downloads/NIST_WTC7_FOIA_11-209.zip
http://www2.ae911truth.org/downloads/NIST_WTC7_FOIA_12-009.zip
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center

Please be specific. Since you are so confident that the "concrete core" can't buckle, I'm sure you know exactly where it is, right? And how thick?

Quote
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 17, 2017, 11:04:24 PM
Regardless, concrete may be great under compression, but it generally sucks under tension and shear.

Paid, but we saw it get completely pulverized.

Please try to stick to the line of reasoning. Weather the concrete is pulverized or not has nothing to do with whether the columns are subject to buckling. Regardless, of course concrete got pulverized. It fell 40+ stories. What on earth would you expect?

Quote
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 17, 2017, 11:14:26 PM
The better resolution videos (like the gif above) show a much more scattered collection of "squibs" which appear AFTER it starts to fall.
Yes, squibs during free-fall eliminating the possibility of explosive compression. Scary right?

I have no idea what your train of thought is here. Explosive compression? They are just glass windows. The force required to knock out a few windows is negligible compared to a 47 story building falling down.

And why would there be squibs AFTER the building is already falling? That makes absolutely no sense at all.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 18, 2017, 12:57:46 AM
If the windows were blown out from compression, it would not be just small spots, just so happening to be in the most useful spot for a demo. Excluding lower ten and upper ten...This is demo 101.

If they were blown from compression it would be entire floors.

The core was not concrete, it was steel encased in concrete, with fire retardant material.

Blowing floors during a fall is demo 101. Take the lower half, start the fall, blow the main gut of the mass, let the upper 10 take care of themselves.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 18, 2017, 01:00:42 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 18, 2017, 12:57:46 AM
The core was not concrete, it was steel encased in concrete, with fire retardant material.

Thanks.

The concrete was pulverized in mid air by all video footage, it caused absolutely no decrease in fall acceleration.

Squibs "after" the building is falling are just the supplementary supports being destroyed after the main center supports had been cut, note the building was still just barely standing while the central supports failed were destroyed, then symmetrical free-fall and squibs.

Logic?

Come on Totes.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 18, 2017, 01:05:32 AM
Sorry dispute, you may have to translate a bit, been a long night at the bar..

On the roof staring at the bank of America tower while floating on a raft typing on the FES forum and a shiner beer. Suppose this would be considered the life lol?

Though seeing arguments presented i feel confident in defending my position even in a lowered state lol
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sceptimatic on March 18, 2017, 01:22:41 AM
Self pulverisation.
This should leave no people in doubt as to what didn't happen that day, but, as we know; it doesn't seem to compute with some people for varying reasons.
Watch this video right through.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on March 18, 2017, 01:49:24 AM
Since you still think a building can't fall - more or less- straight down, I'll quote myself a third time - I hope you start to understand :)
Quote
Physics says that gravitational force points into the center of the earth. So for it to not collaps straight down you'd need a great enough force to pull it to one side. This force might occure or might not. But generally there is no need for it to not-collapse straight down; it's just not true to say so.
For it to slide to one side that force might be due to a leaning ground; but if the ground is rectangular to the force of gravity, this force is 0 since m*g*cos(90)=0.


Also, you still are thinking your "free fall argument" holds any validity, when it has been shown multiple times it does not.
Quote
NIST says gravitational acceleration, I am sorry for using official sources and information, perhaps you would like to re-write the NIST report, as you don't seem to want to use its conclusions.

My answer, quoting it so you can read it again, slowly, and perhaps start understanding:
Quote
How do you calculate "free fall"; i mean it's not like "free fall" is a simple thing. How would you take parameters for air resistance of the collapsing part? How would you make sure you actually observe the real acceleration of the falling part since for that you'd need to know its centre of gravity AND observe that. If you focuse on any outer part inaccuracy would have to be taken into account (additional to the air-restistance-guess used to calculated supposed free fall rate)
Considering that at the early stages the lines obviously are very close (since it starts to fall with v=0 at t=0) a realistic error rate probably discards all conclusions you think you could make expecially in the first moments of the collapse
It makes perfectly sense that there was an acceleration observed that was more or less, within the error rate matching gravitational acceleration. They even used the words "essentially in free fall", "estimation" and "negligible support" making it very clear that those are approximations and not absolute values. I seriously fail to understand how you could misinterpret that.
__________________________________

Quote
I am not the one being irrational, I know this is hard to think about but I will ask that we don't debate by covering our eyes and ears.
For you, thinking in general seems hard, doesn't it?


Quote
10 years experience working on buildings.
All structural engineering.
All mechanical engineering.
Ah, the fitter that thinks he's an engineer :)
Yeah, when reading your posts and how much you actually understand of what you've been told it sure is better you're working as a fitter and not as an engineer. Well, considering the amount of time you spend in here, you're probably hardly working at all anyway.

Quote
Can you cite where you showed how fire could cause the reinforced concrete core to fail to the extent of a 2.25 second free-fall of the entire building?
See, your cognitive dissonance is so advanced that you just blank out the plane-thing and the rubble that fell on the building.


Overall, you're the perfect proof of the statemet I made:
It seems like you (and most of the flatties) cannot live with that there are other points of view and that their (yours/the flatties) opinion is not "the truth".
That's what makes debating you (or flatties/ conspiracy theorists in general) really annoying and pretty pointless. That's also why people like you are so often convinced they "won" the debate, but actually their stupidity, stubbornness and incredible amount of insults did just lead to everyone leaving the discussion.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on March 18, 2017, 02:14:47 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 18, 2017, 12:57:46 AM
If the windows were blown out from compression, it would not be just small spots, just so happening to be in the most useful spot for a demo. Excluding lower ten and upper ten...This is demo 101.

If they were blown from compression it would be entire floors.

Which is why I suspect it was just deformation of the window frames. On the other hand, many of the floors had already collapsed according to the NIST. This would make oddly shaped chambers for the air to flow through.

Quote
The core was not concrete, it was steel encased in concrete, with fire retardant material.

You both keep saying "core" singular. Was there one monolithic "core", or were the 20 something central columns each individually encased in concrete?

Quote from: disputeone on March 18, 2017, 01:00:42 AM
The concrete was pulverized in mid air by all video footage

Source? I honestly have no idea where you are getting this from. I assume you are still talking about wtc 7, right?

Quote
Squibs "after" the building is falling are just the supplementary supports being destroyed after the main center supports had been cut, note the building was still just barely standing while the central supports failed were destroyed, then symmetrical free-fall and squibs.

The building was already in freefall when the squibs appeared. It seems extremely unlikely to me that they are the result of intentional explosives. The much simpler explanation is that "windows broke because building is falling".
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 18, 2017, 03:03:47 AM
Quote from: User324 on March 18, 2017, 01:49:24 AM

For the last time 9.8m/s2
You are confusing acceleration with velocity.

http://www.dummies.com/education/science/physics/how-to-calculate-acceleration/

Wtc 7 was not hit by a plane, NIST cites fires for the cause of collapse, if you don't like it take it up with NIST.

You are so unbelievably ignorant.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on March 18, 2017, 04:13:34 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 18, 2017, 03:03:47 AM
Quote from: User324 on March 18, 2017, 01:49:24 AM

For the last time 9.8m/s2
You are confusing acceleration with velocity.
If you'd know how to quote I'd actually know what you are referring to. I'm pretty sure I know more about physics than you do, but of course it still might be I confused something.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on March 18, 2017, 05:35:04 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 17, 2017, 04:02:24 PM
Quote from: totallackey on March 17, 2017, 07:02:47 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 17, 2017, 04:37:11 AM
finally if it was a demolition,  why did they leave the center core, alone it was still standing 20-30 stories high at the end.
I don't think there is any evidence of this assertion. 

Here you go.  WTC1

(https://s11.postimg.org/8eygko9w3/columns.jpg)

That is not the the core column.

Try again.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 18, 2017, 04:55:54 PM
Quote from: totallackey on March 18, 2017, 05:35:04 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 17, 2017, 04:02:24 PM
Quote from: totallackey on March 17, 2017, 07:02:47 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 17, 2017, 04:37:11 AM
finally if it was a demolition,  why did they leave the center core, alone it was still standing 20-30 stories high at the end.
I don't think there is any evidence of this assertion. 

Here you go.  WTC1

(https://s11.postimg.org/8eygko9w3/columns.jpg)

That is not the the core column.

Try again.

So what do you think it is?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 18, 2017, 05:26:54 PM
Quote from: User324 on March 18, 2017, 04:13:34 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 18, 2017, 03:03:47 AM
Quote from: User324 on March 18, 2017, 01:49:24 AM

For the last time 9.8m/s2
You are confusing acceleration with velocity.
If you'd know how to quote I'd actually know what you are referring to. I'm pretty sure I know more about physics than you do, but of course it still might be I confused something.

Yes.

Quote from: User324 on March 18, 2017, 01:49:24 AM
How do you calculate "free fall"; i mean it's not like "free fall" is a simple thing.

You are confusing acceleration with velocity. Not gonna say it again.

Quote from: User324 on March 18, 2017, 04:13:34 AM
how do you calculate free-fall

9.8m/s2

With simple algebra.

(https://s24.postimg.org/7m4i86nl1/20170319_082218.jpg)

If I run a 10 second quarter mile my acceleration is on average 8.04 m/s2

Surprisingly slower than gravitational acceleration.

Quote from: User324 on March 18, 2017, 04:13:34 AM
I'm pretty sure I know more about physics than you do

You assume too much.

If we wanna get real fancy we can plot change of acceleration using calculus.

But I am sure you knew that.

This is why people roll their eyes at you.

Quote from: NIST
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)

Quote from: google
Gravitational acceleration (symbolized g) is an expression used in physics to indicate the intensity of a gravitational field. It is expressed in meters per second squared (m/s 2 ). At the surface of the earth, 1 g is about 9.8 m/s 2 .
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 18, 2017, 05:32:34 PM
Now, on 9/11, why didn't structural resistance, cause structural resistance?

Seems like you don't wanna admit the 2.25 seconds of gravitational acceleration to yourself.

Yes. This again.

Instead of expressing structural resistance in units we can use a percentage.

Say 100% structural resistance will hold the building up exactly, any more weight and it will start to collapse. Most working loads are two to four times the fail point.
So we can safely assume building 7 had over 100% structural resistance before it fell.

So we have gravitational acceleration - percentage of structural resistance = fall acceleration.

9.8m/s2×75%=7.35m/s2

9.8 m/s2 - 7.35m/s2 = 2.45 m/s2

At 75% structural resistance I would predict a 2.45m/s2 fall acceleration.

For 2.25 seconds a 9.8m/s2 fall acceleration was observed therefore in those 2.25 seconds the structure experienced zero structural resistance.

So, G- %S = F
Gravitational acceleration - percentage of structural resistance = fall acceleration.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on March 18, 2017, 06:23:02 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 18, 2017, 05:26:54 PM
If I run a 10 second quarter mile my acceleration is on average 8.04 m/s2

No, it's not. The equations you used are for constant acceleration, not average acceleration.

Quote
If we wanna get real fancy we can plot change of acceleration using calculus.

What on earth are you talking about?

Quote
Quote from: User324 on March 18, 2017, 01:49:24 AM
How do you calculate "free fall"; i mean it's not like "free fall" is a simple thing.

You are confusing acceleration with velocity. Not gonna say it again.

That would be a good idea, since I don't think he is confusing the two. Either directly quote where he confused the two, or stop making false accusations.

@User324:
That being said, User324, yes, the top edge of the building underwent a 2 second period of near freefall. You can calculate the acceleration of the top edge of the building by tracking its position in videos. I did this. The center-east part of the north edge was at approximately freefall, +/- 0.5 m/s2 for resolution precision. Double that for scale precision. So, probably within 10% of freefall. From a different video, I measured the north-west corner at 0.85 g, but it was a lower resolution video, so plenty of room for error. (disclaimer: values came from memory.)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 18, 2017, 06:38:21 PM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 18, 2017, 06:23:02 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 18, 2017, 05:26:54 PM
If I run a 10 second quarter mile my acceleration is on average 8.04 m/s2

No, it's not. The equations you used are for constant acceleration, not average acceleration.

That's what I meant, in reality the acceleration wouldn't be constant.

Unless it was averaged out over a certain distance.

Building 7 didn't accelerate at 9.8m/s2 through its entire collapse, just for 2.25 seconds it was accelerating absolutely as fast as possible under gravity.

Thanks for the clarification.

Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 18, 2017, 06:23:02 PM
Quote
If we wanna get real fancy we can plot change of acceleration using calculus.

What on earth are you talking about?

Quote
It is well known that the first derivative of position (symbol x) with respect to time is velocity (symbol v) and the second is acceleration (symbol a). It is a little less well known that the third derivative, i.e. the rate of change of acceleration, is technically known as jerk (symbol j).

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/jerk.html

Jerk  ;)


Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 18, 2017, 06:23:02 PM
Quote from: User324 on March 18, 2017, 01:49:24 AM
How do you calculate "free fall"; i mean it's not like "free fall" is a simple thing.

Quote
You are confusing acceleration with velocity. Not gonna say it again.

That would be a good idea, since I don't think he is confusing the two. Either directly quote where he confused the two, or stop making false accusations.

NIST calculated a 2.25 second fall at 9.8 m/s2.

It is quite easy to calculate acceleration.

What do you want me to say Totes?


Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 18, 2017, 06:23:02 PM
@User324:
That being said, User324, yes, the top edge of the building underwent a 2 second period of near freefall. You can calculate the acceleration of the top edge of the building by tracking its position in videos. I did this. The center-east part of the north edge was at approximately freefall, +/- 0.5 m/s2 for resolution precision. Double that for scale precision. So, probably within 10% of freefall. From a different video, I measured the north-west corner at 0.85 g, but it was a lower resolution video, so plenty of room for error. (disclaimer: values came from memory.)

Unfortunately we are using NIST's analysis, not yours, Totes.

I would agree you could do a much better analysis than the """scientists""" working at NIST.

Also, sorry, did you have a point?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 18, 2017, 06:42:46 PM
The building falls symmetrically, for 2.25 seconds at gravitational acceleration.

Please note no one has been able to explain this since page one.

It relies on the building instantly losing all of its structural integrity.

This is not reality.

(https://s7.postimg.org/86vdzwpx7/1489456706844.gif)



Why are you here?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on March 18, 2017, 07:10:07 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 18, 2017, 06:38:21 PM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 18, 2017, 06:23:02 PM
Quote from: User324 on March 18, 2017, 01:49:24 AM
How do you calculate "free fall"; i mean it's not like "free fall" is a simple thing.

Quote
You are confusing acceleration with velocity. Not gonna say it again.

That would be a good idea, since I don't think he is confusing the two. Either directly quote where he confused the two, or stop making false accusations.

NIST calculated a 2.25 second fall at 9.8 m/s2.

It is quite easy to calculate acceleration.

What do you want me to say Totes?

I want you to directly quote where he confuses acceleration with velocity, or stop making weird accusations.

Quote
Unfortunately we are using NIST's analysis, not yours, Totes.

And NIST didn't report an uncertainty for their estimate of the acceleration (page 45 (http://ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610)), so we can't get a good estimate of what constitutes "negligible".

Quote
Also, sorry, did you have a point?

My point is that you keep claiming there was "zero structural resistance". But the only conclusion we can come to was that there was negligible structural resistance for a 2 second period. The problem is that you haven't bothered to do any kind of estimate of what you expect the structural resistance to be. Until we do, we don't know whether "negligible structural resistance" is realistic or not.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Howie feldersnatch on March 18, 2017, 07:11:30 PM
Ignoring proof presented and calling people liers isn't the same as it not being explained.  You've taken a video from one perspective and based your entire theory on it....
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on March 18, 2017, 07:15:48 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 18, 2017, 06:42:46 PM
The building falls symmetrically...

(https://s7.postimg.org/86vdzwpx7/1489456706844.gif)

leaning south (http://)
middle of north edge sagging (http://)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Twerp on March 18, 2017, 07:20:37 PM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 18, 2017, 07:15:48 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 18, 2017, 06:42:46 PM
The building falls symmetrically...

(https://s7.postimg.org/86vdzwpx7/1489456706844.gif)

leaning south (http://)
middle of north edge sagging (http://)

Your links don't seem to work. Also they look kind of suspicious. youtu.be?

Edit: Sorry. They're working now. Might have been a glitch on my end.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 18, 2017, 07:20:50 PM
Sigh.... These arguments  :(

Quote from: User324 on March 18, 2017, 01:49:24 AM
Since you still think a building can't fall - more or less- straight down, I'll quote myself a third time - I hope you start to understand :)
Quote
Physics says that gravitational force points into the center of the earth. So for it to not collaps straight down you'd need a great enough force to pull it to one side. This force might occure or might not. But generally there is no need for it to not-collapse straight down; it's just not true to say so.
For it to slide to one side that force might be due to a leaning ground; but if the ground is rectangular to the force of gravity, this force is 0 since m*g*cos(90)=0.


Also, you still are thinking your "free fall argument" holds any validity, when it has been shown multiple times it does not.

What in the world is this? On object will always fall into the path of the least resistance... This is all a demo is, manipulating mass and removing resistance. Why do you think the number one issue with a demo is making the building fall into itself...it's hard, not easy...And certainly not natural.

When was the last time you cut down a tree and it fell into its own foot print? Seen failed demos? What happens? they either don't collapse, fall over a direction, or partially collapse.

If I am drunk and fall over, I am going to fall forward or backwards, not vaporize into my own foot print.

Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 18, 2017, 02:14:47 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 18, 2017, 12:57:46 AM
If the windows were blown out from compression, it would not be just small spots, just so happening to be in the most useful spot for a demo. Excluding lower ten and upper ten...This is demo 101.

If they were blown from compression it would be entire floors.

Which is why I suspect it was just deformation of the window frames. On the other hand, many of the floors had already collapsed according to the NIST. This would make oddly shaped chambers for the air to flow through.

Quote
The core was not concrete, it was steel encased in concrete, with fire retardant material.

You both keep saying "core" singular. Was there one monolithic "core", or were the 20 something central columns each individually encased in concrete?

What?? For starters, multiple core supports, we just refer to it as the core for simplicity.

Deformation of the window frame? This would cause breaking glass, not exploding glass. Plus in a nice pretty line on both sides and in the center...Only there...On 100 percent mandatory positions for a demo...Exploding...Not in the upper or lower 10...Just like a demo...Not to mention DURING it's free fall...Just like a demo.

Lower core, penthouse reacts, then right there, hit the mid section, the rest will take care of itself. Perfection.

If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, smells like a duck, feels like a duck....It's not an elephant.

Quote from: Rayzor on March 18, 2017, 04:55:54 PM
Quote from: totallackey on March 18, 2017, 05:35:04 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 17, 2017, 04:02:24 PM
Quote from: totallackey on March 17, 2017, 07:02:47 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 17, 2017, 04:37:11 AM
finally if it was a demolition,  why did they leave the center core, alone it was still standing 20-30 stories high at the end.
I don't think there is any evidence of this assertion. 

Here you go.  WTC1

(https://s11.postimg.org/8eygko9w3/columns.jpg)

That is not the the core column.

Try again.

So what do you think it is?

This video was slowed down anyways, I don't trust it to begin with. Second, no way that is the core, an absolute impossibility.

This would be with controlled demo or the NIST fairy tale.

The way 1,2 and 7 was designed you MUST comprise the core, that is 100 percent mandatory if you don't want it to get ugly. This is with the pancake magic, or with reality.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 18, 2017, 07:22:23 PM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 18, 2017, 07:10:07 PM

I expect the resistance to be concrete and steel, that is, a non-zero value.

It seems you want me to cite a government report saying 9/11 was an inside job, I can't do that, yet.

Quote from: NIST
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)

Quote from: google
Gravitational acceleration (symbolized g) is an expression used in physics to indicate the intensity of a gravitational field. It is expressed in meters per second squared (m/s 2 ). At the surface of the earth, 1 g is about 9.8 m/s 2 .

Quote from: Howie feldersnatch on March 18, 2017, 07:11:30 PM

You have absolutely no idea, this is one, tiny bit of evidence the 911 truth movement has, it pails in comparison to the overwhelming amount of evidence we have in general.

I dare you to cite "proof" I have ignored.

If you say NIST's wtc 7 report which isn't peer-reviewed, is "classified" and completely unscientific, I will roll my eyes quite vigorously.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 18, 2017, 07:23:51 PM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 18, 2017, 07:15:48 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 18, 2017, 06:42:46 PM
The building falls symmetrically...

(https://s7.postimg.org/86vdzwpx7/1489456706844.gif)

leaning south (http://)
middle of north edge sagging (http://)

That is slowed down and long after the free-fall, totally expected in a demolition.

Edit for this gem.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 18, 2017, 07:20:50 PM
If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, smells like a duck, feels like a duck....It's not an elephant.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 18, 2017, 07:31:55 PM
Pancaking is used (though I have never seen anything "vaporized", could always account for most of the mass, I have never had any answer to the vaporizing effect, because it has never been seem before)..7 is a good example of natural pancaking. That was a beautiful demo...If it weren't evil the orchestrator deserves an award.

However forget everything...Let's say 100 percent facts, no speculation. The core must be removed to get any of these buildings to collapse as we saw. Simple as that. Thus that rules out fire and planes..

What caused it, I don't care, I have enough to say the official story is a lie..Why? Don't care right now.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 17, 2017, 05:02:01 AM
Well no..I have never been involved in demoing a building that tall, nor have I ran plane into a building either. However, I have been involved in demoing a building about as tall as 7. Steel framed as well.

Also, forecasting is one of my specialties, that is why I have the programs I have. Also a few of my extra curricular certs specialize in that. As I said before, just a few weeks ago I was part of a couple man engineering team to make the call on the condo fire here to see if it was safe for fire investigators to enter. Burned for almost two days, not a full collapse (concrete base and first floor, wood skeleton, steel spine, 4 stories).. Unfortunately it was a no, even with a death inside. All those people are going to lose all of their belongings, they are going to demo it.

I know what I am looking at, my mind can process and predict well, my programs even better.

I also know that 15 percent of a top of a structure cannot pulverize 85 percent of the bottom part. Especially the lower 44....The physics don't work. I also know what I saw on 7, it had every sign of a CD.

I can speak from models, from experience, from education, and from common sense...What we saw is in no way possible the way we are supposed to believe. 1 and 2 is a no...7 is a resounding no.

Edit..Totes..What do you think a demo is 100 percent symmetrical? Come on... A precent or two lean here or there as it falls is acceptable.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on March 18, 2017, 07:44:51 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 18, 2017, 07:22:23 PM
I expect the resistance to be concrete and steel, that is, a non-zero value.

No one is claiming it is a zero value. It was a negligible value for a 2 second period. negligible =/= zero. Do you have any reason to believe that it should not have been negligible for that 2 second period?

And don't give me a vague answer like "because it was steel and concrete". I know there was steel and concrete. Steel beams that have already buckled generally don't offer up much vertical resistance. Concrete around a steel beam is not going to offer up any vertical resistance if it is broken and no longer standing up straight.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 18, 2017, 07:48:44 PM
I can't give you an official government source saying 9/11 was an inside job, sorry, I've provided citations on concrete and steel strength under heat.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 18, 2017, 07:55:40 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 18, 2017, 07:31:55 PM
I also know that 15 percent of a top of a structure cannot pulverize 85 percent of the bottom part. Especially the lower 44....The physics don't work. I also know what I saw on 7, it had every sign of a CD.

Actually you are dead wrong about that,  the physics work just fine.    I linked earlier to a paper by Greening showing that there was more than enough energy and momentum to collapse. I could find it again if you want to argue the physics,   

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 18, 2017, 07:31:55 PM
I can speak from models, from experience, from education, and from common sense...What we saw is in no way possible the way we are supposed to believe. 1 and 2 is a no...7 is a resounding no.[/b]
Argument from authority, without evidence.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 18, 2017, 07:31:55 PM
Edit..Totes..What do you think a demo is 100 percent symmetrical? Come on... A precent or two lean here or there as it falls is acceptable.

It's dispute that keeps claiming that symmetrical collapse is an indication of demolition.   No one else even thinks it was symmetrical let alone a demolition that made no sense on any level.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on March 18, 2017, 07:57:36 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 18, 2017, 07:31:55 PM
Edit..Totes..What do you think a demo is 100 percent symmetrical? Come on... A precent or two lean here or there as it falls is acceptable.

Of course not. But disputeone keeps touting the symmetry as evidence that it was a demo, and the videos he was using as evidence of symmetry were making it look more symmetric than it actually was due to the angle.

The symmetry (and slight lack thereof) is consistent with BOTH a controlled demo and the NIST's report.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on March 18, 2017, 08:00:03 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 18, 2017, 07:48:44 PM
...I've provided citations on concrete and steel strength under heat.

Compression strength is no longer relevant after a beam has buckled.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 18, 2017, 08:01:36 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 18, 2017, 07:20:50 PM
This video was slowed down anyways, I don't trust it to begin with. Second, no way that is the core, an absolute impossibility.

This would be with controlled demo or the NIST fairy tale.

The way 1,2 and 7 was designed you MUST comprise the core, that is 100 percent mandatory if you don't want it to get ugly. This is with the pancake magic, or with reality.

1. You claimed that the video was slowed down before,  and then didn't offer any evidence to prove your claim.  Now's your chance,  prove it. 
2.  If you don't think that's part of the core left standing,  what do you think it is?   
3.  So, you are saying if that actually is part of the core then there's no way it could be controlled demolition?    Please be clear with your answer.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 18, 2017, 08:02:34 PM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 18, 2017, 08:00:03 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 18, 2017, 07:48:44 PM
...I've provided citations on concrete and steel strength under heat.

Compression strength is no longer relevant after a beam has buckled.

The beam has to be 100% destroyed, not bucked for symmetrical free-fall. Once again, I am sorry.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on March 18, 2017, 08:17:01 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 18, 2017, 07:20:50 PM
What?? For starters, multiple core supports, we just refer to it as the core for simplicity.

That is what I assumed, but based on disputeone's replies, I got the impression that he thought there was only one large concrete core. Hence, the question.

Quote
Deformation of the window frame? This would cause breaking glass, not exploding glass. Plus in a nice pretty line on both sides and in the center...Only there...On 100 percent mandatory positions for a demo...Exploding...Not in the upper or lower 10...Just like a demo...Not to mention DURING it's free fall...Just like a demo.

The more you repeat this, the less I trust anything you say. Source video: (http://)

1. I see no evidence of explosions. Smoke comes out of the windows, but that's because the building is full of smoke from 7 hours of fire. Also, windows can shatter under deformation. They are brittle.
2. There are no nice pretty lines. There are a few clumps, in a roughly vertical configuration.
3. Well over half the squibs in this video are in the upper 10 floors. The lower 10 aren't visible in any video I have seen.

Quote
If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, smells like a duck, feels like a duck....It's not an elephant.

Stop lying about what this "duck" walks like, looks like, smells like, and feels like.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on March 18, 2017, 08:23:18 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 18, 2017, 08:02:34 PM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 18, 2017, 08:00:03 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 18, 2017, 07:48:44 PM
...I've provided citations on concrete and steel strength under heat.

Compression strength is no longer relevant after a beam has buckled.

The beam has to be 100% destroyed, not bucked for symmetrical free-fall. Once again, I am sorry.

Crack a concrete column, tilt it by 20 degrees, and see how much weight it can support. Depending on its width/height, it will probably just fall over on its own.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 18, 2017, 08:25:36 PM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 18, 2017, 08:17:01 PM
1. I see no evidence of explosions.

"la-la-la I'm not listening la-la-la"

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on March 18, 2017, 08:28:10 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 18, 2017, 08:25:36 PM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 18, 2017, 08:17:01 PM
1. I see no evidence of explosions.

"la-la-la I'm not listening la-la-la"



Please stay on topic. I was referring to the squibs from building 7. Most of what Bhs claimed about the squibs from building 7 was blatantly false. Do you disagree?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 18, 2017, 08:28:28 PM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 18, 2017, 08:23:18 PM
Crack a concrete column, tilt it by 20 degrees, and see how much weight it can support. Depending on its width/height, it will probably just fall over on its own.

Yes, fall over.

Not directly down through itself.

Gawd.

Edit. Thanks for trying to debate honestly, you are really highlighting the absurdity of the OS.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 18, 2017, 08:33:14 PM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 18, 2017, 08:28:10 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 18, 2017, 08:25:36 PM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 18, 2017, 08:17:01 PM
1. I see no evidence of explosions.

"la-la-la I'm not listening la-la-la"



Please stay on topic. I was referring to the squibs from building 7. Most of what Bhs claimed about the squibs from building 7 was blatantly false. Do you disagree?

The fact all the windows didn't break, only the windows / locations where we would expect in a CD, is irrefutable proof for a CD.

In a natural total collapse every window would be shattered as it fell, buckled and twisted.

Thanks again.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on March 18, 2017, 08:37:58 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 18, 2017, 08:28:28 PM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 18, 2017, 08:23:18 PM
Crack a concrete column, tilt it by 20 degrees, and see how much weight it can support. Depending on its width/height, it will probably just fall over on its own.

Yes, fall over.

Not directly down through itself.

Gawd.

Edit. Thanks for trying to debate honestly, you are really highlighting the absurdity of the OS.

Don't be dense. It's a tall building.

(http://s3.amazonaws.com/nasathermalimages/public/images/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf_Figure_3-14_p76.png)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 18, 2017, 08:38:59 PM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 18, 2017, 08:37:58 PM

(http://s3.amazonaws.com/nasathermalimages/public/images/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf_Figure_3-14_p76.png)

Please show visual evidence that this ever occurred.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on March 18, 2017, 08:48:55 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 18, 2017, 08:38:59 PM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 18, 2017, 08:37:58 PM

(http://s3.amazonaws.com/nasathermalimages/public/images/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf_Figure_3-14_p76.png)

Please show visual evidence that this ever occurred.

A) Stop moving the goalposts. Your argument is that the NIST version of events is implausible, not that there is no video evidence of it happening exactly as it was simulated.
B) No videos of the collapse show the building this low.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on March 18, 2017, 08:58:50 PM
That's enough of this argument for me for now. Responding to all these incoherent arguments and baseless assertions is tiring.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 18, 2017, 09:00:36 PM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 18, 2017, 08:37:58 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 18, 2017, 08:28:28 PM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 18, 2017, 08:23:18 PM
Crack a concrete column, tilt it by 20 degrees, and see how much weight it can support. Depending on its width/height, it will probably just fall over on its own.

Yes, fall over.

Not directly down through itself.

Gawd.

Edit. Thanks for trying to debate honestly, you are really highlighting the absurdity of the OS.

Don't be dense. It's a tall building.

(http://s3.amazonaws.com/nasathermalimages/public/images/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf_Figure_3-14_p76.png)

I won't even address this, we have no idea the inputs and we never will....Could have fallen under rainbow power for all we know.

I will leave the squibs alone, I don't care, don't need them.

In this building design you must remove the core to simulate what we saw. That is a simple fact. A building is not going to fall in the path of greatest resistance, simple fact.

Also...Lol...A steel beam encased in concrete, if you bend it 20 degrees it is gonna just snap and break??

Lol.. you are silly.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 18, 2017, 09:01:48 PM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 18, 2017, 08:58:50 PM
That's enough of this argument for me for now. Responding to all these incoherent arguments and baseless assertions is tiring. I can't refute that.

I know.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 18, 2017, 09:00:36 PM
In this building design you must remove the core to simulate what we saw. That is a simple fact. A building is not going to fall in the path of greatest resistance, simple fact.

Also...Lol...A steel beam encased in concrete, if you bend it 20 degrees it is gonna just snap and break??

Sanity.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 18, 2017, 09:47:43 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 18, 2017, 07:55:40 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 18, 2017, 07:31:55 PM
I also know that 15 percent of a top of a structure cannot pulverize 85 percent of the bottom part. Especially the lower 44....The physics don't work. I also know what I saw on 7, it had every sign of a CD.

Actually you are dead wrong about that,  the physics work just fine.    I linked earlier to a paper by Greening showing that there was more than enough energy and momentum to collapse. I could find it again if you want to argue the physics,   

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 18, 2017, 07:31:55 PM
I can speak from models, from experience, from education, and from common sense...What we saw is in no way possible the way we are supposed to believe. 1 and 2 is a no...7 is a resounding no.[/b]
Argument from authority, without evidence.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 18, 2017, 07:31:55 PM
Edit..Totes..What do you think a demo is 100 percent symmetrical? Come on... A precent or two lean here or there as it falls is acceptable.

It's dispute that keeps claiming that symmetrical collapse is an indication of demolition.   No one else even thinks it was symmetrical let alone a demolition that made no sense on any level.

Lol...I would love to see where physics says 50-60 thousand tons of the weaker part of a building can vaporize 450 thousand tons of the denser and stronger part of a building with just gravity lol. (I don't know which paper you are talking about, but I have read one and got a chuckle)

As for my authority, we have already got on this before, you know I prove what I say about myself. I don't think you want to get on that again

As for saying literally no one else thinks it was a demo....Lol, you forgot to stomp your foot. (no need to address something so obviously incorrect)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 18, 2017, 10:38:42 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 18, 2017, 09:47:43 PM
Lol...I would love to see where physics says 50-60 thousand tons of the weaker part of a building can vaporize 450 thousand tons of the denser and stronger part of a building with just gravity lol.

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 18, 2017, 01:22:41 AM
Self pulverisation.
This should leave no people in doubt as to what didn't happen that day, but, as we know; it doesn't seem to compute with some people for varying reasons.
Watch this video right through.


LoL.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Howie feldersnatch on March 18, 2017, 11:53:53 PM
A fully loaded 767-232er weighs 395,000 lbs.  They had burned off some fuel and was most likely not at mtow but still over 300,000 lbs on impact.  The slowest plane was traveling about 470 mph.  That's a tremendous amount of force.  Not to mention that 300,000 pounds was instantly put upon the structure of the building. 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 18, 2017, 11:56:07 PM
Quote from: Howie feldersnatch on March 18, 2017, 11:53:53 PM
A fully loaded 767-232er weighs 395,000 lbs.  They had burned off some fuel and was most likely not at mtow but still over 300,000 lbs on impact.  The slowest plane was traveling about 470 mph.  That's a tremendous amount of force.  Not to mention that 300,000 pounds was instantly put upon the structure of the building.

How does that have anything to do with my argument about wtc 7?

It still doesn't debunk the pulverization of concrete under gravity on wtc 1 and 2, doesn't touch it.

Try again.

Mid-air pulverization (http://) of 90,000 tons of concrete, and large volumes of expanding pyroclastic-like dust clouds,
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Howie feldersnatch on March 18, 2017, 11:58:51 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 18, 2017, 11:56:07 PM
Quote from: Howie feldersnatch on March 18, 2017, 11:53:53 PM
A fully loaded 767-232er weighs 395,000 lbs.  They had burned off some fuel and was most likely not at mtow but still over 300,000 lbs on impact.  The slowest plane was traveling about 470 mph.  That's a tremendous amount of force.  Not to mention that 300,000 pounds was instantly put upon the structure of the building.

How does that have anything to do with my argument about wtc 7?

It still doesn't debunk the pulverization of concrete under gravity on wtc 1 and 2, doesn't touch it.

Try again.

Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete, and large volumes of expanding pyroclastic-like dust clouds,

Lol you base your wtc7 belief on one video.  Try what again? Pointing out the obvious? 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 19, 2017, 12:01:34 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 18, 2017, 09:47:43 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 18, 2017, 07:55:40 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 18, 2017, 07:31:55 PM
I also know that 15 percent of a top of a structure cannot pulverize 85 percent of the bottom part. Especially the lower 44....The physics don't work. I also know what I saw on 7, it had every sign of a CD.

Actually you are dead wrong about that,  the physics work just fine.    I linked earlier to a paper by Greening showing that there was more than enough energy and momentum to collapse. I could find it again if you want to argue the physics,   

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 18, 2017, 07:31:55 PM
I can speak from models, from experience, from education, and from common sense...What we saw is in no way possible the way we are supposed to believe. 1 and 2 is a no...7 is a resounding no.[/b]
Argument from authority, without evidence.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 18, 2017, 07:31:55 PM
Edit..Totes..What do you think a demo is 100 percent symmetrical? Come on... A precent or two lean here or there as it falls is acceptable.

It's dispute that keeps claiming that symmetrical collapse is an indication of demolition.   No one else even thinks it was symmetrical let alone a demolition that made no sense on any level.

Lol...I would love to see where physics says 50-60 thousand tons of the weaker part of a building can vaporize 450 thousand tons of the denser and stronger part of a building with just gravity lol. (I don't know which paper you are talking about, but I have read one and got a chuckle)

As for my authority, we have already got on this before, you know I prove what I say about myself. I don't think you want to get on that again

As for saying literally no one else thinks it was a demo....Lol, you forgot to stomp your foot. (no need to address something so obviously incorrect)

The energy and momentum calculations show a clear picture of the collapse mechanism.   Naive application of Newton's third law like that other video shows,  is just bad physics.

https://ia800709.us.archive.org/11/items/WTC-REPORT-GREENING/WTC-REPORT-GREENING.pdf

It's worth noting that even the energy to collapse two floors at a time,  would have hardly slowed the collapse much.

As far as pulverizing concrete.   That's what happens when it get's impacted with that sort of energy.   disputeone can take his brand new ball pein hammer and belt away at some concrete to confirm that it does in fact turn into powder. 

I backed off questioning your qualifications because I proved what I wanted to,  don't open that door again.  It's not relevant to the debate.

You avoided answering the question about the core columns still standing long after the collapse of WTC1,   is there some reason you didn't answer?

Here's a reminder

Quote from: Rayzor on March 18, 2017, 08:01:36 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 18, 2017, 07:20:50 PM
This video was slowed down anyways, I don't trust it to begin with. Second, no way that is the core, an absolute impossibility.

This would be with controlled demo or the NIST fairy tale.

The way 1,2 and 7 was designed you MUST comprise the core, that is 100 percent mandatory if you don't want it to get ugly. This is with the pancake magic, or with reality.

1. You claimed that the video was slowed down before,  and then didn't offer any evidence to prove your claim.  Now's your chance,  prove it. 
2.  If you don't think that's part of the core left standing,  what do you think it is?   
3.  So, you are saying if that actually is part of the core then there's no way it could be controlled demolition?    Please be clear with your answer.





Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 12:02:50 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 18, 2017, 11:56:07 PM
It still doesn't debunk the pulverization of concrete under gravity on wtc 1 and 2, doesn't touch it.

Try again.

Mid-air pulverization (http://) of 90,000 tons of concrete, and large volumes of expanding pyroclastic-like dust clouds,

Your best argument so far has been "lol" like Rayzor, are you going to put on a decent effort like Totes or just keep saying "lol"?

Why are you here?

To address what we saw an intact core precludes the possibility of the collapse we saw, even NIST admits it, look into it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 12:06:29 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 19, 2017, 12:01:34 AM
As far as pulverizing concrete.   That's what happens when it get's impacted with that sort of energy.   disputeone can take his brand new ball pein hammer and belt away at some concrete to confirm that it does in fact turn into powder. 

That is is no way an apt comparison to the towers, a better comparison would be swinging my hammer at concrete say 10 times the mass of the ball pein, it does not pulverize.

Brainlet.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Howie feldersnatch on March 19, 2017, 12:07:16 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 12:02:50 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 18, 2017, 11:56:07 PM
It still doesn't debunk the pulverization of concrete under gravity on wtc 1 and 2, doesn't touch it.

Try again.

Mid-air pulverization (http://) of 90,000 tons of concrete, and large volumes of expanding pyroclastic-like dust clouds,

Your best argument so far has been "lol" like Rayzor, are you going to put on a decent effort like Totes or just keep saying "lol"?

Why are you here?

To address what we saw an intact core precludes the possibility of the collapse we saw, even NIST admits it, look into it.

You're arguing with yourself now?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 12:08:09 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 18, 2017, 10:38:42 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 18, 2017, 09:47:43 PM
Lol...I would love to see where physics says 50-60 thousand tons of the weaker part of a building can vaporize 450 thousand tons of the denser and stronger part of a building with just gravity lol.

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 18, 2017, 01:22:41 AM
Self pulverisation.
This should leave no people in doubt as to what didn't happen that day, but, as we know; it doesn't seem to compute with some people for varying reasons.
Watch this video right through.


LoL.

Keep trying to debunk Newton.

Frankly it's hilarious.

@Bhs reminds me of the original Newton's Third thread. ;D

Quote from: Howie feldersnatch on March 19, 2017, 12:07:16 AM
You're arguing with yourself now?

You are going to keep saying "lol".

Noted.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 19, 2017, 12:10:48 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 12:08:09 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 18, 2017, 10:38:42 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 18, 2017, 09:47:43 PM
Lol...I would love to see where physics says 50-60 thousand tons of the weaker part of a building can vaporize 450 thousand tons of the denser and stronger part of a building with just gravity lol.

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 18, 2017, 01:22:41 AM
Self pulverisation.
This should leave no people in doubt as to what didn't happen that day, but, as we know; it doesn't seem to compute with some people for varying reasons.
Watch this video right through.


LoL.

Keep trying to debunk Newton.

Frankly it's hilarious.

@Bhs reminds me of the original Newton's Third thread. ;D

Read the paper I linked to,  just dumbly invoking Newton's third law,  is a flawed way of understanding the physics.

As far as pulverizing concrete.   That's what happens when it get's impacted with that sort of energy. 
disputeone can take his brand new ball pein hammer and belt away at some concrete to confirm that it does in fact turn into powder. 

Report your findings after you do the experiment.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Howie feldersnatch on March 19, 2017, 12:12:10 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 12:08:09 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 18, 2017, 10:38:42 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 18, 2017, 09:47:43 PM
Lol...I would love to see where physics says 50-60 thousand tons of the weaker part of a building can vaporize 450 thousand tons of the denser and stronger part of a building with just gravity lol.

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 18, 2017, 01:22:41 AM
Self pulverisation.
This should leave no people in doubt as to what didn't happen that day, but, as we know; it doesn't seem to compute with some people for varying reasons.
Watch this video right through.


LoL.

Keep trying to debunk Newton.

Frankly it's hilarious.

@Bhs reminds me of the original Newton's Third thread. ;D

Quote from: Howie feldersnatch on March 19, 2017, 12:07:16 AM
You're arguing with yourself now?

You are going to keep saying "lol".

Noted.
So long as it bothers you lol.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 12:12:39 AM
I'll swing my hammer at a 500mm by 500mm concrete support.

Makes a little dent.

Next.

The energies involved were not enough to pulverize that mass of concrete, sorry.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 12:25:06 AM
Clarification the only time the hammer can pulverize the concrete is when the energy of the hammer far exceeds the mass of the concrete, the best I get is about a 20mm2 piece, any larger and it has a tendency to crack without being pulverized.

The only way what we saw would be possible is if the falling mass greatly exceeded the static mass, even then a large portion of the top falling section would be intact at the end of the collapse.

Physics.

Undebunkable.

The towers being completed pulverized is irrefutable proof for controlled demolition.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Howie feldersnatch on March 19, 2017, 12:32:52 AM
Wouldn't the pyrotechnics used to bring the buildings down burn in the fire?  Wouldn't there be miles of wires running out of the building be a tip off to a CD?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Howie feldersnatch on March 19, 2017, 12:35:09 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 12:25:06 AM
Clarification the only time the hammer can pulverize the concrete is when the energy of the hammer far exceeds the mass of the concrete, the best I get is about a 20mm2 piece, any larger and it has a tendency to crack without being pulverized.

The only way what we saw would be possible is if the falling mass greatly exceeded the static mass, even then a large portion of the top falling section would be intact at the end of the collapse.

Physics.

Undebunkable.

The towers being completed pulverized is irrefutable proof for controlled demolition.
Have you ever seen a CD? There are not explosives covering every inch blowing it to dust.  The fall alone does most of the destruction. 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 12:39:28 AM
Quote from: Howie feldersnatch on March 19, 2017, 12:32:52 AM
Wouldn't the pyrotechnics used to bring the buildings down burn in the fire?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_shield

Quote from: Howie feldersnatch on March 19, 2017, 12:32:52 AM
Wouldn't there be miles of wires running out of the building be a tip off to a CD?

Not if the people who owned the wtc complex had a hand in the false flag.

Here's a great peer reviewed scientific article showing the the temperatures caused in the towers were not caused by ordinary jet fuel and office fires.

http://www.easypaintyourcar.com/WTCHighTemp.html

Quote
“Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC Event, producing spherical metallic particles. Exposure of phases to high heat results in the formation of spherical particles due to surface tension…”
“In addition to the vesicular carbon components, the high heat exposure of the WTC Dust has also created other morphologically specific varieties of particulate matter including spherical metallic, vesicular siliceous and spherical fly ash components. These types of particles are classic examples of high temperature or combustion by-products and are generally absent in typical office dust…”
“Particles of materials that had been modified by exposure to high temperature, such as spherical particles of iron and silicates, are common in WTC Dust because of the fire that accompanied the WTC Event, but are not common in “normal” interior office dust…”
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 12:40:05 AM
Quote from: Howie feldersnatch on March 19, 2017, 12:35:09 AM
Have you ever seen a CD? There are not explosives covering every inch blowing it to dust.  The fall alone does most of the destruction.

>close to free-fall.

>mid air pulverization.

Pick one, can't have both.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 12:54:40 AM
Just to recap, we have eyewitness testimony of explosions.



And a peer reviewed paper showing temperatures hot enough to melt steel and types of particles that are classic examples of high temperature or combustion by-products and are generally absent in typical office dust

http://www.easypaintyourcar.com/WTCHighTemp.html

Quote
“Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC Event, producing spherical metallic particles. Exposure of phases to high heat results in the formation of spherical particles due to surface tension…”
“In addition to the vesicular carbon components, the high heat exposure of the WTC Dust has also created other morphologically specific varieties of particulate matter including spherical metallic, vesicular siliceous and spherical fly ash components. These types of particles are classic examples of high temperature or combustion by-products and are generally absent in typical office dust…”
“Particles of materials that had been modified by exposure to high temperature, such as spherical particles of iron and silicates, are common in WTC Dust because of the fire that accompanied the WTC Event, but are not common in “normal” interior office dust…”

What more do you want.

Three controlled demolitions.

9/11 was a false flag.

Santa isn't real.

Sorry.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 19, 2017, 01:01:54 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 12:54:40 AM

And a peer reviewed paper showing temperatures hot enough to melt steel and types of particles that are classic examples of high temperature or combustion by-products and are generally absent in typical office dust

http://www.easypaintyourcar.com/WTCHighTemp.html


Your assertion 1.   Temperatures were NOT high enough to WEAKEN steel,  so it must have been controlled demolition.
Your assertion 2.   Temperatures were high enough to MELT steel,  so it must have been controlled demolition. 

You can't have both.  You have to choose one or the other.   



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 19, 2017, 01:03:51 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 12:40:05 AM
Quote from: Howie feldersnatch on March 19, 2017, 12:35:09 AM
Have you ever seen a CD? There are not explosives covering every inch blowing it to dust.  The fall alone does most of the destruction.

>close to free-fall.

>mid air pulverization.

Pick one, can't have both.

Actually you can have both.   In fact one leads directly to the other,   you aren't very good at logic are you?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 01:11:18 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 19, 2017, 01:03:51 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 12:40:05 AM
Quote from: Howie feldersnatch on March 19, 2017, 12:35:09 AM
Have you ever seen a CD? There are not explosives covering every inch blowing it to dust.  The fall alone does most of the destruction.

>close to free-fall.

>mid air pulverization.

Pick one, can't have both.

Actually you can have both.   In fact one leads directly to the other,   you aren't very good at logic are you?

Show me how.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 01:14:59 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 19, 2017, 01:01:54 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 12:54:40 AM

And a peer reviewed paper showing temperatures hot enough to melt steel and types of particles that are classic examples of high temperature or combustion by-products and are generally absent in typical office dust

http://www.easypaintyourcar.com/WTCHighTemp.html


Your assertion 1.   Temperatures were NOT high enough to WEAKEN steel,  so it must have been controlled demolition.

No, don't lie. NIST claims temperatures hot enough to weaken steel, I never said the fires wouldn't weaken steel, see what happened to wtc 5 and 6.

Stop lying.

Quote from: Rayzor on March 19, 2017, 01:01:54 AM
Your assertion 2.   Temperatures were high enough to MELT steel,  so it must have been controlled demolition. 

You can't have both.  You have to choose one or the other.

I don't want both. Temperatures were objectively hot enough to melt steel, we have shown quite enough evidence for that claim.

NIST's report is either inaccurate or dishonest. The only way to explain the temperatures observed is a controlled demolition.

/thread.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 19, 2017, 01:15:22 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 01:11:18 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 19, 2017, 01:03:51 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 12:40:05 AM
Quote from: Howie feldersnatch on March 19, 2017, 12:35:09 AM
Have you ever seen a CD? There are not explosives covering every inch blowing it to dust.  The fall alone does most of the destruction.

>close to free-fall.

>mid air pulverization.

Pick one, can't have both.

Actually you can have both.   In fact one leads directly to the other,   you aren't very good at logic are you?

Show me how.

Read the paper I linked to. 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 01:18:14 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 12:25:06 AM
The only way what we saw would be possible is if the falling mass greatly exceeded the static mass, even then a large portion of the top falling section would be intact at the end of the collapse.

Physics.

Undebunkable.

The towers being completed pulverized is irrefutable proof for controlled demolition.

Your paper is bunk.

(https://s10.postimg.org/exgez9v21/concrete.jpg)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 19, 2017, 01:23:25 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 01:14:59 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 19, 2017, 01:01:54 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 12:54:40 AM

And a peer reviewed paper showing temperatures hot enough to melt steel and types of particles that are classic examples of high temperature or combustion by-products and are generally absent in typical office dust

http://www.easypaintyourcar.com/WTCHighTemp.html


Your assertion 1.   Temperatures were NOT high enough to WEAKEN steel,  so it must have been controlled demolition.

No, don't lie. NIST claims temperatures hot enough to weaken steel, I never said the fires wouldn't weaken steel, see what happened to wtc 5 and 6.

Stop lying.

Quote from: Rayzor on March 19, 2017, 01:01:54 AM
Your assertion 2.   Temperatures were high enough to MELT steel,  so it must have been controlled demolition. 

You can't have both.  You have to choose one or the other.

I don't want both. Temperatures were objectively hot enough to melt steel, we have shown quite enough evidence for that claim.

NIST's report is either inaccurate or dishonest. The only way to explain the temperatures observed is a controlled demolition.

/thread.

So assertion 1 is true,  temperatures were in fact high enough to weaken steel. 

The paper you linked to has been widely discredited,  in that there are many sources for the materials found in the debris,  even burning steel wool at low temperatures produces lots or iron spheres, so the premise that it requires high temperatures is false,   none of the other materials found indicate any kind of controlled demolition.   

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 19, 2017, 01:24:38 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 01:18:14 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 12:25:06 AM
The only way what we saw would be possible is if the falling mass greatly exceeded the static mass, even then a large portion of the top falling section would be intact at the end of the collapse.

Physics.

Undebunkable.

The towers being completed pulverized is irrefutable proof for controlled demolition.

Your paper is bunk.


That's on a par with every other argument you've presented,  nice to see you are at least consistent in your stupidity.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 01:27:47 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 19, 2017, 01:23:25 AM
nuh-uh.

(https://s11.postimg.org/54u2zrler/molten_metal_pouring_1.jpg)

Facts speak for themselves.

(https://s12.postimg.org/4mz7nkvkd/images_20.jpg)

Quote from: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 01:14:59 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 19, 2017, 01:01:54 AM
Your assertion 2.   Temperatures were high enough to MELT steel,  so it must have been controlled demolition. 

You can't have both.  You have to choose one or the other.

I don't want both. Temperatures were objectively hot enough to melt steel, we have shown quite enough evidence for that claim.

NIST's report is either inaccurate or dishonest. The only way to explain the temperatures observed is a controlled demolition.

/thread.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 19, 2017, 01:33:34 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 01:27:47 AM
Facts speak for themselves.

Very true,  it's a language you should try to master as you progress through life.   Look deeper,  and think more.  Don't just leap to conclusions.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 01:36:12 AM
Don't beg, it's unbecoming, I won't stop poking holes in the O/S, deal with it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 19, 2017, 01:49:13 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 01:36:12 AM
Don't beg, it's unbecoming, I won't stop poking holes in the O/S, deal with it.

Huh?   Are you having another "episode"?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 02:01:37 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 19, 2017, 01:49:13 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 01:36:12 AM
Don't beg, it's unbecoming, I won't stop poking holes in the O/S, deal with it.

Huh?   Are you having another "episode"?

LoL.

You are such a waste of oxygen.

Quote from: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 01:36:12 AM
Don't beg, it's unbecoming, I won't stop poking holes in the O/S, deal with it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sceptimatic on March 19, 2017, 02:06:49 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 19, 2017, 01:49:13 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 01:36:12 AM
Don't beg, it's unbecoming, I won't stop poking holes in the O/S, deal with it.

Huh?   Are you having another "episode"?
I bet you actually sleep well at night. Just hope there is nothing waiting for you when you expire from your physical life.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 19, 2017, 02:12:50 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 01:36:12 AM
Don't beg, it's unbecoming, I won't stop poking holes in the O/S, deal with it.

That's called reacting to your reality disconnect.   What made you think I was begging?    If you think I was then you really are batshit crazy. 


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 02:13:49 AM
>Can't attack my arguments.

>Desperately attacking me instead.

>Disgusting.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 02:17:42 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 01:27:47 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 19, 2017, 01:23:25 AM
nuh-uh.

(https://s11.postimg.org/54u2zrler/molten_metal_pouring_1.jpg)

Facts speak for themselves.

(https://s12.postimg.org/4mz7nkvkd/images_20.jpg)

Quote from: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 01:14:59 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 19, 2017, 01:01:54 AM
Your assertion 2.   Temperatures were high enough to MELT steel,  so it must have been controlled demolition. 

You can't have both.  You have to choose one or the other.

I don't want both. Temperatures were objectively hot enough to melt steel, we have shown quite enough evidence for that claim.

NIST's report is either inaccurate or dishonest. The only way to explain the temperatures observed is a controlled demolition.

http://www.easypaintyourcar.com/WTCHighTemp.html

/thread.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 19, 2017, 02:19:55 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 19, 2017, 01:33:34 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 01:27:47 AM
Facts speak for themselves.

Very true,  it's a language you should try to master as you progress through life.   Look deeper,  and think more.  Don't just leap to conclusions.

Based on your weird reaction,  I'll go further and point out that,  It's a language that's obviously foreign to people like you.  Sorry,  but you'll never make it past conspiracy 101.   You are stuck in your sad crazy little world.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 02:21:11 AM
>Literally all you have now.

>So destroyed.

kek.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 19, 2017, 02:26:32 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 02:21:11 AM
>Literally all you have now.

>So destroyed.

kek.

Interesting that you not only failed to understand the glaring flaws in the arguments you were making,  even after being pointed out multiple times,  you just kept parroting the same debunked stuff.

Why don't you tell us about how you are a professional MMA fighter?   That might make you feel better.   LOL



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Howie feldersnatch on March 19, 2017, 02:49:58 AM
Two of the pics you posted are after the rescue/clean up had started so seeing cut beams and molten metal are to be expected.  The other pic is indicating what exactly? That there was steel being melted on the outside of the building? What would that do as seeing the support structure was internal.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 19, 2017, 02:52:31 AM
You know rayzor...I attempted to turn a corner with you. I am very disappointed you have returned to your normal ways.

Name calling and the attempt to belittle people...Very disappointing.

Back to the attempt to belittle me...Very disappointing.

Your presented paper, as well is very disappointing...

That is all I am saying for now towards you
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on March 19, 2017, 02:55:43 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 18, 2017, 05:26:54 PM
Quote from: User324 on March 18, 2017, 01:49:24 AM
How do you calculate "free fall"; i mean it's not like "free fall" is a simple thing.

You are confusing acceleration with velocity. Not gonna say it again.
Where am I confusing it. Still haven't found that part.


Quote from: disputeone on March 18, 2017, 05:26:54 PM
Quote from: User324 on March 18, 2017, 04:13:34 AM
how do you calculate free-fall

9.8m/s2

With simple algebra.

Except it's not as simple as you as a fitter might think.
(http://keisan.casio.com/keisan/lib/real/system/2006/1224830797/fall2.gif)
http://keisan.casio.com/exec/system/1224830797


And
(http://www.softschools.com/formulas/images/air_resistance_formula_1.png)
http://www.softschools.com/formulas/physics/air_resistance_formula/85/

Those are the basics only. Of course that's far from applicable at the WTC 1/2/7 scenario.
 Your s = 1/2 a*t^2 formula is early highschool-skillset...


Quote from: disputeone on March 18, 2017, 05:26:54 PM
Quote from: User324 on March 18, 2017, 04:13:34 AM
I'm pretty sure I know more about physics than you do

You assume too much.

If we wanna get real fancy we can plot change of acceleration using calculus.

But I am sure you knew that.

This is why people roll their eyes at you.
As I mentioned I've studied engineering for one year. So it happens that I've had calculus 8h/week, linear algebra 3h/week, mechanics 6h/week all those for one year. And you know, that was some real shit, not s=1/2 at^2... , integration, differential calculus, vector spaces, differential equations etc. Of course I do have some physics, too at my current major but that is, in comparison, some easy shit.
I'm actually really interested in seeing your "plot change of acceleration using calculus" :)


Quote
NIST calculated a 2.25 second fall at 9.8 m/s2.
You still seem to have reading comprehension problems. I quote myself, so you might re-read and understand
"It makes perfectly sense that there was an acceleration observed that was more or less, within the error rate matching gravitational acceleration. They even used the words "essentially in free fall", "estimation" and "negligible support" making it very clear that those are approximations and not absolute values."

What this means (so you might understand :) ) : There, of course, WAS structural resistance. But given the possibilites of calculating the actual collapsing speed and the supposed free fall speed and the resulting inaccuracies, it can be said that it was neglible.

Quote
What in the world is this? On object will always fall into the path of the least resistance... This is all a demo is, manipulating mass and removing resistance. Why do you think the number one issue with a demo is making the building fall into itself...it's hard, not easy...And certainly not natural.

When was the last time you cut down a tree and it fell into its own foot print? Seen failed demos? What happens? they either don't collapse, fall over a direction, or partially collapse.

If I am drunk and fall over, I am going to fall forward or backwards, not vaporize into my own foot print.
Oh dear...Have you even read my answer concerning that? Or did you just not understand? Read again:
"Thats wrong. Physics says that gravitational froce points into the center of the earth. So for it to not collaps straight down you'd need a great enough force to pull it to one side. This force might occure or might not. But generally there is no need for it to not-collapse straight down; it's just not true to say so.
For it to slide to one side that force might be due to a leaning ground; but if the ground is rectangular to the force of gravity, this force is 0 since m*g*cos(90)=0."

You have some major knowledge gap concerning physics and (bio)mechanics. It would take too long to explain that all. Plus you wouldn't even try to understand it anyway.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 19, 2017, 03:05:28 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 19, 2017, 02:52:31 AM
You know rayzor...I attempted to turn a corner with you. I am very disappointed you have returned to your normal ways.

Name calling and the attempt to belittle people...Very disappointing.

Back to the attempt to belittle me...Very disappointing.

Your presented paper, as well is very disappointing...

That is all I am saying for now towards you

I was actually being nice to disputeone,  till he freaked out with one of his "reality disconnects" and accused me of begging,  and as you are aware,  I reply in kind, if he can't take it, he shouldn't dish it out.   

As far as you are concerned,  I'll continue to reply in kind.   Need I remind you that you ducked the last 3 or 4 questions?

The main question being about the core left standing after the collapse of WTC1.   You ducked the question.

Also,  if you think there is a problem with that paper by Greening,  then you need to be specific.   Physics is physics.



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 03:07:15 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 19, 2017, 02:26:32 AM
Why don't you tell us about how you are a professional MMA fighter?   That might make you feel better.   LOL

Sure I started traditional martial arts when I was 13, when I was 16 I started  BJJ and Muay Thai, I started winning a few BJJ tournaments, I didn't want to fight muay thai, its too brutal.

I had a fair few amateur MMA fights and won a lot, then I was paid for five fights when I was 22, I kept training casually after that but I didn't want to be a professional fighter, now I fight elevators for a living instead.

Do you want to know more? Its off topic, why not debunk one of my arguments?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 03:10:14 AM
Quote from: User324 on March 19, 2017, 02:55:43 AM
but I sat in a classroom for one whole year.

Bhs has a engineering PhD, unless you want to call him a fraud, I dare you to try it. by my count its Bhs, well over 10, people who have called him a fraud 0.

Quote from: NIST
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)

9.8m/s2.

No matter how much you cover your ears and say "Nuh-uh"
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on March 19, 2017, 03:10:34 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 03:07:15 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 19, 2017, 02:26:32 AM
Why don't you tell us about how you are a professional MMA fighter?   That might make you feel better.   LOL

Sure I started traditional martial arts when I was 13, when I was 16 I started  BJJ and Muay Thai, I started winning a few BJJ tournaments, I didn't want to fight muay thai, its too brutal.

I had a fair few amateur MMA fights and won a lot, then I was paid for five fights when I was 22, I kept training casually after that but I didn't want to be a professional fighter, now I fight elevators for a living instead.
Yeah, maybe you had better gone to college instead of taking hits to the head so you now wouldn't be talking that much bullshit :)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on March 19, 2017, 03:12:13 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 03:10:14 AM
Bhs has a engineering PhD, unless you want to call him a fraud, I dare you to try it. by my count its Bhs, well over 10, people who have called him a fraud 0.
Everyone can say that. I have not seen proof for that. What I can judge him on is what he wrote. And thus it sure seems he does not have a mechanical engineering PHD.

...also I was talking to you, not him. So deal with it :)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 19, 2017, 03:15:54 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 03:10:14 AM
Quote from: User324 on March 19, 2017, 02:55:43 AM
but I sat in a classroom for one whole year.

Bhs has a engineering PhD, unless you want to call him a fraud, I dare you to try it. by my count its Bhs, well over 10, people who have called him a fraud 0.

Do you want to re-open that argument?   I backed off out of courtesy,  and you with your comprehension problems assumed wrongly.   I'm no longer  interested in BHS's qualifications and experience,  I've seen enough,  and anyway he can speak for himself. 



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 03:18:52 AM
You got destroyed and make to look like an absolute idiot then an absolute fraud.

>teh irony.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on March 19, 2017, 03:25:18 AM
Still waiting for your response disputeone.

Quote from: User324 on March 19, 2017, 02:55:43 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 18, 2017, 05:26:54 PM
Quote from: User324 on March 18, 2017, 01:49:24 AM
How do you calculate "free fall"; i mean it's not like "free fall" is a simple thing.

You are confusing acceleration with velocity. Not gonna say it again.
Where am I confusing it. Still haven't found that part.


Quote from: disputeone on March 18, 2017, 05:26:54 PM
Quote from: User324 on March 18, 2017, 04:13:34 AM
how do you calculate free-fall

9.8m/s2

With simple algebra.

Except it's not as simple as you as a fitter might think.
(http://keisan.casio.com/keisan/lib/real/system/2006/1224830797/fall2.gif)
http://keisan.casio.com/exec/system/1224830797


And
(http://www.softschools.com/formulas/images/air_resistance_formula_1.png)
http://www.softschools.com/formulas/physics/air_resistance_formula/85/

Those are the basics only. Of course that's far from applicable at the WTC 1/2/7 scenario.
 Your s = 1/2 a*t^2 formula is early highschool-skillset...


Quote from: disputeone on March 18, 2017, 05:26:54 PM
Quote from: User324 on March 18, 2017, 04:13:34 AM
I'm pretty sure I know more about physics than you do

You assume too much.

If we wanna get real fancy we can plot change of acceleration using calculus.

But I am sure you knew that.

This is why people roll their eyes at you.
As I mentioned I've studied engineering for one year. So it happens that I've had calculus 8h/week, linear algebra 3h/week, mechanics 6h/week all those for one year. And you know, that was some real shit, not s=1/2 at^2... , integration, differential calculus, vector spaces, differential equations etc. Of course I do have some physics, too at my current major but that is, in comparison, some easy shit.
I'm actually really interested in seeing your "plot change of acceleration using calculus" :)


Quote
NIST calculated a 2.25 second fall at 9.8 m/s2.
You still seem to have reading comprehension problems. I quote myself, so you might re-read and understand
"It makes perfectly sense that there was an acceleration observed that was more or less, within the error rate matching gravitational acceleration. They even used the words "essentially in free fall", "estimation" and "negligible support" making it very clear that those are approximations and not absolute values."

What this means (so you might understand :) ) : There, of course, WAS structural resistance. But given the possibilites of calculating the actual collapsing speed and the supposed free fall speed and the resulting inaccuracies, it can be said that it was neglible.

Quote
What in the world is this? On object will always fall into the path of the least resistance... This is all a demo is, manipulating mass and removing resistance. Why do you think the number one issue with a demo is making the building fall into itself...it's hard, not easy...And certainly not natural.

When was the last time you cut down a tree and it fell into its own foot print? Seen failed demos? What happens? they either don't collapse, fall over a direction, or partially collapse.

If I am drunk and fall over, I am going to fall forward or backwards, not vaporize into my own foot print.
Oh dear...Have you even read my answer concerning that? Or did you just not understand? Read again:
"Thats wrong. Physics says that gravitational froce points into the center of the earth. So for it to not collaps straight down you'd need a great enough force to pull it to one side. This force might occure or might not. But generally there is no need for it to not-collapse straight down; it's just not true to say so.
For it to slide to one side that force might be due to a leaning ground; but if the ground is rectangular to the force of gravity, this force is 0 since m*g*cos(90)=0."

You have some major knowledge gap concerning physics and (bio)mechanics. It would take too long to explain that all. Plus you wouldn't even try to understand it anyway.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 03:33:20 AM
Here, user.

Quote from: NIST
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)

9.8m/s2.

No matter how much you cover your ears and say "Nuh-uh"

Stop asking me the same question.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on March 19, 2017, 03:34:53 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 03:33:20 AM
Here, user.

Quote from: NIST
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)

9.8m/s2.

No matter how much you cover your ears and say "Nuh-uh"

Stop asking me the same question.

I see, you really took too many hits to your head. Sad.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 03:36:09 AM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 18, 2017, 06:23:02 PM
@User324:
That being said, User324, yes, the top edge of the building underwent a 2 second period of near freefall.

(gravitational acceleration according to NIST)

9.8m/s2

What is it about "gravitational acceleration" don't you understand?

Tell me.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 03:41:06 AM
>A bowling ball falls at 9.8m/s2 through the atmosphere because of negligible resistance.

>A building falls at 9.8m/s2 through steel and concrete because of negligible resistance.

And this is just fine and dandy to you?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 19, 2017, 03:42:38 AM
Really rayzor? Still insulting people I see.

I politely said something about your insults, was hoping you would listen.

Now it seems you have a twin, only insulting instead of discussing. Seems to be the number one trend here for the OS.

User I have already proven many many things during my time here with actual proof of what I say about myself..Yet those that prove nothing besides a guided tour pass call me out? The irony is real.... Sad really.

Then I go to post and their is even more insults..... Y'all must be proud.

Very sad

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 03:44:15 AM
It's the best they can do, at least Totes bowed out respectfully.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on March 19, 2017, 03:51:18 AM
@BHS
When you write something like
Quote
What in the world is this? On object will always fall into the path of the least resistance... This is all a demo is, manipulating mass and removing resistance. Why do you think the number one issue with a demo is making the building fall into itself...it's hard, not easy...And certainly not natural.

When was the last time you cut down a tree and it fell into its own foot print? Seen failed demos? What happens? they either don't collapse, fall over a direction, or partially collapse.

If I am drunk and fall over, I am going to fall forward or backwards, not vaporize into my own foot print.

That does not make you look smart nor make you look like an engineer with a phd.


@Disputeone
I quote my self, once again

"It makes perfectly sense that there was an acceleration observed that was more or less, within the error rate matching gravitational acceleration. They even used the words "essentially in free fall", "estimation" and "negligible support" making it very clear that those are approximations and not absolute values."

What this means (so you might understand   ) : There, of course, WAS structural resistance. But given the possibilites of calculating the actual collapsing speed and the supposed free fall speed and the resulting inaccuracies, it can be said that it was neglible."
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 03:51:59 AM
User123

Quote from: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 03:41:06 AM
>A bowling ball falls at 9.8m/s2 through the atmosphere because of negligible resistance.

>A building falls at 9.8m/s2 through steel and concrete because of negligible resistance.

And this is just fine and dandy to you?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 19, 2017, 03:53:02 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 19, 2017, 03:42:38 AM
Really rayzor? Still insulting people I see.

I politely said something about your insults, was hoping you would listen.


Ok,   no more insults. 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Howie feldersnatch on March 19, 2017, 04:15:13 AM
Oh lawd... Now the planes aren't strong enough to penetrate the buildings and somehow someone just happen to have a camera capable of showing them vanish... And then what some trained mice with torches cut the hole?  I've heard it all now.  You have no clue just how strong those planes are made. 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on March 19, 2017, 04:19:07 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 18, 2017, 04:55:54 PM
Quote from: totallackey on March 18, 2017, 05:35:04 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 17, 2017, 04:02:24 PM
Quote from: totallackey on March 17, 2017, 07:02:47 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 17, 2017, 04:37:11 AM
finally if it was a demolition,  why did they leave the center core, alone it was still standing 20-30 stories high at the end.
I don't think there is any evidence of this assertion. 

Here you go.  WTC1

(https://s11.postimg.org/8eygko9w3/columns.jpg)

That is not the the core column.

Try again.

So what do you think it is?

A remainder of the exterior sheathing.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on March 19, 2017, 04:21:30 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 03:41:06 AM
>A bowling ball falls at 9.8m/s2 through the atmosphere because of negligible resistance.

>A building falls at 9.8m/s2 through steel and concrete because of negligible resistance.

And this is just fine and dandy to you?

I have already asked you that, but you ignored it:
How many buildings have you observed that did collapse due to a plane flying into them + fires + debris parts? How can you judge whether a short time with an acceleration rate more or less freefall should appear or not?
I guess it's just your opinion that it should behave different.


I'm actually really interested in seeing your "plot change of acceleration using calculus" :)

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 19, 2017, 04:22:58 AM
Quote from: User324 on March 19, 2017, 03:51:18 AM
@BHS
When you write something like
Quote
What in the world is this? On object will always fall into the path of the least resistance... This is all a demo is, manipulating mass and removing resistance. Why do you think the number one issue with a demo is making the building fall into itself...it's hard, not easy...And certainly not natural.

When was the last time you cut down a tree and it fell into its own foot print? Seen failed demos? What happens? they either don't collapse, fall over a direction, or partially collapse.

If I am drunk and fall over, I am going to fall forward or backwards, not vaporize into my own foot print.

That does not make you look smart nor make you look like an engineer with a phd.

I don't need to talk a certain way or act a certain way. People who do this are typically a frauds and posers. I speak and act how I want at the time. Most of the time I attempt to speak in everyday language, what good is trying to reach people if you talk over their head, use abbreviations, lingo, and math that go over their head?

Make my penis seem bigger? Act a role? Who cares, I want to attempt to communicate, not say "look at me". If you truly understand a subject, you should be able to extrapolate it into many different forms. Just copying and pasting material that you have no understanding of means nothing, other the fact you know how to copy and paste.

There have been times I have spoken more technical, other times I have not...Depends on my mood, or my goal. I can extrapolate to a simpleton or a PhD.

As for my moderately tongue and cheek quote you used...Yes, if you did not pick up my sarcasm I am sorry. Though there was much truth in the post...I was unimpressed with your post, so I responded in kind.

Just as I was equally unimpressed with this post.

Quote from: User324 on March 19, 2017, 02:55:43 AM
Oh dear...Have you even read my answer concerning that? Or did you just not understand? Read again:
"Thats wrong. Physics says that gravitational froce points into the center of the earth. So for it to not collaps straight down you'd need a great enough force to pull it to one side. This force might occure or might not. But generally there is no need for it to not-collapse straight down; it's just not true to say so.
For it to slide to one side that force might be due to a leaning ground; but if the ground is rectangular to the force of gravity, this force is 0 since m*g*cos(90)=0."

You have some major knowledge gap concerning physics and (bio)mechanics. It would take too long to explain that all. Plus you wouldn't even try to understand it anyway.

This might impress some...However I recognize it for the empty rhetoric it is. Over complicated phrasing in the attempt to convolute and abash the subject. However, let me simplify it for you, for you actually stated a point unknowingly.

An object will not travel through the path of greatest resistance ;)


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 19, 2017, 04:26:07 AM
Quote from: Howie feldersnatch on March 19, 2017, 04:15:13 AM
You have no clue just how strong those planes are made.

You should exit state left, as you have disqualified yourself from further discussion. Unless you would actually like to learn something, which something tells me you do not.

However, I may be surprised
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 04:28:49 AM
Quote from: Howie feldersnatch on March 19, 2017, 04:15:13 AM
Oh lawd... Now the planes aren't strong enough to penetrate the buildings and somehow someone just happen to have a camera capable of showing them vanish... And then what some trained mice with torches cut the hole?  I've heard it all now.  You have no clue just how strong those planes are made. 

Nose cone hits bird.

(https://s24.postimg.org/ynwu45g0l/Bird_strike_smashes_Turkish_Airlines_plane_nose.jpg)

Quote
The nose cone "of a plane is being constructed by soft materials (composit) to minimalize the impact of such hits. Therefore, such standard/normal deformation occurs as a natural result of such incidents," Dr. Ali Genc, Turkish Airlines senior vice president of media relations, said in an emailed statement.

Nose cone passes through wtc 2.

(https://s10.postimg.org/y1f443irt/2017_03_19_19_19_02.jpg)

Military drones.

Aluminium (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium_alloy) < Structural steel (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structural_steel)

Quote from: User324 on March 19, 2017, 04:21:30 AM
I'm actually really interested in seeing your "plot change of acceleration using calculus" :)

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 19, 2017, 04:30:45 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 19, 2017, 04:26:07 AM
Quote from: Howie feldersnatch on March 19, 2017, 04:15:13 AM
You have no clue just how strong those planes are made.

You should exit state left, as you have disqualified yourself from further discussion. Unless you would actually like to learn something, which something tells me you do not.

However, I may be surprised

From the Journal of Impact Physics.   
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0734743X02001069

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on March 19, 2017, 04:37:47 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 19, 2017, 04:22:58 AM
I don't need to talk a certain way or act a certain way. People who do this are typically a frauds and posers. I speak and act how I want at the time. Most of the time I attempt to speak in everyday language, what good is trying to reach people if you talk over their head, use abbreviations, lingo, and math that go over their head?
Make my penis seem bigger? Act a role? Who cares, I want to attempt to communicate, not say "look at me". If you truly understand a subject, you should be able to extrapolate it into many different forms. Just copying and pasting material that you have no understanding of means nothing, other the fact you know how to copy and paste.
There have been times I have spoken more technical, other times I have not...Depends on my mood, or my goal. I can extrapolate to a simpleton or a PhD.
As for my moderately tongue and cheek quote you used...Yes, if you did not pick up my sarcasm I am sorry. Though there was much truth in the post...I was unimpressed with your post, so I responded in kind.

Uh, we have a misunderstanding here. I was at no time referring to how you use your language, but what you said. And what you said was and is utter bullshit :)

Quote
An object will not travel through the path of greatest resistance
I'm thinking you confuse electrical engineering with mechanics.
I don't think any object cares about "path of greatest resistance"(meaning e.g. electron's behaviour =/= large scale object behaviour). An object just behaves according to the forces applied to it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 04:40:04 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 19, 2017, 04:30:45 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 19, 2017, 04:26:07 AM
Quote from: Howie feldersnatch on March 19, 2017, 04:15:13 AM
You have no clue just how strong those planes are made.

You should exit state left, as you have disqualified yourself from further discussion. Unless you would actually like to learn something, which something tells me you do not.

However, I may be surprised

From the Journal of Impact Physics.   
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0734743X02001069

(https://s9.postimg.org/5p8r0glz3/20170316_072749.png)

No reply yet.

Bunk.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/002954939390119T
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 04:45:32 AM
Quote from: User324 on March 19, 2017, 04:37:47 AM
An object just behaves according to the forces applied to it.

Does an object fall through the path of greatest resistance, or does it fall through the path of least resistance?

If it is forced to fall through the path of greatest resistance does it fall at free-fall?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 19, 2017, 04:50:39 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 19, 2017, 04:30:45 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 19, 2017, 04:26:07 AM
Quote from: Howie feldersnatch on March 19, 2017, 04:15:13 AM
You have no clue just how strong those planes are made.

You should exit state left, as you have disqualified yourself from further discussion. Unless you would actually like to learn something, which something tells me you do not.

However, I may be surprised

From the Journal of Impact Physics.   
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0734743X02001069

I looked at the link, I saw a premise and some pictures... Perhaps there was more I missed. However, I will say I have debunked this exact argument before and studied it in depth (not sure if it was this exact one)... Actually did it with air craft aluminum and structural steel , however the aluminum, though exact aircraft aluminum was only 10 inches in width and 3 in depth (the device I built could only move that much up to the required test speed). I have had it in the works to build something that would move more, however have slacked for some time.

Do you remember a while back when I described how aircraft aluminum reaching a point of nil gain when a certain speed is reached during impact?

As well as the paper I debunked (which seemed quite similar to the paper you presented) also used incorrect measurements of the exoskeleton, ignored the horizontal flooring, concrete and truss supports etc.

I have never said the plane would not do damage, just not like we saw, nor would it reach the core to cause damage (assuming the plane was a typical passenger aircraft)

Not to mention, we did not see what would have been required visually for this premise to even be a plausibility.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 04:53:17 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 04:40:04 AM
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/002954939390119T

This paper links to a real test done before 9/11 measuring the forces involved in the aircraft impact.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 19, 2017, 04:59:16 AM
Quote from: User324 on March 19, 2017, 04:37:47 AM
Uh, we have a misunderstanding here. I was at no time referring to how you use your language, but what you said. And what you said was and is utter bullshit :)


I'm thinking you confuse electrical engineering with mechanics.
I don't think any object cares about "path of greatest resistance"(meaning e.g. electron's behaviour =/= large scale object behaviour). An object just behaves according to the forces applied to it.

So no rebuttal? Seems to be your specialty.

Also, semantics....Even better. Then I imagine insults and name calling will be next.. The sign of someone without​ a leg to stand on. Sad....

You do realize, our existence would be changed beyond all measurement if the physics you are chaperoning were true?

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on March 19, 2017, 05:04:25 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 19, 2017, 04:59:16 AM
You do realize, our existence would be changed beyond all measurement if the physics you are chaperoning were true?
So no rebuttal? Seems to be your specialty.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 05:05:17 AM
Quote from: User324 on March 19, 2017, 05:04:25 AM
So no rebuttal?

Here.

Quote from: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 04:45:32 AM
Quote from: User324 on March 19, 2017, 04:37:47 AM
An object just behaves according to the forces applied to it.

Does an object fall through the path of greatest resistance, or does it fall through the path of least resistance?

If it is forced to fall through the path of greatest resistance does it fall at free-fall?

Does the marble fall through the path of least resistance or does it fall straight down through the path of greatest resistance?



Does the Earth fall around the sun through the path of least resistance, or does it fly off though the path of greatest resistance?

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on March 19, 2017, 05:11:22 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 05:05:17 AM
Here.
Discussing with you does not make any sense, I can quote myself for the third (fourth?) time:
"It seems like you (and most of the flatties) cannot live with that there are other points of view and that their (yours/the flatties) opinion is not "the truth".
That's what makes debating you (or flatties/ conspiracy theorists in general) really annoying and pretty pointless. That's also why people like you are so often convinced they "won" the debate, but actually their stupidity, stubbornness and incredible amount of insults did just lead to everyone leaving the discussion."

So, since you only answer to very specific parts of other members (and my) posts and ignore everything that doesn't fit your narrative, plus you lack some basic knowledge, plus you're really annoying and repeat yourself 24/7, plus you do not even try to understand what people are telling you, I'll just ignore you from now on :)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 05:13:01 AM
Call me a flat-earther all you like.

Doesn't change facts.

It's about as true as the official story of 9/11.

Rayzor also ignores me because he can't debunk my arguments.

Edit. You hadn't even read the NIST reports before you started debating for the O/S.

Quote from: User324 on March 19, 2017, 05:11:22 AM
incredible amount of insults

teh irony.

Rotflmfao.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on March 19, 2017, 05:33:41 AM
Where have I said you are a flat earther?

Or is that just one more thing you think you know and you think that I have said, when I actually didn't?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 06:26:32 AM
If I misunderstood you I'm sorry.

In any case I am not a "conspiracy theorist" I support the controlled demolition hypothesis.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on March 19, 2017, 10:53:40 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 06:26:32 AM
In any case I am not a "conspiracy theorist" I support the controlled demolition hypothesis.

...which would be a conspiracy and thus making you a conspiracy theorist.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: wise on March 19, 2017, 12:34:41 PM
Quote from: User324 on March 19, 2017, 10:53:40 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 06:26:32 AM
In any case I am not a "conspiracy theorist" I support the controlled demolition hypothesis.

...which would be a conspiracy and thus making you a conspiracy theorist.

He is a controlled opposition and trolling you and whole forum. Making a role as defending to the "controlled demolition fact", but acting as a "weak defender". Getting addressing him isin't honesty. I do not want to go into this topic; Just want to say this. Hope you will succeed.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 02:15:27 PM
At least Intikam support the O/S.

"Conspiracy theory" usually means someone believes something without warrent or evidence. This is certainly not true of the controlled demolition hypothesis.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 19, 2017, 03:58:08 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 02:15:27 PM
At least Intikam support the O/S.

No he wouldn't have called you controlled opposition if he supported the official story.


Quote from: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 02:15:27 PM
"Conspiracy theory" usually means someone believes something without warrent or evidence. This is certainly not true of the controlled demolition hypothesis.

No "conspiracy theorist"  is someone who supports a conspiracy theory,   has nothing to do with whether or not there is any evidence.

So,  there's two new terms you've learnt already today,   "controlled opposition"   and  "conspiracy theorist"   

For what it's worth I don't think you are controlled opposition,  although your weak arguments tend to support Intikam's view,  I just think your arguments are actually very weak.
And, yes you are a conspiracy theorist.  Get over it.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 04:00:09 PM
>wrecking you all thread.

Totes and Evar put on a good honourable show, won't deny that.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 04:01:14 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 01:14:59 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 19, 2017, 01:01:54 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 12:54:40 AM

And a peer reviewed paper showing temperatures hot enough to melt steel and types of particles that are classic examples of high temperature or combustion by-products and are generally absent in typical office dust

http://www.easypaintyourcar.com/WTCHighTemp.html


Your assertion 1.   Temperatures were NOT high enough to WEAKEN steel,  so it must have been controlled demolition.

No, don't lie. NIST claims temperatures hot enough to weaken steel, I never said the fires wouldn't weaken steel, see what happened to wtc 5 and 6.

Stop lying.

Quote from: Rayzor on March 19, 2017, 01:01:54 AM
Your assertion 2.   Temperatures were high enough to MELT steel,  so it must have been controlled demolition. 

You can't have both.  You have to choose one or the other.

I don't want both. Temperatures were objectively hot enough to melt steel, we have shown quite enough evidence for that claim.

NIST's report is either inaccurate or dishonest. The only way to explain the temperatures observed is a controlled demolition.

/thread.

There are more obvious shills pushing group think, to be fair.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 19, 2017, 04:52:11 PM
Quote from: User324 on March 19, 2017, 05:04:25 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 19, 2017, 04:59:16 AM
You do realize, our existence would be changed beyond all measurement if the physics you are chaperoning were true?
So no rebuttal? Seems to be your specialty.

Well I am not the one that just said "your argument is bullshit" while stomping my feet.

Your post was attempting to make physics incorrect by posting a circular argument with the attempt to sound intelligent. Some may fall for the wa la...However, all you said was an object will want to fall straight down unless acted on by a force large enough to change its descent lol.

What is that called again lmao?!

Then you went into semantics (which all do when they have nothing left, next will be spelling and grammar)...Everyone has known what we are talking about with the phrase "path of greatest or least resistance"... It is easier on the tongue. Everyone has known we are not talking about electrical resistance..

Not to mention, it is all dependent on context...Do you think the term resistance is changed in electrical or other areas of context? No...Not at all. Resistance is resistance (if you even understand the cause of electrical resistance)...So your comment continues to grow in the sad scale.

Also, I am not the one who couldn't understand a tongue and cheek comment.. Understand the underlying point of it. See being a copy and paste person with no personal understanding you won't.

You need to stay in Little league for now...You will be moved up when ready.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 04:55:04 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 19, 2017, 04:52:11 PM
...Do you think the term resistance is changed in electrical or other areas of context? No...Not at all. Resistance is resistance (if you even understand the cause of electrical resistance)...

As an electrician and mechanical fitter I can confirm this, resistance is resistance.

Man these arguments are boring.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 19, 2017, 05:04:17 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 04:53:17 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 04:40:04 AM
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/002954939390119T

This paper links to a real test done before 9/11 measuring the forces involved in the aircraft impact.

I see... I couldn't read it, guess you have to buy it? Or?

The only one I read was specifically for 9/11, it was very inaccurate on the design of the building and ignored many key needed aspects needed to make an accurate forecast without live action testing.

Plus I created my own testing platform in the real world, it ended as expected..So I stand by this.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 19, 2017, 04:50:39 AM
I looked at the link, I saw a premise and some pictures... Perhaps there was more I missed. However, I will say I have debunked this exact argument before and studied it in depth (not sure if it was this exact one)... Actually did it with air craft aluminum and structural steel , however the aluminum, though exact aircraft aluminum was only 10 inches in width and 3 in height (the device I built could only move that much up to the required test speed). I have had it in the works to build something that would move more, however have slacked for some time.

Do you remember a while back when I described how aircraft aluminum reaching a point of nil gain when a certain speed is reached during impact?

As well as the paper I debunked (which seemed quite similar to the paper you presented) also used incorrect measurements of the exoskeleton, ignored the horizontal flooring, concrete and truss supports etc.

I have never said the plane would not do damage, just not like we saw, nor would it reach the core to cause damage (assuming the plane was a typical passenger aircraft)

Not to mention, we did not see what would have been required visually for this premise to even be a plausibility.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 05:16:25 PM
Gotta buy it, I'm not sure of the copyright laws about looking at it here publicly.

I chose one before 9/11 because as you say a lot of the "tests" afterwards were made to fit an agenda.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 19, 2017, 05:22:20 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 05:16:25 PM
Gotta buy it, I'm not sure of the copyright laws about looking at it here publicly.

I chose one before 9/11 because as you say a lot of the "tests" afterwards were made to fit an agenda.

I see... Does it give you instant access when bought? I will buy it to read through if it does. What did you think of it?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 05:30:03 PM
I have to buy it also.

Apparently you can just download the pdf once purchased.

The Physics is probably over my head. I'll buy it and compare it to Rayzors report.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 19, 2017, 06:15:20 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 04:28:49 AM
(https://s10.postimg.org/y1f443irt/2017_03_19_19_19_02.jpg)

This as always bugged me...What the fuck is that? Let's assume the footage is accurate and something hit the towers and passed through like that. First off whatever it is missed the core...So that removes the idea the core was damaged. You could put numerous holes in the exoskeleton of the tower and effect it's Structural strength by very little. "Holes in a mosquito net" as the designer of the tower said during their study of a 707 impact.

Even with massive damage to multiple areas of the exoskeleton, to the point of ensuing a collapse, you would not get a symmetrical one, it would topple over. Removing the core is the only way you could have a chance of a symmetrical collapse.

Then we have the issue of what could penetrate the tower with such ease? Multiple horizontal floors (steel truss and reinforced concrete) and inches thick exoskeleton (some spots 4 inches). What could pass through like butter without damage? Something that dense, how would it fly?

People look at the weight of one of the planes without looking at the density of the mass. It makes a HUGE difference. We are talking mostly liquid, people, fiberglass and tin can hollow aluminum...All of this either shatters or goes splat when faced in a challenge impact of thick steel and reinforced concrete.

In simple terms look at two different bullets, same caliber and powder load. One bullet solid and dense, it can penetrate sheet metal or multiple walls. The other bullet, not solid or as dense, it will shatter even when striking something like sheetrock. Even though traveling the same velocity. Thus how self defense bullets were born.

Thanks to the fun law of each action causing an opposite and equal reaction, you can fire a droplet of water at steel at a 1000 miles per hour, and it will reflect right off the steel in the opposite direction. Same with brittle aluminum vs steel and concrete, or even a person. Density and 10 other factors are very important here, not just mass...The attention is in the details.

Now if you compressed liquid to say, 75,000 psi and hit the steel or concrete with that...It's a different story, but then you change the density etc of the liquid, so all the variables change..However, uncompressed, no way.

Let's even say it was a dense object made to look like a passenger aircraft. Excluding the issue of making it fly, if something that dense and big hit the towers in the upper, less dense and overall weaker floors, at that speed, it would have literally "decapitated" in simple terms the upper floors.

I even worked a hypothesis with two peers 7 or so years ago. I presented the idea a plane full of fuel go 500 plus mph, if it hit a structure, the aerodynamic cocoon and falling wake would actually carry the ignited fuel in a compressed super heated fire ball almost like the plasma shell in front of a re entering space craft. I proposed the fact, the "plasma fire cutter" would have been what pierced the towers, not aluminum or anything else.

The hypothesis was stomped fairly quickly, however, that was my last idea to justify what we saw.


I have no logical way to describe what we saw...Even if someone weakened the exact area needed, flew an aircraft with a laser guided system to the exact spot, it could have never passed damage free end to end, even if it totally missed the core.

The only logical conclusion is there is something wrong with the video evidence.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 19, 2017, 06:28:34 PM
I even looked at the plausibility of the explosions heard by people before the impacts could have been charges set to go off and weaken the area the planes were to hit, to allow them to pass through with ease. Though everyone that heard stated it was in the basement, fireballs come form elevator shafts (before impact) etc.

So I find this unlikely. There is the remote possibility, if charges were placed upstairs to assist the planes, it could have been sympathetic resonation the people heard, making it sound like it was in the basement. As the charges would have to weaken the floors themselves , which you would hear the resonated sound through the core with that happening along with the exoskeleton.

Though this doesn't explain the fireballs seen before hand. As well as the symmetrical collapse. Even completely​ compromising everything above 95, it wouldn't cause a symmetrical collapse, doubt it would even cause a collapse, to the intact structure, especially the lower 44 floors. Also remember, the more weight you remove from the top, the stronger the bottom gets, especially the lower 44 to the bedrock.

Tripping over, yes, maybe plausible, vaporizing into its own footprint..100 percent impossible.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 06:31:35 PM
The fact it didn't continue through the building is concerning, it clearly had the force.

A armour piercing nose cone would make aerodynamics difficult, but probably not impossible.

Although assuming indestructible wings (what we saw) it would have "decapitated" the building, as you said.

I believe if there were planes / drones they had explosives on board..

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 19, 2017, 06:28:34 PM
Tripping over, yes, maybe plausible, vaporizing into its own footprint..100 percent impossible.

Agreed.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 19, 2017, 06:33:43 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 19, 2017, 06:15:20 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 04:28:49 AM
(https://s10.postimg.org/y1f443irt/2017_03_19_19_19_02.jpg)

This as always bugged me...What the fuck is that?

It's  been called the "nose out" fallacy.   When seen from different angles it's clearly just the debris cloud.    We dealt with it earlier in the thread.



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 06:37:00 PM
Clearly the debris cloud?

Why lie about something people can see with their own eyes?

Next post.

Rayzor vs Newton the final showdown.

I'm offering 1 to 1033 odds for Rayzor to win, place your bets.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Twerp on March 19, 2017, 06:41:26 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 06:37:00 PM
Clearly the debris cloud?

Why lie about something people can see with their own eyes?

Next post.

Rayzor vs Newton the final showdown.

I'm offering 1 to 1033 odds for Rayzor to win, place your bets.

Can you short bet (Like you can short sell stocks)?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 19, 2017, 06:41:59 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 19, 2017, 06:15:20 PM
[
People look at the weight of one of the planes without looking at the density of the mass. It makes a HUGE difference. We are talking mostly liquid, people, fiberglass and tin can hollow aluminum...All of this either shatters or goes splat when faced in a challenge impact of thick steel and reinforced concrete.

In simple terms look at two different bullets, same caliber and powder load. One bullet solid and dense, it can penetrate sheet metal or multiple walls. The other bullet, not solid or as dense, it will shatter even when striking something like sheetrock. Even though traveling the same velocity. Thus how self defense bullets were born.

Thanks to the fun law of each action causing an opposite and equal reaction, you can fire a droplet of water at steel at a 1000 miles per hour, and it will reflect right off the steel in the opposite direction. Same with brittle aluminum vs steel and concrete, or even a person. Density and 10 other factors are very important here, not just mass...The attention is in the details.

Now if you compressed liquid to say, 75,000 psi and hit the steel or concrete with that...It's a different story, but then you change the density etc of the liquid, so all the variables change..However, uncompressed, no way.

Let's even say it was a dense object made to look like a passenger aircraft. Excluding the issue of making it fly, if something that dense and big hit the towers in the upper, less dense and overall weaker floors, at that speed, it would have literally "decapitated" in simple terms the upper floors.

I even worked a hypothesis with two peers 7 or so years ago. I presented the idea a plane full of fuel go 500 plus mph, if it hit a structure, the aerodynamic cocoon and falling wake would actually carry the ignited fuel in a compressed super heated fire ball almost like the plasma shell in front of a re entering space craft. I proposed the fact, the "plasma fire cutter" would have been what pierced the towers, not aluminum or anything else.

The hypothesis was stomped fairly quickly, however, that was my last idea to justify what we saw.


I have no logical way to describe what we saw...Even if someone weakened the exact area needed, flew an aircraft with a laser guided system to the exact spot, it could have never passed damage free end to end, even if it totally missed the core.

The only logical conclusion is there is something wrong with the video evidence.

The thing you are missing is the kinetic energy and momentum.   I've already linked to several papers which go into the physics of the impact in detail.   

Quote
you can fire a droplet of water at steel at a 1000 miles per hour and it will reflect right off the steel in the opposite direction

You are missing the point completely  I've seen flood water totally demolish buildings at much lower velocities,   it's all about energy and momentum. 





Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 06:45:15 PM
The mass and energy of the water has to exceed the mass and structural resistance of the building to destroy it uncompressed, no way around it, throw a bucket of water at a concrete wall and report back. Yes 40k psi water will cut through concrete and steel like butter.

(https://s9.postimg.org/yqhykpgq7/image.jpg)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 19, 2017, 06:46:19 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 06:37:00 PM
Clearly the debris cloud?

Why lie about something people can see with their own eyes?

Next post.

Rayzor vs Newton the final showdown.

I'm offering 1 to 1033 odds for Rayzor to win, place your bets.

I'm not contradicting Newton,  to suggest that,  just shows you don't understand the physics involved,   the impact force is directly proportional to the change in momentum.   

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 06:48:04 PM
The mass and energy of the falling parts of wtc 1 and 2 had to be far greater than the mass and resistance of the lower structure to be pulverise the lower structure.

/thread.

(https://s9.postimg.org/yqhykpgq7/image.jpg)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 19, 2017, 06:51:10 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 06:45:15 PM
The mass and energy of the water has to exceed the mass and structural resistance of the building to destroy it uncompressed, no way around it, throw a bucket of water at a concrete wall and report back. Yes 40k psi water will cut through concrete and steel like butter.

(https://s9.postimg.org/yqhykpgq7/image.jpg)

The first part of that statement is correct.   It's the  MOMENTUM as well as the ENERGY will knock your concrete building flat.   

Show me the building that can withstand a few million tonnes of water flowing at 30 kph.   

(http://www.heapsoffun.com/pictures/20110725/building_collapse_in_to_flood_water_aa106.jpg)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 06:53:27 PM
Show me how that is an applicable explanation of this.

Quote from: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 06:48:04 PM
The mass and energy of the falling parts of wtc 1 and 2 had to be far greater than the mass and resistance of the lower structure to be pulverise the lower structure.

/thread.

(https://s9.postimg.org/yqhykpgq7/image.jpg)

Pro-tip. The mass of the water here greatly exceeds the mass of the structure. Please also note no vaporization of the building, it is more or less intact.

(http://www.heapsoffun.com/pictures/20110725/building_collapse_in_to_flood_water_aa106.jpg)

Lol.

Try again.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 19, 2017, 06:53:43 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 06:48:04 PM
The mass and energy of the falling parts of wtc 1 and 2 had to be far greater than the mass and resistance of the lower structure to be pulverise the lower structure.


And there was in fact more than sufficient momentum and energy and  by a fair margin,  which pulverized concrete and collapsed floors progressively.   There was actually  more than twice the energy required.   Didn't you read that paper I linked to.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 19, 2017, 06:58:58 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 19, 2017, 06:41:59 PM
The thing you are missing is the kinetic energy and momentum.   I've already linked to several papers which go into the physics of the impact in detail.

That is what that entire post was talking about lol. Perhaps you missed it?

Quote
You are missing the point completely  I've seen flood water totally demolish buildings at much lower velocities,   it's all about energy and momentum.

Lmao.. really rayzor.

You mean how most floods just break windows, cause water damage and move light shit around?

Or do you mean something like a tsunami, where millions upon millions upon millions of tons of water destroys houses that weigh 100 thousand pounds? 

::)

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 19, 2017, 06:59:02 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 06:53:27 PM
Pro-tip. The mass of the water here greatly exceeds the mass of the structure. Please also note no vaporization of the building, it is more or less intact.
Try again.

Ok once last time,  the change in momentum is the force that the structure has to withstand,   not just the mass,  but the change in velocity times the mass.   

Remember  F-ma,   Newton's second law.  It's important.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 07:01:49 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 19, 2017, 06:53:43 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 06:48:04 PM
The mass and energy of the falling parts of wtc 1 and 2 had to be far greater than the mass and resistance of the lower structure to be pulverise the lower structure.


And there was in fact more than sufficient momentum and energy and  by a fair margin,  which pulverized concrete and collapsed floors progressively.   There was actually  more than twice the energy required.   Didn't you read that paper I linked to.

So the top of the building had more mass and energy than the lower section?

That's an obvious lie.

Here.

(https://s15.postimg.org/rei2cpbt7/images_11.jpg)

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

Pulverization of the lower structure equals pulverization of the top structure.

The top structure simply didn't have the mass to pulverize the entire bottom.

Not a passenger plane.

(https://s2.postimg.org/hmuw7n3w9/images_18.jpg)

[/thread]
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 19, 2017, 07:04:21 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 06:53:27 PM
Please also note no vaporization of the building, it is more or less intact.

(http://www.heapsoffun.com/pictures/20110725/building_collapse_in_to_flood_water_aa106.jpg)

The higher a building is, the biggest danger to it is toppling over.

Would anyone like to answer why this is the biggest danger and not vaporizing into its own foot print.

As a matter of fact, throughout my years, I have not read that risk or analysis in any paper. Nor is there a "won't vaporize into its own footprint" certification.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 19, 2017, 07:05:08 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 19, 2017, 06:58:58 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 19, 2017, 06:41:59 PM
The thing you are missing is the kinetic energy and momentum.   I've already linked to several papers which go into the physics of the impact in detail.

That is what that entire post was talking about lol. Perhaps you missed it?

Not true,  your post focussed on the density, and ignored the critical factor which is change in momentum and energy.   Which is why I said you missed it. 

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 07:06:51 PM
Quote from: Bhs
Would anyone like to answer why this is the biggest danger and not vaporizing into its own foot print.

Cause things fall into the path of least resistance.

Can I have a star sticker?

Quote from: Rayzor on March 19, 2017, 07:05:08 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 19, 2017, 06:58:58 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 19, 2017, 06:41:59 PM
The thing you are missing is the kinetic energy and momentum.   I've already linked to several papers which go into the physics of the impact in detail.

That is what that entire post was talking about lol. Perhaps you missed it?

Not true,  your post focussed on the density, and ignored the critical factor which is change in momentum and energy.   Which is why I said you missed it. 

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

Pulverization of the lower structure equals pulverization of the top structure.

The top structure simply didn't have the mass to pulverize the entire bottom.

Lol.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 19, 2017, 07:09:53 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 07:01:49 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 19, 2017, 06:53:43 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 06:48:04 PM
The mass and energy of the falling parts of wtc 1 and 2 had to be far greater than the mass and resistance of the lower structure to be pulverise the lower structure.


And there was in fact more than sufficient momentum and energy and  by a fair margin,  which pulverized concrete and collapsed floors progressively.   There was actually  more than twice the energy required.   Didn't you read that paper I linked to.

So the top of the building had more mass and energy than the lower section?

That's an obvious lie.

Here.

(https://s15.postimg.org/rei2cpbt7/images_11.jpg)

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

Pulverization of the lower structure equals pulverization of the top structure.

The top structure simply didn't have the mass to pulverize the entire bottom.

Not a passenger plane.

(https://s2.postimg.org/hmuw7n3w9/images_18.jpg)

[/thread]

You REALLY need to learn how to read,  the mass of the top section is important in terms of calculating the momentum as the collapse started,  and if that impact energy exceeds the energy required to collapse a floor, the entire house of cards comes down.   

Repeat after me..   It's the energy and momentum,  not the mass alone.  that's important.   If you don't grasp that simple fact.  I can't help you any further.




Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 07:13:31 PM

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

Pulverization of the lower structure equals pulverization of the top structure.

The top structure simply didn't have the mass to pulverize the entire bottom.

Lol.

If you are trying to debunk Newton you are doing it wrong.

Truther > Newtons third law.

Debunker > Doesnt apply to 9/11.

Truther > Wait, what?

Debunker > Looks like I win again haha.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 07:18:59 PM
Drop 10kgs of any material onto 100kg of the same material, repeat with different materials.

Drop 100kgs of any material onto 10kgs of the same material, repeat with different materials.

In any circumstance except 9/11 does the 10kgs completely destroy the 100kgs?

>describing a building as a house of cards.

Lmao whatever you have to tell yourself.

If you are trying to debunk Newton you are doing it wrong.

Truther > Newtons third law.

Debunker > Doesnt apply to 9/11.

Truther > Wait, what?

Debunker > Looks like I win again haha.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 19, 2017, 07:33:08 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 07:18:59 PM

>describing a building as a house of cards.


Probably more like the physics of a rockslide.

Please stop misunderstanding Newton's third law.    It's  creepy  and annoying. 

(https://s30.postimg.org/ciyaje7qp/dipstickone_Vsnewton.jpg)

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 07:35:47 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 19, 2017, 07:33:08 PM
Please stop misunderstanding using Newton's third law to smash the OS.  It's  creepy  and annoying. hurts my feels.

No.

Quote
Formally stated, Newton's third law is: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. The statement means that in every interaction, there is a pair of forces acting on the two interacting objects. The size of the forces on the first object equals the size of the force on the second object.

Pulverization of the lower structure equals pulverization of the top structure.

The top structure simply didn't have the mass to pulverize the entire bottom.

(https://s9.postimg.org/yqhykpgq7/image.jpg)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 19, 2017, 07:52:29 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 07:35:47 PM
(https://s9.postimg.org/yqhykpgq7/image.jpg)(https://s9.postimg.org/yqhykpgq7/image.jpg)(https://s9.postimg.org/yqhykpgq7/image.jpg)

You want me to teach you basic physics?     I don't have the patience or inclination. 

(https://s30.postimg.org/ciyaje7qp/dipstickone_Vsnewton.jpg)

Why does the percentage of the total energy required to collapse a floor decrease as the collapse progresses?    Let's see if you understand.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 07:53:57 PM
Pulverization of the lower structure equals pulverization of the top structure.

Quote from: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 07:35:47 PM
Quote
Formally stated, Newton's third law is: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. The statement means that in every interaction, there is a pair of forces acting on the two interacting objects. The size of the forces on the first object equals the size of the force on the second object.
Pulverization of the lower structure equals pulverization of the top structure.

The top structure simply didn't have the mass to pulverize the entire bottom.

You can't debunk it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 19, 2017, 07:55:49 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 07:53:57 PM
Pulverization of the lower structure equals pulverization of the top structure.
The top structure simply didn't have the mass to pulverize the entire bottom.
You can't debunk it.

I just did.   

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 07:56:52 PM
"For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."

Show me where you debunked this.

It's fairly well established.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 08:03:21 PM
I love doing this.

Debunkers think they are debunking me.

In actuality they are trying to debunk Newton.

That "oh shit" moment.

Priceless.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 19, 2017, 08:04:28 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 07:56:52 PM
"For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."

Show me where you debunked this.

It's fairly well established.

There's that reality disconnect,   Debating with you is like playing chess with pigeons.   

Quote from: Rayzor on March 19, 2017, 07:55:49 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 07:53:57 PM
Pulverization of the lower structure equals pulverization of the top structure.
The top structure simply didn't have the mass to pulverize the entire bottom.
You can't debunk it.

I just did.   


The top structure had more than enough energy to pulverize the lower structure. 

(https://s30.postimg.org/ciyaje7qp/dipstickone_Vsnewton.jpg)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 08:06:39 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 08:06:02 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 19, 2017, 08:04:28 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 07:56:52 PM
"For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."

There's that reality disconnect.


ROTFLMFAO!!!!!
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 19, 2017, 08:10:28 PM
My previous post I had attempted to describe that the properties of the material 100 percent matter, not just mass or momentum in this situation (the different bullets metaphor).

You must use all variables to get an accurate answer..Not just what you want to look at. Math is only effect when used correctly
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 19, 2017, 08:10:59 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 19, 2017, 07:55:49 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 07:53:57 PM
Pulverization of the lower structure equals pulverization of the top structure.
The top structure simply didn't have the mass to pulverize the entire bottom.
You can't debunk it.

I just did.   



Quote from: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 08:06:39 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 08:06:02 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 19, 2017, 08:04:28 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 07:56:52 PM
"For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."

There's that reality disconnect.


ROTFLMFAO!!!!!

I think your brain just pulverized itself.    LOL.   


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 08:16:06 PM
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

Pulverization of the lower structure equals pulverization of the top structure.

Go on, debunk Newton.

Why not just call him crazy and / or a fraud?

Seems to be your thing.

Go on, debunk Newton.

Do your work.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 19, 2017, 08:16:45 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 19, 2017, 08:10:28 PM
My previous post I had attempted to describe that the properties of the material 100 percent matter, not just mass or momentum in this situation (the different bullets metaphor).

You must use all variables to get an accurate answer..Not just what you want to look at. Math is only effect when used correctly

No argument from me,  I just pointed out that by focussing on density of the materials,  without considering the impact energy and momentum transfer was misleading. 

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 08:17:57 PM
Still waiting for you to take principia mathematica on, Rayzor.

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

Pulverization of the lower structure equals pulverization of the top structure.

Go on, debunk Newton.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 19, 2017, 08:18:44 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 08:16:06 PM
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

Pulverization of the lower structure equals pulverization of the top structure.

Go on, debunk Newton.

Why not just call him crazy and / or a fraud?

Seems to be your thing.

Go on, debunk Newton.

Do your work.

I'm not the one who is saying Newton must be wrong,  you are the only one who is saying that.   
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 08:21:03 PM
If 9/11 was a controlled demolition then Newtons laws hold, never fear, they are laws you know.

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

Pulverization of the lower structure equals pulverization of the top structure.

If your hypothesis has to debunk Newton it is most likely wrong.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 19, 2017, 08:25:21 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 08:21:03 PM
If 9/11 was a controlled demolition then Newtons laws hold, never fear, they are laws you know.

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

Pulverization of the lower structure equals pulverization of the top structure.

If your hypothesis has to debunk Newton it is most likely wrong.

Show me why you think the collapse didn't follow the laws of physics,  ( Newton included )

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 08:29:50 PM
Because.

Quote from: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 08:21:03 PM
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

Pulverization of the lower structure equals pulverization of the top structure.

If you can't debunk it then admit it, there's no shame in it.

Maybe they could release a revised N3?

"Every action has an equal and opposite reaction except on 9/11 where every action has the reaction we tell you it does."

Easy fixed.

Pulverization of the lower structure equals pulverization of the top structure.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/principia-mathematica/

9/11 was a false flag.

Quote from: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 08:03:21 PM
I love doing this.

Debunkers think they are debunking me.

In actuality they are trying to debunk Newton.

That "oh shit" moment.

Priceless.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 20, 2017, 12:14:40 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 18, 2017, 07:31:55 PM
However forget everything...Let's say 100 percent facts, no speculation. The core must be removed to get any of these buildings to collapse as we saw. Simple as that. Thus that rules out fire and planes..

So, if the core remained standing after collapse,  that eliminates controlled demolition as an option.

There is ample proof that the core remained standing on WTC1 after collapse.

(http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/images/photoalbum/13/sullivanjr03z.jpg)

The entire northern portion of the WTC1 core survived the initial collapse to about the 50th floor with some columns extending as high as the 70th floor. all with no visible trace of buckling. All columns in the 500 and 600 CC rows remained erect and largely interconnected though the initial collapse. One 700-800 column pair was also identified, probably 703-803. There is good reason to believe that some other 700-800 column pairs survived to about the 40th floor because when the west portion of the surviving core did fall, column pair 501-601 was seen to fall with 703-803 in a single collective motion, suggesting all visible columns on the west were interconnected as a considerably larger structure just inside the obscuring dust. These images show that the flooring in the OOS n, nw and ne regions was stripped clean of the surviving columns.


IDENTIFICATION OF TEMPORARILY SURVIVING CORE COLUMNS:
WTC1:
Identification of west side columns
(http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/6/2/654829561.jpg)

501 is the tallest column of all on the right and 504 is the tall one bending to the right.
Columns 504, tall and leaning, and column 501 can serve as easily identifiable landmarks in most all video and photos of the core remnant. We know that columns 501 to 504 mark the boundaries of the the west half of the core. We also know that all columns east of 504 must be from the east side of the core. In the image the east and west sides of the core are distinguishable just by locating columns 501 and 504
CCs 501 and 504 are the tallest columns and easily identifiable. We can identify the east side columns as all those to the right of CC 504.



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 20, 2017, 12:21:52 AM
If we claimed wtc 1 and 2 were standard bottom up controlled demolitions, I would say that photo is evidence.

Unfortunately I have shown they were top down controlled demolitions.

You still need to debunk principia.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sceptimatic on March 20, 2017, 12:31:01 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 19, 2017, 03:58:08 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 02:15:27 PM
At least Intikam support the O/S.

No he wouldn't have called you controlled opposition if he supported the official story.


Quote from: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 02:15:27 PM
"Conspiracy theory" usually means someone believes something without warrent or evidence. This is certainly not true of the controlled demolition hypothesis.

No "conspiracy theorist"  is someone who supports a conspiracy theory,   has nothing to do with whether or not there is any evidence.

So,  there's two new terms you've learnt already today,   "controlled opposition"   and  "conspiracy theorist"   

For what it's worth I don't think you are controlled opposition,  although your weak arguments tend to support Intikam's view, I just think your arguments are actually very weak.
And, yes you are a conspiracy theorist.  Get over it.
His arguments are super strong and you know it. People like you always know it.
Admitting it is a different matter. Protocol forbids you to do that.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 20, 2017, 12:44:10 AM
This photo shows the core intact.

(https://s7.postimg.org/rvpp1qs0r/frame0_cut_gamma_px_size_ht_mast_time.jpg)

This photo shows the building standing after the core had been cut (the molten metal observed.)

(https://s22.postimg.org/jle7xm275/frame17_cut_gamma_px_size_ht_mast_time.jpg)

We can clearly see part of the core has been destroyed, the building is still stranding, the auxiliary charges then start and the top down controlled demolition starts.

The total progressive collapse hypothesis states the core damage directly led to the total destruction of the building.

Clearly not...

The falling mass encounters negligible structural resistance because the structural resistance is removed instantly or before the falling mass gets to it.

Building destroyed along with all physical evidence of foul play.

Quote
The fact that a Spanish skyscraper is still standing after an intense
fire consumed the steel and concrete tower for 24 hours provides real
world evidence that fire alone does not cause high-rise towers to
collapse.

As an intense fire consumed the 32-story Windsor Building in Madrid's
business district, the press reports all began with the words "fear
of collapse." After 24 hours, however, the tower, which was a similar
construction to the twin towers of the World Trade Center, remained
standing.

The fact that an extremely severe fire did not cause the Spanish
steel and concrete tower to collapse raises serious questions about
the events of 9/11 and how they have been explained. Why did the
Windsor Building remain standing when similar towers in New York City
collapsed completely after being affected by much less intense fires
burning for considerably shorter periods of time?

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) sponsored engineers to
conduct the World Trade Center Building Performance Study (BPS) to
examine how the buildings of the WTC responded to the airplane
crashes and fires that allegedly caused the collapses of the twin
towers and WTC 7, a 47-story office building on the next block.

"Prior to September 11, 2001, there was little, if any, record of
fire-induced collapse of large fire-protected steel buildings," the
BPS says in the chapter about the mysterious collapse of WTC 7, the
third tower to collapse on 9/11. WTC 7 was not hit by aircraft or
large pieces of debris and had only sporadic fires. At about 5:25
p.m., WTC 7, owned by Larry Silverstein, collapsed in what appeared
to be a controlled demolition.

It would be more accurate to say that no steel framed high-rise, like
WTC 7, has ever collapsed due to fire. The fact that the Windsor
Building is still standing is proof that fire alone does not cause
properly constructed steel and concrete towers to collapse.

Dr. W. Gene Corley, Senior Vice President of Construction Technology
Laboratories (CTL) of Skokie, Ill., was team leader of the engineers
who wrote the BPS.

(https://s28.postimg.org/8a4ym5z4d/wtc2_squibs_circle_0.jpg)

This also smashes the total progressive collapse hypotheses because (apparently) the force of the falling mass was only effecting one floor at a time (NIST says it, not me) if this was the case seeing squibs this far below the collapse is impossible.

The explanation of explosive compression is bunk if they don't claim those floors were affected when we saw the squibs.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 20, 2017, 01:15:33 AM
(https://s24.postimg.org/non7jrvp1/54cfc90212f36_911_south_tower_collapse.jpg)

If the top of the tower ever tilted this far it would continue to tilt and fall off the lower tower, this picture, ironically used to prop up the official clap trap. Smashes the total progressive collapse hypothesis.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/principia-mathematica/

Again.

There is literally nothing left of the OS.

(https://s16.postimg.org/roex7dv0l/1485829578017.gif)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sceptimatic on March 20, 2017, 01:54:13 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 20, 2017, 01:15:33 AM
(https://s24.postimg.org/non7jrvp1/54cfc90212f36_911_south_tower_collapse.jpg)

If the top of the tower ever tilted this far it would continue to tilt and fall off the lower tower, this picture, ironically used to prop up the official clap trap. Smashes the total progressive collapse hypothesis.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/principia-mathematica/

Again.

There is literally nothing left of the OS.
Whether this picture is genuine or not, it is used in the official reports,, as has been said.

Now here's the key, just to add on from what dispute is saying.
Anyone with a functioning brain can absolutely see by that picture, that this building is leaning significantly enough to do nothing other than topple over.
Absolutely no doubt about that, right?

Ok, so the only other thing that could possibly happen is for it to fall down the side of the building and shaving off a massive corner as it falls, however far down you wish to believe.
However, in this scenario we would still have most of the building intact.

We know that the leaning top did not fall to the ground as a block from that height and due to that intense grid like/core column structure, it should have just fell in mostly a large massive chunk like we see in the picture.
Take a look at it people. Take a good look at the picture.

Ok, now for the strange upon the strange.
This is apparently the impact zone and yet this impact zone has more or less sheared the building top to this angle, along with so called buckling of a weaker side to create the angle we see the top falling as.
However, take a look to the right of the tower ; you know, the bottom part of the top piece of building that is leaning away from the building directly under it, due to it being compressed into the left side of the building below.
Why is the right side crumbling?
The pressure is relived from the right side, so why is is crumbling or basically, being pulverised?

Why would any more of that lower building collapse now that the above block is falling away?

More to the point, why would the above smaller section of leaning building, pulverise as it falls?

It doesn't matter if that picture is a genuine picture or not. If its used as a proof in the official story, then all rational thinking people should see and understand, without the need for any gobbledygook maths or equations, that not only is there something amiss, but everything about that day does not add up, at all, in any rational way shape or form.

Any person that can look at that picture, who has studied how these towers were built, etc and say they weren't brought down by controlled demolition, are being far from truthful and that's basically why people like Rayzor and co are not worth a crap.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on March 20, 2017, 03:28:44 AM
Quote from: User324 on March 19, 2017, 10:53:40 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 06:26:32 AM
In any case I am not a "conspiracy theorist" I support the controlled demolition hypothesis.

...which would be a conspiracy and thus making you a conspiracy theorist.

The OS is based on conspiracy.

They stated a group of Arabs conspired to commit the acts of 9/11.

You are a conspiracy theorist if you believe the OS.

Simply add the adjective, "STUPID," though...as in STUPID CONSPIRACY THEORIST.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: deadsirius on March 20, 2017, 07:55:47 AM
It doesn't seem like Newton should have any problem here.  40 floors of mass, FALLING, would easily have enough force to crush through the next floor down.  Now you have 41 floors of mass, falling, which will again have no problem going through the next floor down, and so on.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on March 20, 2017, 08:19:20 AM
Quote from: deadsirius on March 20, 2017, 07:55:47 AM
It doesn't seem like Newton should have any problem here.  40 floors of mass, FALLING, would easily have enough force to crush through the next floor down.  Now you have 41 floors of mass, falling, which will again have no problem going through the next floor down, and so on.

Not if the newton you are referencing is named Fig.

If his first name is Isaac, then Newton has a problem with your story.

Because your story is not what any truthful person sees in the video evidence and it is not   possible.

People see each floor being pulverized to POWDER, much like a pyroclastic cloud (like the volcano on Montserrat...)

Go ahead and try to mimic that.

The point is this:

It would have cost less than 2 billion dollars (a drop in the bucket compared to the cost of the resultant so called war on terror) to set up a full size experiment to recreate the towers and other events...

Even if you did not want to go that route, the specs for all materials used could have been factored into a computer and have provided a graphic display of how the events actually went down...

Did any of this happen?

Fuck no...

It did not happen...

And there are people here who are perfectly fine and accept that as being okay and not such a big deal.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on March 20, 2017, 10:29:32 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 19, 2017, 04:52:11 PM
blablabla

What makes you think that the collapse as it happened would NOT be the path of "lowest resistance"?
What would cause the building to collapse in any other way? Which forces?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on March 20, 2017, 10:40:40 AM
Quote from: User324 on March 20, 2017, 10:29:32 AM
What makes you think that the collapse as it happened would NOT be the path of "lowest resistance"?
What would cause the building to collapse in any other way? Which forces?

See?

Perfect example of someone not getting it...

The collapse happened the way it happened because there was LESS RESISTANCE!

However, there is certainly NO VERIFIABLE EXPLANATION FOR THIS in the OS.

Now do you understand that?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on March 20, 2017, 11:05:12 AM
Quote from: totallackey on March 20, 2017, 10:40:40 AM
Quote from: User324 on March 20, 2017, 10:29:32 AM
What makes you think that the collapse as it happened would NOT be the path of "lowest resistance"?
What would cause the building to collapse in any other way? Which forces?

See?

Perfect example of someone not getting it...

The collapse happened the way it happened because there was LESS RESISTANCE!

However, there is certainly NO VERIFIABLE EXPLANATION FOR THIS in the OS.

Now do you understand that?
Let me define it more precisely:
What makes you think that the collapse as it happened would NOT be the path of "lowest resistance" based on that there were no explosives used?
What would cause the building to collapse in any other way? Which forces?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 20, 2017, 03:17:08 PM
Quote from: deadsirius on March 20, 2017, 07:55:47 AM
It doesn't seem like Newton should have any problem here.  40 floors of mass, FALLING, would easily have enough force to crush through the next floor down.  Now you have 41 floors of mass, falling, which will again have no problem going through the next floor down, and so on.

An object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.

F=ma.

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Pulverization of the lower structure equals pulverization of the top structure.

There's no getting around it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 20, 2017, 06:51:21 PM
Quote from: totallackey on March 20, 2017, 03:28:44 AM
Quote from: User324 on March 19, 2017, 10:53:40 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 19, 2017, 06:26:32 AM
In any case I am not a "conspiracy theorist" I support the controlled demolition hypothesis.

...which would be a conspiracy and thus making you a conspiracy theorist.

The OS is based on conspiracy.

They stated a group of Arabs conspired to commit the acts of 9/11.

You are a conspiracy theorist if you believe the OS.

Simply add the adjective, "STUPID," though...as in STUPID CONSPIRACY THEORIST.

Correct,  however,  most 911 conspiracies are  stupid.  So your phrase  "STUPID CONSPIRACY THEORIST"  is mostly correct.   

Some 911 conspiracies aren't stupid,  there is a lot of evidence to suggest that the intelligence services had enough information to connect the dots and unravel the plot,  but they failed to do so,  and subsequently the Bush administration conspired to cover up what was known.   Inter agency co-operation has supposedly gotten better since then.







Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 20, 2017, 08:14:19 PM
So why have you been fighting for 90 pages saying no new investigation is needed?

Don't worry, I know.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: hoppy on March 20, 2017, 08:21:31 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 20, 2017, 08:14:19 PM
So why have you been fighting for 90 pages saying no new investigation is needed?

Don't worry, I know.
Yes, we all know it is his job to bore people and take notes.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 20, 2017, 08:35:07 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 20, 2017, 12:14:40 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 18, 2017, 07:31:55 PM
However forget everything...Let's say 100 percent facts, no speculation. The core must be removed to get any of these buildings to collapse as we saw. Simple as that. Thus that rules out fire and planes..

So, if the core remained standing after collapse,  that eliminates controlled demolition as an option.

There is ample proof that the core remained standing on WTC1 after collapse.

(http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/images/photoalbum/13/sullivanjr03z.jpg)

The entire northern portion of the WTC1 core survived the initial collapse to about the 50th floor with some columns extending as high as the 70th floor. all with no visible trace of buckling. All columns in the 500 and 600 CC rows remained erect and largely interconnected though the initial collapse. One 700-800 column pair was also identified, probably 703-803. There is good reason to believe that some other 700-800 column pairs survived to about the 40th floor because when the west portion of the surviving core did fall, column pair 501-601 was seen to fall with 703-803 in a single collective motion, suggesting all visible columns on the west were interconnected as a considerably larger structure just inside the obscuring dust. These images show that the flooring in the OOS n, nw and ne regions was stripped clean of the surviving columns.


IDENTIFICATION OF TEMPORARILY SURVIVING CORE COLUMNS:
WTC1:
Identification of west side columns
(http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/6/2/654829561.jpg)

501 is the tallest column of all on the right and 504 is the tall one bending to the right.
Columns 504, tall and leaning, and column 501 can serve as easily identifiable landmarks in most all video and photos of the core remnant. We know that columns 501 to 504 mark the boundaries of the the west half of the core. We also know that all columns east of 504 must be from the east side of the core. In the image the east and west sides of the core are distinguishable just by locating columns 501 and 504
CCs 501 and 504 are the tallest columns and easily identifiable. We can identify the east side columns as all those to the right of CC 504.

I assume this is in an attempt to twist my words?

Let me be clear, which I think you know..When I say remove the core I am simply saying remove it's Structural stability. I think it is quite obvious I literally did no mean remove it.

Have you actually watched the video where those freeze frames come from? Latent core reaction is not uncommon in a building with a similar core design...Although this is used by you as some for of debunking or to twist my words, you are actually hurting your cause.

If the core stood like it should have, I doubt I would be debating CD. However, if you watch in the video, you will see clearly the base supports have been severed, as well as other key support areas as the core melts into its own foot print.

I will get more into this shortly as I am busy currently.

Quote from: Rayzor on March 19, 2017, 08:16:45 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 19, 2017, 08:10:28 PM
My previous post I had attempted to describe that the properties of the material 100 percent matter, not just mass or momentum in this situation (the different bullets metaphor).

You must use all variables to get an accurate answer..Not just what you want to look at. Math is only effect when used correctly

No argument from me,  I just pointed out that by focussing on density of the materials,  without considering the impact energy and momentum transfer was misleading.

I have made multiple posts in attempt to describe this. If you agree why have you argued against them?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 20, 2017, 09:59:36 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 20, 2017, 08:35:07 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 19, 2017, 08:16:45 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 19, 2017, 08:10:28 PM
My previous post I had attempted to describe that the properties of the material 100 percent matter, not just mass or momentum in this situation (the different bullets metaphor).

You must use all variables to get an accurate answer..Not just what you want to look at. Math is only effect when used correctly

No argument from me,  I just pointed out that by focussing on density of the materials,  without considering the impact energy and momentum transfer was misleading.

I have made multiple posts in attempt to describe this. If you agree why have you argued against them?

Because you have consistently argued that aluminium couldn't  cut through  high tensile steel,    which is not correct,  and your erroneous conclusion is based on material properties, and failing to take into account the momentum and  kinetic energy.   

Are you now agreeing that aluminium can cut through high tensile steel?




Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 20, 2017, 10:03:02 PM
An aluminum arrow could shoot though a 1mm thick piece of sheet steel.

No doubt.

This goes back to the strength of the material and the mass of the material.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 20, 2017, 10:05:35 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 20, 2017, 08:35:07 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 20, 2017, 12:14:40 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 18, 2017, 07:31:55 PM
However forget everything...Let's say 100 percent facts, no speculation. The core must be removed to get any of these buildings to collapse as we saw. Simple as that. Thus that rules out fire and planes..

So, if the core remained standing after collapse,  that eliminates controlled demolition as an option.

There is ample proof that the core remained standing on WTC1 after collapse.

(http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/images/photoalbum/13/sullivanjr03z.jpg)

The entire northern portion of the WTC1 core survived the initial collapse to about the 50th floor with some columns extending as high as the 70th floor. all with no visible trace of buckling. All columns in the 500 and 600 CC rows remained erect and largely interconnected though the initial collapse. One 700-800 column pair was also identified, probably 703-803. There is good reason to believe that some other 700-800 column pairs survived to about the 40th floor because when the west portion of the surviving core did fall, column pair 501-601 was seen to fall with 703-803 in a single collective motion, suggesting all visible columns on the west were interconnected as a considerably larger structure just inside the obscuring dust. These images show that the flooring in the OOS n, nw and ne regions was stripped clean of the surviving columns.


IDENTIFICATION OF TEMPORARILY SURVIVING CORE COLUMNS:
WTC1:
Identification of west side columns
(http://femr2.ucoz.com/_ph/6/2/654829561.jpg)

501 is the tallest column of all on the right and 504 is the tall one bending to the right.
Columns 504, tall and leaning, and column 501 can serve as easily identifiable landmarks in most all video and photos of the core remnant. We know that columns 501 to 504 mark the boundaries of the the west half of the core. We also know that all columns east of 504 must be from the east side of the core. In the image the east and west sides of the core are distinguishable just by locating columns 501 and 504
CCs 501 and 504 are the tallest columns and easily identifiable. We can identify the east side columns as all those to the right of CC 504.

I assume this is in an attempt to twist my words?

Let me be clear, which I think you know..When I say remove the core I am simply saying remove it's Structural stability. I think it is quite obvious I literally did no mean remove it.

Have you actually watched the video where those freeze frames come from? Latent core reaction is not uncommon in a building with a similar core design...Although this is used by you as some for of debunking or to twist my words, you are actually hurting your cause.

If the core stood like it should have, I doubt I would be debating CD. However, if you watch in the video, you will see clearly the base supports have been severed, as well as other key support areas as the core melts into its own foot print.

I will get more into this shortly as I am busy currently.


I understood you to mean the core had to be demolished for the buildings to  "to collapse as we saw"  as the video clearly shows the core was not demolished, in fact  some core columns up to the 70th floor were intact when the collapse ended. 

The first time I pointed this out, you response was,  " the video is fake and slowed down"  and  "in no way is that the core"  I then asked you to be clear in what you were saying,  now that it's proven to be the core,  you are backtracking.   I find that a bit comical.     If nothing else you are quick to change your point of view.







Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 20, 2017, 10:09:57 PM
A top down controlled demolition explains the visible supports left perfectly.

It is irrefutable proof against a bottom up demolition, lucky no one has argued that wtc 1 and 2 were bottom up controlled demolition.

This is an example of a top down and bottom up demolition.



This has an example or two of trying to demolish a building without destroying enough support.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 20, 2017, 10:15:26 PM
Also Rayzor after two minutes of research I found the video.

You are being dishonest saying the core was still standing, it stood for a few seconds.

Here.



If anything it backs up the controlled demolition hypothesis.

Why doesn't the core fall over? Surely it didn't have enough potential energy to collapse vertically into itself?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 20, 2017, 11:19:21 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 20, 2017, 09:59:36 PM
Because you have consistently argued that aluminium couldn't  cut through  high tensile steel,    which is not correct,  and your erroneous conclusion is based on material properties, and failing to take into account the momentum and  kinetic energy.   

Are you now agreeing that aluminium can cut through high tensile steel?

Here you go twisting again... You know I have tried to treat you like a human for the last couple days, even when others (rightfully so) have not. I always try to hope the best for people, and I hate being disappointed.

In this situation, no not as we saw.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 19, 2017, 06:15:20 PM
People look at the weight of one of the planes without looking at the density of the mass. It makes a HUGE difference. We are talking mostly liquid, people, fiberglass and tin can hollow aluminum...All of this either shatters or goes splat when faced in a challenge impact of thick steel and reinforced concrete.

In simple terms look at two different bullets, same caliber and powder load. One bullet solid and dense, it can penetrate sheet metal or multiple walls. The other bullet, not solid or as dense, it will shatter even when striking something like sheetrock. Even though traveling the same velocity. Thus how self defense bullets were born.

Thanks to the fun law of each action causing an opposite and equal reaction, you can fire a droplet of water at steel at a 1000 miles per hour, and it will reflect right off the steel in the opposite direction. Same with brittle aluminum vs steel and concrete, or even a person. Density and 10 other factors are very important here, not just mass...The attention is in the details.

Now if you compressed liquid to say, 75,000 psi and hit the steel or concrete with that...It's a different story, but then you change the density etc of the liquid, so all the variables change..However, uncompressed, no way.

This is just one little excerpt, I have said much on the issue. Also i am clearly speaking of all variables including velocity. I consider all variables when attempting to forecast an outcome...Not just one area, figure that and make a call. That is the difference between a Google warrior with no experience, and someone who actually works in the field with experience. You must exist in reality...Otherwise you won't be in business long if at all.

Quote from: Rayzor on March 20, 2017, 10:05:35 PM
I understood you to mean the core had to be demolished for the buildings to  "to collapse as we saw"  as the video clearly shows the core was not demolished, in fact  some core columns up to the 70th floor were intact when the collapse ended. 

The first time I pointed this out, you response was,  " the video is fake and slowed down"  and  "in no way is that the core"  I then asked you to be clear in what you were saying,  now that it's proven to be the core,  you are backtracking.   I find that a bit comical.     If nothing else you are quick to change your point of view.

And now I realize you are a lost cause and not looking for any sort of truth. The reason for this is open to speculation, people can draw their own conclusions.

Don't short quote me, I say as we saw with the catalyst of the official story.

The video you posted, yes I said it was slowed down so I don't trust it. So? It was slowed down and I didn't trust it lol. The freeze frames I was responding to was from a different video all together. Your twisting game is on repeat, at least surprise me from time to time.

As for latent core reaction, that is normal on cored designs during a demo..Sometimes it's visible, other times it is not. As I said, if the core was still standing after all of this, I probably would not be debating this subject on 9/11. However, you can clearly see it was compromised at it's base, the bedrock anchors, and other Structurally important sections. That is why it wilted into its own footprint a second or so after the freeze frame (I recommend to all who honestly search for truth to watch the video this came from)

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 20, 2017, 11:27:23 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 20, 2017, 11:19:21 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 20, 2017, 09:59:36 PM
Because you have consistently argued that aluminium couldn't  cut through  high tensile steel,    which is not correct,  and your erroneous conclusion is based on material properties, and failing to take into account the momentum and  kinetic energy.   

Are you now agreeing that aluminium can cut through high tensile steel?

Here you go twisting again... You know I have tried to treat you like a human for the last couple days, even when others (rightfully so) have not. I always try to hope the best for people, and I hate being disappointed.

In this situation, no not as we saw.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 19, 2017, 06:15:20 PM
People look at the weight of one of the planes without looking at the density of the mass. It makes a HUGE difference. We are talking mostly liquid, people, fiberglass and tin can hollow aluminum...All of this either shatters or goes splat when faced in a challenge impact of thick steel and reinforced concrete.

In simple terms look at two different bullets, same caliber and powder load. One bullet solid and dense, it can penetrate sheet metal or multiple walls. The other bullet, not solid or as dense, it will shatter even when striking something like sheetrock. Even though traveling the same velocity. Thus how self defense bullets were born.

Thanks to the fun law of each action causing an opposite and equal reaction, you can fire a droplet of water at steel at a 1000 miles per hour, and it will reflect right off the steel in the opposite direction. Same with brittle aluminum vs steel and concrete, or even a person. Density and 10 other factors are very important here, not just mass...The attention is in the details.

Now if you compressed liquid to say, 75,000 psi and hit the steel or concrete with that...It's a different story, but then you change the density etc of the liquid, so all the variables change..However, uncompressed, no way.

This is just one little excerpt, I have said much on the issue. Also i am clearly speaking of all variables including velocity. I consider all variables when attempting to forecast an outcome...Not just one area, figure that and make a call. That is the difference between a Google warrior with no experience, and someone who actually works in the field with experience. You must exist in reality...Otherwise you won't be in business long if at all.

Quote from: Rayzor on March 20, 2017, 10:05:35 PM
I understood you to mean the core had to be demolished for the buildings to  "to collapse as we saw"  as the video clearly shows the core was not demolished, in fact  some core columns up to the 70th floor were intact when the collapse ended. 

The first time I pointed this out, you response was,  " the video is fake and slowed down"  and  "in no way is that the core"  I then asked you to be clear in what you were saying,  now that it's proven to be the core,  you are backtracking.   I find that a bit comical.     If nothing else you are quick to change your point of view.

And now I realize you are a lost cause and not looking for any sort of truth. The reason for this is open to speculation, people can draw their own conclusions.

Don't short quote me, I say as we saw with the catalyst of the official story.

The video you posted, yes I said it was slowed down so I don't trust it. So? It was slowed down and I didn't trust it lol. The freeze frames I was responding to was from a different video all together. Your twisting game is on repeat, at least surprise me from time to time.

As for latent core reaction, that is normal on cored designs during a demo..Sometimes it's visible, other times it is not. As I said, if the core was still standing after all of this, I probably would not be debating this subject on 9/11. However, you can clearly see it was compromised at it's base, the bedrock anchors, and other Structurally important sections. That is why it wilted into its own footprint a second or so after the freeze frame (I recommend to all who honestly search for truth to watch the video this came from)

So, just answer a couple of simple direct questions and stop with the insults,   or I'll revert to responding in kind. 

1. Do you think aluminium can cut through high tensile steel or not?     Stop evading the question.

2. Why wouldn't the core be demolished if it was a controlled demolition?  It's obvious that no charges were placed on the core between the ground floor and at least the 70th floor. 

Try to be clearer in your answers.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 20, 2017, 11:30:54 PM
Video is in my last post if honest readers wanna check it out.

Here it is again.


Rayzors comment of "the core was standing after the collapse" is just a lie.

For me a collapse ends when it stops falling down, not sure how that can be twisted. To fit "the collapse ends when I say it does?"

Quote from: Bhs
And now I realize you are a lost cause and not looking for any sort of truth.

Wait, what? You only realized now?

;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 20, 2017, 11:35:56 PM
Rayzor.

1. Yes it obviously can, try it yourself.

Aluminum arrow vs 1mm thick sheet steel.

Arrow wins, near flawless victory, Bhs has explained why.

This is not an accurate representation of what happened on the plane impacts, at all. You know this, I have so comprehensively destroyed you this is literally all you have left, twisting words.

2. The core was demolished watch the video I provided of your dishonestly used screenshot.

God you are such a desperate shill.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 20, 2017, 11:41:01 PM
I would also like to expand slightly. If 1 and two had collapsed due to the fairy tale of the official story (the bolts on the floors failing), we would have seen the floors collapse inside the exoskeleton until the mass of floors hit the bottom, or friction of the much larger lower exoskeleton (up to 6 inches thick) and the much larger core (multiple upon multiple times the mass of the upper core. These were before they started using CG compensation devices, so it is a typical Bowie design) stopped the rubble.

The exoskeleton would collapse in wherever direction posed the least resistance (the exoskeleton was relatively weak, not relied upon for much load bearing support, mainly for sheer, twisting, wind load, sway etc etc for the core) the lower 44 exoskeleton may have survived even if the upper half came down. Depending on however the upper areas of the exoskeleton fell, it could take some of the core with it in the upper areas.... Either case, the lower 44 of the core at a minimum would have stood strong, quite possibly the lower exoskeleton would have made it as well (as I said the lowest parts was 6 inches thick)

The top down progressive collapse theory is impossible with this core design as we saw. We would have either seen the exoskeleton separate from the core or floors fall inside the exoskeleton...To have the top fall as we saw it would require Completely​ removing the support of the core.

Like this video at 1:44 you will see what the intact top would act like when dropped for some time at close to free fall speed on a solid intact area.



Or same video at 2:40, you will see what intact cores act like.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 20, 2017, 11:51:05 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 20, 2017, 11:27:23 PM
So, just answer a couple of simple direct questions and stop with the insults,   or I'll revert to responding in kind. 

1. Do you think aluminium can cut through high tensile steel or not?     Stop evading the question.

2. Why wouldn't the core be demolished if it was a controlled demolition?  It's obvious that no charges were placed on the core between the ground floor and at least the 70th floor. 

Try to be clearer in your answers.

Number one, you were insulting me in those...As well as twisting.

I have answered your questions at least 5 times on the aluminum...You just repeat questions whenever when you are stuck.

I even answered the question in the post of mine you were responding with this post.

I did say the core would be demolished in a controlled demolition?? Pretty sure I said that would have to happen?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 21, 2017, 12:17:01 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 20, 2017, 11:51:05 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 20, 2017, 11:27:23 PM
So, just answer a couple of simple direct questions and stop with the insults,   or I'll revert to responding in kind. 

1. Do you think aluminium can cut through high tensile steel or not?     Stop evading the question.

2. Why wouldn't the core be demolished if it was a controlled demolition?  It's obvious that no charges were placed on the core between the ground floor and at least the 70th floor. 

Try to be clearer in your answers.

Number one, you were insulting me in those...As well as twisting.

I have answered your questions at least 5 times on the aluminum...You just repeat questions whenever when you are stuck.

I even answered the question in the post of mine you were responding with this post.


I'm repeating questions because your answers either are rambling,  incoherent  or more often evasive. 

1.  I still don't actually know if you are sticking to your view that alumnium can't  cut high tensile steel,   you might think you've answered,  but  you haven't been clear.   

As far as I know you are still saying this...

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 14, 2017, 03:00:19 AM

This is not reality.... rigid and brittle aluminum does not pass through concrete, steel vertical exoskeleton, steel horizontal exoskeleton reinforced with concrete, then we get into the real tough stuff that can flex and absorb impacts the central core inches of reinforced I beams...Pass through all of that times 2 all the way to the other side.

This is not trick photography, I have seen multiple angles of plane number 2 on professional reply equipment and watched it frame by frame more times I could stomach. There is always about 5-14 frame delay of where the plane literally goes inside the building..No mark, no debris.... Nothing....Sunny skies in new York...Then BOOM!! An explosion on the front and back.

What is left? A Wylie Coyote like imprint straight out of the cartoons...The EXACT width of the plane end to end.....

A third rate magic show is more convincing.


Back to the core demolition dilemma.   

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 20, 2017, 11:51:05 PM
I did say the core would be demolished in a controlled demolition?? Pretty sure I said that would have to happen?

The evidence is that there were no demolition charges placed in the core,  at least up to the 70th floor.

2.  So when you say the core would have to be demolished in a controlled demolition,

That pretty much destroys your version of the controlled demolition theory.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 21, 2017, 12:35:11 AM
Desperation is so real.

Aluminum can cut through steel Bhs has been explicitly clear its about the density, mass and acceleration.

The planes wings didn't have the density and mass, regardless of energy, compared to massive steel beams to cut them in half

This video shows Rayzor is basing his entire argument on a lie that the core didn't collapse. Note Rayzor ignoring its existence.



Our hypothesis matches observations very well, the owness is on you to show the OS matches observations better.

Preferably without saying "no one ever lies, that's a conspiracy"
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 21, 2017, 12:45:58 AM


Just a fun video for a bit of reference.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on March 21, 2017, 05:13:50 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 20, 2017, 09:59:36 PM
Because you have consistently argued that aluminium couldn't  cut through  high tensile steel,    which is not correct,  and your erroneous conclusion is based on material properties, and failing to take into account the momentum and  kinetic energy.   

Are you now agreeing that aluminium can cut through high tensile steel?

Not really.

I need to see more aircraft crashing into steel.

Actually I would like to see an airplane crash into a concrete abutment, like those dividers on interstate highways...

I bet you the plane gets shredded to pieces and the concrete might get a couple of chips.

Tensile steel...

LMFAO!!!

"1mm thick."

As if that is an honest comparison to steel girders used in high rise construction.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sceptimatic on March 21, 2017, 07:35:42 AM
Flying into hail.


Buildings should be piss easy. :P
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on March 21, 2017, 01:00:41 PM
Rayzor won't own up to the core collapsing.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 21, 2017, 06:45:09 PM


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 21, 2017, 08:04:09 PM
Quote from: totallackey on March 21, 2017, 01:00:41 PM
Rayzor won't own up to the core collapsing.

A couple of days ago you didn't even know it was the core,   now you didn't notice there weren't any demolition charges in the core,  at least from the ground up to the 70 th floor. 

It just fell over after the rest of the building had collapsed.   

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 21, 2017, 08:06:17 PM
This video shows the core didn't "fall over" instead it fell through itself through the path of greatest resistance, like the towers.

Quote from: disputeone on March 21, 2017, 12:35:11 AM

This video shows Rayzor is basing his entire argument on a lie that the core didn't collapse. Note Rayzor ignoring its existence.



Our hypothesis matches observations very well, the owness is on you to show the OS matches observations better.

Preferably without saying "no one ever lies, that's a conspiracy"

We will not be silenced.

Quote
An alternate Building 7 collapse theory claimed it was a controlled demolition using explosives.

”People have put straight lines on the video to see if it goes straight down, and it’s almost perfectly straight down,” Hulsey said. “Yet the building is not symmetric. One might say, ‘Well. Why did that happen?’ And you can begin to see why people have all these ideas about why that building came straight down like that. And, as a matter of fact, the Twin Towers came down pretty straight too.”

Hulsey, who’s been working on the project for a year, stresses that he and 2 graduate students, are going about the analysis with open minds.

”There’s a lot of stuff that’s been written about this and I have absolutely refused to read it,” Hulsey said. “And I’m not going to read it ’til we have our results finished. And then I’ve told my students that they’re not allowed to read it either. So we do not want to have a bias. We’re going to try to do this purely scientifically.”

Hulsey said after the analysis is complete he’ll read everything he can find about Building 7 theories, and welcome feedback.

”And we’re in the process of putting together a professional team of experts to review our work,” Halsey said.

http://www.alaskapublic.org/2016/06/27/uaf-researcher-looks-at-causes-of-the-911-world-trade-center-attack/
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 21, 2017, 08:16:58 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 21, 2017, 12:17:01 AM

I'm repeating questions because your answers either are rambling,  incoherent  or more often evasive. 

1.  I still don't actually know if you are sticking to your view that alumnium can't  cut high tensile steel,   you might think you've answered,  but  you haven't been clear.   

As far as I know you are still saying this...

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 14, 2017, 03:00:19 AM

This is not reality.... rigid and brittle aluminum does not pass through concrete, steel vertical exoskeleton, steel horizontal exoskeleton reinforced with concrete, then we get into the real tough stuff that can flex and absorb impacts the central core inches of reinforced I beams...Pass through all of that times 2 all the way to the other side.

This is not trick photography, I have seen multiple angles of plane number 2 on professional reply equipment and watched it frame by frame more times I could stomach. There is always about 5-14 frame delay of where the plane literally goes inside the building..No mark, no debris.... Nothing....Sunny skies in new York...Then BOOM!! An explosion on the front and back.

What is left? A Wylie Coyote like imprint straight out of the cartoons...The EXACT width of the plane end to end.....

A third rate magic show is more convincing.




Back to the core demolition dilemma.   

The evidence is that there were no demolition charges placed in the core,  at least up to the 70th floor.

2.  So when you say the core would have to be demolished in a controlled demolition,

That pretty much destroys your version of the controlled demolition theory.

Its funny...Why does everyone else only need to ask me a question once, then gets it... Even someone like a "lonely fitter" ::)

As dispute explained, sure 1mm this steel can be penetrated by an aluminum arrow (easy example)... However, 2 inch thick (at floor connection 4 inch) Structural steel under compression by a tin can wing, not so much. Then add 60 feet of multiple horizontal floors of inches thick reinforced concrete and trusses, to a core of 88 feet of reinforced inches thick I beams 16 inches wide, reinforced elevator shafts, then out 60 feet the other side.

So no, I am not talking about 1 mm thick steel vs aluminum. The planes are a tin can, mainly full of liquid and people. If it was a solid aluminum piece going 500 plus at the tower, I would say something different.

Not saying there would not be damage to the structure, and sure there would be spots of penetration. However, definitely not all the way through like butter...And there would be more outside the building shedded than inside. Also the wings would stand no chance. Take a pair of channel locks, you can bend the metal with ease. It is also brittle, bend it too far it snaps. Hit it hard enough it will shatter (which is why a bird can take down a plane)


As for your comments on the core...

I already answered what the building would collapse as with the "pancake theory"..

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 20, 2017, 11:41:01 PM
I would also like to expand slightly. If 1 and two had collapsed due to the fairy tale of the official story (the bolts on the floors failing), we would have seen the floors collapse inside the exoskeleton until the mass of floors hit the bottom, or friction of the much larger lower exoskeleton (up to 6 inches thick) and the much larger core (multiple upon multiple times the mass of the upper core. These were before they started using CG compensation devices, so it is a typical Bowie design) stopped the rubble.

The exoskeleton would collapse in wherever direction posed the least resistance (the exoskeleton was relatively weak, not relied upon for much load bearing support, mainly for sheer, twisting, wind load, sway etc etc for the core) the lower 44 exoskeleton may have survived even if the upper half came down. Depending on however the upper areas of the exoskeleton fell, it could take some of the core with it in the upper areas.... Either case, the lower 44 of the core at a minimum would have stood strong, quite possibly the lower exoskeleton would have made it as well (as I said the lowest parts was 6 inches thick)

The top down progressive collapse theory is impossible with this core design as we saw. We would have either seen the exoskeleton separate from the core or floors fall inside the exoskeleton...To have the top fall as we saw it would require Completely​ removing the support of the core.

Like this video at 1:44 you will see what the intact top would act like when dropped for some time at close to free fall speed on a solid intact area.



Or same video at 2:40, you will see what intact cores act like.



Also the core was demolished, we saw it collapse into its own foot print. So I am trying to understand where the argument is. If the lower 44 stood, or even partially stood..I would agree with NIST on the collapse of 1 and 2.

Also where did no shape charges to the core come from?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 21, 2017, 10:40:09 PM
Here's a great video including a PhD structural engineer.



The truth will always win, as long as men die, liberty will never perish.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 21, 2017, 11:53:45 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 21, 2017, 08:16:58 PM

As dispute explained, sure 1mm this steel can be penetrated by an aluminum arrow (easy example)... However, 2 inch thick (at floor connection 4 inch) Structural steel under compression by a tin can wing, not so much. Then add 60 feet of multiple horizontal floors of inches thick reinforced concrete and trusses, to a core of 88 feet of reinforced inches thick I beams 16 inches wide, reinforced elevator shafts, then out 60 feet the other side.

So no, I am not talking about 1 mm thick steel vs aluminum. The planes are a tin can, mainly full of liquid and people. If it was a solid aluminum piece going 500 plus at the tower, I would say something different.

Not saying there would not be damage to the structure, and sure there would be spots of penetration. However, definitely not all the way through like butter...And there would be more outside the building shedded than inside. Also the wings would stand no chance. Take a pair of channel locks, you can bend the metal with ease. It is also brittle, bend it too far it snaps. Hit it hard enough it will shatter (which is why a bird can take down a plane)

Nope,  you are wrong,  impact physics are about momentum and kinetic energy,   the mass and velocity are the key determining factors,  I've already linked to a paper in the Journal of Imapct Physics,  which debunks your simplistic and incorrect analysis.    Have you read it yet?



Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 21, 2017, 08:16:58 PM

Also the core was demolished, we saw it collapse into its own foot print. So I am trying to understand where the argument is. If the lower 44 stood, or even partially stood..I would agree with NIST on the collapse of 1 and 2.

Also where did no shape charges to the core come from?

The argument is simple,  the core wasn't demolished by charges,  parts of the core up to the 70th floor were intact after the main collapse,  the fact that it fell over last,  and was intact from the ground all the way up to the 70th floor,  is convincing proof that no charges were placed on the core,  or if they were they did nothing.
 

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 22, 2017, 12:46:02 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 21, 2017, 11:53:45 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 21, 2017, 08:16:58 PM

As dispute explained, sure 1mm thick steel can be penetrated by an aluminum arrow

Nope,  you are wrong,

^^^
Honestly what is with this guy.

Rayzor at what velocity will styrofoam pass through titanium, since you think only velocity matters and material density has nothing to do with it. (lol)

Quote from: Rayzor on March 21, 2017, 11:53:45 PM
The argument is simple,  the core wasn't demolished by charges,  parts of the core up to the 70th floor were intact after the main collapse,  the fact that it fell over last,  and was intact from the ground all the way up to the 70th floor,  is convincing proof that no charges were placed on the core,  or if they were they did nothing.


Blatant lie, the core did not fall over, it collapsed straight down, the video of the collapse shows this very clearly.



The core was nowhere near "intact" it collapsed through the path of greatest resistance.

In a top down demolition for the last 70 floors seperation of the floors from the central column would have been enough to bring the building down as we saw, the core does look like it was demolished as we would expect it to "fall over" or stay upright if it wasnt. You have been dishonestly claiming the core "fell over" against all video evidence.

It is nice to see you are totally out of any honest arguments. It is also nice to see you avoiding addressing any of my points since Newton and myself tag-teamed you.

Rayzor at what velocity will styrofoam pass through titanium?

Again, here is NIST's report getting torn to absolute shreds by PhD engineers. Please also note NIST had to lie about nearly everything.

As Rayzor is doing now.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 22, 2017, 06:43:47 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 21, 2017, 11:53:45 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 21, 2017, 08:16:58 PM

As dispute explained, sure 1mm this steel can be penetrated by an aluminum arrow (easy example)... However, 2 inch thick (at floor connection 4 inch) Structural steel under compression by a tin can wing, not so much. Then add 60 feet of multiple horizontal floors of inches thick reinforced concrete and trusses, to a core of 88 feet of reinforced inches thick I beams 16 inches wide, reinforced elevator shafts, then out 60 feet the other side.

So no, I am not talking about 1 mm thick steel vs aluminum. The planes are a tin can, mainly full of liquid and people. If it was a solid aluminum piece going 500 plus at the tower, I would say something different.

Not saying there would not be damage to the structure, and sure there would be spots of penetration. However, definitely not all the way through like butter...And there would be more outside the building shedded than inside. Also the wings would stand no chance. Take a pair of channel locks, you can bend the metal with ease. It is also brittle, bend it too far it snaps. Hit it hard enough it will shatter (which is why a bird can take down a plane)

Nope,  you are wrong,  impact physics are about momentum and kinetic energy,   the mass and velocity are the key determining factors,  I've already linked to a paper in the Journal of Imapct Physics,  which debunks your simplistic and incorrect analysis.    Have you read it yet?

So you find my quote, just the one above completely wrong when taking into account all aspects of metallurgy and other properties of all materials involved in the collision, then adding velocity to this?

If you find everything I said incorrect, then I fear for your lack of understanding, or possible nefarious and blatant misrepresentation.

Anyone with even moderate understanding of real life variables would agree with the simplicity of the words above from my quote.


Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 21, 2017, 08:16:58 PM

Also the core was demolished, we saw it collapse into its own foot print. So I am trying to understand where the argument is. If the lower 44 stood, or even partially stood..I would agree with NIST on the collapse of 1 and 2.

Also where did no shape charges to the core come from?

Quote
The argument is simple,  the core wasn't demolished by charges,  parts of the core up to the 70th floor were intact after the main collapse,  the fact that it fell over last,  and was intact from the ground all the way up to the 70th floor,  is convincing proof that no charges were placed on the core,  or if they were they did nothing.

You can say it wasn't, this does not mean it reflects accurate in reality. I have already explained the chain of events that would happen in an unmolested core. The shown collapse is further evidence it was not only compromised at the bedrock and 4th of the core, it was at a minimum of the 18th and 32nd junction as well. The video of the core does not help the case of a natural collapse.




Funny...This PhD S.E. is almost a mirror image of what I have been called a fraud and an idiot for sometime here.

Incomplete data (obvious because they don't release the inputs), impossibilities, ran models with complete data and could not replicate the results etc etc.

I can also pull quotes from me explaining the same thing he did about thermal expansion, thermal sharing of the building as a whole, load sharing, the rigidity as well as tension of the joints when looked at as a whole etc etc...

Actually, to be honest, it makes me smile. My emphasis is not in S.E. and he has been in the field four times longer than I have. To see we are in agreement with mirroring language, also the models I have produced was very similar to his results....Again, it makes me smile and encourages me to continue.

Not to mention, he used a phrase I used in the very beginning "I can only prove what didn't bring the towers down, not what did"

Why is it only google warriors without any sort of real world experience or credentials that argue the official story...As well as call people with credentials and real world experience frauds and liars?

I find this interesting, and I believe it should be investigated.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on March 22, 2017, 06:47:24 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 21, 2017, 08:04:09 PM
Quote from: totallackey on March 21, 2017, 01:00:41 PM
Rayzor won't own up to the core collapsing.

A couple of days ago you didn't even know it was the core,   now you didn't notice there weren't any demolition charges in the core,  at least from the ground up to the 70 th floor. 

It just fell over after the rest of the building had collapsed.

It did not fall over...

Jesus, quit your lying already!
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 22, 2017, 07:17:18 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 22, 2017, 06:43:47 AM
Funny...This PhD S.E. is almost a mirror image of what I have been called a fraud and an idiot for sometime here.

Incomplete data (obvious because they don't release the inputs), impossibilities, ran models with complete data and could not replicate the results etc etc.

I can also pull quotes from me explaining the same thing he did about thermal expansion, thermal sharing of the building as a whole, load sharing, the rigidity as well as tension of the joints when looked at as a whole etc etc...

Actually, to be honest, it makes me smile. My emphasis is not in S.E. and he has been in the field four times longer than I have. To see we are in agreement with mirroring language, also the models I have produced was very similar to his results....Again, it makes me smile and encourages me to continue.

Not to mention, he used a phrase I used in the very beginning "I can only prove what didn't bring the towers down, not what did"

Why is it only google warriors without any sort of real world experience or credentials that argue the official story...As well as call people with credentials and real world experience frauds and liars?

I find this interesting, and I believe it should be investigated.

I did notice he said nearly the exact same things as you, funny that.
 ::)  ::)  ::)

I wonder if he is also a fraud?

I think the more likely hypothesis is you are both experienced engineers, but that's just me.

Quote from: totallackey on March 22, 2017, 06:47:24 AM
Jesus, quit your lying already!

It's literally all he has.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 22, 2017, 05:49:57 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 22, 2017, 06:43:47 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 21, 2017, 11:53:45 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 21, 2017, 08:16:58 PM

As dispute explained, sure 1mm this steel can be penetrated by an aluminum arrow (easy example)... However, 2 inch thick (at floor connection 4 inch) Structural steel under compression by a tin can wing, not so much. Then add 60 feet of multiple horizontal floors of inches thick reinforced concrete and trusses, to a core of 88 feet of reinforced inches thick I beams 16 inches wide, reinforced elevator shafts, then out 60 feet the other side.

So no, I am not talking about 1 mm thick steel vs aluminum. The planes are a tin can, mainly full of liquid and people. If it was a solid aluminum piece going 500 plus at the tower, I would say something different.

Not saying there would not be damage to the structure, and sure there would be spots of penetration. However, definitely not all the way through like butter...And there would be more outside the building shedded than inside. Also the wings would stand no chance. Take a pair of channel locks, you can bend the metal with ease. It is also brittle, bend it too far it snaps. Hit it hard enough it will shatter (which is why a bird can take down a plane)

Nope,  you are wrong,  impact physics are about momentum and kinetic energy,   the mass and velocity are the key determining factors,  I've already linked to a paper in the Journal of Imapct Physics,  which debunks your simplistic and incorrect analysis.    Have you read it yet?

So you find my quote, just the one above completely wrong when taking into account all aspects of metallurgy and other properties of all materials involved in the collision, then adding velocity to this?

If you find everything I said incorrect, then I fear for your lack of understanding, or possible nefarious and blatant misrepresentation.

Anyone with even moderate understanding of real life variables would agree with the simplicity of the words above from my quote.

Sigh,   the  impact energy is simply  1/2mv2    the momentum is mv,    that's it,  density is not a primary determining factor,  although shape plays a role in the type of fracture and the way the energy transfers, the aircraft shape has a bearing on the analysis.   

But the convincing evidence that you are wrong come from the video evidence itself,   the plane hit with sufficient energy and momentum to slice straight through the outer steel structure and disintegrate on the way through.   I can link to video evidence of the above if you disagree. 

If you deny this, then you have to deny the existence of the plane itself.   I don't think you really want to go there.   

The paper i referred to regarding the wing is this one from MIT's  Impact and Crashworthiness Laboratory

How the airplane wing cut through the exterior columns of the World Trade Center  T. Wierzbicki*, X. Teng  International Journal of Impact Engineering 28 (2003) 601–625

You have a way of avoiding reality that is strikingly similar to the way  flat earthers argue.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 22, 2017, 05:55:14 PM
Quote
You have a way of avoiding reality that is strikingly similar to the way  flat earthers argue.

You do.

Why discount our expert testimony?

I have read your report, I recommended another report done with a real plane and building prior to 9/11.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 22, 2017, 06:01:38 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 21, 2017, 08:16:58 PM

Also the core was demolished, we saw it collapse into its own foot print. So I am trying to understand where the argument is. If the lower 44 stood, or even partially stood..I would agree with NIST on the collapse of 1 and 2.

Also where did no shape charges to the core come from?

Quote
The argument is simple,  the core wasn't demolished by charges,  parts of the core up to the 70th floor were intact after the main collapse,  the fact that it fell over last,  and was intact from the ground all the way up to the 70th floor,  is convincing proof that no charges were placed on the core,  or if they were they did nothing.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 21, 2017, 08:16:58 PM
You can say it wasn't, this does not mean it reflects accurate in reality. I have already explained the chain of events that would happen in an unmolested core. The shown collapse is further evidence it was not only compromised at the bedrock and 4th of the core, it was at a minimum of the 18th and 32nd junction as well. The video of the core does not help the case of a natural collapse.




Funny...This PhD S.E. is almost a mirror image of what I have been called a fraud and an idiot for sometime here.

Incomplete data (obvious because they don't release the inputs), impossibilities, ran models with complete data and could not replicate the results etc etc.

I can also pull quotes from me explaining the same thing he did about thermal expansion, thermal sharing of the building as a whole, load sharing, the rigidity as well as tension of the joints when looked at as a whole etc etc...

Actually, to be honest, it makes me smile. My emphasis is not in S.E. and he has been in the field four times longer than I have. To see we are in agreement with mirroring language, also the models I have produced was very similar to his results....Again, it makes me smile and encourages me to continue.

Not to mention, he used a phrase I used in the very beginning "I can only prove what didn't bring the towers down, not what did"

Why is it only google warriors without any sort of real world experience or credentials that argue the official story...As well as call people with credentials and real world experience frauds and liars?

I find this interesting, and I believe it should be investigated.

I'm aware of the  Alaska project on WTC7,  that guy has been working on it with his students for a year or so.  Yes it's interesting,  but nothing much more than that.   He didn't talk about the temperatures of the fire or the cantilever structure or the damage caused by debris from WTC1,  it seems he just focussed on thermal expansion.   ( but I haven't seen the final report,  i'm only going on the video )

But WTC7 is a dumb argument anyway,   the thing was teetering on the verge of collapse most of the afternoon.   WTC1 and WTC2 are more interesting.

Which brings us back to the core being the last thing to fall.   You kept saying that it was ESSENTIAL to demolish the core for the collapse to occur the way we saw.  You even said,  that the video I first showed the thing standing was not the core.   Do you see why I'm having a hard time following any of your shifting arguments.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 22, 2017, 06:23:17 PM
They modelled everything, read the report.

He also shows (with science) what NIST omitted / lied about, they included everything.

I have never claimed collapse of the core at the same time as the outer structure was critical.

For a top down CD separation of the building from the core would have been enough to keep the collapse going.

The core collapsing straight down seconds after shows the core had very little structural integriry. Claiming it to be intact is dishonest.

If the last 70 stories of the core stayed strong and upright I would change my mind in wtc 2.

Show me the intact core on wtc 7 the bottom up controlled demolition. We can't it was completely destroyed.

From the video;

"In your professional opinion, what is the likelyhood that fires and debris caused the collapse we saw?"

"Zero"

Very compelling, especially coming from the most qualified people in the world to say it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 22, 2017, 07:23:28 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 22, 2017, 05:49:57 PM
You have a way of avoiding reality that is strikingly similar to the way  flat earthers argue.

Lol...I avoid reality when all I have said is the properties of the materials in a collision absolutely matter, not just velocity? You even agreed at one point...Now I am disconnected from reality.

I stand by everything I have said on that subject... Easily provable either on paper or reality. If you would like to think in an unrealistic approach then that is your decision. This is no different than saying master's thought experiment could deliver you an answer applicable in reality.

Quote from: Rayzor on March 22, 2017, 06:01:38 PM
I'm aware of the  Alaska project on WTC7,  that guy has been working on it with his students for a year or so.  Yes it's interesting,  but nothing much more than that.   He didn't talk about the temperatures of the fire or the cantilever structure or the damage caused by debris from WTC1,  it seems he just focussed on thermal expansion.   ( but I haven't seen the final report,  i'm only going on the video )

But WTC7 is a dumb argument anyway,   the thing was teetering on the verge of collapse most of the afternoon.   WTC1 and WTC2 are more interesting.

Which brings us back to the core being the last thing to fall.   You kept saying that it was ESSENTIAL to demolish the core for the collapse to occur the way we saw.  You even said,  that the video I first showed the thing standing was not the core.   Do you see why I'm having a hard time following any of your shifting arguments.

Fire temps was one of the first things he spoke about. Again, someone with no education or experience on the material at hand is saying people that does have such are incorrect. This is intriguing to me.

At least you now know you are arguing against engineering and not just myself (seeing I have mirrored what this man has said and discovered through modeling to my delight. I like being validated by someone higher on the food chain than I). If you also notice, he is not the best communicator, most engineers are not. So perhaps you will keep that in mind when having a dialog with me.

Thermal expansion is the largest part of the NIST report, of course he is going to address it, however, he addressed the entire package..Just like an engineer who works in the real world, not just theoretical or on paper. It's not "hard" to create a model with programs today, though very time consuming and detailed. You introduce even a few erroneous inputs, your entire model will be incorrect. Either that makes you incompetent at best, or in a law suit at worst.

Though as I said, seeing our models yielded almost the exact same results, I am very thrilled by that.

Also, we have no idea what the real condition of 7 was. It looked fine on film...As I have said people were scared any building on fire was going to collapse, I would be too on that day. They were equally afraid the other WTCs were going to collapse as well.

Got ahead of myself, forgot to mention, it is almost impossible for wtc 7 to "lean" and "swell" as you have stated. With the core/exoskeleton design, it would shed weight in an asymmetric fashion in localized areas, internal floor collapses etc. Though this is thinking along the incorrect lines "Well the buildings were unsafe so the fire fighters demoed them real quick"..No..Just like fire fighters have no room to choose when to demo, they have no room to judge a buildings Structural safety (just like the fire damage I was called to a month ago I shared. They didn't make the call, we did. There is a reason for that. I wouldn't​ tell them how to fight a fire)

As for 1 and 2...As I have said, latent core reaction is fine to a certain percentage. I have already written many things about this I see no point in repeating. I have also stated how 1 and 2 would have collapsed with both the false pancake theory as well as how they really would have collapsed due to asymmetric localized damage.

Would you like this information to be repeated?

Edit* Repeated words
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 22, 2017, 08:44:22 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 22, 2017, 07:23:28 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 22, 2017, 05:49:57 PM
You have a way of avoiding reality that is strikingly similar to the way  flat earthers argue.

Lol...I avoid reality when all I have said is the properties of the materials in a collision absolutely matter, not just velocity? You even agreed at one point...Now I am disconnected from reality.

I stand by everything I have said on that subject... Easily provable either on paper or reality. If you would like to think in an unrealistic approach then that is your decision. This is no different than saying master's thought experiment could deliver you an answer applicable in reality.


I show a flat earther a picture taken from space showing that the earth is a globe.   They immediately dismiss it as faked and claiming NASA is all part of some conspiracy.

I show you a video of  UA175 impacting WTC2  and you dismiss it as impossible,   you stopped short of saying the video was faked,  but you have implied that strongly in the past.  But you claim NIST is all a part of some  conspiracy. 

Do you see any similarities in the thought patterns?


The impact of UA175 into WTC2 is reality.    The evidence is undeniable,   by denying it happened you are showing that you are in fact disconnected from reality.   The thing is you can't admit it.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 22, 2017, 08:49:06 PM


Something hit wtc 2, no doubt about that.

You can't prove what it was, I have presented enough evidence to question whether the impacts were caused by paasenger planes.

Most notably eye witnesses repeating over and over "that wasn't a US airlines flight."

Did you miss the video showing NIST was either fantastically incompetent or fudged data.

I see you are back to comparing 9/11 truth to flat earth and trying to put the words "holographic planes" in Bhs mouth.

Disgusting.

Every action has an equal anf opposite reaction, remember that.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 22, 2017, 08:51:33 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 22, 2017, 07:23:28 PM
Fire temps was one of the first things he spoke about. Again, someone with no education or experience on the material at hand is saying people that does have such are incorrect. This is intriguing to me.


I've cited research earlier in this  thread about office fire temperatures, and his assumptions about temperatures are not supported by available research.

Also, please stop assuming what I do or don't know about a particular subject.   I have been involved in high rise building fire control systems.



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 22, 2017, 09:05:02 PM
They used NIST's approximation for fire temps. What would you suggest they use?

The difference was NIST had to pretend the concrete (hint, concrete, been saying it all thread.) And half the structural supports didn't exist to make it work.

They had to triple the thermal expansion to get a failure and not even at freefall.

NIST's wtc 7 report was absolute forgery, we have a mechanical fitter, a mechanical engineer and structural engineers all in agreement.

Funny how you called me crazy for saying the wtc 7 model was bunk...

If you knew anything about fire engineering you would agree with me when I say concrete smashes all hopes and dreams of a symmetrical free-fall.

QED.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed
someone with no education or experience on the material at hand is saying people that does have such are incorrect. This is intriguing to me.

Isn't it strange?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 22, 2017, 11:31:43 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 22, 2017, 08:44:22 PM
I show a flat earther a picture taken from space showing that the earth is a globe.   They immediately dismiss it as faked and claiming NASA is all part of some conspiracy.

I show you a video of  UA175 impacting WTC2  and you dismiss it as impossible,   you stopped short of saying the video was faked,  but you have implied that strongly in the past.  But you claim NIST is all a part of some  conspiracy. 

Do you see any similarities in the thought patterns?


The impact of UA175 into WTC2 is reality.    The evidence is undeniable,   by denying it happened you are showing that you are in fact disconnected from reality.   The thing is you can't admit it.

Evidence is undeniable? A video that violates reality is considered undeniable evidence? Do you also believe the Whitehouse was blown up by aliens? I saw that in the mid 90s on video...This was actually more convincing sadly.

As for comparing flat earth to this...This is interesting..Shows you have no where left to take this conversation. Well I am not an expert in space exploration, astrology and other subjects needed for determining the shape of the earth. However, if there were people in NASA coming out saying the earth was flat, as well as others specializing in related fields by the 100s of thousands...Then with more than half the planet of "regular people" knowing the earth is flat....Then, you know... I would investigate the matter fully.

As for my supposed disconnect to reality...I believe I am one of only a couple on this thread whom is actually connected to reality. There is even a thread on this very section of the forum where I fight for reality when all others fought against me before finally admitting I was right. I am very confident in my connection to reality, as well as seeing other engineers come to the same conclusions I have (almost word for word, also just so happening to be in the field for decades and with a PhD... Coincidence?)

Perhaps it is you whom cannot come to grips with your own incorrect views of reality? Possibly from lack of knowledge or understanding? Or maybe something more sinister? This I do not know....Just as I say about the official story, I cannot prove what the truth is, however, I cannot certainly prove what it is not.

Quote from: Rayzor on March 22, 2017, 08:51:33 PM
I've cited research earlier in this  thread about office fire temperatures, and his assumptions about temperatures are not supported by available research.

Also, please stop assuming what I do or don't know about a particular subject.   I have been involved in high rise building fire control systems.

I thought he did not speak about the fire temps??

The temps are not important, even 800 or even a 1000 degrees would not make much difference in the overall model (as I have said, I have played with the numbers when I could not simulate the collapse with real world variables) with the way 7 distributed it's thermal load (steel and concrete)... However, the average fire temp would be about 600 degrees, even NIST admits fuel stored in 7 had no bearing in the fire nor did it burn. 600 degrees of a few localized fires is child's play to that structure. It would be child's play if 3 quarters of the building was an Inferno. (Even look at steel structure buildings in areas with half the QC 7 had, those have shown to be able to take fires for days and still stand, most even repaired and still in use)

So again....Perhaps it's time to look in the mirror and decide why you believe what you believe. If you admit it's a faith you want or need, I will leave you alone about all of this.

As for your qualifications, what other opinions could I draw? You spend your time twisting my words and presenting falsehoods. You have shown the inability to look at the whole picture or reality, as well as many other issues. You have no issue calling me a fraud, yet refuse to present anything about yourself (excluding a guest tour pass) even when I have posted much proof about myself, and offered to present whatever you asked for however you wanted it.

Yet you refuse or dodge every time. So with adding these things together, at this point, the assumption you have zero qualifications/education or experience in the pertinent subjects at hand would be a very reasonable conclusion. Prove me wrong if I have drawn an incorrect conclusion.

Prove it though, not say it.

Quote from: disputeone on March 22, 2017, 09:05:02 PM
Isn't it strange?

I would say it is strange, however, I suppose it makes sense. No experience/no qualifications/no education would typically disagree with experience/ qualifications / education. However, 99.9 percent of the time the latter will be correct.

Just so happens the former is typically for the official story where latter is typically against the official story.

Coincidence?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 22, 2017, 11:43:21 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 22, 2017, 11:31:43 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 22, 2017, 08:44:22 PM
I show a flat earther a picture taken from space showing that the earth is a globe.   They immediately dismiss it as faked and claiming NASA is all part of some conspiracy.

I show you a video of  UA175 impacting WTC2  and you dismiss it as impossible,   you stopped short of saying the video was faked,  but you have implied that strongly in the past.  But you claim NIST is all a part of some  conspiracy. 

Do you see any similarities in the thought patterns?


The impact of UA175 into WTC2 is reality.    The evidence is undeniable,   by denying it happened you are showing that you are in fact disconnected from reality.   The thing is you can't admit it.

Evidence is undeniable? A video that violates reality is considered undeniable evidence? Do you also believe the Whitehouse was blown up by aliens? I saw that in the mid 90s on video...This was actually more convincing sadly.

Try to answer in one clear concise sentence.   Do you believe that  UA175  hit WTC2?     I want to be 100% clear on what you believe.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 23, 2017, 02:02:22 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 22, 2017, 11:31:43 PM
Just as I say about the official story, I cannot prove what the truth is, however, I cannot certainly prove what it is not.


Sorry what does his personal opinion have to do with anything?

Except trying to discredit him?

I believe UA175 didn't hit wtc 2, it was a military aircraft.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sceptimatic on March 23, 2017, 02:04:13 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 23, 2017, 02:02:22 AM
Sorry what does his personal opinion have to do with anything?

Except trying to discredit him?

I believe UA175 didn't hit wtc 2, it was a military aircraft.
After all of this argument, you actually believe this?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 23, 2017, 02:09:39 AM
Believe means without evidence.

I could accept the no planes hypothesis, It's just drones makes more sense to me personally.

A lot of the original footage shows a very black very sharp plane.

I also believe this can explain how it penetrated the building due to reinforcement snd armour you wouldn't have on a passenger plane.

It's just my opinion, I see it as a small issue, I do agree with Bhs that what we saw happen to the supposed passenger planes was impossible given Newton.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sceptimatic on March 23, 2017, 02:15:20 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 23, 2017, 02:09:39 AM
Believe means without evidence.

I could accept the no planes hypothesis, It's just drones makes more sense to me personally.

A lot of the original footage shows a very black very sharp plane.

I also believe this can explain how it penetrated the building due to reinforcement snd armour you wouldn't have on a passenger plane.

It's just my opinion, I see it as a small issue, I do agree with Bhs that what we saw happen to the supposed passenger planes was impossible given Newton.
You have to remember that the news footage is given to you as a present for your mind to accept as reality.
The actual bad video and photo, so called evidence, is anything but.
The only way to look at those photo's and video is to see what didn't happen, not what did, or might of.
I respect the fact that you have your own opinion but planes in any shape or form, or missiles, do not make any sense to me, other than maybe fly by's to create a scene that takes hold of planes being used.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 23, 2017, 02:18:56 AM
I agree with a lot of that, I'll say it here, the official footage of the plane impacts were fake.

No argument there, I am not about to take on Newton and say what we saw was possible, no way.

However this isn't conclusive proof that nothing hit the building.

Rayzor has been shilling "holographic planes" from page one, I do try to avoid it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 23, 2017, 02:24:31 AM
(https://s14.postimg.org/tir4qgjzl/maxresdefault_2.jpg)

I cant say what it is, but I can say what it is not, it is not this.

(https://s24.postimg.org/9pb11xf4l/images_17.jpg)

I don't know what that means except UA175 definitely didn't hit wtc 2.

That is all I can say for sure.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sceptimatic on March 23, 2017, 03:45:49 AM
That's fair enough, dispute. At least you know what didn't happen, which is the easiest and most reliable way to find out all the ongoing lies of that time.
After than, the deduction has to show certain things of what did happen, which isn't as clear cut, except for the disintegrating towers that we know can only have two possible reasons for.

1. The towers weren't built as we were told and were in fact built with girders that were all hinged at 30 feet intervals, with floor pans made of thin plastic and coated with compressed chalk, with all structural steel coated with mulched newspaper coated in fire retardent spray. This way the collapse of all buildings appears to be more in line with the official report of near free fall collapsing due to planes and fires , as far as the wtc7 building is concerned...just fires.

2. The building being as big as they were and as structurally strong as we were told by OFFICIAL people who actually BUILT those buildings, plus experienced architects and engineers confirming the almost indestructible strength without overall weakening, throughout, then there is the controlled demolition scenario.


Any person who owns a brain of any description, has two options.
I choose option 2.

Anyone care to differ from this?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on March 23, 2017, 11:34:19 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 21, 2017, 10:40:09 PM
Here's a great video including a PhD structural engineer.



The truth will always win, as long as men die, liberty will never perish.

Before certain people go overboard in touting this evidence:

1. The expert denounces the NIST report, but never bothers to cite the significant jump in computing power that has taken place in the past decade since the report.
2. When asked what the chances of the building falling to fire are, the expert responds with an emphatic "zero". Riiiiiiight

Regardless of these obvious warning signs of bias, it DOES look like a very interesting piece of evidence (unlike the steaming pile that is the majority of this thread), so I'll look into it further.

FYI, I probably won't bother trying to further debate this video on this thread, since the proponents of the conspiracy in this thread seem wholly incapable of having a rational/competent/unbiased conversation.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 23, 2017, 11:48:17 AM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 23, 2017, 11:34:19 AM
Before certain people go overboard in touting this evidence:

1. The expert denounces the NIST report, but never bothers to cite the significant jump in computing power that has taken place in the past decade since the report.
2. When asked what the chances of the building falling to fire are, the expert responds with an emphatic "zero". Riiiiiiight

Regardless of these obvious warning signs of bias, it DOES look like a very interesting piece of evidence (unlike the steaming pile that is the majority of this thread), so I'll look into it further.

FYI, I probably won't bother trying to further debate this video on this thread, since the proponents of the conspiracy in this thread seem wholly incapable of having a rational/competent/unbiased conversation.

Most of your time has been with others... I keep missing you on your "debates".

Though do you not find it a warning sign that anytime someone who's more qualified than you, as well as more experienced in the related fields saying something in disagreement with your thoughts. You either say they are biased or at worst call them names then leave. I feel this matter should be addressed.

As for the 0 percent chance you speak of... It was clear by the question and answer, it was 0 percent chance of falling as we saw from fire. Localized asymmetric structural failure is completely possible from continued fire.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on March 23, 2017, 12:07:35 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 23, 2017, 11:48:17 AM
Most of your time has been with others... I keep missing you on your "debates".

Yeah, we haven't really been on at the same time much. But both times I have had a short discussion with you, you brought up "squibs" as evidence, then promptly dropped them when I pointed out that they weren't strong evidence.

The second time you brought up the squibs with me, you made a whole bunch of blatantly false claims about them. So don't be surprised if I don't take your "qualifications" very seriously.

Quote
Though do you not find it a warning sign that anytime someone who's more qualified than you, as well as more experienced in the related fields saying something in disagreement with your thoughts. You either say they are biased or at worst call them names then leave. I feel this matter should be addressed.

"Anytime"? One post does not a pattern make. I gave my reasons for suspecting bias. Take them as you will.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 23, 2017, 12:37:01 PM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 23, 2017, 12:07:35 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 23, 2017, 11:48:17 AM
Most of your time has been with others... I keep missing you on your "debates".

Yeah, we haven't really been on at the same time much. But both times I have had a short discussion with you, you brought up "squibs" as evidence, then promptly dropped them when I pointed out that they weren't strong evidence.

The second time you brought up the squibs with me, you made a whole bunch of blatantly false claims about them. So don't be surprised if I don't take your "qualifications" very seriously.

I simply stated they were suspect, their locations, as well as they were not from simple air compression. Simply thinking out loud on suspect visual evidence. I left them alone because I didn't want to focus on something that doesn't matter. Nor is it something I even remotely need to present a case against the official story.

As for my qualifications..As I have said many times, I don't say it, I show it. I have presented proof of everything I have said about myself, leaving out direct personal information, but customizing evidence either as requested by members, or just including my S/N in one way or another. Have also offered to present more during constant accusations here.

This has been ignored heavily or danced around of course for a multitude of reasons, either for the accusers having lied themselves on their qualifications, for the simple fact they would rather name call than actually debate, or for other reasons not worth continuing with.

So you can question my qualifications as you wish simply for the reason I disagree with you. Just as you call the S.E. dispute linked to (whom I apparently mirrored in my arguments interestingly  I enough)) biased because he disagrees with you.. That doesn't change the fact that people more qualified than you are stating impossibilities with the official story or what we saw.

Nor have I seen you present an argument with merit yet, you were someone I had high hopes for on the subject, which is why I have been trying to catch you online, but so far have missed for the most part.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: avengedpepsi on March 23, 2017, 01:21:22 PM
9/11 didn't happen, those "pictures" are all just photos from the Michael Bay Transformers movies
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on March 23, 2017, 01:29:18 PM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 23, 2017, 11:34:19 AM
Before certain people go overboard in touting this evidence:

1. The expert denounces the NIST report, but never bothers to cite the significant jump in computing power that has taken place in the past decade since the report.
In what version of reality would this possibly make a difference?

With the proper inputs, I do not care if you are using a Texas Instruments calculator or a freaking slide rule, as long as the data is legitimate, the outcome could be modeled on a Commodore 64 screen.
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 23, 2017, 11:34:19 AM
2. When asked what the chances of the building falling to fire are, the expert responds with an emphatic "zero". Riiiiiiight

Damn right right!

Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 23, 2017, 11:34:19 AM
Regardless of these obvious warning signs of bias, it DOES look like a very interesting piece of evidence (unlike the steaming pile that is the majority of this thread), so I'll look into it further.

FYI, I probably won't bother trying to further debate this video on this thread, since the proponents of the conspiracy in this thread seem wholly incapable of having a rational/competent/unbiased conversation.
Probably a good thing.

You have a lot of nerve writing the words, "proponents of the conspiracy," at the same time thinking it only applies to disputeone or BHS.

That is just about as disingenuous as anything I have ever read here.

For the final _ _ _ _ _ _ _ time, the damn OS states 9/11 was a damn conspiracy!

So, if you are writing about 9/11 and making any sort of claim about what happened, you are, by definition, A PROPONENT OF A CONSPIRACY!

Thanks for _ _ _ _ _ _ _ playing.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on March 23, 2017, 01:43:32 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 23, 2017, 12:37:01 PM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 23, 2017, 12:07:35 PM
The second time you brought up the squibs with me, you made a whole bunch of blatantly false claims about them. So don't be surprised if I don't take your "qualifications" very seriously.

I simply stated they were suspect, their locations, as well as they were not from simple air compression... I left them alone because I didn't want to focus on something that doesn't matter.

As for my qualifications..As I have said many times, I don't say it, I show it...

The problem is that the stuff that you "simply stated" was wrong. Hence, my first impression was that you were full of baloney. Because you showed me a bunch of baloney, and called it evidence. Perhaps that was just an uncharacteristic mistake. It happens.

Quote
So you can question my qualifications as you wish simply for the reason I disagree with you. Just as you call the S.E. dispute linked to (whom I apparently mirrored in my arguments interestingly  I enough)) biased because he disagrees with you..

Here is a misconception I'd like to clear up. I don't disagree with Hulsey's conclusion in the video or with the conclusion that there was some sort of conspiracy. I don't have a definite opinion either way yet. My only conclusion regarding the video is that it is interesting, potentially good evidence, but also potentially biased, for the reasons I listed.

When I look at a body of evidence like this, I start with the stuff that seems the easiest to verify or debunk. Unfortunately, that includes most of the inane crap that disputeone has been spewing, so I understand why it looks like I have already made up my mind. I haven't. The more credible evidence (like this video) generally takes longer to verify/debunk, so it will take some time for me to draw any conclusions based on it.


TL;DR:

Don't confuse my disagreement with the inane crap spewed by disputeone with general dismissal of the evidence. I haven't made up my mind either way. I prefer to take my time with the more credible evidence.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on March 23, 2017, 02:08:34 PM
Quote from: totallackey on March 23, 2017, 01:29:18 PM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 23, 2017, 11:34:19 AM
Before certain people go overboard in touting this evidence:

1. The expert denounces the NIST report, but never bothers to cite the significant jump in computing power that has taken place in the past decade since the report.
In what version of reality would this possibly make a difference?

I know I said I wouldn't debate this, but I feel like I should clarify:

One of Hulsey's complaints about the NIST's FEA simulation was that it didn't include certain joint information in roughly 2/3rds of the building. Hulsey implied that this was due to either incompetence or a cover-up within the NIST (although he declined to explicitly say so). However, the NIST stated that each simulation took WEEKS to run. It is completely plausible that they left out that information in order to allow the simulation to run in a reasonable time frame. Remember, computers have gotten much faster in the past decade. The fact that Hulsey neglects to mention this is suspicious to me.

Quote
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 23, 2017, 11:34:19 AM
2. When asked what the chances of the building falling to fire are, the expert responds with an emphatic "zero". Riiiiiiight

Damn right right!

When an engineering professor makes such a definitive statement about such a complicated event, I get suspicious. He is obviously a Sith Lord.

Quote
You have a lot of nerve writing the words, "proponents of the conspiracy," at the same time thinking it only applies to disputeone or BHS.

Yes, I have seen you comment in this thread. I generally just assume you are trolling and ignore you.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on March 23, 2017, 02:21:26 PM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 23, 2017, 02:08:34 PM
I know I said I wouldn't debate this, but I feel like I should clarify:

One of Hulsey's complaints about the NIST's FEA simulation was that it didn't include certain joint information in roughly 2/3rds of the building. Hulsey implied that this was due to either incompetence or a cover-up within the NIST (although he declined to explicitly say so). However, the NIST stated that each simulation took WEEKS to run. It is completely plausible that they left out that information in order to allow the simulation to run in a reasonable time frame. Remember, computers have gotten much faster in the past decade. The fact that Hulsey neglects to mention this is suspicious to me.
Holy crap.

Weeks to run.

Reason: Fudge the data until you can come up with: "Sorry, the unicorn did it!"

That is what is suspicious.

Totes, when you are given the responsibility to provide an answer as to how things could have occurred, do you leave out data?

If you do, do you then say, "Sorry, but my computer was running slow, so I omitted certain data, but trust me! The outcome is correct!"

Yeah,the _ _ _ _ _ _ _ slide rules are just bullshit tools.

Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 23, 2017, 02:08:34 PM
When an engineering professor makes such a definitive statement about such a complicated event, I get suspicious.
But not of the NIST, who released a BS report based on admittedly incomplete data, actually UNKNOWN DATA.

Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 23, 2017, 02:08:34 PM
Yes, I have seen you comment in this thread. I generally just assume you are trolling and ignore you.
Yep.

I am a terrible troll having the nerve to introduce to this thread the fact the NIST released a final report on 9/11 and refused to provide the inputs so the outcomes could be falsified or repeated.

That was my very first post/point in this thread.

According to you, this was done because it was expeditious to do so?

I find it neither expedient or morally/ethically correct.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on March 23, 2017, 02:48:25 PM
sigh
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 23, 2017, 02:51:58 PM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 23, 2017, 02:48:25 PM

I would like to continue an actual debate, however I don't have the time currently. Will you be on later?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on March 23, 2017, 02:53:36 PM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 23, 2017, 02:48:25 PM
sigh
Well, I am not going to troll your feelings.

I asked you a couple of very specific questions that are not that difficult.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 23, 2017, 03:00:10 PM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 23, 2017, 11:34:19 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 21, 2017, 10:40:09 PM
Here's a great video including a PhD structural engineer.



The truth will always win, as long as men die, liberty will never perish.

Before certain people go overboard in touting this evidence:

1. The expert denounces the NIST report, but never bothers to cite the significant jump in computing power that has taken place in the past decade since the report.

It wasn't computing power it was just they built a proper model, like Bhs, and found the fire induced collapse we saw impossible.

Quote
2. When asked what the chances of the building falling to fire are, the expert responds with an emphatic "zero". Riiiiiiight

That was the professional opinion of the investigation.

Also, Santa isn't real Totes, sorry.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on March 23, 2017, 03:06:45 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 23, 2017, 02:51:58 PM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 23, 2017, 02:48:25 PM

I would like to continue an actual debate, however I don't have the time currently. Will you be on later?

I'll probably be back on sometime Saturday afternoon. I might drop by for a quick reply between now and then.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 23, 2017, 03:09:21 PM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 23, 2017, 02:48:25 PM
sigh

One of the better rebuttals all thread tbh.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 23, 2017, 03:09:49 PM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 23, 2017, 03:06:45 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 23, 2017, 02:51:58 PM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 23, 2017, 02:48:25 PM

I would like to continue an actual debate, however I don't have the time currently. Will you be on later?

I'll probably be back on sometime Saturday afternoon. I might drop by for a quick reply between now and then.

What time zone?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 23, 2017, 03:16:29 PM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 23, 2017, 02:08:34 PM

Quote
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 23, 2017, 11:34:19 AM
2. When asked what the chances of the building falling to fire are, the expert responds with an emphatic "zero". Riiiiiiight

Damn right right!

When an engineering professor makes such a definitive statement about such a complicated event, I get suspicious. He is obviously a Sith Lord.

That professor is a real life super hero, the people you are defending are "sith lords"

Fyi calling Bhs a fraud cause you cant touch his arguments.

Respect level = 0

Sorry Totes at one point respect level was over 9000, it fell rather quickly.

I am disappointed desu.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on March 23, 2017, 03:23:40 PM
By the way, Totes...

I would appreciate an answer to these questions:

Totes, when you are given the responsibility to provide an answer as to how things could have occurred, do you leave out data?

If you do, do you then say, "Sorry, but my computer was running slow, so I omitted certain data, but trust me! The outcome is correct!"
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on March 23, 2017, 03:26:45 PM
Quote from: totallackey on March 23, 2017, 02:53:36 PM
I asked you a couple of very specific questions that are not that difficult.

Fine. Real quick. Gotta go after this though.

Quote from: totallackey on March 23, 2017, 02:21:26 PM
Holy crap.

Weeks to run.

Reason: Fudge the data until you can come up with: "Sorry, the unicorn did it!"

That is what is suspicious.

Totes, when you are given the responsibility to provide an answer as to how things could have occurred, do you leave out data?

If I don't have the processor time to deal with it? Sure. I do what I can, not what I can't. Hopefully, they did some analysis to predict how leaving out the connections will affect the simulation. Hulsey obviously thinks it had a major impact. This is one of the things I will look for going forward.

Quote
I am a terrible troll having the nerve to introduce to this thread the fact the NIST released a final report on 9/11 and refused to provide the inputs so the outcomes could be falsified or repeated.

That was my very first post/point in this thread.

According to you, this was done because it was expeditious to do so?

I find it neither expedient or morally/ethically correct.

They may or may not have had a legitimate reason to not release the data. I don't know. Yes, it is suspicious. No, I am not going to automatically assume it was nefarious.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 23, 2017, 03:09:49 PM
What time zone?

USA. I don't want to be more specific than that. I don't know precisely when I'll be on anyway, sorry.

Quote from: disputeone on March 23, 2017, 03:16:29 PM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 23, 2017, 02:08:34 PM
When an engineering professor makes such a definitive statement about such a complicated event, I get suspicious. He is obviously a Sith Lord.
That professor is a real life super hero, the people you are defending are "sith lords"

I don't actually think he is a Sith Lord, in case you missed the joke.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 23, 2017, 03:33:35 PM
Lol?? It's not like I asked your state or zip code? Just time zone so I knew when to try to catch up with you.

Oh well, ok.

Oh...And for not releasing the inputs, there is no good reason for that as well as completely unscientific.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on March 23, 2017, 03:40:54 PM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 23, 2017, 03:26:45 PM
Quote from: totallackey on March 23, 2017, 02:53:36 PM
I asked you a couple of very specific questions that are not that difficult.

Fine. Real quick. Gotta go after this though.

Quote from: totallackey on March 23, 2017, 02:21:26 PM
Holy crap.

Weeks to run.

Reason: Fudge the data until you can come up with: "Sorry, the unicorn did it!"

That is what is suspicious.

Totes, when you are given the responsibility to provide an answer as to how things could have occurred, do you leave out data?

If I don't have the processor time to deal with it? Sure. I do what I can, not what I can't. Hopefully, they did some analysis to predict how leaving out the connections will affect the simulation. Hulsey obviously thinks it had a major impact. This is one of the things I will look for going forward.

Quote
I am a terrible troll having the nerve to introduce to this thread the fact the NIST released a final report on 9/11 and refused to provide the inputs so the outcomes could be falsified or repeated.

That was my very first post/point in this thread.

According to you, this was done because it was expeditious to do so?

I find it neither expedient or morally/ethically correct.

They may or may not have had a legitimate reason to not release the data. I don't know. Yes, it is suspicious. No, I am not going to automatically assume it was nefarious.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 23, 2017, 03:09:49 PM
What time zone?

USA. I don't want to be more specific than that. I don't know precisely when I'll be on anyway, sorry.

Quote from: disputeone on March 23, 2017, 03:16:29 PM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 23, 2017, 02:08:34 PM
When an engineering professor makes such a definitive statement about such a complicated event, I get suspicious. He is obviously a Sith Lord.
That professor is a real life super hero, the people you are defending are "sith lords"

I don't actually think he is a Sith Lord, in case you missed the joke.

Thank you for answering the first question.

I appreciate it.

But I just want to rephrase the first question and I hope you will indulge me by answering both of them in one response when you return.

Totes, if you are given the responsibility to provide an HONEST, OFFICIAL, CONCLUSIVE, FINAL REPORT as to why an event occurred at your home, place of business, etc., would you leave out data or use incorrect data in that report?

If you would leave out data or use incorrect data, would you then include in your summary, "Sorry, but my computer was running slow, so I omitted certain data, but trust me! The outcome is HONEST AND CORRECT!"

Thanks.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 23, 2017, 04:19:06 PM
It's the most wonderful time of the year — except for those kids who might be privately struggling with the notion that Santa might not be real. The doubt creeps in as children start to piece together their world around them as they grow up. Eventually, any family who celebrates Christmas must address the inevitable with the kids, and it's a pretty defining moment when a little bit of that childhood naïvete starts to wear away. Except for one family, whose mom has an amazingly compassionate way of telling kids that Santa isn't real without the ensuing existential crisis.

https://www.romper.com/p/mom-has-brilliant-idea-for-telling-your-kid-santa-isnt-real-without-breaking-their-hearts-24412
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 23, 2017, 04:44:08 PM
@ Totallackey.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Sonnenfeld

http://www.news.com.au/world/north-america/what-an-official-september-11-photographer-filmed-and-why-he-says-it-cost-him-his-freedom/news-story/264d4831797acfc8a0a6f490c045fd99

I hate coincidences.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 23, 2017, 09:23:58 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 22, 2017, 11:43:21 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 22, 2017, 11:31:43 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 22, 2017, 08:44:22 PM
I show a flat earther a picture taken from space showing that the earth is a globe.   They immediately dismiss it as faked and claiming NASA is all part of some conspiracy.

I show you a video of  UA175 impacting WTC2  and you dismiss it as impossible,   you stopped short of saying the video was faked,  but you have implied that strongly in the past.  But you claim NIST is all a part of some  conspiracy. 

Do you see any similarities in the thought patterns?


The impact of UA175 into WTC2 is reality.    The evidence is undeniable,   by denying it happened you are showing that you are in fact disconnected from reality.   The thing is you can't admit it.

Evidence is undeniable? A video that violates reality is considered undeniable evidence? Do you also believe the Whitehouse was blown up by aliens? I saw that in the mid 90s on video...This was actually more convincing sadly.

Try to answer in one clear concise sentence.   Do you believe that  UA175  hit WTC2?     I want to be 100% clear on what you believe.

No answer?   
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 23, 2017, 10:02:54 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 23, 2017, 09:23:58 PM
No answer?   

I have already answered your question many times Mr. Rayzor.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 23, 2017, 10:11:45 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 23, 2017, 10:02:54 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 23, 2017, 09:23:58 PM
No answer?   

I have already answered your question many times Mr. Rayzor.

Not really,  many times you have waffled  and  evaded  the question.   If you choose not to correct me,  I can only conclude that you don't think that AA11 hit WTC1 and UA175 hit WTC2

It's a simple enough question. 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 23, 2017, 10:25:19 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 22, 2017, 06:43:47 AM
I can only prove what didn't bring the towers down, not what did

Quote from: totallackey on March 22, 2017, 06:47:24 AM
Jesus, quit your lying already!

It's literally all he has.

What mass and velocity is required for styrofoam to penetrate 1 metre thick steel?

It's a simple question.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 23, 2017, 10:31:29 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 23, 2017, 10:11:45 PM
Not really,  many times you have waffled  and  evaded  the question.   If you choose not to correct me,  I can only conclude that you don't think that AA11 hit WTC1 and UA175 hit WTC2

It's a simple enough question.

Lol...You can be a dick all you want tonight, I am moderately intoxicated and having a good night for once. So my response in kindness will be quite likely even if it's not deserved.

Dispute said it correctly...I can only prove what did not bring the towers down.

Also include the issues with video evidence of the plane impacts...This brings much doubt.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 23, 2017, 10:53:04 PM
Quote
USA. I don't want to be more specific than that.

Meanwhile Totes is behind eleven proxies using a virtual machine run by another virtual machine on a Mac.

Security.

(http://www.danasoft.com/sig/4445149465.jpg)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 23, 2017, 11:08:18 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 23, 2017, 10:31:29 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 23, 2017, 10:11:45 PM
Not really,  many times you have waffled  and  evaded  the question.   If you choose not to correct me,  I can only conclude that you don't think that AA11 hit WTC1 and UA175 hit WTC2

It's a simple enough question.

Lol...You can be a dick all you want tonight, I am moderately intoxicated and having a good night for once. So my response in kindness will be quite likely even if it's not deserved.

Dispute said it correctly...I can only prove what did not bring the towers down.

Also include the issues with video evidence of the plane impacts...This brings much doubt.

Ok,  go get drunk, 

I've got  your answer,   after 10 years of research you still are undecided about whether planes hit the twin towers or not.   

   
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 23, 2017, 11:18:56 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 23, 2017, 11:08:18 PM
Ok,  go get drunk, 

I've got  your answer,   after 10 years of research you still are undecided about whether planes hit the twin towers or not.   

Lol.. I am still just fine for communication on this matter.

Yes, that is close enough to my answer. Too much conflicting evidence to rule out a yes or a no.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 23, 2017, 11:34:05 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 23, 2017, 11:18:56 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 23, 2017, 11:08:18 PM
Ok,  go get drunk, 

I've got  your answer,   after 10 years of research you still are undecided about whether planes hit the twin towers or not.   

Lol.. I am still just fine for communication on this matter.

Yes, that is close enough to my answer. Too much conflicting evidence to rule out a yes or a no.

The weight of evidence is that all four planes are real,  and were hijacked,  the FDR for the AA77 pentagon was recovered and the FDR for U93 was recovered,  all four flights were tracked and voice records for all four flights from take off to impact is available.   The mainstream 911 truth movement is long past questioning the existence of the planes.

I sense that the only area you appear to be uncertain is the actual impact physics,   I don't have any problem with the physics.   I've linked to papers which cover this in detail, 

If you want to refute the impact physics,  then you need to refute the calculations.  No good just saying "I don't agree"


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 24, 2017, 12:03:59 AM
Did you know it is impossible for a 767 to fly at the speed and altitude NIST claims? For wtc 1 and 2?

At cruising altitude 500 mph+ speeds are possible when we get lower the air resistance makes it impossible for 500 mph+ speeds.

NIST claims (and we can check ourselves) that the planes hit the towers at over 500 mph

Another physics violation.

Interesting.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 24, 2017, 12:12:00 AM
Plane crash.

(https://s24.postimg.org/vgeldwa5x/images-16.jpg)

Plane crash with the 911 effectTM

(https://s18.postimg.org/mtxqa1kqx/348s.jpg)

Sorry, where is the plane?

Vaporized?

It was a magical day.

Edit, we avoid talking about the "planes" because they are not needed, all we need to do is show the collapses are impossible due to planes and fire.

QED.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 24, 2017, 12:27:50 AM
Here is NIST claiming the plane did pass through the building to sever a support on the other side.

(https://s24.postimg.org/uktp1bulx/severed.jpg)

Turns out it was the plane and not dust hey Rayzor?

You said it was dust.

Unless you claim dust can sever reinforced 21/2 thick steel.

At this point it wouldn't surprise me.

Do you have any idea what would happen to a plane going through the central lift shafts?

(It would get wrecked)



Concrete, harden the f☆ck up.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 24, 2017, 04:56:31 AM
I'll answer just once,  but in the past,  you've misunderstood or misquoted what I've said,  so pay attention

First,  the famous "nose out" debris cloud was WTC2,   you are showing the damage for WTC1.    Different building,   there were two, in case you didn't notice.

Quote from: disputeone on March 24, 2017, 12:27:50 AM
Here is NIST claiming the plane did pass through the building to sever a support on the other side.

(https://s24.postimg.org/uktp1bulx/severed.jpg)

Turns out it was the plane and not dust hey Rayzor?

You said it was dust.

And it probably was. The central core would have shredded that 767 to confetti (reduced it to dust if you like)  a bit like the F4 phantom,   video you linked to.



Quote from: disputeone on March 24, 2017, 12:27:50 AM
Unless you claim dust can sever reinforced 21/2 thick steel.

The shredded aircraft even after disintegration,  still retains mass and velocity,  but a lot of the kinetic energy has gone into the disintegration. 



Notice in the Sandia test video,   the  parts of the plane that survived were things like wingtips which didn't hit.   If the walls of the WTC were 10 ft thick reinforced concrete, and designed to move, like that test,  the 767 impact on the WTC1 and WTC2 would probably have looked a lot like that video.   

There is a paper,  I linked to on that Sandia F4 phantom test,   here it is again. 

"Advanced aircraft analysis of an F-4 Phantom on a reinforced concrete building Kyoungsoo Leea, Jae-WookJungb, Jung-WukHongb, Nuclear Engineering and Design"


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 24, 2017, 05:06:01 AM
The planes would have reacted roughly the same on both towers, if one plane made it all the way through it would be logical to assume the other could have. (according to NIST)

You can't explain away the wing tips cutting through structural steel beams, you just can't, the fuselage I would consider that it could possibly penetrate the building given its mass. However the wing tips? Absolutely impossible.

No impact physics can explain the last 500mm of the fragile brittle wing tips cutting through steel, absolutely impossible.

If you can't admit that I'm not interested.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 24, 2017, 05:14:03 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 24, 2017, 05:06:01 AM
The planes would have reacted roughly the same on both towers, if one plane made it all the way through it would be logical to assume the other could have. (according to NIST)

You can't explain away the wing tips cutting through structural steel beams, you just can't, the fuselage I would consider that it could possibly penetrate the building given its mass. However the wing tips? Absolutely impossible.

No impact physics can explain the last 500mm of the fragile brittle wing tips cutting through steel, absolutely impossible.

If you can't admit that I'm not interested.

Do you agree that the last 500 mm of the wing tips  could have cut through the external aluminium cladding? 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 24, 2017, 05:16:36 AM
Sure Ally vs Ally no doubt unfortunately NIST claims otherwise.

(https://s24.postimg.org/uktp1bulx/severed.jpg)

Red equals severed.

Also all video evidence.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 24, 2017, 05:32:59 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 24, 2017, 05:16:36 AM
Sure Ally vs Ally no doubt unfortunately NIST claims otherwise.

Here is the exterior column structure

(https://s29.postimg.org/3jupml3bb/WTC_exterior_Column.jpg)

The steel box section was welded 9.5 mm thick high tensile steel,   the external aluminium cladding is what you mostly see in pictures of the impact damage.

The equivalent  thickness of the aluminium wing is about 100mm ,   so it's a 100 mm aluminium knife moving at 500 mph hitting a  9.5 mm wall steel box section.   

Large parts of the wings were fuel tanks,  fuel has mass, and therefore lots of kinetic energy,  also heavier parts like engines and landing gear  have more kinetic energy,  those parts would be the ones likely to reach the other side.

The kinetic energy per kilogram of the entire aircraft  would be similar (actually slightly higher)  than the Sandia  F4 phantom test.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 24, 2017, 05:38:03 AM
So you won't address NIST claims the entire wings cut through the outer columns? That's ok.

(https://s23.postimg.org/3taz9p53v/images-23.jpg)

On the subject of planes.

This is a photo of some of the wreckage when a pilot tragically flew into the french alps. We can see a plane crashed.

(https://s22.postimg.org/9czhfvzzl/images-14.jpg)

Where did this plane go? It just vaporized.

(https://s18.postimg.org/mtxqa1kqx/348s.jpg)

I always wondered where the plane went.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 24, 2017, 05:49:25 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 24, 2017, 05:38:03 AM
So you won't address NIST claims the entire wings cut through the outer columns? That's ok.

I just did.   


Quote from: disputeone on March 24, 2017, 05:38:03 AM
On the subject of planes.
Where did this plane go? It just vaporized.

(https://s18.postimg.org/mtxqa1kqx/348s.jpg)

I always wondered where the plane went.

For the answer to that,  you could instead answer the question,  where did that F4 phantom go?    ....   That's right it just vaporized into dust.

In any event parts of UA93 were found over a wide area, 

(http://cdn.historycommons.org/images/events/975_debris_field_2050081722-9424.jpg)

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 24, 2017, 05:53:12 AM
It vaporized, that's cool.

You didn't address it, I think you are having reality disconnects not me, NIST claims the columns were severed, not just the cladding damaged.

I know this hurts your position, I am sorry.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 24, 2017, 06:05:11 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 24, 2017, 05:53:12 AM
It vaporized, that's cool.

You didn't address it, I think you are having reality disconnects not me, NIST claims the columns were severed, not just the cladding damaged.

I know this hurts your position, I am sorry.

I did,  but you missed it.  this is from the Wierzbicki  MIT paper

(https://s7.postimg.org/xa4p2303f/WTC_Wing_Impact.jpg)

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 24, 2017, 06:06:33 AM
That applies to the entire plane and not the fragile wing tips, fail.

(https://s24.postimg.org/uktp1bulx/severed.jpg)

Red equals severed.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 24, 2017, 06:10:04 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 24, 2017, 06:06:33 AM
That applies to the entire plane and not the fragile wing tips, fail.

No,  the analysis and conclusions of that paper specifically applies to the wings,  not the main body,  not the engines,  not the area of the wings with extra mass of fuel tanks,  just the wings.

You can jump up and down all you like,  but physics is physics.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 24, 2017, 06:13:11 AM
I'm not jumping up and down.

I couldn't care less about the planes to be honest.

Wtc 7 is the story of 9/11.

Physics is physics.

I said it in my first reply.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 24, 2017, 06:18:17 AM
You admit this (((plane))) vaporized vs dirt.

(https://s18.postimg.org/mtxqa1kqx/348s.jpg)

Yet you want the wings of another plane to go through concrete and steel.

(https://s30.postimg.org/nsxkkfo75/images-15.jpg)

I don't understand 9/11 debunkers.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on March 24, 2017, 06:20:16 PM
Quote from: totallackey on March 23, 2017, 03:40:54 PM
But I just want to rephrase the first question and I hope you will indulge me by answering both of them in one response when you return.

Totes, if you are given the responsibility to provide an HONEST, OFFICIAL, CONCLUSIVE, FINAL REPORT as to why an event occurred at your home, place of business, etc., would you leave out data or use incorrect data in that report?

If you would leave out data or use incorrect data, would you then include in your summary, "Sorry, but my computer was running slow, so I omitted certain data, but trust me! The outcome is HONEST AND CORRECT!"

Story time. Once upon a time, TotesReptilian made a not-particularly-revolutionary simulation in his free time. Because he was running it on his own personal computer, he didn't bother to estimate how long it would take to run. After several hours of runtime, he stopped the program out of impatience. After a brief analysis, he concluded that it would have taken roughly 200 years to finish. Oops. Moral of the story: computers aren't magic. They can only do so much. Sometimes you need to make simplifying assumptions in order to get a realistic answer in a realistic timeframe.

Deciding exactly what information to include in your model is a complicated decision. More isn't always better. Maybe they had a good reason for omitting some connection information. Maybe they were just lazy. Maybe Hulsey is correct and the omission significantly impacted the accuracy of the results. I don't know yet. Regardless, a knee-jerk reaction of "OMG THEY DIDN'T INCLUDE SOME INFORMATION!!1!" is unhelpful.

I hope this answers both questions satisfactorily.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 24, 2017, 08:35:45 PM
They didn't include the concrete and half the bolts Totes.

Take half the bolts and tyres off your car and see how she runs.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on March 24, 2017, 09:31:21 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 24, 2017, 08:35:45 PM
They didn't include the concrete and half the bolts Totes.

Take half the bolts and tyres off your car and see how she runs.

Using FEA? Structurally, it should be just fine, since the bolts would be replaced by combining or constraining the two meshes. Local stresses probably won't be accurate, so if your goal is to test the performance of the bolt itself, that probably won't be ideal.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 24, 2017, 09:42:24 PM
Later that day, Totes be like.

(https://s29.postimg.org/j7ml8yrhz/f_X9l4_Wf_Scm--_Pcv_Ta_BECe_Q0h_ZUKn_BWOznpi_Ir_QNKv_Gjq_ZJl6.gif)

I can't lie, I still think you are a pretty cool guy. Just quit it about Bhs qualifications hey, heaps of PhD engineers know that the OS is BS.

Like those three PhD's I linked you, the full report should be out for peer review soon, maybe you could double check the physics? it is so difficult to come out and say what we were told was a lie, straight away it damages your career and reputation, that's why I have all the respect in the world for the ones brave enough to stand up for the truth.

Look at it this way, we have a complete model, built from the ground up including everything on the buildings technical drawings. Using NIST's numbers and estimations for fire amd heat, with a proper model, we simply cannot get a collapse, much less a plumb symmetrical free-fall collapse.

This investigation was open, honest and transparent, It did more than NIST ever did. Trusting NIST's broken non peer reviewed model that doesn't come close to reflecting reality is not an option for me.

As for computing power and engineering knowledge.

>32 years after we put men on the moon.

I honestly believe we will see truth for this soon.

(https://s9.postimg.org/ah2bpeun3/havewestartedthefire.jpg)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sokarul on March 24, 2017, 09:49:12 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 24, 2017, 06:18:17 AM
You admit this (((plane))) vaporized vs dirt.

(https://s18.postimg.org/mtxqa1kqx/348s.jpg)

Yet you want the wings of another plane to go through concrete and steel.

(https://s30.postimg.org/nsxkkfo75/images-15.jpg)

I don't understand 9/11 debunkers.

Is this a real claim or a troll claim?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 24, 2017, 09:50:58 PM
Ditto.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sokarul on March 24, 2017, 09:52:54 PM
That's not one of the two possible answers.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 24, 2017, 09:53:40 PM
It's a real claim.

Where is the plane?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on March 24, 2017, 10:05:18 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 24, 2017, 06:13:11 AM
I couldn't care less about the planes to be honest.
Quote from: disputeone on March 24, 2017, 06:18:17 AM
You admit this (((plane))) vaporized vs dirt.
...
Yet you want the wings of another plane to go through concrete and steel.
Quote from: disputeone on March 24, 2017, 09:42:24 PM
As for computing power and engineering knowledge.

>32 years after we put men on the moon.

You need to look up the phrase "Gish Gallop (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop)", and then stop doing it. A thousand dumb arguments doesn't equal one good argument. It just makes you look dumb a thousand times.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 24, 2017, 10:07:46 PM
You should look up the phrase ad hominem (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem) good sir.

Wtc 7 is ready for debunking when you are.

Quote from: disputeone on February 13, 2017, 10:49:57 PM
Fall acceleration of building 7.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on March 24, 2017, 10:21:12 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 24, 2017, 10:07:46 PM
You should look up the phrase ad hominem (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem) good sir.

Yes, I know it was an ad hominem. It's the most expedient way to counter a Gish Gallop. Stop the Gish Gallop, and I will avoid the argumentum ad hominem.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 24, 2017, 10:29:11 PM
Well played, alright, I've said it since my first reply in this thread, all we need is wtc 7, the rest is gravy. However there are so many strong arguments it's easy to get sidetracked.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on March 24, 2017, 10:36:46 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 24, 2017, 10:29:11 PM
Well played, alright, I've said it since my first reply in this thread, all we need is wtc 7, the rest is gravy.

Then I'll continue looking into Hulsey's argument.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 24, 2017, 10:51:04 PM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 24, 2017, 10:36:46 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 24, 2017, 10:29:11 PM
Well played, alright, I've said it since my first reply in this thread, all we need is wtc 7, the rest is gravy.

Then I'll continue looking into Hulsey's argument.

When you look into the UoA work,  I found their work books lacking in any detail on temperatures,  also in a progress report Hulsey claimed the fire was a small office fire that burned for 20 minutes, and that the damage from the WTC1 collapse debris was "minimal"

Later reports he just says that he used the NIST temperature data,  which is very conservative based on latest research on high rise fires.   Also the claim that the damage was minimal is directly at odds with the photographic evidence and first responders statements that there was a 20 story gash on the south side. 

The downloadable data from his website is 99% NIST data obtained under FOI.    I smell a con job.

Interested to see what you find.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 24, 2017, 11:20:38 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 24, 2017, 10:51:04 PM
I smell a con job.

LMAO!!

Discredit, don't discuss.

LMAO!!

And you didn't think the NIST report was a con job??

(https://s27.postimg.org/elepn5tkj/1490420196282.gif)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 24, 2017, 11:38:47 PM
You also have to consider motive for dishonesty in their investigation.

NIST = All the motive you could ever dream of.

Hulsey = Absolutely nothing in fact people like Rayzor are now racing to discredit him, the fact remains he is one of the best forensic structural engineers in the world.

Bhs = Also nothing, risking damage to his career, business and reputation for speaking the truth.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on March 25, 2017, 12:05:31 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 24, 2017, 10:51:04 PM
Later reports he just says that he used the NIST temperature data,  which is very conservative based on latest research on high rise fires.

If they are looking at the integrity of the NIST FEA report, then using NIST temperature data is appropriate.
If they are looking at the plausibility of the tower collapsing from fire, then using the "latest research on high rise fires" is appropriate.

Quote
Also the claim that the damage was minimal is directly at odds with the photographic evidence and first responders statements that there was a 20 story gash on the south side. 

I don't think the NIST considered the damage to be a contributing factor to the deflection of beam 79, which is what I'm looking at first. (needs verification)

Quote from: disputeone on March 24, 2017, 11:20:38 PM
(https://s27.postimg.org/elepn5tkj/1490420196282.gif)

What does it mean when your meter goes below zero? Intikam?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 25, 2017, 12:07:30 AM
^^Totes I appreciate your honesty so much even if you think I am an idiot.

Edit for your edit.

Intikam is on the other end of the scale.

You have to look at who profited the most from 9/11 as with any crime, the most guilty are usually the ones who have the most to gain.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 25, 2017, 12:31:02 AM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 25, 2017, 12:05:31 AM
I don't think the NIST considered the damage to be a contributing factor to the deflection of beam 79, which is what I'm looking at first. (needs verification)
Quote
Account 1: WTC 7 was critically damaged by flying debris from the collapsing WTC 1, which caused structural damage and fires in WTC 7. These fires were especially large and hot, being fed by diesel fuel stored in the building. [4] Seeing the structural damage and fires, fire chiefs and engineers concluded that WTC 7 was in danger of collapse. Concerns were therefore expressed and appropriate actions taken: firefighters were withdrawn from the building, and firefighters and others were told the building might come down. Accordingly, collapse predictions were rational responses to direct observation by witnesses. [5]

Account 2: The earlier explanation of WTC 7’s collapse (Account 1) is incorrect. Impact damage from flying debris caused by WTC 1’s collapse was insufficient to put WTC 7 at risk and did not play a significant role in its collapse. [6] And the fires were not intensified by diesel fuel stored in the building. [7]

WTC 7 came down primarily due to fire. This was the first time in history that a steel-framed high-rise had collapsed due to fire. [8] The fire triggered this collapse by means of a unique and unobserved sequence of events inside the building, including thermal expansion of floor systems, an unseated girder, and floor collapses, resulting in a cascade of column buckling. [9]

A single column failure had caused a complete north-to-south interior collapse, which in turn precipitated a complete east-to-west interior collapse, ultimately leaving the exterior columns laterally unsupported and causing all of them to buckle in a nearly simultaneous way.

Although the fires in WTC 7 were affecting the steel components of the building over a period of hours, the building did not actually become unstable, nor was its fate sealed, until minutes, or even seconds, before it began to come down. [10]

This is the two conflicting stories from NIST.  They are sticking with the latter...

So no...In their most recent story, damage has nothing to do with their decision.

Dispute seems to think you are intelligent...This is why I have been attempting to have a formal debate with you, however it seems this will not happen.

I have also yet to see an argument from you. So far just ad hominems, "nuh uh's", "no", "I don't know" and other forms of disruption. If you are intelligent, then I would imagine if this is something you actually care about, you would know much more about it.

If it is something you could care less about, obviously know nothing about, then please don't disrupt just to be a twat. It's annoying, we have enough of those come into the thread already.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 25, 2017, 01:08:33 AM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 24, 2017, 06:20:16 PM
Story time. Once upon a time, TotesReptilian made a not-particularly-revolutionary simulation in his free time. Because he was running it on his own personal computer, he didn't bother to estimate how long it would take to run. After several hours of runtime, he stopped the program out of impatience. After a brief analysis, he concluded that it would have taken roughly 200 years to finish. Oops. Moral of the story: computers aren't magic. They can only do so much. Sometimes you need to make simplifying assumptions in order to get a realistic answer in a realistic timeframe.

Deciding exactly what information to include in your model is a complicated decision. More isn't always better. Maybe they had a good reason for omitting some connection information. Maybe they were just lazy. Maybe Hulsey is correct and the omission significantly impacted the accuracy of the results. I don't know yet. Regardless, a knee-jerk reaction of "OMG THEY DIDN'T INCLUDE SOME INFORMATION!!1!" is unhelpful.

I hope this answers both questions satisfactorily.

Lol....

Just....

Lol.....

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on March 25, 2017, 01:49:40 AM
I downloaded the "Research Data and Analysis" from http://www.wtc7evaluation.org. It's just some FOIA requests (building schematics), some work logs in a Word doc, and some screenshots. What gives? Where's the good stuff?  >:( >:( >:(

The work log is potentially informative though. Lol @ page 119.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 25, 2017, 12:31:02 AM
I have also yet to see an argument from you. So far just ad hominems, "nuh uh's", "no", "I don't know" and other forms of disruption. If you are intelligent, then I would imagine if this is something you actually care about, you would know much more about it.

Good eye. No, I have not made any significant arguments either way, since it is not a subject I have looked at closely before this. Instead, I have focused on the arguments others have made that are easier to verify/debunk without significant prior research. So far, this is what I have done:

1. Video analysis of fall speed of wtc 7 (middle and NW corner)
2. Expressed doubt at conclusions of liquid steel spilling from wtc
3. Simplistic prediction of acceleration of wtc 1/2 based on floor "pancaking" (haven't done a good comparison with the official story yet)
4. Harassed disputeone for his Rayzor vs Newton thread.
5. Expressed doubt at your "squibs" argument for wtc 7
6. Currently looking at Hulsey's model

Outside of those topics, I may not have much to say.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 25, 2017, 02:29:44 AM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 25, 2017, 01:49:40 AM
3. Simplistic prediction of acceleration of wtc 1/2 based on floor "pancaking" (haven't done a good comparison with the official story yet)

Quote from: NIST
NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel "trusses" integrated with a concrete slab.


Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 25, 2017, 01:49:40 AM
4. Harassed disputeone for his Rayzor vs Newton thread.

The pleasure was all mine.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 25, 2017, 02:54:13 AM
totes

So from the sounds of it you have done very little.

So you find no issue with a building containing a core such as 7 (leaving the others out for now) collapsing as it did from just a few  typical localized office fires (about 600 c?)

The design of these buildings and forecasting their movement is actually not very difficult because of their design.

Let me see if I can put it as simplistic as possible. If you completely removed the exoskeleton you would have something fold up like an umbrella when you close it. Then more than likely (also as models show) the top 20 floors or so of the core and whatever is hanging on to the core (floor wise) will tip over like breaking a flower in half. Some models show once this happened it would take the lower 20 with it, or at least a point (the core is more vertical load bearing, not the best at taking sheer, this was the main purpose of the exoskeleton, absorb wind sheer etc..) though the exact reaction of the lower 20 is hard to predict. Too many "dumb luck" variables to predict (example how many floors would hold on to the core, how many would release and go with the exoskeleton).

Then you have the version of completely remove the core. This would be the opposite of closing an umbrella, this would be like the wind catching an umbrella and over opening it. The core would fall inside the exoskeleton, then the exoskeleton would attempt to follow.

Again, this is hard to predict to an exact. As some of the  dumb luck involved. Though most models show that the lower 15-18 floors of the exoskeleton could survive (very thick, almost 4 times more mass than the upper)..

Now if you had the pancake fairy tale, then you would have the floors collapse inside the exoskeleton, releasing from the core, at the end you would have the core and exoskeleton attempting to stand free from each other. This model is hard to make, as it violates too many laws. So I never put much time into this, in theory it is possible to have the core and exoskeleton stand separated for a time. Though it would be a dangerous ticking time bomb.


We can see the second version is the most accurate to what we saw. This means the core must have been removed...That is also the only way you could get 1,2 or 7 to "pancake"...None of these buildings could pancake without removing rigidity or mass from the core. That is a simple fact.

So what happened to the core? An office fire certainly does not explain it... So we have a lie on the official story...So what did cause it? Why did they lie?


Also for your liquid metal...It's not aluminum so it must be steel... What is causing it? It was either liquid a36 steel, or a36 being cut...Both are impossible with the official story. (Not to mention liquid steel "like a foundry" for 4 months after)

Edit typo
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on March 25, 2017, 04:23:30 AM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 24, 2017, 06:20:16 PM
Quote from: totallackey on March 23, 2017, 03:40:54 PM
But I just want to rephrase the first question and I hope you will indulge me by answering both of them in one response when you return.

Totes, if you are given the responsibility to provide an HONEST, OFFICIAL, CONCLUSIVE, FINAL REPORT as to why an event occurred at your home, place of business, etc., would you leave out data or use incorrect data in that report?

If you would leave out data or use incorrect data, would you then include in your summary, "Sorry, but my computer was running slow, so I omitted certain data, but trust me! The outcome is HONEST AND CORRECT!"

Answer to Question #1: YES.

Answer to Question #2: YES. And screw you if you do not like it. By the way, I deserve to keep my job, and if you attempt to fire me, I will sue.

I hope this answers both questions satisfactorily.

Thanks for the insight into your moral and ethical character.

200 years to run my ass...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Denspressure on March 25, 2017, 04:38:07 AM
What the hell is this thread about?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sceptimatic on March 25, 2017, 04:41:31 AM
Quote from: totallackey on March 25, 2017, 04:23:30 AM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 24, 2017, 06:20:16 PM
Quote from: totallackey on March 23, 2017, 03:40:54 PM
But I just want to rephrase the first question and I hope you will indulge me by answering both of them in one response when you return.

Totes, if you are given the responsibility to provide an HONEST, OFFICIAL, CONCLUSIVE, FINAL REPORT as to why an event occurred at your home, place of business, etc., would you leave out data or use incorrect data in that report?

If you would leave out data or use incorrect data, would you then include in your summary, "Sorry, but my computer was running slow, so I omitted certain data, but trust me! The outcome is HONEST AND CORRECT!"

Answer to Question #1: YES.

Answer to Question #2: YES. And screw you if you do not like it. By the way, I deserve to keep my job, and if you attempt to fire me, I will sue.

I hope this answers both questions satisfactorily.

Thanks for the insight into your moral and ethical character.

200 years to run my ass...
Pretty much sums up what totes is all about. I don't think there's any need to look at him/her in any other way than to simply see a disinformation artist.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sceptimatic on March 25, 2017, 04:42:44 AM
Quote from: Denspressure on March 25, 2017, 04:38:07 AM
What the hell is this thread about?
The truth of a lie.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Denspressure on March 25, 2017, 04:44:46 AM
Planes hit the buildings, that is a simple fact.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 25, 2017, 04:46:57 AM
So they fell as the official story presents?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 25, 2017, 04:52:29 AM
Quote from: Denspressure on March 25, 2017, 04:38:07 AM
What the hell is this thread about?

9/11 was an inside job.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Denspressure on March 25, 2017, 04:55:06 AM
And I have a girlfriend
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 25, 2017, 04:56:07 AM
Alrighty?

We have shown wtc 7s collapse to be impossible if it was caused by fires.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Denspressure on March 25, 2017, 04:57:49 AM
Why am I a possible cause for the 9/11 tragedy?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 25, 2017, 04:58:55 AM
Rayzor trying to make the vote as dishonest as possible.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 25, 2017, 05:00:56 AM
Quote from: Denspressure on March 25, 2017, 04:57:49 AM
Why am I a possible cause for the 9/11 tragedy?

Lol...I forgot denspressure was on there. Not you as a person (remember you are a serpent, not a model for gravity) but the model for sceptis theory of gravity.

Also..

Quote from: disputeone on March 25, 2017, 04:58:55 AM
Rayzor trying to make the vote as dishonest as possible.

Congrats on having a girl friend...

So what brought down the towers?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Denspressure on March 25, 2017, 05:01:18 AM
Well, its a freaking stupid option.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Denspressure on March 25, 2017, 05:04:02 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 25, 2017, 05:00:56 AM
Quote from: Denspressure on March 25, 2017, 04:57:49 AM
Why am I a possible cause for the 9/11 tragedy?

Lol...I forgot denspressure was on there. Not you as a person (remember you are a serpent, not a model for gravity) but the model for sceptis theory of gravity.

Also..

Quote from: disputeone on March 25, 2017, 04:58:55 AM
Rayzor trying to make the vote as dishonest as possible.

Congrats on having a girl friend...

So what brought down the towers?
Actually no, the original term was 'Denpressure' but people adopted 'Denspressure' when I joined. It was my plan all along.

Gravity.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 25, 2017, 05:06:11 AM
Quote from: Denspressure on March 25, 2017, 05:04:02 AM

Gravity.

If it was just gravity they would have never been able to stand in the first place.

Gravity and what brought them down? You need at least one more variable
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Denspressure on March 25, 2017, 05:08:42 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 25, 2017, 05:06:11 AM
Quote from: Denspressure on March 25, 2017, 05:04:02 AM

Gravity.

If it was just gravity they would have never been able to stand in the first place.

Gravity and what brought them down? You need at least one more variable
The damage resultant of the planes, the respective fire and increasing structural weakness over a period of time.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 25, 2017, 05:08:53 AM
Dens if you haven't done more research than watching the news on 9/11 I whole heartedly suggest not stepping into the ring.

The symmetry and fall acceleration, total pulverization of the towers, glowing steel for 100 days at ground zero.

This was not caused by planes, fire and gravity.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 25, 2017, 05:16:30 AM
Wtc 7 underwent a plumb symmetrical collapse at free fall for 2.25 seconds.

I spent a bit of time explaining why this is impossible, structural resistance will always slow fall acceleration, the idea of steel and concrete providing as much resistance as the atmosphere is a joke.

Here is a team of PhD structural engineers explaining that fire didn't cause wtc 7s collapse as I am too lazy to restate my whole argument.

The work should be out for peer review in a few months.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Denspressure on March 25, 2017, 05:20:54 AM
Well apparently it can do whatever you think it couldn't.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: hoppy on March 25, 2017, 05:24:06 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 24, 2017, 06:18:17 AM
You admit this (((plane))) vaporized vs dirt.

(https://s18.postimg.org/mtxqa1kqx/348s.jpg)

Yet you want the wings of another plane to go through concrete and steel.

(https://s30.postimg.org/nsxkkfo75/images-15.jpg)

I don't understand 9/11 debunkers.
The innocent ones are brainwashed stooges incapable of independent thought. Others are paid to debunk.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: hoppy on March 25, 2017, 05:25:19 AM
Quote from: Denspressure on March 25, 2017, 04:55:06 AM
And I have a girlfriend
What is his name? ::)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 25, 2017, 05:30:17 AM
Quote from: Denspressure on March 25, 2017, 05:20:54 AM
Well apparently it can do whatever you think it couldn't.

Maybe the laws of physics vanished that day, all engineering knowledge was void just during that time period...Not to mention, all the 1000s of lies and "convenient events" was the universe's largest sequence of coincidences only surpassed by supposed evolution and the big bang.

Or maybe a much more simple reason exists....Perhaps the official story is not correct.

I vote the latter..

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 25, 2017, 05:32:46 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 25, 2017, 05:30:17 AM
Maybe the laws of physics vanished that day, all engineering knowledge was void just during that time period...

The 911effectTM
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 25, 2017, 05:42:31 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 25, 2017, 05:30:17 AM
Quote from: Denspressure on March 25, 2017, 05:20:54 AM
Well apparently it can do whatever you think it couldn't.

Maybe the laws of physics vanished that day, all engineering knowledge was void just during that time period...Not to mention, all the 1000s of lies and "convenient events" was the universe's largest sequence of coincidences only surpassed by supposed evolution and the big bang.

Or maybe a much more simple reason exists....Perhaps the official story is not correct.

I vote the latter..

So,  because you don't understand the physics it must be a conspiracy.    Sounds legit.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 25, 2017, 05:45:11 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 25, 2017, 05:42:31 AM
So,  because you don't do understand the physics it must be a conspiracy.    Sounds legit.

Yes...very
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 25, 2017, 05:57:55 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 25, 2017, 05:45:11 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 25, 2017, 05:42:31 AM
So,  because you don't do understand the physics it must be a conspiracy.    Sounds legit.

Yes...very

That speaks volumes about your knowledge of physics and engineering.  Also brings into question your honesty,  just yesterday you were pretending to be undecided.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 25, 2017, 06:02:56 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 14, 2017, 03:28:39 AM
As I have said...Despite whatever speculation, it is not speculation saying it did not happen as we saw, nor did that cause the free falls of 3 buildings

From page one, doesn't sound so undecided.

Quote from: Rayzor on March 25, 2017, 05:57:55 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 25, 2017, 05:45:11 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 25, 2017, 05:42:31 AM
So,  because you don't do understand the physics it must be a conspiracy.    Sounds legit.

Yes...very

That speaks volumes about your knowledge of physics and engineering.

Rayzor still thinking PhD engineers don't understand engineering for some reason.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 25, 2017, 06:07:17 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 25, 2017, 05:57:55 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 25, 2017, 05:45:11 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 25, 2017, 05:42:31 AM
So,  because you don't do understand the physics it must be a conspiracy.    Sounds legit.

Yes...very

That speaks volumes about your knowledge of physics and engineering.  Also brings into question your honesty,  just yesterday you were pretending to be undecided.

I am not talking about the plane or no plane, simply speaking about what caused the towers to fall.

As for my knowledge of engineering and physics, apparently people in the education system believed otherwise, as well as my current and previous clientele throughout​ the years seem to enjoy and trust my work. Also, so far knock on wood, no serious accidents, mishaps or deaths. Not to mention, there are 1000s upon 1000s of people in the field like myself that feel the same.

Have you ever considered, perhaps, poor understanding could be your burden to carry?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 25, 2017, 06:19:16 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 25, 2017, 06:07:17 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 25, 2017, 05:57:55 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 25, 2017, 05:45:11 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 25, 2017, 05:42:31 AM
So,  because you don't do understand the physics it must be a conspiracy.    Sounds legit.

Yes...very

That speaks volumes about your knowledge of physics and engineering.  Also brings into question your honesty,  just yesterday you were pretending to be undecided.

I am not talking about the plane or no plane, simply speaking about what caused the towers to fall.

As for my knowledge of engineering and physics, apparently people in the education system believed otherwise, as well as my current and previous clientele throughout​ the years seem to enjoy and trust my work. Also, so far knock on wood, no serious accidents, mishaps or deaths. Not to mention, there are 1000s upon 1000s of people in the field like myself that feel the same.

Have you ever considered, perhaps, poor understanding could be your burden to carry?

Ok let's talk about the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2

I understand that the percentage of the total energy required to collapse a floor decreased as the collapse progressed.

(https://s11.postimg.org/bl0npy2kj/Floor_Collapse.jpg)

The fact that you don't understand the physics,  is your burden not mine.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 25, 2017, 06:32:00 AM
I don't know what paper you are reciting to me...But if it disagrees with real world experience, then I either have to say they are liars, uninformed, or just getting off on a trail of non viable math. Though I don't want to say anything about them since that is only a paragraph in an obviously long piece.

As I have said, I have shot steel both identical to the upper skeleton, as well as metal identical as humanly possible to the upper core with 10 inch pieces of air craft aluminum. Unfortunately, I have still yet to make a contraption that can shoot bigger pieces at that speed..Maybe one day.

Though I attempted to hit the scale as mathematically perfect as I could when downsizing everything, attempted to make the 10 inch piece a "wing".

However, I will tell you this, there was damage to the exoskeleton but it never breached it, the core material though...The core didn't give a shit except for light denting. Aluminum shatters in an impact like that.

No one seems to ever look at the entire picture on this. They just look at velocity. Water, aluminum, steel, a bullet, so on and so on will all act differently under impact, even being the exact same mass and speed.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 25, 2017, 06:37:23 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 25, 2017, 06:32:00 AM
I don't know what paper you are reciting to me...But if it disagrees with real world experience, then I either have to say they are liars, uninformed, or just getting off on a trail of non viable math. Though I don't want to say anything about them since that is only a paragraph in an obviously long piece.

As I have said, I have shot steel both identical to the upper skeleton, and well as metal as identical as humanly possible to the upper core with 10 inch pieces of air craft aluminum. Unfortunately, I have still yet to make a contraption that can shoot bigger pieces at that speed..Maybe one day.

Though I attempted to hit the scale as mathematically perfect as I could when downsizing everything, attempted to make the 10 inch piece a "wing".

However, I will tell you this, there was damage to the exoskeleton but it never breached it, the core material though...The core didn't give a shit except for light denting. Aluminum shatters in an impact like that.

No one seems to ever look at the entire picture on this. They just look at velocity. Water, aluminum, steel, a bullet, so on and so on will all act differently under impact, even being the exact same mass and speed.

Interesting,  so you don't know the paper that is from?    It's the F.R.Greening paper on the WTC collapse.   I've linked to it multiple times during this thread. 

Why are you changing topics back to the aircraft impact?   You just told me 2 minutes ago that you were talking about how the towers fell.   Make up your mind.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 25, 2017, 06:51:46 AM
You are always back and forth...Ok..Well there is my comment for the aircraft aluminum versus Structural steel. If you have a rebuttal to that, please let me know.

As for the pancake theory of the towers, which is what it seems like that excerpt is speaking about. I am still at a loss of how this works?

The floors are separate of the exoskeleton and core...If they gave way for some odd reason and started falling floor by floor (which mechanically manipulated catalyst is the only way I could see this happening, certainly not a natural free fall) it would collapse inside exoskeleton.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 25, 2017, 02:54:13 AM
The design of these buildings and forecasting their movement is actually not very difficult because of their design.

Let me see if I can put it as simplistic as possible. If you completely removed the exoskeleton you would have something fold up like an umbrella when you close it. Then more than likely (also as models show) the top 20 floors or so of the core and whatever is hanging on to the core (floor wise) will tip over like breaking a flower in half. Some models show once this happened it would take the lower 20 with it, or at least a point (the core is more vertical load bearing, not the best at taking sheer, this was the main purpose of the exoskeleton, absorb wind sheer etc..) though the exact reaction of the lower 20 is hard to predict. Too many "dumb luck" variables to predict (example how many floors would hold on to the core, how many would release and go with the exoskeleton).

Then you have the version of completely remove the core. This would be the opposite of closing an umbrella, this would be like the wind catching an umbrella and over opening it. The core would fall inside the exoskeleton, then the exoskeleton would attempt to follow.

Again, this is hard to predict to an exact. As some of the  dumb luck involved. Though most models show that the lower 15-18 floors of the exoskeleton could survive (very thick, almost 4 times more mass than the upper)..

Now if you had the pancake fairy tale, then you would have the floors collapse inside the exoskeleton, releasing from the core, at the end you would have the core and exoskeleton attempting to stand free from each other. This model is hard to make, as it violates too many laws. So I never put much time into this, in theory it is possible to have the core and exoskeleton stand separated for a time. Though it would be a dangerous ticking time bomb.


We can see the second version is the most accurate to what we saw. This means the core must have been removed...That is also the only way you could get 1,2 or 7 to "pancake"...None of these buildings could pancake without removing rigidity or mass from the core. That is a simple fact.

So what happened to the core? An office fire certainly does not explain it... So we have a lie on the official story...So what did cause it? Why did they lie?

Just a little excerpt to save time.

So there is a quick answer to the pancake fairy tale.

Not to mention, where is all the "extra mass and energy" coming from? Everything is pulverizing and vaporizing on the way down so there is no added mass. Even NIST uses vaporizing many many times, an excuse for the ridiculous amount of dust and for the lacking mass when cleaning up.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Denspressure on March 25, 2017, 06:58:17 AM
Sorry, I am reluctant to believe anything that Heiwa believes in too.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 25, 2017, 07:03:03 AM
Quote from: Denspressure on March 25, 2017, 06:58:17 AM
Sorry, I am reluctant to believe anything that Heiwa believes in too.

I understand 100 percent. People like that are detrimental to legitimate causes. That is how the term "conspiracy theorist" began, and used as a way to disqualify people with legitimate claims.

Kinda like the boy who cried wolf. Eventually they don't believe you, even when it is legitimate. Very sad.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 25, 2017, 07:05:16 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 25, 2017, 06:51:46 AM
You are always back and forth...Ok..Well there is my comment for the aircraft aluminum versus Structural steel. If you have a rebuttal to that, please let me know.

As for the pancake theory of the towers, which is what it seems like that excerpt is speaking about. I am still at a loss of how this works?

The floors are separate of the exoskeleton and core...If they gave way for some odd reason and started falling floor by floor (which mechanically manipulated catalyst is the only way I could see this happening, certainly not a natural free fall) it would collapse inside exoskeleton.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 25, 2017, 02:54:13 AM
The design of these buildings and forecasting their movement is actually not very difficult because of their design.

Let me see if I can put it as simplistic as possible. If you completely removed the exoskeleton you would have something fold up like an umbrella when you close it. Then more than likely (also as models show) the top 20 floors or so of the core and whatever is hanging on to the core (floor wise) will tip over like breaking a flower in half. Some models show once this happened it would take the lower 20 with it, or at least a point (the core is more vertical load bearing, not the best at taking sheer, this was the main purpose of the exoskeleton, absorb wind sheer etc..) though the exact reaction of the lower 20 is hard to predict. Too many "dumb luck" variables to predict (example how many floors would hold on to the core, how many would release and go with the exoskeleton).

Then you have the version of completely remove the core. This would be the opposite of closing an umbrella, this would be like the wind catching an umbrella and over opening it. The core would fall inside the exoskeleton, then the exoskeleton would attempt to follow.

Again, this is hard to predict to an exact. As some of the  dumb luck involved. Though most models show that the lower 15-18 floors of the exoskeleton could survive (very thick, almost 4 times more mass than the upper)..

Now if you had the pancake fairy tale, then you would have the floors collapse inside the exoskeleton, releasing from the core, at the end you would have the core and exoskeleton attempting to stand free from each other. This model is hard to make, as it violates too many laws. So I never put much time into this, in theory it is possible to have the core and exoskeleton stand separated for a time. Though it would be a dangerous ticking time bomb.


We can see the second version is the most accurate to what we saw. This means the core must have been removed...That is also the only way you could get 1,2 or 7 to "pancake"...None of these buildings could pancake without removing rigidity or mass from the core. That is a simple fact.

So what happened to the core? An office fire certainly does not explain it... So we have a lie on the official story...So what did cause it? Why did they lie?

Just a little excerpt to save time.

So there is a quick answer to the pancake fairy tale.

Not to mention, where is all the "extra mass and energy" coming from? Everything is pulverizing and vaporizing on the way down so there is no added mass. Even NIST uses vaporizing many many times, an excuse for the ridiculous amount of dust and for the lacking mass when cleaning up.

Who is talking about the pancake theory?    And why are you arguing that the core was removed,  when it was clearly still standing,  in fact it was the absolute last thing to fall?   

I can't believe you are seriously asking where the kinetic energy comes from.    Why don't you read the paper,  and when you've got an intelligent comment we can continue.
.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Denspressure on March 25, 2017, 07:07:51 AM
I applaud all the work you have put into your research. If you think its interesting or  important, go ahead. Have you ever discussed this with something irl?

You do you.

In the Netherlands it is legally forbidden to deny and/or discuss the legitimacy of the Holocaust, what do you think of that?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 25, 2017, 07:16:59 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 25, 2017, 07:05:16 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 25, 2017, 06:51:46 AM
You are always back and forth...Ok..Well there is my comment for the aircraft aluminum versus Structural steel. If you have a rebuttal to that, please let me know.

As for the pancake theory of the towers, which is what it seems like that excerpt is speaking about. I am still at a loss of how this works?

The floors are separate of the exoskeleton and core...If they gave way for some odd reason and started falling floor by floor (which mechanically manipulated catalyst is the only way I could see this happening, certainly not a natural free fall) it would collapse inside exoskeleton.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 25, 2017, 02:54:13 AM
The design of these buildings and forecasting their movement is actually not very difficult because of their design.

Let me see if I can put it as simplistic as possible. If you completely removed the exoskeleton you would have something fold up like an umbrella when you close it. Then more than likely (also as models show) the top 20 floors or so of the core and whatever is hanging on to the core (floor wise) will tip over like breaking a flower in half. Some models show once this happened it would take the lower 20 with it, or at least a point (the core is more vertical load bearing, not the best at taking sheer, this was the main purpose of the exoskeleton, absorb wind sheer etc..) though the exact reaction of the lower 20 is hard to predict. Too many "dumb luck" variables to predict (example how many floors would hold on to the core, how many would release and go with the exoskeleton).

Then you have the version of completely remove the core. This would be the opposite of closing an umbrella, this would be like the wind catching an umbrella and over opening it. The core would fall inside the exoskeleton, then the exoskeleton would attempt to follow.

Again, this is hard to predict to an exact. As some of the  dumb luck involved. Though most models show that the lower 15-18 floors of the exoskeleton could survive (very thick, almost 4 times more mass than the upper)..

Now if you had the pancake fairy tale, then you would have the floors collapse inside the exoskeleton, releasing from the core, at the end you would have the core and exoskeleton attempting to stand free from each other. This model is hard to make, as it violates too many laws. So I never put much time into this, in theory it is possible to have the core and exoskeleton stand separated for a time. Though it would be a dangerous ticking time bomb.


We can see the second version is the most accurate to what we saw. This means the core must have been removed...That is also the only way you could get 1,2 or 7 to "pancake"...None of these buildings could pancake without removing rigidity or mass from the core. That is a simple fact.

So what happened to the core? An office fire certainly does not explain it... So we have a lie on the official story...So what did cause it? Why did they lie?

Just a little excerpt to save time.

So there is a quick answer to the pancake fairy tale.

Not to mention, where is all the "extra mass and energy" coming from? Everything is pulverizing and vaporizing on the way down so there is no added mass. Even NIST uses vaporizing many many times, an excuse for the ridiculous amount of dust and for the lacking mass when cleaning up.

Who is talking about the pancake theory?    And why are you arguing that the core was removed,  when it was clearly still standing,  in fact it was the absolute last thing to fall?   

I can't believe you are seriously asking where the kinetic energy comes from.    Why don't you read the paper,  and when you've got an intelligent comment we can continue.
.

You should probably reread that post.

It is a legitimate question...If all the extra mass needed on the way down is being vaporized as they say...Then there is no new mass being added. So how can it pancake it's way down?

As for the top being intact and "vaporizing" the lower fully intact half with many times more mass and strength that is impossible to begin with. However, let's say it can happen​...There is no way for the upper half to become mobile without removing the core.

Also, the full core was not visible (even the lower half attempting to stand was not complete), as I have said before latent core reaction is moderately normal during a demo, it's always the lower half (on a Bowie cored building like these), it's not ideal, usually means timing was missed by a hair, or a missed charge. It will Pierce the upper areas as it comes down. Then as we saw, it wilted into its own foot print showing it was compromised as well. If it stood, or if it fell over in a direction, I wouldn't say anything.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 25, 2017, 07:22:05 AM
Quote from: Denspressure on March 25, 2017, 07:07:51 AM
I applaud all the work you have put into your research. If you think its interesting or  important, go ahead. Have you ever discussed this with something irl?

You do you.

In the Netherlands it is legally forbidden to deny and/or discuss the legitimacy of the Holocaust, what do you think of that?

Yes I have heard of that...I suppose it depends on the country's laws of free speech. In America I disagree with it...You should be able to say whatever you want as long as it is not infringing on someone's safety or basic rights.

Though even here, not illegal, but you are viewed a piece of garbage if you question the Holocaust in any way whatsoever. Be easier to stab someone.

Though, the 9/11 issue was the same when I first started, then as more and more creditable people started to join and speak out it started to relax a bit. You still will make people uneasy with it though.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Crouton on March 25, 2017, 08:23:12 AM
Quote from: Denspressure on March 25, 2017, 07:07:51 AM

In the Netherlands it is legally forbidden to deny and/or discuss the legitimacy of the Holocaust, what do you think of that?

It depends on who you ask in America.  Us old school liberals regard the First Amendment the same way the rednecks regard the Second Amendment.  A law forbidding a discussion of anything is nothing short of tyranny.  If the government can ban one idea then they can ban any idea.  Rednecks probably feel similarly but not as strongly.  The new SJW liberals are all for it.  Those guys would scare the hell of out of me if it weren't for the fact that they're mostly idiot college students.

Do you live in the Netherlands?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Denspressure on March 25, 2017, 09:18:39 AM
Quote from: crutonius on March 25, 2017, 08:23:12 AM
Quote from: Denspressure on March 25, 2017, 07:07:51 AM

In the Netherlands it is legally forbidden to deny and/or discuss the legitimacy of the Holocaust, what do you think of that?

It depends on who you ask in America.  Us old school liberals regard the First Amendment the same way the rednecks regard the Second Amendment.  A law forbidding a discussion of anything is nothing short of tyranny.  If the government can ban one idea then they can ban any idea.  Rednecks probably feel similarly but not as strongly.  The new SJW liberals are all for it.  Those guys would scare the hell of out of me if it weren't for the fact that they're mostly idiot college students.

Do you live in the Netherlands?
My 'existence' is a little more complicated than that.

You guys live in a three-dimensional 'plane' of existence, I four.

Some people say a three-dimensional plane is in a different place, a universe if you will, than a four-dimensional plane. They are wrong.

What you are observing in three dimensions is really just the limit of your senses. All the numbers of dimensions are in one place, you just can't observe them all.

Converting your location on a four-dimensional field to a three-dimensional field is complicated.
(And then there are different planes in those dimensional as well, which you call 'Hell' and 'Heaven' (But that's an other matter entirely so we won't go into that.

I can be in the Netherlands if I want to.
Their tulips are kind of nice.

Where do you live? (In a thee-dimensional vector plane)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Crouton on March 25, 2017, 09:22:48 AM
Quote from: Denspressure on March 25, 2017, 09:18:39 AM
Quote from: crutonius on March 25, 2017, 08:23:12 AM
Quote from: Denspressure on March 25, 2017, 07:07:51 AM

In the Netherlands it is legally forbidden to deny and/or discuss the legitimacy of the Holocaust, what do you think of that?

It depends on who you ask in America.  Us old school liberals regard the First Amendment the same way the rednecks regard the Second Amendment.  A law forbidding a discussion of anything is nothing short of tyranny.  If the government can ban one idea then they can ban any idea.  Rednecks probably feel similarly but not as strongly.  The new SJW liberals are all for it.  Those guys would scare the hell of out of me if it weren't for the fact that they're mostly idiot college students.

Do you live in the Netherlands?
My 'existence' is a little more complicated than that.

You guys live in a three-dimensional 'plane' of existence, I four.

Some people say a three-dimensional plane is in a different place, a universe if you will, than a four-dimensional plane. They are wrong.

What you are observing in three dimensions is really just the limit of your senses. All the numbers of dimensions are in one place, you just can't observe them all.

Converting your location on a four-dimensional field to a three-dimensional field is complicated.
(And then there are different planes in those dimensional as well, which you call 'Hell' and 'Heaven' (But that's an other matter entirely so we won't go into that.

I can be in the Netherlands if I want to.
Their tulips are kind of nice.

Where do you live? (In a thee-dimensional vector plane)

I should be irritated that you dodged the question but at least you did it in an entertaining way.

I live in the state of Utah.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 25, 2017, 09:26:54 AM


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Denspressure on March 25, 2017, 10:12:17 AM
Quote from: crutonius on March 25, 2017, 09:22:48 AM
Quote from: Denspressure on March 25, 2017, 09:18:39 AM
Quote from: crutonius on March 25, 2017, 08:23:12 AM
Quote from: Denspressure on March 25, 2017, 07:07:51 AM

In the Netherlands it is legally forbidden to deny and/or discuss the legitimacy of the Holocaust, what do you think of that?

It depends on who you ask in America.  Us old school liberals regard the First Amendment the same way the rednecks regard the Second Amendment.  A law forbidding a discussion of anything is nothing short of tyranny.  If the government can ban one idea then they can ban any idea.  Rednecks probably feel similarly but not as strongly.  The new SJW liberals are all for it.  Those guys would scare the hell of out of me if it weren't for the fact that they're mostly idiot college students.

Do you live in the Netherlands?
My 'existence' is a little more complicated than that.

You guys live in a three-dimensional 'plane' of existence, I four.

Some people say a three-dimensional plane is in a different place, a universe if you will, than a four-dimensional plane. They are wrong.

What you are observing in three dimensions is really just the limit of your senses. All the numbers of dimensions are in one place, you just can't observe them all.

Converting your location on a four-dimensional field to a three-dimensional field is complicated.
(And then there are different planes in those dimensional as well, which you call 'Hell' and 'Heaven' (But that's an other matter entirely so we won't go into that.

I can be in the Netherlands if I want to.
Their tulips are kind of nice.

Where do you live? (In a thee-dimensional vector plane)

I should be irritated that you dodged the question but at least you did it in an entertaining way.

I live in the state of Utah.
Utah has some absolutely gorgeous landscapes! If I ever go there I will be sure to take the best of my digital and analog camera equipment with me. My large format 4x5 camera will be especially in its element with landscape photography.

And maybe we can meet up? do you know any good places to visit?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Crouton on March 25, 2017, 12:26:57 PM
Quote from: Denspressure on March 25, 2017, 10:12:17 AM
Quote from: crutonius on March 25, 2017, 09:22:48 AM
Quote from: Denspressure on March 25, 2017, 09:18:39 AM
Quote from: crutonius on March 25, 2017, 08:23:12 AM
Quote from: Denspressure on March 25, 2017, 07:07:51 AM

In the Netherlands it is legally forbidden to deny and/or discuss the legitimacy of the Holocaust, what do you think of that?

It depends on who you ask in America.  Us old school liberals regard the First Amendment the same way the rednecks regard the Second Amendment.  A law forbidding a discussion of anything is nothing short of tyranny.  If the government can ban one idea then they can ban any idea.  Rednecks probably feel similarly but not as strongly.  The new SJW liberals are all for it.  Those guys would scare the hell of out of me if it weren't for the fact that they're mostly idiot college students.

Do you live in the Netherlands?
My 'existence' is a little more complicated than that.

You guys live in a three-dimensional 'plane' of existence, I four.

Some people say a three-dimensional plane is in a different place, a universe if you will, than a four-dimensional plane. They are wrong.

What you are observing in three dimensions is really just the limit of your senses. All the numbers of dimensions are in one place, you just can't observe them all.

Converting your location on a four-dimensional field to a three-dimensional field is complicated.
(And then there are different planes in those dimensional as well, which you call 'Hell' and 'Heaven' (But that's an other matter entirely so we won't go into that.

I can be in the Netherlands if I want to.
Their tulips are kind of nice.

Where do you live? (In a thee-dimensional vector plane)

I should be irritated that you dodged the question but at least you did it in an entertaining way.

I live in the state of Utah.
Utah has some absolutely gorgeous landscapes! If I ever go there I will be sure to take the best of my digital and analog camera equipment with me. My large format 4x5 camera will be especially in its element with landscape photography.

And maybe we can meet up? do you know any good places to visit?

As entertaining as it sounds it's unlikely.  Family life takes quite a toll on my time. 

As for where to visit.  If you're into stuff people made then Temple Square. http://www.templesquare.com/  You will get pestered by Mormons but it is free.

If you're into stuff that nature built then there's too many places to list.  My favorite though is Moab.  http://www.discovermoab.com/.  It used to be a place where they mined Uranium.  But now it's a tourist town.  It kind of feels like Mars.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Denspressure on March 25, 2017, 01:49:15 PM
Quote from: crutonius on March 25, 2017, 12:26:57 PM
Quote from: Denspressure on March 25, 2017, 10:12:17 AM
Quote from: crutonius on March 25, 2017, 09:22:48 AM
Quote from: Denspressure on March 25, 2017, 09:18:39 AM
Quote from: crutonius on March 25, 2017, 08:23:12 AM
Quote from: Denspressure on March 25, 2017, 07:07:51 AM

In the Netherlands it is legally forbidden to deny and/or discuss the legitimacy of the Holocaust, what do you think of that?

It depends on who you ask in America.  Us old school liberals regard the First Amendment the same way the rednecks regard the Second Amendment.  A law forbidding a discussion of anything is nothing short of tyranny.  If the government can ban one idea then they can ban any idea.  Rednecks probably feel similarly but not as strongly.  The new SJW liberals are all for it.  Those guys would scare the hell of out of me if it weren't for the fact that they're mostly idiot college students.

Do you live in the Netherlands?
My 'existence' is a little more complicated than that.

You guys live in a three-dimensional 'plane' of existence, I four.

Some people say a three-dimensional plane is in a different place, a universe if you will, than a four-dimensional plane. They are wrong.

What you are observing in three dimensions is really just the limit of your senses. All the numbers of dimensions are in one place, you just can't observe them all.

Converting your location on a four-dimensional field to a three-dimensional field is complicated.
(And then there are different planes in those dimensional as well, which you call 'Hell' and 'Heaven' (But that's an other matter entirely so we won't go into that.

I can be in the Netherlands if I want to.
Their tulips are kind of nice.

Where do you live? (In a thee-dimensional vector plane)

I should be irritated that you dodged the question but at least you did it in an entertaining way.

I live in the state of Utah.
Utah has some absolutely gorgeous landscapes! If I ever go there I will be sure to take the best of my digital and analog camera equipment with me. My large format 4x5 camera will be especially in its element with landscape photography.

And maybe we can meet up? do you know any good places to visit?

As entertaining as it sounds it's unlikely.  Family life takes quite a toll on my time. 

As for where to visit.  If you're into stuff people made then Temple Square. http://www.templesquare.com/  You will get pestered by Mormons but it is free.

If you're into stuff that nature built then there's too many places to list.  My favorite though is Moab.  http://www.discovermoab.com/.  It used to be a place where they mined Uranium.  But now it's a tourist town.  It kind of feels like Mars.
Thanks for you links and advice.

I wish you and your family well.

Do they know the Earth is flat too?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on March 25, 2017, 02:02:08 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 25, 2017, 02:54:13 AM
totes

So from the sounds of it you have done very little.

No doubt. You are clearly the expert here.

Quote
So you find no issue with a building containing a core such as 7 (leaving the others out for now) collapsing as it did from just a few  typical localized office fires (about 600 c?)

I'm not sure what you are insinuating about the core of building 7, and I'm not sure I would characterize 7 hours of burn time spanning 6 floors as a "typical localized office fire".

Quote
The design of these buildings and forecasting their movement is actually not very difficult because of their design.

What was special about their design that made them easy to predict?

Quote

Let me see if I can put it as simplistic as possible. If you completely removed the exoskeleton you would have something fold up like an umbrella when you close it. Then more than likely (also as models show) the top 20 floors or so of the core and whatever is hanging on to the core (floor wise) will tip over like breaking a flower in half. Some models show once this happened it would take the lower 20 with it, or at least a point (the core is more vertical load bearing, not the best at taking sheer, this was the main purpose of the exoskeleton, absorb wind sheer etc..) though the exact reaction of the lower 20 is hard to predict. Too many "dumb luck" variables to predict (example how many floors would hold on to the core, how many would release and go with the exoskeleton).

Then you have the version of completely remove the core. This would be the opposite of closing an umbrella, this would be like the wind catching an umbrella and over opening it. The core would fall inside the exoskeleton, then the exoskeleton would attempt to follow.

Again, this is hard to predict to an exact. As some of the  dumb luck involved. Though most models show that the lower 15-18 floors of the exoskeleton could survive (very thick, almost 4 times more mass than the upper)..

Now if you had the pancake fairy tale, then you would have the floors collapse inside the exoskeleton, releasing from the core, at the end you would have the core and exoskeleton attempting to stand free from each other. This model is hard to make, as it violates too many laws. So I never put much time into this, in theory it is possible to have the core and exoskeleton stand separated for a time. Though it would be a dangerous ticking time bomb.

We can see the second version is the most accurate to what we saw. This means the core must have been removed...That is also the only way you could get 1,2 or 7 to "pancake"...None of these buildings could pancake without removing rigidity or mass from the core. That is a simple fact.

So what happened to the core? An office fire certainly does not explain it... So we have a lie on the official story...So what did cause it? Why did they lie?

[edited for readibility]

Version 1 and 3 don't agree with the NIST report at all, and you don't seem to give them credibility either, so I don't see the point of discussing them.

As for version 2: Serious question: have you read the NIST collapse sequence? Because that would answer your question about what happened to the core.

Also, what models are you referring to that allows the lower 15-18 floors to stand? The NIST reported exterior buckling between floors 7 and 14.

(I already disagreed that it definitely wasn't liquid aluminum, but let's get to that some other time)

Quote from: totallackey on March 25, 2017, 04:23:30 AM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 24, 2017, 06:20:16 PM
Quote from: totallackey on March 23, 2017, 03:40:54 PM
But I just want to rephrase the first question and I hope you will indulge me by answering both of them in one response when you return.

Totes, if you are given the responsibility to provide an HONEST, OFFICIAL, CONCLUSIVE, FINAL REPORT as to why an event occurred at your home, place of business, etc., would you leave out data or use incorrect data in that report?

If you would leave out data or use incorrect data, would you then include in your summary, "Sorry, but my computer was running slow, so I omitted certain data, but trust me! The outcome is HONEST AND CORRECT!"
[falsified response]
Answer to Question #1: YES.

Answer to Question #2: YES. And screw you if you do not like it. By the way, I deserve to keep my job, and if you attempt to fire me, I will sue.
Thanks for the insight into your moral and ethical character.

Hence my original comment:

Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 23, 2017, 02:08:34 PM
I generally just assume you are trolling and ignore you.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on March 25, 2017, 02:33:00 PM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 25, 2017, 02:02:08 PM
I'm not sure what you are insinuating about the core of building 7, and I'm not sure I would characterize 7 hours of burn time spanning 6 floors as a "typical localized office fire."
What prominent tenants were located in WTC 7 Totes?
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 25, 2017, 02:02:08 PM
What was special about their design that made them easy to predict?
Answer the question I asked above and you might answer your own question.
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 25, 2017, 02:02:08 PM
Hence my original comment:
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 23, 2017, 02:08:34 PM
I generally just assume you are trolling and ignore you.

If I am playing fast and loose with my paraphrasing and it does not truly capture your intent, then am I to take the answers to the questions were no?

They were simply yes or no questions.

And they were not questions similar to: "Do you still beat your wife?"

Just answer the questions with a yes or a no.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on March 25, 2017, 03:27:13 PM
Quote from: totallackey on March 25, 2017, 02:33:00 PM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 25, 2017, 02:02:08 PM
I'm not sure what you are insinuating about the core of building 7, and I'm not sure I would characterize 7 hours of burn time spanning 6 floors as a "typical localized office fire."
What prominent tenants were located in WTC 7 Totes?
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 25, 2017, 02:02:08 PM
What was special about their design that made them easy to predict?
Answer the question I asked above and you might answer your own question.

Please make sure your reply is at least vaguely related to the comment you are responding to. I have no idea what the core has to do with the tenants, and I don't see any "above" question having to do with the building design.

Quote
They were simply yes or no questions... Just answer the questions with a yes or a no.

The wording was too loaded for a simple yes or no answer. But if you insist:

Q1. No, I would try not to include incorrect data. Yes, it is possible I would omit data if there was a good reason. (see previous answer for nuance)
Q2. No, I wouldn't use those exact words, obviously. Yes, I would cite resource limitations if it was an issue. I would also probably include an estimation of uncertainty.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on March 25, 2017, 03:55:02 PM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 25, 2017, 03:27:13 PM
Quote from: totallackey on March 25, 2017, 02:33:00 PM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 25, 2017, 02:02:08 PM
I'm not sure what you are insinuating about the core of building 7, and I'm not sure I would characterize 7 hours of burn time spanning 6 floors as a "typical localized office fire."
What prominent tenants were located in WTC 7 Totes?
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 25, 2017, 02:02:08 PM
What was special about their design that made them easy to predict?
Answer the question I asked above and you might answer your own question.

Please make sure your reply is at least vaguely related to the comment you are responding to. I have no idea what the core has to do with the tenants, and I don't see any "above" question having to do with the building design.
Building design is certainly related to the tenants occupying the building.

Please do a search as to who was perhaps the most important occupant of WTC7 and determine if "localized office fires," could have possibly been a factor.

Quote
They were simply yes or no questions... Just answer the questions with a yes or a no.

Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 25, 2017, 03:27:13 PM
The wording was too loaded for a simple yes or no answer. But if you insist:

Q1. No, I would try not to include incorrect data. Yes, it is possible I would omit data if there was a good reason. (see previous answer for nuance)
Would your office/place of work/home/people you love consider data omission acceptable if they want the truth?
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 25, 2017, 03:27:13 PM
Q2. No, I wouldn't use those exact words, obviously. Yes, I would cite resource limitations if it was an issue. I would also probably include an estimation of uncertainty.
You certainly need all the facts, so what possible resource limitations could there be in this particular case?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 25, 2017, 04:03:48 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 25, 2017, 07:16:59 AM
It is a legitimate question...If all the extra mass needed on the way down is being vaporized as they say...Then there is no new mass being added. So how can it pancake it's way down?

(https://s2.postimg.org/agtrrjucp/image.jpg)

(https://s8.postimg.org/6w0v1tfkl/galileo.jpg)

Edit for totes.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on March 25, 2017, 04:35:36 PM
Quote from: totallackey on March 25, 2017, 03:55:02 PM
Please do a search as to who was perhaps the most important occupant of WTC7 and determine if "localized office fires," could have possibly been a factor.

I will look into it later. For now, I am focusing on the physical aspect.

Quote
You certainly need all the facts, so what possible resource limitations could there be in this particular case?

Computer speed. Manpower. Practical limitations of the algorithm you are using. Small, angular parts often lead to unrealistic local stresses in FEM software, so joints behavior is often just approximated.

FYI, Hulsey "omits" connection information in his model as well. (source (http://)). He uses a nonlinear spring approximation. He claims that NIST uses pin joints instead (I think, needs verification). He claims that this makes a significant difference in the result. We shall see.

@disputeone: Kindly stop spamming massive, pointless image macros. It makes the thread hard to read.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Denspressure on March 25, 2017, 04:53:50 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 25, 2017, 04:03:48 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 25, 2017, 07:16:59 AM
It is a legitimate question...If all the extra mass needed on the way down is being vaporized as they say...Then there is no new mass being added. So how can it pancake it's way down?

(https://s2.postimg.org/agtrrjucp/image.jpg)

(https://s8.postimg.org/6w0v1tfkl/galileo.jpg)

Edit for totes.

Lol that was great, we should have those for more people on this forum.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 25, 2017, 05:00:25 PM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 25, 2017, 04:35:36 PM
Quote from: totallackey on March 25, 2017, 03:55:02 PM
Please do a search as to who was perhaps the most important occupant of WTC7 and determine if "localized office fires," could have possibly been a factor.

I will look into it later. For now, I am focusing on the physical aspect.

Quote
You certainly need all the facts, so what possible resource limitations could there be in this particular case?

Computer speed. Manpower. Practical limitations of the algorithm you are using. Small, angular parts often lead to unrealistic local stresses in FEM software, so joints behavior is often just approximated.

FYI, Hulsey "omits" connection information in his model as well. (source (http://)). He uses a nonlinear spring approximation. He claims that NIST uses pin joints instead (I think, needs verification). He claims that this makes a significant difference in the result. We shall see.

I think it's great you're putting in the effort Totes, there's a page where you can apply to give input on the study / investigation.

http://action.ae911truth.org (http://action.ae911truth.org/p/salsa/web/common/public/signup?signup_page_KEY=10266&killorg=True&loggedOut=True)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 25, 2017, 07:34:21 PM
I'm looking forward to seeing what the end of this investigation will show.

(https://s8.postimg.org/lfi0gcckl/obnoxiousmeme.jpg)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 26, 2017, 08:14:47 AM
We all know Bush has been caught lying multiple times about 9/11. Where he was at, that he saw the first plane on TV (impossible) and so on. He has slipped up on explosives many times as well, however, he and others have attempted to explain it away. I suppose a few times it would be a gray area..I can let it go (at least on the explosives talk, the other lies there is no excuse besides he is a liar)

However, this is a bit hard to explain away.

Quote from: Bush Jr
“I had a job to do,” he says. “They had a job to do, but I didn’t see the horrific scenes they saw nor did I get concussed by the loud explosions and the bombs that went off around them.”

The fact he isn't playing with a full deck, makes him a fantastic unintentional witness for the search for truth. I bet lady bush knocked him in the head afterwards, as we all know she has always been the brains.

http://people.com/politics/george-w-bush-opens-up-about-his-sleepless-nights-after-911/

Least we know he lost one night of sleep ::) I feel so much better now.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 26, 2017, 08:36:46 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 26, 2017, 08:14:47 AM
We all know Bush has been caught lying multiple times about 9/11. Where he was at, that he saw the first plane on TV (impossible) and so on. He has slipped up on explosives many times as well, however, he and others have attempted to explain it away. I suppose a few times it would be a gray area..I can let it go (at least on the explosives talk, the other lies there is no excuse besides he is a liar)

However, this is a bit hard to explain away.

Quote from: Bush Jr
“I had a job to do,” he says. “They had a job to do, but I didn’t see the horrific scenes they saw nor did I get concussed by the loud explosions and the bombs that went off around them.”

The fact he isn't playing with a full deck, makes him a fantastic unintentional witness for the search for truth. I bet lady bush knocked him in the head afterwards, as we all know she has always been the brains.

http://people.com/politics/george-w-bush-opens-up-about-his-sleepless-nights-after-911/

Least we know he lost one night of sleep ::) I feel so much better now.

He was being interviewed about his paintings  http://people.com/politics/george-w-bush-paints-vets-war-art-book-portraits-courage/   Honouring those military who have served since 911 in the war on terror.


"Growing out of President Bush’s own outreach and the ongoing work of the George W. Bush Institute's Military Service Initiative, Portraits of Courage brings together sixty-six full-color portraits and a four-panel mural painted by President Bush of members of the United States military who have served our Nation with honor since 9/11—and whom he has come to know personally"


http://www.bushcenter.org/exhibits-and-events/exhibits/2017/portraits-of-courage-exhibit.html

I'm surprised by the quality of the paintings,  he actually has talent.   Who knew.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on March 26, 2017, 09:02:43 AM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 25, 2017, 04:35:36 PM
I will look into it later. For now, I am focusing on the physical aspect.
And I am stating the following:

Look into it first.

The most important tenant of WTC7 on 9/11 virtually eliminates the possibility fire and structural damage as a cause for the collapse.

Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 25, 2017, 04:35:36 PM
Computer speed. Manpower. Practical limitations of the algorithm you are using. Small, angular parts often lead to unrealistic local stresses in FEM software, so joints behavior is often just approximated.

FYI, Hulsey "omits" connection information in his model as well. (source (http://)). He uses a nonlinear spring approximation. He claims that NIST uses pin joints instead (I think, needs verification). He claims that this makes a significant difference in the result. We shall see.

@disputeone: Kindly stop spamming massive, pointless image macros. It makes the thread hard to read.
We know everything about the building (how it was put together), where the damage was, everything about the temperatures, everything, we know when the terrorists last took a shit...

What could possibly be missing as an input?

As far as NIST is concerned; "We do not need to include the concrete.THIS IS A RUSH JOB! WE NEED ANSWERS NOW!!"

There only so many joints in a building and we know how those joints were assembled.

Enter the information and subject those to stress analysis.

If you do not, then not an honest analysis.

If you need to subject them to forces not possible to elicit the outcome, not honest.

But check the tenants list.

Tell me what you come up with.

(http://)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 26, 2017, 09:04:11 AM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 25, 2017, 02:02:08 PM
I'm not sure what you are insinuating about the core of building 7, and I'm not sure I would characterize 7 hours of burn time spanning 6 floors as a "typical localized office fire".

Is it 3 floors? 2 floors? 6 floors? The story is different in many cases. Let's go to 6 floors for worst case, the fire was only visible from certain sides of the buildings, so we at least know it wasn't the entire floor. Also, per fire fighters, the fires were minimal to non existent for some time, so it isn't as they were a full blaze for 7 hours. So yes, compared to the total cubic feet of the building, it was very localized.

(Side note, I have always wondered how the actual fires got there... I know it was supposedly the tower, however, the transfer of such a thing with the "vaporizing effect" happening at the same time, has always seemed fishy to me. It does not compute. However, I store this away with whatever caused liquid steel for a 100 days after)

As well as there was no damage to the core, the fire proofing material nor the cement encasing it. I go back to my statement, when looking at total cubic feet of the building, total material of the core, exoskeleton, and floor trusses...Then adding in the average temp of an office fire (NIST recanted the diesel fuel being ignited)..These fires are a drop in the hat once the thermal load is distributed as these structures were designed to do.

Common engineering sense says so, as do honest models I have ran as well as many others interested in the engineering and physics anomalies.

Quote
What was special about their design that made them easy to predict?

Because of the core and exoskeleton being the main load bearing mechanisms it took less time to predict, as well as removed many variables opposed to other designs. (There were other supports, however, they were mainly just for deflection and twist of the flooring. Very little if any bearing to the core or exoskeleton)

This also removed plausible collapse scenarios as well.


Quote
Version 1 and 3 don't agree with the NIST report at all, and you don't seem to give them credibility either, so I don't see the point of discussing them.

As for version 2: Serious question: have you read the NIST collapse sequence? Because that would answer your question about what happened to the core.

Also, what models are you referring to that allows the lower 15-18 floors to stand? The NIST reported exterior buckling between floors 7 and 14.

Well I think asking if I read the NIST report is a bit silly don't you think? I bring them up many times, also, if they would have presented a story that was not a blatant fabrication that defies physics as well as engineering in general, i don't know if the truth movement would exist, but I certainly wouldn't be a part of it.

I brought up the pancake lullaby because that was the explanation of 1 and 2. Was just a simple tid bit for the impossibility of what we saw (explaining what floors only collapsing would look like).

As for the NIST report answering my questions on 7..I think I made my views very clear of their clap trap. 100 percent impossible given their story line (hence why I am here)..

The reason I mentioned the lower sections of the buildings I did (same with the lower 44 on 1 and 2) is because of their mass and strength compared to the upper sections. 1,2 and 7 were built before the days of CG comp devices...So they were literally just a sea Bowie. That is also why they had 1500 stressor bolts mixed throughout the building to control sway so it didn't effect the tenants. Because of those the buildings less swayed, but more moved like a tube doll in the wind, or a saving streamer in the wind. (Remember, on a windy day, the total force of wind sheer on 1 and 2 was close to it's mass at time, that is why they were positioned the way they were, it was looks, it was a cheap way to assist in sheer)

During this time of development, they would take a design that should work, then they would add strength and mass many times over "just to be safe".

So in the case of 1 and 2, you would be asking a wood house you built on top of a reinforced concrete and steel structure to collapse the lower structure. Good luck... (Not to mention, with the core design, you must remove the core for what we saw to happen. The floor pancake is impossible, and even if it did happen, it would not look like that)

In the case of 7, number one, an office fire could not effect the core to a significant extent in the lower half. If it effected the floors at a worst case scenario to the point of failure, a floor or two partially or completely collapsing would have little to no effect on the exoskeleton or the core. Even half of the floors could Completely be removed and it would still stand. Remember, core handled mostly vertical compression, exoskeleton handled mostly horizontal sheer.

However, let's say we completely removed the core column on the floor listed in the NIST report. You would see a droop and pouch on that corner, the building would not be salvageable, but it would not equal a symmetrical free fall collapse into its own footprint.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 26, 2017, 09:16:29 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 26, 2017, 08:36:46 AM
He was being interviewed about his paintings  http://people.com/politics/george-w-bush-paints-vets-war-art-book-portraits-courage/   Honouring those military who have served since 911 in the war on terror.


"Growing out of President Bush’s own outreach and the ongoing work of the George W. Bush Institute's Military Service Initiative, Portraits of Courage brings together sixty-six full-color portraits and a four-panel mural painted by President Bush of members of the United States military who have served our Nation with honor since 9/11—and whom he has come to know personally"


http://www.bushcenter.org/exhibits-and-events/exhibits/2017/portraits-of-courage-exhibit.html

I'm surprised by the quality of the paintings,  he actually has talent.   Who knew.

I am trying to decide what this has to do with what he said about 9/11?

Yes, he does have talent, and I would be impressed if I didn't believe he was a war criminal.

His actions remind of someone who swears they are a Christian, puts up the facade and lays it on thick, then they impale you while your back is turned. (I have been stabbed by a few of these people before I leaned how to read them)

Over compensation in short
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 26, 2017, 09:35:39 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 26, 2017, 09:16:29 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 26, 2017, 08:36:46 AM
He was being interviewed about his paintings  http://people.com/politics/george-w-bush-paints-vets-war-art-book-portraits-courage/   Honouring those military who have served since 911 in the war on terror.


"Growing out of President Bush’s own outreach and the ongoing work of the George W. Bush Institute's Military Service Initiative, Portraits of Courage brings together sixty-six full-color portraits and a four-panel mural painted by President Bush of members of the United States military who have served our Nation with honour since 9/11—and whom he has come to know personally"


http://www.bushcenter.org/exhibits-and-events/exhibits/2017/portraits-of-courage-exhibit.html

I'm surprised by the quality of the paintings,  he actually has talent.   Who knew.

I am trying to decide what this has to do with what he said about 9/11?

Yes, he does have talent, and I would be impressed if I didn't believe he was a war criminal.

His actions remind of someone who swears they are a Christian, puts up the facade and lays it on thick, then they impale you while your back is turned. (I have been stabbed by a few of these people before I leaned how to read them)

Over compensation in short

I thought it was obvious,  the quote about bombs  wasn't about 911,  It was about honouring those members of the United States military who have served our Nation with honour since 9/11—and whom he has come to know personally,   that's what the paintings are about and that's what the interview was about.

You just misread it.   I won't  say what I'm thinking,  but you can guess.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 26, 2017, 09:59:55 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 26, 2017, 09:35:39 AM
I thought it was obvious,  the quote about bombs  wasn't about 911,  It was about honouring those members of the United States military who have served our Nation with honour since 9/11—and whom he has come to know personally,   that's what the paintings are about and that's what the interview was about.

You just misread it.   I won't  say what I'm thinking,  but you can guess.

Considering they were talking about 9/11 in that point of the interview, the first responders etc. (You need to read the entire interview)

That's fine...Just pointing out something interesting.

There are plenty of other things to talk about since your last posts besides this
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on March 26, 2017, 11:05:03 AM
"Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, developer of One World Financial Center, was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building - since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall.

A controlled demolition would have minimized the damage caused by the building's imminent collapse and potentially save lives. Many law enforcement personnel, fire fighters, and other journalists, were aware of this possible option. There was no secret." - Jeffery Scott Shapiro, Fox News, Published April 22, 2010.
(http://)
In fact, after it was completed, Larry Silverstein had the building reinforced beyond its requirements, in order to accommodate the needs of its main tenant, Solomon Brothers.

New York Times, February 19, 1989 - "Solomon Brothers... intends to spend nearly 2 years and more than $200 million cutting out floors, adding elevators, reinforcing steel girders..."

"We built in enough redundancy to allow entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity" - Larry Silverstein

"More than 375 tons of steei - requiring 12 miles of welding - will be installed to reinforce floors for Solomon's extra equipment." 

Barry Jennings, Office of Emergency Management - "I had to be there on the 23 floor (Office of Emergency Management, WTC 7) when the 2nd plane hit."

"When we reached the 6th floor, the landing gave way...there was an explosion and the landing gave way."

"All this time I was hearing explosions."

"This big giant police officer came to me and he says, 'You have to run." I said, "I can't run, my knees are swollen." He says, "You'll have to get on your knees and crawl then," because we have reports of more explosions."
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on March 26, 2017, 12:10:06 PM
(http://)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 26, 2017, 12:26:19 PM
You talking about lucky Larry total lackey lol??

Despite his uncanning psychic ability with his insurance choices a month or so before September 11th (double terrorist, cash pay out, double policies on value, 100 year lease fixed, plans for the new Solomons brothers building in April of 2000, cashing out 4.5 billion on empty asbestos ridden worthless buildings, not to mention an extra billion towards the new buildings etc etc etc)

Despite all that...Instead of being at windows of the world restaurant like he was every Tuesday, a dermatologist appointment stopped him...The same excuse for his daughter.

Lucky Larry....

Oh, and one little thing..

Quote from: totallackey on March 26, 2017, 11:05:03 AM
"We built in enough redundancy to allow entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity" - Larry Silverstein

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 26, 2017, 09:04:11 AM
In the case of 7, number one, an office fire could not effect the core to a significant extent in the lower half. If it effected the floors at a worst case scenario to the point of failure, a floor or two partially or completely collapsing would have little to no effect on the exoskeleton or the core. Even half of the floors could Completely be removed and it would still stand. Remember, core handled mostly vertical compression, exoskeleton handled mostly horizontal sheer.

One more time...Like a mirror isn't it?

Yet some of the idiots here only rebuttal to me is "fraud", "liar", "idiot"....yet funny how people keep mirroring my words the more people here post (thanks to those who know where all this is on Google, it's a big help).. No big deal this time though, not like he was the owner of the building or something ::)

(F.Y.I. It's going to continue happening, speaking the truth is funny that way)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 26, 2017, 04:11:44 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 26, 2017, 12:26:19 PM
You talking about lucky Larry total lackey lol??

Despite his uncanning psychic ability with his insurance choices a month or so before September 11th (double terrorist, cash pay out, double policies on value, 100 year lease fixed, plans for the new Solomons brothers building in April of 2000, cashing out 4.5 billion on empty asbestos ridden worthless buildings, not to mention an extra billion towards the new buildings etc etc etc)

Despite all that...Instead of being at windows of the world restaurant like he was every Tuesday, a dermatologist appointment stopped him...The same excuse for his daughter.

Lucky Larry....

Oh, and one little thing..

Quote from: totallackey on March 26, 2017, 11:05:03 AM
"We built in enough redundancy to allow entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity" - Larry Silverstein

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 26, 2017, 09:04:11 AM
In the case of 7, number one, an office fire could not effect the core to a significant extent in the lower half. If it effected the floors at a worst case scenario to the point of failure, a floor or two partially or completely collapsing would have little to no effect on the exoskeleton or the core. Even half of the floors could Completely be removed and it would still stand. Remember, core handled mostly vertical compression, exoskeleton handled mostly horizontal sheer.

One more time...Like a mirror isn't it?

Yet some of the idiots here only rebuttal to me is "fraud", "liar", "idiot"....yet funny how people keep mirroring my words the more people here post (thanks to those who know where all this is on Google, it's a big help).. No big deal this time though, not like he was the owner of the building or something ::)

(F.Y.I. It's going to continue happening, speaking the truth is funny that way)

So many distortions and basic errors of fact,  it's hard to know where to start.

The WTC had already been the target of a terrorist attack,  so it would have been strange if the insurance policy did NOT cover terrorist attacks.   

There was no double terrorist cash pay out.   But he did make 2 claims,  citing the two attacks,  later reduced in court cases.   

No cigar.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 26, 2017, 04:13:52 PM
Towers didn't fall to fires and planes as we saw.

No cigar.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 26, 2017, 04:23:27 PM
Quote from: totallackey on March 26, 2017, 12:10:06 PM
(http://)

Pretty much debunks itself.  It's noteworthy in that it shows how gullible you have to be to believe this crap.

Watch the David Chandler Pentagon Puzzles presentation.

   
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 26, 2017, 04:28:20 PM
Did you know NIST's claimed speed and altitude on 9/11 are impossible for 767's?

The terrorists must have brought some NOS to put in the jet fuel to get the speeds NIST claims.



NIST was the lead consultant on this stunt. Afterwards each building fell at free-fall into its own footprint.

Damn.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 26, 2017, 04:35:10 PM
Here's one for Totallackey



The truther's even thought the UFO was real..  FFS

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 26, 2017, 04:36:32 PM
Rayzor thinks resistance doesn't slow fall acceleration.

FFS.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 26, 2017, 05:44:27 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 26, 2017, 04:36:32 PM
Rayzor thinks resistance doesn't slow fall acceleration.

FFS.


Dipstickone doesn't believe in gravity.

Here's a question,  does anyone know if the UoA or the NIST modelling was based on the original plans,  or did they include the Saloman Bros modiifications?

I don't see any double height floors in the NIST FOI drawings?   WTF


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 26, 2017, 05:54:33 PM
I know your bosses directly tell you not to engage this.

I do believe in gravity, gravity accelerates things at 9.8m/s2, any resistance will slow this acceleration.







NIST didn't include a lot, why would it surprise you they didn't include double height floors.

If NIST said wtc 7 was a purple elephant would you be citing reports showing the building was always infact an elephant in disguise?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 26, 2017, 05:56:39 PM
Will a ball fall faster through a vacuum?

Or through steel and concrete?

Anyone predicting the ball will fall the same speed through steel and concrete as it fell through a vacuum?

No?

What about 9/11?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 26, 2017, 06:12:30 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 26, 2017, 04:11:44 PM
So many distortions and basic errors of fact,  it's hard to know where to start.

The WTC had already been the target of a terrorist attack,  so it would have been strange if the insurance policy did NOT cover terrorist attacks.   

There was no double terrorist cash pay out.   But he did make 2 claims,  citing the two attacks,  later reduced in court cases.   

No cigar.

Considering they had never had terrorist insurance before I find that strange. Multiple insurance policies over lapping, it ended up being more than double the stated value of the buildings. Plus he was able to skate by the fact they were technically worthless the condition they stood (there is a reason he only paid 115 million). He also did fight to make it a cash pay out...

I see you have came to using ad hominems as an entire argument now. I would too if I were you.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on March 26, 2017, 06:20:15 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 26, 2017, 09:04:11 AM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 25, 2017, 02:02:08 PM
I'm not sure what you are insinuating about the core of building 7, and I'm not sure I would characterize 7 hours of burn time spanning 6 floors as a "typical localized office fire".

Is it 3 floors? 2 floors? 6 floors? The story is different in many cases. Let's go to 6 floors for worst case, the fire was only visible from certain sides of the buildings, so we at least know it wasn't the entire floor. Also, per fire fighters, the fires were minimal to non existent for some time, so it isn't as they were a full blaze for 7 hours. So yes, compared to the total cubic feet of the building, it was very localized.

According to the NIST final report, the worst fires were on 6 floors (7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13). Again, if you had read the report, you would know this. Label it whatever you want, but I don't agree with the label.

Quote
(Side note, I have always wondered how the actual fires got there... I know it was supposedly the tower, however, the transfer of such a thing with the "vaporizing effect" happening at the same time, has always seemed fishy to me. It does not compute. However, I store this away with whatever caused liquid steel for a 100 days after)

I don't know what "vaporizing effect" you are talking about related to the debris damage.

Quote
As well as there was no damage to the core, the fire proofing material nor the cement encasing it. I go back to my statement, when looking at total cubic feet of the building, total material of the core, exoskeleton, and floor trusses...Then adding in the average temp of an office fire (NIST recanted the diesel fuel being ignited)..

Yes, the NIST fire analysis supposedly took all that into account.

Quote
These fires are a drop in the hat once the thermal load is distributed as these structures were designed to do.

Common engineering sense says so, as do honest models I have ran as well as many others interested in the engineering and physics anomalies.

[citation needed] ("common engineering sense" does not count as a citation)

Quote
What was special about their design that made them easy to predict?

Because of the core and exoskeleton being the main load bearing mechanisms it took less time to predict, as well as removed many variables opposed to other designs. (There were other supports, however, they were mainly just for deflection and twist of the flooring. Very little if any bearing to the core or exoskeleton)
[/quote]

Neat. (not sure why this is relevant)

Quote
This also removed plausible collapse scenarios as well.

I like how this is just thrown out there by itself as if it was self-evident. Isn't this the statement that you are trying to prove? *facepalm*

Quote
Quote
Version 1 and 3 don't agree with the NIST report at all, and you don't seem to give them credibility either, so I don't see the point of discussing them.

As for version 2: Serious question: have you read the NIST collapse sequence? Because that would answer your question about what happened to the core.

Also, what models are you referring to that allows the lower 15-18 floors to stand? The NIST reported exterior buckling between floors 7 and 14.

Well I think asking if I read the NIST report is a bit silly don't you think? I bring them up many times, also, if they would have presented a story that was not a blatant fabrication that defies physics as well as engineering in general, i don't know if the truth movement would exist, but I certainly wouldn't be a part of it.
...
As for the NIST report answering my questions on 7..I think I made my views very clear of their clap trap. 100 percent impossible given their story line (hence why I am here)..

If you want to prove the NIST report wrong, you can't ignore the NIST explanations, and then complain about the lack of explanations. If you want to dispute the NIST reported sequence of events, then address the sequence directly and specifically. Show objective evidence that the sequence is wrong. Making blanket dismissals devoid of objective evidence just makes you look like a conspiracy nutter, blinded by bias.

Quote
I brought up the pancake lullaby because that was the explanation of 1 and 2. Was just a simple tid bit for the impossibility of what we saw (explaining what floors only collapsing would look like).

Great. Let's focus on wtc 7 for now though.

Quote
The reason I mentioned the lower sections of the buildings I did (same with the lower 44 on 1 and 2) is because of their mass and strength compared to the upper sections. 1,2 and 7 were built before the days of CG comp devices...So they were literally just a sea Bowie. That is also why they had 1500 stressor bolts mixed throughout the building to control sway so it didn't effect the tenants. Because of those the buildings less swayed, but more moved like a tube doll in the wind, or a saving streamer in the wind. (Remember, on a windy day, the total force of wind sheer on 1 and 2 was close to it's mass at time, that is why they were positioned the way they were, it was looks, it was a cheap way to assist in sheer)

During this time of development, they would take a design that should work, then they would add strength and mass many times over "just to be safe".

So in the case of 1 and 2, you would be asking a wood house you built on top of a reinforced concrete and steel structure to collapse the lower structure. Good luck... (Not to mention, with the core design, you must remove the core for what we saw to happen. The floor pancake is impossible, and even if it did happen, it would not look like that)

In the case of 7, number one, an office fire could not effect the core to a significant extent in the lower half. If it effected the floors at a worst case scenario to the point of failure, a floor or two partially or completely collapsing would have little to no effect on the exoskeleton or the core. Even half of the floors could Completely be removed and it would still stand. Remember, core handled mostly vertical compression, exoskeleton handled mostly horizontal sheer.

However, let's say we completely removed the core column on the floor listed in the NIST report. You would see a droop and pouch on that corner, the building would not be salvageable, but it would not equal a symmetrical free fall collapse into its own footprint.

Jumping to conclusions based on metaphors and vague/subjective judgements of strength is not helpful.

TL;DR:

These are all subjective arguments based on oversimplified interpretations of events. I am looking for objective arguments. If your only arguments are subjective, and based on "engineering common sense", whatever that is, then please don't waste our time.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 26, 2017, 06:20:39 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 26, 2017, 06:12:30 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 26, 2017, 04:11:44 PM
So many distortions and basic errors of fact,  it's hard to know where to start.

The WTC had already been the target of a terrorist attack,  so it would have been strange if the insurance policy did NOT cover terrorist attacks.   

There was no double terrorist cash pay out.   But he did make 2 claims,  citing the two attacks,  later reduced in court cases.   

No cigar.

Considering they had never had terrorist insurance before I find that strange. Multiple insurance policies over lapping, it ended up being more than double the stated value of the buildings. Plus he was able to skate by the fact they were technically worthless the condition they stood (there is a reason he only paid 115 million). He also did fight to make it a cash pay out...

I see you have came to using ad hominems as an entire argument now. I would too if I were you.

When you tell such blatant lies,  I'll call you out on it every time.   

http://www.911myths.com/html/windfall.html


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 26, 2017, 06:22:14 PM
Here Totes an objective argument.

Steel and concrete slows fall acceleration.

QED.

Show me why steel and concrete doesn't slow fall acceleration if you are feeling game.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on March 26, 2017, 06:26:27 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 26, 2017, 06:22:14 PM
Here Totes an objective argument.

Steel and concrete slows fall acceleration.

QED.

Show me why steel and concrete doesn't slow fall acceleration if you are feeling game.

I've addressed this several times already. Remember what I said about gish gallops?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 26, 2017, 06:29:44 PM
It's a tough one hey.

Think about how concrete and steel could cause no decrease in fall acceleration and get back to me. I'm in no rush.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 26, 2017, 06:32:01 PM
@Totes,

Have you seen the WTC7 FOI structural drawings,   did you see anywhere reference to the building modifications made for Saloman Bros?

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/02/19/realestate/commercial-property-salomon-solution-building-within-building-cost-200-million.html

My question is did the NIST analysis miss the structural alterations that were made?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on March 26, 2017, 06:34:24 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 26, 2017, 06:29:44 PM
It's a tough one hey.

Think about how concrete and steel could cause no decrease in fall acceleration and get back to me. I'm in no rush.

I'm tired of doing your thinking for you. If you want to make good arguments, you need to be critical of your own arguments, and do your best to refute your own arguments.

You tell me: what are the weaknesses in your argument? List as many as possible, no matter how weak they are.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 26, 2017, 06:36:04 PM
That's ok Totes take all the time you need.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on March 26, 2017, 06:38:32 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 26, 2017, 06:32:01 PM
@Totes,

Have you seen the WTC7 FOI structural drawings,   did you see anywhere reference to the building modifications made for Saloman Bros?

http://www.nytimes.com/1989/02/19/realestate/commercial-property-salomon-solution-building-within-building-cost-200-million.html

My question is did the NIST analysis miss the structural alterations that were made?

I saw the drawings, but I am not accustomed to reading complicated building schematics. It takes me ages to decipher all the shorthand. I have no idea if the alterations were included.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on March 26, 2017, 06:39:13 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 26, 2017, 06:36:04 PM
That's ok Totes take all the time you need.

I suspect you misinterpreted my answer, as usual.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 26, 2017, 06:42:14 PM
Nearly 100 pages later the very first argument put forward is ready and ripe for debunking, for any and all takers.

Hopefully it gets debunked before we hit 100 pages.

Quote from: disputeone on February 13, 2017, 10:49:57 PM
Fall acceleration of building 7.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 26, 2017, 06:47:08 PM
C'mon guys, it's easy, you just need to show how resistance doesn't cause resistance.

Simples.

What's wrong? You guys are acting like every action has an equal and opposite reaction or something?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on March 26, 2017, 07:00:07 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 26, 2017, 06:42:14 PM
Nearly 100 pages later the very first argument put forward is ready and ripe for debunking, for any and all takers.

Hopefully it gets debunked before we hit 100 pages.

Quote from: disputeone on February 13, 2017, 10:49:57 PM
Fall acceleration of building 7.

And no matter how many times it gets addressed, you will just keep repeating this same stupid post as if no one has addressed it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 26, 2017, 07:02:51 PM
Cite where you debunked it.

I could claim I debunked a globe earth, however it doesn't necessarily mean the earth is flat. Especially if I just assert I've debunked the globe earth model.

Now, how does resistance, not cause resistance. (Newton again)

I am looking forward to your answer.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 26, 2017, 07:05:52 PM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 26, 2017, 06:20:15 PM
According to the NIST final report, the worst fires were on 6 floors (7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13). Again, if you had read the report, you would know this. Label it whatever you want, but I don't agree with the label.

You can agree or not, it doesn't make it any less valid.

Quote
I don't know what "vaporizing effect" you are talking about related to the debris damage.

If you read the NIST report as you keep hounding me about you would know.

Quote
Yes, the NIST fire analysis supposedly took all that into account.
It did not, nor did they release any of their inputs to their "model".

Quote
[citation needed] ("common engineering sense" does not count as a citation)

I explain further and it is too long for you. So I am trying to stay under a sentence or two for a reply.

Quote
Neat. (not sure why this is relevant)

I am sorry.

Quote
I like how this is just thrown out there by itself as if it was self-evident. Isn't this the statement that you are trying to prove? *facepalm*

Sometimes a duck will never be an elephant.

Quote
If you want to prove the NIST report wrong, you can't ignore the NIST explanations, and then complain about the lack of explanations. If you want to dispute the NIST reported sequence of events, then address the sequence directly and specifically. Show objective evidence that the sequence is wrong. Making blanket dismissals devoid of objective evidence just makes you look like a conspiracy nutter, blinded by bias.

I have, anything I post is tl;dr when I even try to touch the surface. Somethings cannot be explained quickly.

Quote
Jumping to conclusions based on metaphors and vague/subjective judgements of strength is not helpful.

TL;DR:

These are all subjective arguments based on oversimplified interpretations of events. I am looking for objective arguments. If your only arguments are subjective, and based on "engineering common sense", whatever that is, then please don't waste our time.

Yes I over simplify for those that do not have engineering knowledge, attempt to paint a picture.

I over simplify you won't debate...I draw it out a bit and it is tl;dr you won't debate.

So considering you won't place an argument besides ad hominems, then I will assume you have no argument to place.

You have zero room to criticize dispute.

Quote from: Rayzor on March 26, 2017, 06:20:39 PM
When you tell such blatant lies,  I'll call you out on it every time.   

http://www.911myths.com/html/windfall.html

Your attempt to "call me out" has backfired every time so far...Are you sure you want to start now?

Though, I would rather stick with things I can speak from on a first hand experience instead of having to speak from a third party. So I will digress currently on any of lucky Larry's​ lucky day.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 26, 2017, 07:17:07 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 26, 2017, 07:05:52 PM

Quote from: Rayzor on March 26, 2017, 06:20:39 PM
When you tell such blatant lies,  I'll call you out on it every time.   

http://www.911myths.com/html/windfall.html

Your attempt to "call me out" has backfired every time so far...Are you sure you want to start now?

Though, I would rather stick with things I can speak from on a first hand experience instead of having to speak from a third party. So I will digress currently on any of lucky Larry's​ lucky day.

You have to stop drinking the conspiracy kool-aid.  That stuff is messing with your brain.

First point,  There were no insurance policies in effect at the time of the attack.   
Second      Silverstein had underinsured,  (trying to save money no doubt)
Third          No cash payout,  in fact he has been paying 120 million per year to retain the lease while rebuilding.  The insurance payout is for rebuilding.


"After trying unsuccessfully to negotiate a lower bill, the biggest insurer of the World Trade Center went public with a conflict yesterday. The insurer, Swiss Re, sued to limit how much it will pay to half of what the buildings' managers are asking.

The real estate executive whose companies hold a 99-year lease on the property, Larry A. Silverstein, has said he will seek $7 billion from insurers. He argues that each of the two hijacked airliners that crashed into the towers constituted a separate attack covered by $3.5 billion in insurance.

Swiss Re, the insurer liable for the largest share of the claims, formally balked at that figure yesterday. It asked the Federal District Court in Manhattan to determine that it and the other insurers would be liable for only $3.5 billion because both crashes amounted to a single insurable incident.

The dispute involves Mr. Silverstein, who took over management of the World Trade Center just weeks before the attack; his lenders, who have committed many billions of dollars more than Mr. Silverstein and now have an investment collateralized by a set of buildings lying in rubble; the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the owners of the land that issued the lease, now suffering a disruption of income from the notes it holds from Mr. Silverstein; and Swiss Re, the reinsurance company providing more than a fifth of the overall insurance coverage for the trade center.

Complicating the picture is the fact that there was no insurance policy yet issued on the properties when they were destroyed. Since the Port Authority transferred management of the properties to a group of investors led by Mr. Silverstein shortly before the attack, the insurance policy was under negotiation at the time the buildings collapsed and final wording had not been completed. The insurers have agreed to be bound by the ''binder'' agreements on the coverage although differences of opinion emerged yesterday about their interpretation. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/23/business/nation-challenged-liability-insurer-sues-limit-its-payout-for-world-trade-center.html

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 26, 2017, 07:19:14 PM
I was also agitated at your "tl:dr" response Totes.

Bhs is a PhD engineer, he can speak with authority on engineering. I know the number of very intelligent people who don't buy the OS hurts, but what can I say, sorry?

If I was to tell you how to plumb a shaft there would be no citations just knowledge and experience.

This is how Bhs talks about engineering, with knowlege and experience.

If you don't want the testimony of PhD engineers then why are you here?

Quote from: Rayzor on March 26, 2017, 07:17:07 PM

Shut up Meg.

You haven't even got past my first reply, neither of you even deserve to debate Bhs.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 26, 2017, 07:33:37 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 26, 2017, 07:17:07 PM
You have to stop drinking the conspiracy kool-aid.  That stuff is messing with your brain.

First point,  There were no insurance policies in effect at the time of the attack.   
Second      Silverstein had underinsured,  (trying to save money no doubt)
Third          No cash payout,  in fact he has been paying 120 million per year to retain the lease while rebuilding.  The insurance payout is for rebuilding.


"After trying unsuccessfully to negotiate a lower bill, the biggest insurer of the World Trade Center went public with a conflict yesterday. The insurer, Swiss Re, sued to limit how much it will pay to half of what the buildings' managers are asking.

The real estate executive whose companies hold a 99-year lease on the property, Larry A. Silverstein, has said he will seek $7 billion from insurers. He argues that each of the two hijacked airliners that crashed into the towers constituted a separate attack covered by $3.5 billion in insurance.

Swiss Re, the insurer liable for the largest share of the claims, formally balked at that figure yesterday. It asked the Federal District Court in Manhattan to determine that it and the other insurers would be liable for only $3.5 billion because both crashes amounted to a single insurable incident.

The dispute involves Mr. Silverstein, who took over management of the World Trade Center just weeks before the attack; his lenders, who have committed many billions of dollars more than Mr. Silverstein and now have an investment collateralized by a set of buildings lying in rubble; the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the owners of the land that issued the lease, now suffering a disruption of income from the notes it holds from Mr. Silverstein; and Swiss Re, the reinsurance company providing more than a fifth of the overall insurance coverage for the trade center.

Complicating the picture is the fact that there was no insurance policy yet issued on the properties when they were destroyed. Since the Port Authority transferred management of the properties to a group of investors led by Mr. Silverstein shortly before the attack, the insurance policy was under negotiation at the time the buildings collapsed and final wording had not been completed. The insurers have agreed to be bound by the ''binder'' agreements on the coverage although differences of opinion emerged yesterday about their interpretation. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/23/business/nation-challenged-liability-insurer-sues-limit-its-payout-for-world-trade-center.html

Perhaps you didn't read my post as usual.

I will address a few things, though. He changed and fought to a cash pay out when he made all the other changes. There was policies in effect at the time, they just didn't want to pay because the policies was so new (any insurance company would do this).

I am aware of the facts of his court cases (he received almost 4 billion in cash.. Cough cough because of his cash option) then another billion towards the new buildings. No he did not get 7 billion, no he did not get another 3.5 (which is what the courts limited him to sure for) when he tried going after the airlines.

He should have not gotten a cent though...The buildings were worthless and mostly vacant because of it.

Also there was a clause on his lease for the lot in a situation like this that he does not have to pay the lease fees for a time. So no, he did not have to pay his lot premiums during the transition period.

Now

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 26, 2017, 07:05:52 PM
Your attempt to "call me out" has backfired every time so far...Are you sure you want to start now?

Though, I would rather stick with things I can speak from on a first hand experience instead of having to speak from a third party. So I will digress currently on any of lucky Larry's​ lucky day.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on March 26, 2017, 07:40:18 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 26, 2017, 07:05:52 PM
Yes I over simplify for those that do not have engineering knowledge, attempt to paint a picture.

I over simplify you won't debate...I draw it out a bit and it is tl;dr you won't debate.

Stop painting pictures, and just present your objective evidence, if you have any. All this subjective babble is tiresome.

Quote from: disputeone on March 26, 2017, 07:02:51 PM
Cite where you debunked it.

I didn't definitively "debunk" it. I did address some issues with your argument though. I don't feel like combing through this thread to search for it. I repeat:

Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 26, 2017, 06:34:24 PM
I'm tired of doing your thinking for you. If you want to make good arguments, you need to be critical of your own arguments, and do your best to refute your own arguments.

You tell me: what are the weaknesses in your argument? List as many as possible, no matter how weak they are.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 26, 2017, 07:46:38 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 13, 2017, 10:36:59 PM
What real evidence is there for a conspiracy about 911?   

Quote from: disputeone on February 13, 2017, 10:49:57 PM
Fall acceleration of building 7.

Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 26, 2017, 07:40:18 PM
I didn't definitively "debunk" it.

The first reply to the thread hasn't been debunked.

We agree then.

Weakest part of my argument is not having the advantage of group think and group shaming.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 26, 2017, 07:55:15 PM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 26, 2017, 07:40:18 PM
Stop painting pictures, and just present your objective evidence, if you have any. All this subjective babble is tiresome.

This is the only reply you have to all of that?

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 26, 2017, 07:05:52 PM
I over simplify you won't debate...I draw it out a bit and it is tl;dr you won't debate.

So considering you won't place an argument besides ad hominems, then I will assume you have no argument to place.

Keeps me from having to retype.

I have stated much that was not "painting a picture" was just simple engineering...Your response was always tl;Dr or an equivalent of a shoulder shrug.

I could only imagine if I got deeper, it would be a complete waste of my time just like the shorty replied to you unfortunately, wish it wasn't. You won't even take the time to read any of the design prints (or can't, which isn't the end of the world, if you aren't an engineer it isn't bad you can't read them. I despise older prints with a passion and have to triple check my reading comprehension for errors on them) even attempted abridged versions I type "for your reading ease" is tl;dr...

What do you do for a living?? I thought you were a scientist or something like that...Yet you are not used to long papers?

Why are you here?

Are you ever going to present an argument? I think you jumped in on page 20 or something...Yet still nothing?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on March 26, 2017, 07:59:41 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 26, 2017, 07:46:38 PM
Weakest part of my argument is not having the advantage of group think and group shaming.

No. Try again.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 26, 2017, 08:04:45 PM
No, I am correct, don't think for a second you aren't here arguing against the CD hypothesis because of your T.V.

You admitted doing no research before this thread, you are merely defending your television.

Debunk wtc 7s fall acceleration and symmetry ::).

First reply, still undebunked, it's looking bad for the OS version of wtc 7s collapse.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applied_psychology
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on March 26, 2017, 08:21:16 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 26, 2017, 07:55:15 PM
I have stated much that was not "painting a picture" was just simple engineering...Your response was always tl;Dr or an equivalent of a shoulder shrug.

My response was to point out the subjectivity of your arguments. Not much to do beyond that. Still waiting for some objective evidence.

Quote
I could only imagine if I got deeper, it would be a complete waste of my time just like the shorty replied to you unfortunately, wish it wasn't. You won't even take the time to read any of the design prints (or can't, which isn't the end of the world, if you aren't an engineer it isn't bad you can't read them. I despise older prints with a passion and have to triple check my reading comprehension for errors on them) even attempted abridged versions I type "for your reading ease" is tl;dr...

They are reference documents, not a novel. I'll reference them when I need to. Ditto on despising older, hand-written prints.

Quote
What do you do for a living?? I thought you were a scientist or something like that...Yet you are not used to long papers?

Does it matter what I do for a living? I'm not making any authoritative arguments. Who says I'm not used to long papers? I just don't put much value in your subjective arguments. Still waiting on some objective evidence.

Quote
Why are you here?

Are you ever going to present an argument? I think you jumped in on page 20 or something...Yet still nothing?

I'm here because I thought the people here might have some interesting evidence of a major conspiracy. No, I'm not going to present a conclusive, definitive argument for or against until I am good and ready. That won't happen until I have solid, objective evidence.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 26, 2017, 08:27:06 PM
Lol.

Quote from: disputeone on March 26, 2017, 07:46:38 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 13, 2017, 10:36:59 PM
What real evidence is there for a conspiracy about 911?   

Quote from: disputeone on February 13, 2017, 10:49:57 PM
Fall acceleration of building 7.

Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 26, 2017, 07:40:18 PM
I didn't definitively "debunk" it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 26, 2017, 08:40:16 PM
Too apt not to share.

Rayzor I have summarised your debate tactics as a reference and guide for you.

*Encourage group shaming and group think as a first priority.

*Always quote and support the official story, if any evidence doesn't support the OS, then deny it and re-quote the official story.

*Deny any and all facts that go against the official story.

*Discredit anyone that goes against the official story.

*Push controlled opposition conspiracy theories e.g aliens, holographic planes, death rays from space.

*Speak from a position of authority on all subjects, never provide proof of authority.

*Give absolutely no quarter, if you can't answer a question honestly descredit the poster and distract the debate.

*Offer the official story as the only explanation, keep trying to exaggerate your opponents position and twist their words out of meaning.

*Attack only the weakest points of your opponent's argument, if there are no weak enough points, create a strawman and tear it to shreds.

This is a free reference if you get stuck.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 26, 2017, 08:44:42 PM
Totes I have presented you with simple evidence (excluding a few metaphors), nor is it any sort of "secret engineering knowledge", it's relatively basic. You have tl;Dr the information or shoulder shrugged it.

I am not sure what you are looking for exactly.

Nor am I asking you to make a call right away, just to debate something if you are interested in finding the truth or you disagree. (This does not include ad hominems, tl;dr, or shoulder shrugs)

If you are not interested in putting in the work or time and just want the answer handed to you. Then there is no point of being here. Just take someones word who has the right to speak with authority on it and leave it there.

Just make sure they have no motivation to lie to you, which Completely rules out the official story or NIST
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 26, 2017, 09:03:57 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 26, 2017, 07:33:37 PM
Also there was a clause on his lease for the lot in a situation like this that he does not have to pay the lease fees for a time. So no, he did not have to pay his lot premiums during the transition period.

Nope.

"Silverstein Properties and the Port Authority continue to be guided by a lease each signed six weeks before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The lease stipulates that should the complex be destroyed, Silverstein must continue to pay the $120 million a year rent in order to maintain the right to rebuild. Mr. Silverstein has tried to persuade the Port Authority that his closely held company is capable of rebuilding while meeting its massive rent payments. The rent is currently being paid from insurance proceeds, draining the amount available for rebuilding."


I can't be bothered to correct the rest of your blatant misinformation,  it's all a matter of public record anyway.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 26, 2017, 09:15:33 PM
Speculation doesn't change the physics of the building collapses.

Quote from: disputeone on March 26, 2017, 06:42:14 PM
Nearly 100 pages later the very first argument put forward is ready and ripe for debunking, for any and all takers.

Hopefully it gets debunked before we hit 100 pages.

Quote from: disputeone on February 13, 2017, 10:49:57 PM
Fall acceleration of building 7.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 26, 2017, 09:36:35 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 26, 2017, 09:03:57 PM
it's all a matter of public record anyway.

I know, that is where I got the info. As well as I watched the court cases as closely as I could. I was hoping he would not get a penny.

Your quote, one I don't know where it is from, two it is not taking into account his court cases (the typical one dimensional thinking I have seen presented). He got some reprieve from the lease. I don't remember how long, I just remember it was during the same time he got the extra billion to put towards the new buildings. They made the ruling retroactive. I think it was a year and a half or two years total.. Possibly up to 3, I am brain farting, I will have to check.

Now...

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 26, 2017, 07:05:52 PM
Your attempt to "call me out" has backfired every time so far...Are you sure you want to start now?

Though, I would rather stick with things I can speak from on a first hand experience instead of having to speak from a third party.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 26, 2017, 09:51:19 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 26, 2017, 09:36:35 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 26, 2017, 09:03:57 PM
it's all a matter of public record anyway.

I know, that is where I got the info. As well as I watched the court cases as closely as I could. I was hoping he would not get a penny.

Your quote, one I don't know where it is from, two it is not taking into account his court cases (the typical one dimensional thinking I have seen presented). He got some reprieve from the lease. I don't remember how long, I just remember it was during the same time he got the extra billion to put towards the new buildings. They made the ruling retroactive. I think it was a year and a half or two years total.. Possibly up to 3, I am brain farting, I will have to check.

Now...

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 26, 2017, 07:05:52 PM
Your attempt to "call me out" has backfired every time so far...Are you sure you want to start now?

Though, I would rather stick with things I can speak from on a first hand experience instead of having to speak from a third party.

One last time,   your assertion that Silverstein profited from the attack is a lie,  and easily disproven.   

Incidentally,  I note you keep claiming that every attempt to call you out has backfired?   Not sure why you think that,  but  I found out exactly what you are,  and the fact that I don't beat you up over it,  doesn't mean I won't at some point in the future. 

But by all means continue to display your general ignorance and stupidity.  It's entertaining if nothing else.   
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 26, 2017, 10:15:04 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 26, 2017, 09:51:19 PM
One last time,   your assertion that Silverstein profited from the attack is a lie,  and easily disproven. 

Lol...Right...Billions for worthless items. Like getting full price plus 10, percent from an insurance company for a car that was already totaled (or fraud in easier terms, things normal people go to jail for) lol.

You are right though...He didn't profit ::)

Quote
Incidentally,  I note you keep claiming that every attempt to call you out has backfired?   Not sure why you think that

It's because it has, either many instances on this thread...Or there is an entirely separate  thread that is one giant backfire after 10 pages.

Quote
but  I found out exactly what you are,  and the fact that I don't beat you up over it,  doesn't mean I won't at some point in the future. 

Please don't hold back by all means, let it out rayzor.

It will only backfire again...Either about me personally, or about 9/11, the truth is easy...Not, deflection, ad hominems and guest tour passes
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 26, 2017, 10:17:13 PM
A PhD engineer? Why would you make fun of him for being a PhD engineer?

Pretty impressive imo.

Imagine if someone claimed they worked at NIST then tried to use a tour ticket as "proof" now that would be lulzy. Wait.

Just stick to my list I wrote for you above and you'll be fine.

Oh, and, STAY WITH YOUR GROUP!!!

(https://s10.postimg.org/xjimpy18p/Cern_Pass.jpg)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 26, 2017, 10:31:40 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 26, 2017, 10:17:13 PM
A PhD engineer? Why would you make fun of him for being a PhD engineer?

I'll let you guess what I think about that.


Quote from: disputeone on March 26, 2017, 10:17:13 PM

Imagine if someone claimed they worked at NIST then tried to use a tour ticket as "proof" now that would be lulzy. Wait.

Just stick to my list I wrote for you above and you'll be fine.

Oh, and, STAY WITH YOUR GROUP!!!

(https://s10.postimg.org/xjimpy18p/Cern_Pass.jpg)

I know you are just jealous,  so I'll go easy on you.    At least Papa Legba actually asked semi intelligent questions about CERN,  you on the other hand are just a run of the mill conspiracy  looney. 

A half intelligent person would ask something about CERN,  the best you can come up with is "stay with your group"    Seriously?

It also says something disturbing about you,  that all you have contributed to this thread is continually spamming with the same stuff over and over,  maybe it's a bad case of OCD?



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 26, 2017, 10:33:06 PM
I could buy a tour pass to CERN tomorrow if I so desired.

https://visit.cern/

https://visit.cern/tours

Oh, also.

STAY WITH YOUR GROUP!!!

Quote from: disputeone on March 26, 2017, 08:40:16 PM
Rayzor I have summarised your debate tactics as a reference and guide for you.

*Encourage group shaming and group think as a first priority.

*Always quote and support the official story, if any evidence doesn't support the OS, then deny it and re-quote the official story.

*Deny any and all facts that go against the official story.

*Discredit anyone that goes against the official story.

*Push controlled opposition conspiracy theories e.g aliens, holographic planes, death rays from space.

*Speak from a position of authority on all subjects, never provide proof of authority.

*Give absolutely no quarter, if you can't answer a question honestly descredit the poster and distract the debate.

*Offer the official story as the only explanation, keep trying to exaggerate your opponents position and twist their words out of meaning.

*Attack only the weakest points of your opponent's argument, if there are no weak enough points, create a strawman and tear it to shreds.

This is a free reference if you get stuck.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 26, 2017, 10:35:31 PM
Quote from: dispute reply one on February 13, 2017, 10:49:57 PM
Fall acceleration of building 7.

Quote from: disputeone on March 26, 2017, 05:54:33 PM
I know your bosses directly tell you not to engage this.

Fall acceleration and symmetry of wtc 7.






Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 26, 2017, 10:56:43 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 26, 2017, 10:31:40 PM
I know you are just jealous,  so I'll go easy on you.    At least Papa Legba actually asked semi intelligent questions about CERN,  you on the other hand are just a run of the mill conspiracy  looney. 

A half intelligent person would ask something about CERN,  the best you can come up with is "stay with your group"    Seriously?

It also says something disturbing about you,  that all you have contributed to this thread is continually spamming with the same stuff over and over,  maybe it's a bad case of OCD?

Lol...Really? I actually said it was cool and that I would like to visit there. The reason dispute, now I give you shit about it, is because you used it as part of your "credentials" while calling me a fraud.

You are nothing special to have this...I, dispute, or anyone with the money can buy a tour there with advance notice. Nothing different than going to the zoo, or watching a surgery...It doesn't make me a doctor.

Also for comments like this

Quote from: Rayzor on March 26, 2017, 10:31:40 PM
I'll let you guess what I think about that.

You can make snide remarks as well as other shitty names, yet I have actually proven things about myself besides a guest pass to some where, as well as offer to prove whatever else you want in whatever requested fashion and customization. I always call you out on that, yet you dip duck and dive the subject...I say "bring it" you back down every single time (the offer is always open killer)

I wonder why?

Not to mention, as this thread goes on (and others ended) it continually comes to light I was right no matter how many times idiots call me names (sometimes it takes a while)...

So please continue on the path you are...It's only showing your true colors and helping my case.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 26, 2017, 11:02:52 PM
Ok,  dipstick,  pay attention,   what would any conspiracy gain by demolishing WTC7   All they had to do was sit back and wait,   even if it didn't collapse by itself,   it would have been demolished eventually as part of the site clean up.

Can you come up with a logical reason as to why any one in their right mind would bother to demolish WTC7.    And why wait 7 hours to do it?

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sceptimatic on March 26, 2017, 11:05:55 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 26, 2017, 11:02:52 PM
Ok,  dipstick,  pay attention,   what would any conspiracy gain by demolishing WTC7   All they had to do was sit back and wait,   even if it didn't collapse by itself,   it would have been demolished eventually as part of the site clean up.

Can you come up with a logical reason as to why any one in their right mind would bother to demolish WTC7.    And why wait 7 hours to do it?
Just think about what it housed. Think about what can be lost, never to be found.
You know this.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 26, 2017, 11:10:52 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 26, 2017, 11:02:52 PM
Ok,  dipstick,  pay attention,   what would any conspiracy gain by demolishing WTC7   All they had to do was sit back and wait,   even if it didn't collapse by itself,   it would have been demolished eventually as part of the site clean up.

Can you come up with a logical reason as to why any one in their right mind would bother to demolish WTC7.    And why wait 7 hours to do it?

I don't need to.

The fire induced collapse we saw was impossible.

QED.

Quote from: sceptimatic on March 26, 2017, 11:05:55 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 26, 2017, 11:02:52 PM
Ok,  dipstick,  pay attention,   what would any conspiracy gain by demolishing WTC7   All they had to do was sit back and wait,   even if it didn't collapse by itself,   it would have been demolished eventually as part of the site clean up.

Can you come up with a logical reason as to why any one in their right mind would bother to demolish WTC7.    And why wait 7 hours to do it?
Just think about what it housed. Think about what can be lost, never to be found.
You know this.

He surely does, it's funny how he knows every detail of the fraudulent OS from memory, isn't it, ausGeoff?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 26, 2017, 11:13:34 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 26, 2017, 10:56:43 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 26, 2017, 10:31:40 PM
I know you are just jealous,  so I'll go easy on you.    At least Papa Legba actually asked semi intelligent questions about CERN,  you on the other hand are just a run of the mill conspiracy  looney. 

A half intelligent person would ask something about CERN,  the best you can come up with is "stay with your group"    Seriously?

It also says something disturbing about you,  that all you have contributed to this thread is continually spamming with the same stuff over and over,  maybe it's a bad case of OCD?

Lol...Really? I actually said it was cool and that I would like to visit there. The reason dispute, now I give you shit about it, is because you used it as part of your "credentials" while calling me a fraud.


I was replying to dipstick.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 26, 2017, 10:56:43 PM
You are nothing special to have this...I, dispute, or anyone with the money can buy a tour there with advance notice. Nothing different than going to the zoo, or watching a surgery...It doesn't make me a doctor.

Actually you can't,   underground passes are strictly limited,   no-one goes underground while the LHC is running,  it takes months to get down to liquid helium temperatures and then apart from that the radiation levels can be lethal,   the only time you can get to see the detectors up close is during a maintenance period,  and those are few,  and if you are joe public then it would have to coincide with an open day.  I think the next one might be 2019,  or 2023.   There are published schedules on-line somewhere.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 26, 2017, 11:14:35 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 26, 2017, 11:02:52 PM
Ok,  dipstick
Lol....You really do follow this script don't you.

Quote from: disputeone on March 26, 2017, 08:40:16 PM
Too apt not to share.

Rayzor I have summarised your debate tactics as a reference and guide for you.

*Encourage group shaming and group think as a first priority.

*Always quote and support the official story, if any evidence doesn't support the OS, then deny it and re-quote the official story.

*Deny any and all facts that go against the official story.

*Discredit anyone that goes against the official story.

*Push controlled opposition conspiracy theories e.g aliens, holographic planes, death rays from space.

*Speak from a position of authority on all subjects, never provide proof of authority.

*Give absolutely no quarter, if you can't answer a question honestly descredit the poster and distract the debate.

*Offer the official story as the only explanation, keep trying to exaggerate your opponents position and twist their words out of meaning.

*Attack only the weakest points of your opponent's argument, if there are no weak enough points, create a strawman and tear it to shreds.

This is a free reference if you get stuck.

You can call him names all you want...However, you have been fulfilling this script to a T (I can actually think of a few things he missed)

Also, the amusing thing...He is more qualified to speak on this subject as well lol. It's always the guy that knows nothing calling others names...

Interesting huh?

Quote
  pay attention,   what would any conspiracy gain by demolishing WTC7   All they had to do was sit back and wait,   even if it didn't collapse by itself,   it would have been demolished eventually as part of the site clean up.

Can you come up with a logical reason as to why any one in their right mind would bother to demolish WTC7.    And why wait 7 hours to do it?

I have already answered this question multiple times. Though here is scepti.
 
Quote from: sceptimatic on March 26, 2017, 11:05:55 PM
Just think about what it housed. Think about what can be lost, never to be found.
You know this.

I have also answered about your "coming down" nonsense many times. Even Silverstein himself gave me a little unintentional backup.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 26, 2017, 11:19:23 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 26, 2017, 11:13:34 PM

I was replying to dipstick.

You have insulted me equally, Actually probably more so.

Quote
Actually you can't,   underground passes are strictly limited,   no-one goes underground while the LHC is running,  it takes months to get down to liquid helium temperatures and then apart from that the radiation levels can be lethal,   the only time you can get to see the detectors up close is during a maintenance period,  and those are few,  and if you are joe public then it would have to coincide with an open day.  I think the next one might be 2019,  or 2023.   There are published schedules on-line somewhere.

Hey I will admit that is pretty cool nor did I know that. That is cool you got to see.

Still does not change the fact it is like a zoo pass, backstage pass, or any other guest pass...Just cooler. Doesn't add to anyone's credentials, just to the cool factor.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 26, 2017, 11:20:08 PM
Quote from: sceptimatic on March 26, 2017, 11:05:55 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 26, 2017, 11:02:52 PM
Ok,  dipstick,  pay attention,   what would any conspiracy gain by demolishing WTC7   All they had to do was sit back and wait,   even if it didn't collapse by itself,   it would have been demolished eventually as part of the site clean up.

Can you come up with a logical reason as to why any one in their right mind would bother to demolish WTC7.    And why wait 7 hours to do it?
Just think about what it housed. Think about what can be lost, never to be found.
You know this.

Do you know what it housed?   

But even if there was something to hide in WTC7,   there's still no logical reason to demolish it.   Especially while the place is swarming with tv and media coverage.   

If the twin towers were demolished in an amazingly sophisticated and unlikely controlled demolition,  then WTC7 was a ham fisted illogical afterthought by comparison.

Nope,  WTC7  was collateral damage.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 26, 2017, 11:24:41 PM
And the fact it's collapse violated multiple laws of physics doesn't bother you at all?

Should we just put it out of our mind?

http://americanfreepress.net/how-much-gold-was-under-wtc-complex/
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 26, 2017, 11:27:39 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 26, 2017, 11:19:23 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 26, 2017, 11:13:34 PM

I was replying to dipstick.

You have insulted me equally, Actually probably more so.

Quote
Actually you can't,   underground passes are strictly limited,   no-one goes underground while the LHC is running,  it takes months to get down to liquid helium temperatures and then apart from that the radiation levels can be lethal,   the only time you can get to see the detectors up close is during a maintenance period,  and those are few,  and if you are joe public then it would have to coincide with an open day.  I think the next one might be 2019,  or 2023.   There are published schedules on-line somewhere.

Hey I will admit that is pretty cool nor did I know that. That is cool you got to see.

Still does not change the fact it is like a zoo pass, backstage pass, or any other guest pass...Just cooler. Doesn't add to anyone's credentials, just to the cool factor.

When we toured the CMS detector it wasn't on the open day,  it was a couple of days before. 

If you do get to a CERN open day,  there is a web site where you register for underground passes,  they allocate them in lots at specified times, and it's first come first served.  We had the advantage of being on the local CERN network during the week, when the ALICE passes came up for allocation, and managed to get in.  All the passes were gone in less than a minute after allocation opened.

So good luck buying a ticket to the particle zoo. 



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 26, 2017, 11:29:31 PM
Ok Rayzor, you visited CERN. Congrats.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 26, 2017, 11:29:40 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 26, 2017, 11:24:41 PM
And the fact it's collapse violated multiple laws of physics doesn't bother you at all?

As well as violating the design of the building itself..

Quote from: disputeone on March 26, 2017, 11:24:41 PM
Should we just put it out of our mind?

Yes please

Sincerely yours,
The official story
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 26, 2017, 11:31:14 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 26, 2017, 11:24:41 PM
And the fact it's collapse violated multiple laws of physics doesn't bother you at all?

Should we just put it out of our mind?

http://americanfreepress.net/how-much-gold-was-under-wtc-complex/

What laws of physics do you think were violated,   if you can cite an example,  then you should write up a paper.    Might be a nobel prize in it.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 26, 2017, 11:39:18 PM
Some very intelligent engineers are working on it as we speak.

I am donating as much as I can afford to the research.

Be patient, we will have truth sooner than you think.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sceptimatic on March 26, 2017, 11:40:43 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 26, 2017, 11:20:08 PM
Quote from: sceptimatic on March 26, 2017, 11:05:55 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 26, 2017, 11:02:52 PM
Ok,  dipstick,  pay attention,   what would any conspiracy gain by demolishing WTC7   All they had to do was sit back and wait,   even if it didn't collapse by itself,   it would have been demolished eventually as part of the site clean up.

Can you come up with a logical reason as to why any one in their right mind would bother to demolish WTC7.    And why wait 7 hours to do it?
Just think about what it housed. Think about what can be lost, never to be found.
You know this.

Do you know what it housed?   

But even if there was something to hide in WTC7,   there's still no logical reason to demolish it.   Especially while the place is swarming with tv and media coverage.   

If the twin towers were demolished in an amazingly sophisticated and unlikely controlled demolition,  then WTC7 was a ham fisted illogical afterthought by comparison.

Nope,  WTC7  was collateral damage.
Apparently all of this.

At the time of the September 11, 2001, attacks, Salomon Smith Barney was by far the largest tenant in 7 World Trade Center, occupying 1,202,900 sq ft (111,750 m2) (64 percent of the building) which included floors 28–45.[5]:2[28] Other major tenants included ITT Hartford Insurance Group (122,590 sq ft/11,400 m²), American Express Bank International (106,117 sq ft/9,900 m²), Standard Chartered Bank (111,398 sq ft/10,350 m²), and the Securities and Exchange Commission (106,117 sq ft/9,850 m²).[28] Smaller tenants included the Internal Revenue Service Regional Council (90,430 sq ft/8,400 m²) and the United States Secret Service (85,343 sq ft/7,900 m²).[28] The smallest tenants included the New York City Office of Emergency Management,[29] National Association of Insurance Commissioners, Federal Home Loan Bank, First State Management Group Inc., Provident Financial Management, and the Immigration and Naturalization Service.[28] The Department of Defense (DOD) and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) shared the 25th floor with the IRS.[5]:2 Floors 46–47 were mechanical floors, as were the bottom six floors and part of the seventh floor.[5]:2[30]
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 26, 2017, 11:51:33 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 26, 2017, 11:24:41 PM
And the fact it's collapse violated multiple laws of physics doesn't bother you at all?

Should we just put it out of our mind?

http://americanfreepress.net/how-much-gold-was-under-wtc-complex/

Leaving aside your ridiculous claim that multiple laws of physics were violated, the gold was in the basement under WTC4,  not WTC7.   WTC7 as far as I'm aware had a Con Edison power station in the basement.

So another WTC7  conspiracy theory bites the dust.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 26, 2017, 11:57:22 PM
Quote from: sceptimatic on March 26, 2017, 11:40:43 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 26, 2017, 11:20:08 PM
Quote from: sceptimatic on March 26, 2017, 11:05:55 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 26, 2017, 11:02:52 PM
Ok,  dipstick,  pay attention,   what would any conspiracy gain by demolishing WTC7   All they had to do was sit back and wait,   even if it didn't collapse by itself,   it would have been demolished eventually as part of the site clean up.

Can you come up with a logical reason as to why any one in their right mind would bother to demolish WTC7.    And why wait 7 hours to do it?
Just think about what it housed. Think about what can be lost, never to be found.
You know this.

Do you know what it housed?   

But even if there was something to hide in WTC7,   there's still no logical reason to demolish it.   Especially while the place is swarming with tv and media coverage.   

If the twin towers were demolished in an amazingly sophisticated and unlikely controlled demolition,  then WTC7 was a ham fisted illogical afterthought by comparison.

Nope,  WTC7  was collateral damage.
Apparently all of this.

At the time of the September 11, 2001, attacks, Salomon Smith Barney was by far the largest tenant in 7 World Trade Center, occupying 1,202,900 sq ft (111,750 m2) (64 percent of the building) which included floors 28–45.[5]:2[28] Other major tenants included ITT Hartford Insurance Group (122,590 sq ft/11,400 m²), American Express Bank International (106,117 sq ft/9,900 m²), Standard Chartered Bank (111,398 sq ft/10,350 m²), and the Securities and Exchange Commission (106,117 sq ft/9,850 m²).[28] Smaller tenants included the Internal Revenue Service Regional Council (90,430 sq ft/8,400 m²) and the United States Secret Service (85,343 sq ft/7,900 m²).[28] The smallest tenants included the New York City Office of Emergency Management,[29] National Association of Insurance Commissioners, Federal Home Loan Bank, First State Management Group Inc., Provident Financial Management, and the Immigration and Naturalization Service.[28] The Department of Defense (DOD) and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) shared the 25th floor with the IRS.[5]:2 Floors 46–47 were mechanical floors, as were the bottom six floors and part of the seventh floor.[5]:2[30]

So which one of those were the conspirators trying to destroy.    Apart from the IRS,  I think we can agree that's a no brainer. 

If they were trying to destroy records,  then there was plenty of opportunity to salvage records before the building became unsafe.  Why not demolish it earlier?  Why wait 7 hours?



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 26, 2017, 11:59:45 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 26, 2017, 11:51:33 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 26, 2017, 11:24:41 PM
And the fact it's collapse violated multiple laws of physics doesn't bother you at all?

Should we just put it out of our mind?

http://americanfreepress.net/how-much-gold-was-under-wtc-complex/

Leaving aside your ridiculous claim that multiple laws of physics were violated, the gold was in the basement under WTC4,  not WTC7.   WTC7 as far as I'm aware had a Con Edison power station in the basement.

So another WTC7  conspiracy theory bites the dust.

Lol.

http://www.wtc7evaluation.org

You can't stop us.

>muh 7 hours.

Lol fail.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 27, 2017, 12:09:51 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 26, 2017, 11:57:22 PM
So which one of those were the conspirators trying to destroy.    Apart from the IRS,  I think we can agree that's a no brainer. 

If they were trying to destroy records,  then there was plenty of opportunity to salvage records before the building became unsafe.  Why not demolish it earlier?  Why wait 7 hours?

The loot was in 4 and 6... There is too much speculation on what happened to it. You have it was already empty according to some, picked up right afterwards underground according to others to many other stories with very sketchy proof.

The only thing that can be said is it's pick up wasn't recorded in the usual fashion (if it was picked up)...Which would be unheard-of for 250 thousand dollars...Much less almost a billion dollars of loot.


As for why demo 7...Perhaps it was the command center for 1 and 2. Why was the new York emergency command center build there when it was not even in the top 3 idea places to be built when it's construction was proposed? Who knows what was there?

They already killed off 2.3 trillion missing dollars with the Pentagon non sense...Perhaps there was more evidence at 7 plus a command center for 1 and 2. As for why demo it after setting it on fire? These don't collapse from fire, if you need it gone then you need it guaranteed...No room for a maybe.

I would rather talk about what couldn't happen than speculate on what ifs.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 27, 2017, 12:20:56 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 26, 2017, 11:59:45 PM
>muh 7 hours.

Lol fail.

Even according to the firefighters themselves the fires was small to non existent till close to the end. It surely was not 7 hours of an Inferno of the whole building (like we have seen other high rises survive days of)

As for the question you keep parenting..Why 7 hours? Sure why not 8 or 6? The story was already written (apparent from the official story where they even admit they had a script to follow, anything against it gets thrown out) so you have to let it burn for a little bit so you can keep with the story.

Also...It was about 530... Government employees don't like working past six, even if they are committing an atrocity...So time to pack up and go home, blow it.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 27, 2017, 12:33:12 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 26, 2017, 11:27:39 PM
you do get to a CERN open day,  there is a web site where you register for underground passes,  they allocate them in lots at specified times, and it's first come first served.  We had the advantage of being on the local CERN network during the week, when the ALICE passes came up for allocation, and managed to get in.  All the passes were gone in less than a minute after allocation opened.

So good luck buying a ticket to the particle zoo.

Back to the LHC.

There is a 24 month scheduled shutdown coming up on the LHC  for upgrades,  So 2019 and 2020 are years where you could possibly get to see underground,   after that the next one would be 2025.   then 2030,  and 2034.

https://lhc-commissioning.web.cern.ch/lhc-commissioning/schedule/LHC%20schedule%20beyond%20LS1%20MTP%202015_Freddy_June2015.pdf

The current run is scheduled to go through to the end of 2018.   With brief technical stops.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 27, 2017, 12:42:58 AM
We are talking about 9/11 not your tour of NIST. It's not show and tell time.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 27, 2017, 12:43:04 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 27, 2017, 12:20:56 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 26, 2017, 11:59:45 PM
>muh 7 hours.

Lol fail.

Even according to the firefighters themselves the fires was small to non existent till close to the end. It surely was not 7 hours of an Inferno of the whole building (like we have seen other high rises survive days of)

As for the question you keep parenting..Why 7 hours? Sure why not 8 or 6? The story was already written (apparent from the official story where they even admit they had a script to follow, anything against it gets thrown out) so you have to let it burn for a little bit so you can keep with the story.

Also...It was about 530... Government employees don't like working past six, even if they are committing an atrocity...So time to pack up and go home, blow it.

Parenting?

WTC7 fires. The FDNY reported a 20 story gash in the south side and smoke coming from every floor.   

(http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/WTC7_Smoke.jpg)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 27, 2017, 12:45:32 AM
NIST claimed fires as the cause of collapse, not debris and fire, sorry.

The fire fighters actually walked off because the fire was "not a threat."
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sceptimatic on March 27, 2017, 12:46:33 AM
Dispute and BHS have been trying to tell all and sundry, including the shills (Rayzor, Totes, Rab and co) that those towers cannot collapse like told at near free fall speed.

So here's a video for people to look at which basically tells all and sundry that the official story is bullshit.
Watch and listen from the start if you want but to get to the crux of the issue, watch from 8:45 onwards.
It should leave no rational thinking, logical common sense person in no doubt whatsoever about what didn't happen on that day.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 27, 2017, 12:49:00 AM
Newton strikes again.

Thanks Scepti.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 27, 2017, 12:52:05 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 27, 2017, 12:42:58 AM
We are talking about 9/11 not your tour of NIST. It's not show and tell time.

I've never been to NIST,  but it's something I'd like to do someday.  In spite of the dumb crap you dish out about NIST,  they are still the  principle authority responsible for standards.

If you buy an instrument and get it calibrated, the calibration should be traceable to NIST standards.   In  Australia,  it's equivalent to the NMI National Measurement Institute,  I've been on a tour of the Melbourne NMI Laboratory, and seen a 1kg silicon sphere standard. 



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 27, 2017, 12:56:34 AM
I meant CERN, not NIST, I made a mistake. Would you like to hear about some tours I've been on?

How bout the time I swam to rotto?

(https://s14.postimg.org/z5197jd4h/obnoxiousmeme.jpg)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 27, 2017, 12:58:26 AM
Quote from: sceptimatic on March 27, 2017, 12:46:33 AM
Dispute and BHS have been trying to tell all and sundry, including the shills (Rayzor, Totes, Rab and co) that those towers cannot collapse like told at near free fall speed.

So here's a video for people to look at which basically tells all and sundry that the official story is bullshit.
Watch and listen from the start if you want but to get to the crux of the issue, watch from 8:45 onwards.
It should leave no rational thinking, logical common sense person in no doubt whatsoever about what didn't happen on that day.


A rational thinking, logical common sense person would ask why the collapse started from the exact locations of the aircraft impact,  and why there was a strange delay before collapse started,  but more importantly the  rational thinking, logical common sense person would look at the physics and engineering and ask how the collapse could occur. 

Guess what,  a rational thinking, logical common sense person has already done it.    http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 27, 2017, 01:01:31 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 27, 2017, 12:56:34 AM
I meant CERN, not NIST, I made a mistake. Would you like to hear about some tours I've been on?

How bout the time I swam to rotto?

I bet you are one of those quokka abusers.   


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 27, 2017, 01:03:31 AM
Quote from: ausGeoff
more importantly the  rational thinking, logical common sense person would look at the physics and engineering and ask how the collapse could occur. 

Yep.

https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL9So6OTuw7TdYwZYRIWnuCLek8EwtkA7Y

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Right here, one of the best investigative structural engineers in the world looking at the physics and engineering of wtc 7 and what caused (and didn't cause) wtc 7 to collapse.

Open, honest, peer reviewed science.

Can't beat it hey?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sceptimatic on March 27, 2017, 01:05:39 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 27, 2017, 12:58:26 AM
Quote from: sceptimatic on March 27, 2017, 12:46:33 AM
Dispute and BHS have been trying to tell all and sundry, including the shills (Rayzor, Totes, Rab and co) that those towers cannot collapse like told at near free fall speed.

So here's a video for people to look at which basically tells all and sundry that the official story is bullshit.
Watch and listen from the start if you want but to get to the crux of the issue, watch from 8:45 onwards.
It should leave no rational thinking, logical common sense person in no doubt whatsoever about what didn't happen on that day.


A rational thinking, logical common sense person would ask why the collapse started from the exact locations of the aircraft impact,  and why there was a strange delay before collapse started,  but more importantly the  rational thinking, logical common sense person would look at the physics and engineering and ask how the collapse could occur. 

Guess what,  a rational thinking, logical common sense person has already done it.    http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf
You better hope there is no after life and no one to answer to when you expire.
As it is it's probably in your favour that you might not have to answer to anyone. I sincerely hope that you and others like you do have to answer to something or someone.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 27, 2017, 01:15:53 AM




As for why the collapse appeared to start from the damaged floors? That is a silly question don't you think?

If you had a story written, gotta sell it some. Couldn't just demo 3 towers and level 16 acres then say terrorist lol. That wouldn't fool 45% of the population it has.

Knowing with the towers design that the collapse could not happen as we saw with the official story explanation, that is all i really need. All the other evidence is just a bonus.

Parenting=parroting....Auto correct
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 27, 2017, 01:22:04 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 27, 2017, 01:15:53 AM
Knowing with the towers design that the collapse could not happen as we saw with the official story explanation, that is all i really need. All the other evidence is just a bonus.

Please note this has been our argument since page one.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 27, 2017, 01:41:32 AM
Quote from: Boots on March 26, 2017, 11:50:12 PM
Australia of course! The underbelly of the earth! lol

This "debate" is so boring...I figured I would poke at an Aussie or two  :-X
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 27, 2017, 01:45:57 AM
Oh go on.

We are rather thick skinned ;D.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 27, 2017, 01:56:09 AM
Must watch for anyone interested in ripping on Aussies.





In other news Texas is BASED.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2408953/Texas-father-beat-Jesus-Flores-death-raping-5-year-old-daughter-NOT-face-murder-charges.html

(https://s2.postimg.org/xuryo5xxl/rich-texan-shooting-simpsons-o.gif)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 27, 2017, 02:22:12 AM
Ha ha ha...Yep that's Texas.

This lady doesn't like Texas..
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/13/health/abortion-texas-lawmaker-trnd/

A hundred dollars a pop.

Though just watch any episode of king of the hill... It's town Arland is based on Garland..About 30 minutes from me. Also fairly accurate lol.

We also have the world Jessica Simpson (sorry)

Barney (sorry)

Vanilla ice (sorry, but he is a random guilty pleasure lol)

George Bush (sigh............sorry  >:( )


It's also illegal to milk another man's cow.....
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 27, 2017, 02:32:52 AM
I think it's awesome, there would be a marked decrease in sexual assault if the perpetrators knew they would be beaten to death. Good policy.

Oh gawd that link, the cringining...

Sorry for the low contents guys but I am still waiting patiently for anyone to have a crack at my first reply.

Quote from: Rayzor on February 13, 2017, 10:36:59 PM
What real evidence is there for a conspiracy about 911?

Quote from: disputeone on February 13, 2017, 10:49:57 PM
Fall acceleration of building 7.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 27, 2017, 03:21:26 AM
Quote from: sceptimatic on March 27, 2017, 01:05:39 AM
You better hope there is no after life and no one to answer to when you expire.
As it is it's probably in your favour that you might not have to answer to anyone. I sincerely hope that you and others like you do have to answer to something or someone.

You're  a cheerful soul aren't you,   do you sneak around looking over your shoulder seeing spies and conspiracies everwhere? 

There is truth if you look hard enough,  don't get drawn into the delusions of others, and think for yourself.   You have a good imagination,  see if you can learn some real physics and maths,  you might be surprised.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 27, 2017, 03:23:11 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 27, 2017, 02:22:12 AM
Though just watch any episode of king of the hill... It's town Arland is based on Garland..About 30 minutes from me. Also fairly accurate lol.

There are more than a few Dale Gribbles on here,  dispute would be close match for Dale,  and a couple of Boomhauers.

PS.  Did you know  Boomhauer is actually an undercover Texas Ranger keeping  tabs on Dale.   
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on March 27, 2017, 03:35:50 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 26, 2017, 11:02:52 PM
Ok,  dipstick,  pay attention,   what would any conspiracy gain by demolishing WTC7   All they had to do was sit back and wait,   even if it didn't collapse by itself,   it would have been demolished eventually as part of the site clean up.

Can you come up with a logical reason as to why any one in their right mind would bother to demolish WTC7.    And why wait 7 hours to do it?

All of the events of 9/11 were perpetrated to justify the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Oil/Drugs/armaments.

Huge profits!
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on March 27, 2017, 03:40:51 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 26, 2017, 04:23:27 PM
Quote from: totallackey on March 26, 2017, 12:10:06 PM
(http://)
Pretty much debunks itself.  It's noteworthy in that it shows how gullible you have to be to believe this crap.

Watch the David Chandler Pentagon Puzzles presentation.

Pretty much debunks itself...

Then it should be very easy for you to point out who/what/where/when/how/why it debunks itself, rather than just claim it does so...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 27, 2017, 03:43:08 AM
It's not if Rayzor, it's when.



The fire rises.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on March 27, 2017, 03:43:19 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 26, 2017, 05:44:27 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 26, 2017, 04:36:32 PM
Rayzor thinks resistance doesn't slow fall acceleration.

FFS.


Dipstickone doesn't believe in gravity.

Here's a question,  does anyone know if the UoA or the NIST modelling was based on the original plans,  or did they include the Saloman Bros modiifications?

I don't see any double height floors in the NIST FOI drawings?   WTF

Write the NIST.

Ask them for the drawings.

If they give you any guff, inform them you once went on a guided tour of CERN and are thus qualified to review those documents and represent no threat to public safety.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 27, 2017, 03:48:31 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 26, 2017, 06:42:14 PM
Nearly 100 pages later the very first argument put forward is ready and ripe for debunking, for any and all takers.

Hopefully it gets debunked before we hit 100 pages.

Quote from: disputeone on February 13, 2017, 10:49:57 PM
Fall acceleration of building 7.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on March 27, 2017, 03:53:34 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 27, 2017, 01:03:31 AM
Quote from: ausGeoff
more importantly the  rational thinking, logical common sense person would look at the physics and engineering and ask how the collapse could occur. 

Yep.

https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL9So6OTuw7TdYwZYRIWnuCLek8EwtkA7Y (https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL9So6OTuw7TdYwZYRIWnuCLek8EwtkA7Y)

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Right here, one of the best investigative structural engineers in the world looking at the physics and engineering of wtc 7 and what caused (and didn't cause) wtc 7 to collapse.

Open, honest, peer reviewed science.

Can't beat it hey?

Just watched some of these videos. I don't agree with the guy on everything (As an architect)
A few mentions
1 - a buildings plans is generally not public record, I dont know the system in the USA, but in South Africa you need owners permission to get the building plans. Furthermore, even then not all drawings are submitted to the building inspectors. only stuff considered relevant. Details are often not submitted.
2 - We currently (As in right now) have a fire in my city (Durban, South Africa), it is a steel factory building and its completely destroyed from a 3 day long fire. Some statements from the Prof make me think he underestimates the damage a fire can do. He includes expansion on certain things which I think (and the official report) is really irreverent, But then ignores expansion in other places where there would be greater effects.
Either way, it was an interesting watch.

My take on Building 7.
1 - It was not built as to spec. Contractors take shortcuts ALL the time.
2 - Bad luck, either due to vibrations causing resonance or bld 1 + 2 collapse debris stripping away critical elements on building 7.

I dont think it was a controlled demolition though, that would have been clear as day. Would be impossible to pull off without mountains of evidence before the anything even happened.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 27, 2017, 04:01:10 AM
Possibly.

When the final report is peer reviewed and shows that fires could not have caused the collapse we saw people will start to reconsider.

Physics is physics you can't "bad luck" it away.

If it is found that NIST was either criminally incompetent or even worse, dishonest, that will be further evidence.

9/11 absolutely stinks man, there is a literal mountain of evidence.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 27, 2017, 04:05:55 AM
These two latest videos show how far Hulsey and his team are going to ensure accuracy.





People want the truth and we are ready to hear it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on March 27, 2017, 04:08:04 AM
Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on March 27, 2017, 03:53:34 AM
Just watched some of these videos. I don't agree with the guy on everything (As an architect)
You are an architect?
Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on March 27, 2017, 03:53:34 AM
A few mentions
1 - a buildings plans is generally not public record, I dont know the system in the USA, but in South Africa you need owners permission to get the building plans. Furthermore, even then not all drawings are submitted to the building inspectors. only stuff considered relevant. Details are often not submitted.
A building plan is a public record.

"FULL ANSWER
The process for obtaining these public records(emphasis mine)varies from one location to the next. This is because some building plans include confidential or proprietary information either belonging to the owner of the property or the construction company who handled the project. In most cases, requests for physical documents must be made in writing at the government office where they are kept. Electronic records may be easier to obtain, especially if they are not for commercial or industrial buildings. The average residential building plan is one of the easier public documents to obtain, as many of these are retained in both physical and electronic forms, and only a few municipal offices require written documentation of the request. Blueprint seekers should be aware that a written request is often held on file for up to five years after any public documents are handed over. If an original copy is required, many city and county officials will not allow it to leave the building.' - https://www.reference.com/government-politics/blueprints-existing-building-fb1ee56347e448fc (https://www.reference.com/government-politics/blueprints-existing-building-fb1ee56347e448fc)
Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on March 27, 2017, 03:53:34 AM
2 - We currently (As in right now) have a fire in my city (Durban, South Africa), it is a steel factory building and its completely destroyed from a 3 day long fire. Some statements from the Prof make me think he underestimates the damage a fire can do. He includes expansion on certain things which I think (and the official report) is really irreverent, But then ignores expansion in other places where there would be greater effects.
Either way, it was an interesting watch.
Your steel factory was on fire for three days.

Please link to a news article concerning the fire.

You have made claims about including "irreverent" expansion inclusion and "ignoring," expansion where you claim, "greater effects."

Why would I not take your post as equivalent to drive by shooting in Chicago?
Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on March 27, 2017, 03:53:34 AM
My take on Building 7.
1 - It was not built as to spec. Contractors take shortcuts ALL the time.
2 - Bad luck, either due to vibrations causing resonance or bld 1 + 2 collapse debris stripping away critical elements on building 7.

I dont think it was a controlled demolition though, that would have been clear as day. Would be impossible to pull off without mountains of evidence before the anything even happened.

Yeah...

A drive by...

Claims, no evidence.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on March 27, 2017, 04:16:05 AM
I just watch some of them. I absolutely believe that fire could have dropped tower 1 and 2. Not so sure on tower 7 (dont have too much detail on building 7)

By bad luck I mean events that where not considered during design phase. This is very possible and happens "all" the time. Some things can not be simulated simply because we do not know exactly what happened during the collapse of buildings 1 and 2 to such a perfect degree. As I mentioned, vibrations during the collapse could have had unexpected effects on the concrete surrounding the columns on the building. Concrete is not great under certain types of vibrations. (hence why dampeners are required in earth quake areas.)

I do find the collapse of building 7 strange. Buildings are usually very well over designed, but at the same time, sometimes engineers (and architects) mess up or miss things. And in my experience, often times the builders mess up.

If there is a conspiracy behind the collapse, I would look at the owners and builders of the buildings. If anyone is trying to hide liability, it would be them.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 27, 2017, 04:17:57 AM
Quote from: MaNaeSWolf
2 - Bad luck, either due to vibrations causing resonance or bld 1 + 2 collapse debris stripping away critical elements on building 7.

Hulsey is directly addressing this at the moment.

As for contractors not doing their job.

No, just no, sorry.

I'm a mechanical / electrical fitter by trade and no.

Sorry Truthers are jumping on you :)

Oh and lucky Larrys hands are filthy.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 27, 2017, 04:24:51 AM
It's not just the collapse also, it's the fall acceleration and symmetry of collapse that tells the tale.

I'd also like the citation for the building collapse in Durban.

I will bet my life it wasn't symmetrical at free-fall.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on March 27, 2017, 04:28:12 AM
Quote from: totallackey on March 27, 2017, 04:08:04 AM

You are an architect?

Yes, in South Africa

Quote from: totallackey on March 27, 2017, 04:08:04 AM

"FULL ANSWER
The process for obtaining these public records(emphasis mine)varies from one location to the next. This is because some building plans include confidential or proprietary information either belonging to the owner of the property or the construction company who handled the project. In most cases, requests for physical documents must be made in writing at the government office where they are kept. Electronic records may be easier to obtain, especially if they are not for commercial or industrial buildings. The average residential building plan is one of the easier public documents to obtain, as many of these are retained in both physical and electronic forms, and only a few municipal offices require written documentation of the request. Blueprint seekers should be aware that a written request is often held on file for up to five years after any public documents are handed over. If an original copy is required, many city and county officials will not allow it to leave the building.' - https://www.reference.com/government-politics/blueprints-existing-building-fb1ee56347e448fc (https://www.reference.com/government-politics/blueprints-existing-building-fb1ee56347e448fc)

As stated, I dont know the USA laws around this. I would however think that in this case, even in RSA the plans would be made available for public viewing. especially considering how controversial this was.

Quote from: totallackey on March 27, 2017, 04:08:04 AM

Your steel factory was on fire for three days.

Please link to a news article concerning the fire.

Just discovered that they finally killed it, it started on Friday morning

http://citizen.co.za/news/1467883/durban-fire-burns-out-on-third-day/ (http://citizen.co.za/news/1467883/durban-fire-burns-out-on-third-day/)
http://www.sabc.co.za/news/a/8b06ed00408d1d979732b785991bc033/Environmental-dept-investigates-effects-of-Durban-fire-on-residents-20170326 (http://www.sabc.co.za/news/a/8b06ed00408d1d979732b785991bc033/Environmental-dept-investigates-effects-of-Durban-fire-on-residents-20170326)


Quote from: totallackey on March 27, 2017, 04:08:04 AM

You have made claims about including "irreverent" expansion inclusion and "ignoring," expansion where you claim, "greater effects."

Why would I not take your post as equivalent to drive by shooting in Chicago?


You will have to give me some info on the drive by shooting, I have no idea what that is about and how it is related to 911??
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 27, 2017, 04:31:23 AM
Dude that's a warehouse.

And it collapsed as we would expect.

Not sure if you've looked into it but here's some evidence.

Rapid onset of destruction,

Constant acceleration at or near free-fall through what should have been the path of greatest resistance,

Numerous eyewitness accounts of explosions including 118 FDNY personnel,

Lateral ejection of multi-ton steel framing members distances of 600 feet at more than 60 mph,

Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete, and large volumes of expanding pyroclastic-like dust clouds,

Isolated explosive ejections 20 to 60 stories below the “crush zone,”

Total destruction and dismemberment of all three buildings, with 220 floors each an acre in size missing from the Twin Towers’ debris pile,

Several tons of molten steel/iron found in the debris piles,

Evidence of thermite incendiaries on steel beams,

Nanothermite composites and iron microspheres found in WTC dust samples.

http://www.ae911truth.org/gallery/evidence.html

Here's a really naive way to explain Rayzor.

Psychology Experts Speak Out: “Why is the 9/11 Evidence Difficult for Some to Accept?” (http://www1.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/645-psychology-experts-speak-out-why-is-the-911-evidence-difficult-for-some-to-accept-.html)

Why Do Good People Become Silent—or Worse—About 9/11? A 20-Part Series (http://www1.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/821-why-do-good-people-become-silentor-worseabout-911-.html)

Quote
Licensed clinical psychologist Robert Hopper, Ph.D., explains: “9/11 Truth challenges some of our most fundamental beliefs about our government and about our country. When beliefs are challenged or when two beliefs are inconsistent, cognitive dissonance is created. 9/11 Truth challenges [our] beliefs that our country protects and keeps us safe and that America is the ‘good guy.’ When this happens, fear and anxiety are created. In response, our psychological defenses kick in [to] protect us from these emotions. Denial, which is probably the most primitive psychological defense, is the one most likely to kick in when our beliefs are challenged.”
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on March 27, 2017, 04:45:42 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 27, 2017, 04:17:57 AM
Quote from: MaNaeSWolf
2 - Bad luck, either due to vibrations causing resonance or bld 1 + 2 collapse debris stripping away critical elements on building 7.

Hulsey is directly addressing this at the moment.

He did mention that he is not complete with his investigations. I respect him for not jumping to any conclusions until he is complete.

Quote from: disputeone on March 27, 2017, 04:17:57 AM
As for contractors not doing their job.

No, just no, sorry.

I'm a mechanical / electrical fitter by trade and no.

The WTC was built in the 70's, it was not the same regulatory situation it is today. Although I am sure it was still good.
To consider contractor error/ misconduct completely out of the question, but to include other conspiracies only tells me of a strong bias from your side.

Quote from: disputeone on March 27, 2017, 04:17:57 AM
Sorry Truthers are jumping on you :)

Oh and lucky Larrys hands are filthy.
I live in South Africa, there are no truthers here, they all got hijacked or emigrated to Australia long ago.
I just dont see how any of the other conspiracy ideas could possible be pulled off.
And I do find the collapse of Building 7 strange, but that does not automatically make the collapse due to a large complicated conspiracy.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 27, 2017, 04:48:29 AM
Telling me a building can be built that sub quality and have no one notice during inspections and handover shows naivity.

It would take much, much more than a few tradesman doing a few half ass joins to cause anything like we saw, much, much less at free-fall.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 27, 2017, 04:53:18 AM
Also the pentagon debacle.

The "vaporized" plane.

Molten metal on wtc 2.

Molten metal at "ground zero" for months afterwards.

The motive

The alleged hijackers.

The WMD's

The war on "terror"

The last 16 years.

We were lied to, we have absolutely all the evidence in the world.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on March 27, 2017, 04:58:59 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 27, 2017, 04:31:23 AM
Dude that's a warehouse.

And it collapsed as we would expect.

Not sure if you've looked into it but here's some evidence.

Rapid onset of destruction,

Constant acceleration at or near free-fall through what should have been the path of greatest resistance,

Numerous eyewitness accounts of explosions including 118 FDNY personnel,

Lateral ejection of multi-ton steel framing members distances of 600 feet at more than 60 mph,

Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete, and large volumes of expanding pyroclastic-like dust clouds,

Isolated explosive ejections 20 to 60 stories below the “crush zone,”

Total destruction and dismemberment of all three buildings, with 220 floors each an acre in size missing from the Twin Towers’ debris pile,

Several tons of molten steel/iron found in the debris piles,

Evidence of thermite incendiaries on steel beams,

Nanothermite composites and iron microspheres found in WTC dust samples.

http://www.ae911truth.org/gallery/evidence.html (http://www.ae911truth.org/gallery/evidence.html)

Here's a really naive way to explain Rayzor.

Psychology Experts Speak Out: “Why is the 9/11 Evidence Difficult for Some to Accept?” (http://www1.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/645-psychology-experts-speak-out-why-is-the-911-evidence-difficult-for-some-to-accept-.html)

Why Do Good People Become Silent—or Worse—About 9/11? A 20-Part Series (http://www1.ae911truth.org/en/news-section/41-articles/821-why-do-good-people-become-silentor-worseabout-911-.html)

Quote
Licensed clinical psychologist Robert Hopper, Ph.D., explains: “9/11 Truth challenges some of our most fundamental beliefs about our government and about our country. When beliefs are challenged or when two beliefs are inconsistent, cognitive dissonance is created. 9/11 Truth challenges [our] beliefs that our country protects and keeps us safe and that America is the ‘good guy.’ When this happens, fear and anxiety are created. In response, our psychological defenses kick in [to] protect us from these emotions. Denial, which is probably the most primitive psychological defense, is the one most likely to kick in when our beliefs are challenged.”

I have looked into some of WTC 1+2. Not 7 though.

This is what I have concluded what happened at WTC 1+2

Generate enough heat near the core columns of the towers.
You dont need as much heat as what most people think to reduce the compression strength of steel by half.
This causes the collapse of the top floors.
The impulse of the top floors falling on the floors below will send massive amount of force many times the designed structural load of the columns to essentially shatter. Concrete will turn to dust under high enough impulse load like this. (although it was mostly a steel structure)
After that there is nearly no resistance for the building to fall.

What is your theory? I know there are a few
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 27, 2017, 05:00:10 AM
Top down controlled demolition hypothesis.

Not a theory.

It's the only way to explain the vaporization.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on March 27, 2017, 05:11:27 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 27, 2017, 04:48:29 AM
Telling me a building can be built that sub quality and have no one notice during inspections and handover shows naivity.

It would take much, much more than a few tradesman doing a few half ass joins to cause anything like we saw, much, much less at free-fall.

I was part of a team that detected failing concrete on one of my projects.
It was a clinic in some rural areas in RSA.
We detected the failure because one of our guys on site noticed that the concrete subcontractor was (a rather big firm at the stage) was pouring loads of water into the pre-mix trucks, a HUGE NO NO.

What happened was that the subcontractor was running short of cash, so when ever they had to pour foundation they would dump about 20-30% of the mix with water, essentially killing concrete's compression strength. But they only did this after the engineers took samples. We reported them and discovered that they had done the same thing on about 15 other projects across the country. They just became very good at cheating the system. Its possible that the contractors where saving money on something, possible a whole lot less obvious than my example above.

I am not making any statements of what did or did not happen.
But I am noticing that you dismiss the idea that a contractor could supply bad material (steel, bolts, weld material ext) or even a design issue. But at the same time think its more probable that a conspiracy that would need hundreds of people to pull off is more likely.
I do suppose this is the FES.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 27, 2017, 05:19:02 AM
I'm not dismissing that possibility.

Wtc 7 was an asymmetrical building that suffered asymmetrical damage which led to a symmetrical collapse at free-fall.

This is not caused by dodgey concrete.

NIST never once even hinted at bad workmanship being a factor.

Edit.

If NIST had claimed wtc 7 wasn't built to spec then we would be discussing it.

No contractors went to jail for any of the building failures on 9/11.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 27, 2017, 05:32:50 AM
If it did come out with a new investigation that the towers structural strength was say 40% of what the engineers intended and the building contractors went to jail then that's great.

I just want an open and honest investigation without the secrecy and outright incompetence / dishonesty.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 27, 2017, 05:36:35 AM
I am not sure who you are, and will wait for a few ticks before I start drawing out very in-depth replies as I don't like wasting time. However for now, I will assume you are an architect in South Africa.

Just to start off with, certifications and inspections are a bit more strident here than in South Africa. It's harder to get away with cutting corners. 1000s of certs and inspections for just the opening in steps, 100s per year to stay open, 500 during passing hands or randomized through lien holders Even if your hypothesis were true about mixing higher amounts of water in concrete, this would not effect vertical compression numbers in a steel framed building. Only horizontal sheer... We would have seen a different reaction of the exoskeleton (who's main job was controlling sheer of the core)...

Under direct fire of about 750c we could have premature cracking of the concrete due to internal water boiling, however, this would make asymmetrical localized collapse more likely.


If you are an architect, a steel cored building with the loading and compression numbers such as these for the cores, versus the sheer numbers for the exoskeleton should know a top down collapse is not possible with the "pancake theory" as stated by the official report. 50k tons cannot vaporize 471k tons. Especially as you get lower, the building gets more and more dense, multiple times more as you pass the 44th floor (1 and 2)... These buildings were Bowie designs with no CG comps or trainers...

Forgot to add...The pancake collapse of the floors alone without compromising the core (which is almost impossible, at least for an extended travel time) would look completely different than what we saw. You would see that the exoskeleton attempt to stand as well as the core, as they were for all means considered separate from each other. I can describe what you would see if interested.

As for older buildings being designed "with less strength" that newer buildings.

That is incorrect, at least in America. They were more sturdy..They did alot of "that should be fine, but let's double it to be safe"...It hindered total height, but good luck bringing them down.

I shall stop here for a moment
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on March 27, 2017, 05:42:13 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 27, 2017, 05:19:02 AM
I'm not dismissing that possibility.

Wtc 7 was an asymmetrical building that suffered asymmetrical damage which led to a symmetrical collapse at free-fall.

This is not caused by dodgey concrete.

NIST never once even hinted at bad workmanship being a factor.

As mentioned earlier, I do find building 7's collapse very odd.
Especially if the report did not find anything faulty with the material. Although you did say the report itself is suspect?

I dont find controlled demolition plausable though.
2 reasons why.

1 - to set up demolitions in a building is no trivial work, you either have to
A - strip the columns of surrounding material, cut the columns to shear and place shaped charges at all the columns if you are going for efficiency and control (i.e. small explosions)

or

B - place huge amounts of explosives around critical columns.

Option A will be super obvious for the people working there, because the shaped charges will have to be well placed, they can not just be near the column, they have to be right against the structural element. In controlled demolitions they cut open all fire protecting and surrounding support structures for this. No way this could be pulled off at all. People inside will literally see guys with angle grinders and jack hammers working for days to do this.

Option B is slightly more possible, but will be hilariously obvious. You will need much larger explosives which you can place near,  all the columns. This is possible, place explosives in photocopy size boxes and place near all columns. 2 Problems with this. This is no longer a controlled explosive because you can not control how the columns shear. and 2, The full explosive force will mostly dissipate into the floor below the explosive and roof above due to the cross sectional areas. The columns will receive far less energy. The result will be that the building gets ripped apart from the inside. There will be nothing controlled about this.

my second issue with this is people.

Image if it was a controlled explosive conspiracy. You need hundreds of people with no soul to carry out this exercise and hope that none of them ever gets a change of heart over the preceding years. If even 1 guy gets a change of heart he can hold the whole presidency (or whoever) at complete ransome. It is super easy to have information reveal itself once you are dead. Its even a free google mail feature now. There will be no way to keep this secret.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on March 27, 2017, 05:55:10 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 27, 2017, 05:36:35 AM
I am not sure who you are, and will wait for a few ticks before I start drawing out very in-depth replies as I don't like wasting time. However for now, I will assume you are an architect in South Africa.

Just to start off with, certifications and inspections are a bit more strident here than in South Africa. It's harder to get away with cutting corners. 1000s of certs and inspections for just the opening in steps, 100s per year to stay open, 500 during passing hands or randomized through lien holders Even if your hypothesis were true about mixing higher amounts of water in concrete, this would not effect vertical compression numbers in a steel framed building. Only horizontal sheer... We would have seen a different reaction of the exoskeleton (who's main job was controlling sheer of the core)...

Under direct fire of about 750c we could have premature cracking of the concrete due to internal water boiling, however, this would make asymmetrical localized collapse more likely.


If you are an architect, a steel cored building with the loading and compression numbers such as these for the cores, versus the sheer numbers for the exoskeleton should know a top down collapse is not possible with the "pancake theory" as stated by the official report. 50k tons cannot vaporize 471k tons. Especially as you get lower, the building gets more and more dense, multiple times more as you pass the 44th floor (1 and 2)... These buildings were Bowie designs with no CG comps or trainers...

Forgot to add...The pancake collapse of the floors alone without compromising the core (which is almost impossible, at least for an extended travel time) would look completely different than what we saw. You would see that the exoskeleton attempt to stand as well as the core, as they were for all means considered separate from each other. I can describe what you would see if interested.

As for older buildings being designed "with less strength" that newer buildings.

That is incorrect, at least in America. They were more sturdy..They did alot of "that should be fine, but let's double it to be safe"...It hindered total height, but good luck bringing them down.

I shall stop here for a moment

I dont doubt that USA standards in the 70's where better than in RSA now.
My example with the concrete was just an example, I dont think it actually happened in WTC7. Just it can happen in other aspect. Look what happened to the Falcon 9 launch when an internal strut broke because it was badly made even though it was supposed to have huge margins.  These things happen, you can not ignore material failure, I see it all the time from products made in every corner of the world. I had to send 70 LED light fittings back to the supplier a few weeks ago, all made in Germany.

I disagree that a top down pancake can not happen. Steel transmits an impacted force very quickly, faster than concrete. A force from the top down collapse has to go somewhere. The WTC buildings had a concrete coffer type raft foundation. Concrete shatters under high impulse. The drop of those top floors onto the bottom floors transmitted an absolute massive amount of energy. Buildings are designed for static load, no building is designed to take an impulse like that. (Earth quake zone buildings are designed differently)

I have not gone into super detail looking at the events, just that I have a tough time believing anyone will be able to pull off a conspiracy of this size if the USA cant even keep private conversations in the white house quiet.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 27, 2017, 06:00:45 AM
NIST claimed the force was only applied at one floor at a time as the tower was pulverized.

What you're saying makes way more sense. It doesn't nearly explain what we saw however.

While we are on the topic of speculation, I don't think Bush was behind it, he was just a pawn.

But it's only speculation.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on March 27, 2017, 06:19:13 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 27, 2017, 06:00:45 AM
NIST claimed the force was only applied at one floor at a time as the tower was pulverized.

What you're saying makes way more sense. It doesn't nearly explain what we saw however.

While we are on the topic of speculation, I don't think Bush was behind it, he was just a pawn.

But it's only speculation.

I have not read the report so I cant comment on that.
But what would happen after (after as in, milliseconds after) the top floor impacted down (I am speculating obviously)
As an impact force travels down the columns of the buildings, the energy could sheer the connecting structures between the columns and floors. This could essentially demolish the entire column structure including the supporting foundation below.

What we see is the top floor collapsing down, very shortly afterwards the rest of the building goes down. A controlled demolition would have the entire thing, from top to bottom fall all at once, we don't see this.

Also, people often note how you see "explosions" from each floor as the building collapses. This is from the air that gets forced out of the building as each top floor collapses on the floor below. The air needs to go somewhere, and takes everything with it.

I am yet to hear a better conspiracy over, al qaeda executing a well planned attack. If any clever organisation wanted to take down the WTC buildings, they would have used al qaeda too.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 27, 2017, 06:22:19 AM
A top down controlled demolition doesn't have the entire building fall at once.

It happens from the top down as we saw.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_CIA_assistance_to_Osama_bin_Laden
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on March 27, 2017, 06:26:23 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 27, 2017, 06:22:19 AM
A top down controlled demolition doesn't have the entire building fall at once.

It happens from the top down as we saw.

Im very sure the building could be demolished as we saw in a controlled explosion.
But that would require quite a bit of work, demolitions like that are no small matter.
The energy released when the top floors fell on the bottom would be thousands of times more than all the explosives involved in a controlled demolition.

What would be the motive for something like this? To go to war in Afghanistan?
The Iraq war was motivated by Oil and WMD, "they" did not need to kill 3000 Americans to go there.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 27, 2017, 06:31:41 AM
Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on March 27, 2017, 05:55:10 AM
I dont doubt that USA standards in the 70's where better than in RSA now.
My example with the concrete was just an example, I dont think it actually happened in WTC7. Just it can happen in other aspect. Look what happened to the Falcon 9 launch when an internal strut broke because it was badly made even though it was supposed to have huge margins.  These things happen, you can not ignore material failure, I see it all the time from products made in every corner of the world. I had to send 70 LED light fittings back to the supplier a few weeks ago, all made in Germany.

I disagree that a top down pancake can not happen. Steel transmits an impacted force very quickly, faster than concrete. A force from the top down collapse has to go somewhere. The WTC buildings had a concrete coffer type raft foundation. Concrete shatters under high impulse. The drop of those top floors onto the bottom floors transmitted an absolute massive amount of energy. Buildings are designed for static load, no building is designed to take an impulse like that. (Earth quake zone buildings are designed differently)

I have not gone into super detail looking at the events, just that I have a tough time believing anyone will be able to pull off a conspiracy of this size if the USA cant even keep private conversations in the white house quiet.

Hey...I understand​ Completely for the QC part... I mainly deal with mechanical engineering, QC is getting worse. You have to be very careful with venders as well as look at them for the Long haul, not just one shipment. You could get one great shipment, 3 bad lol. I moved over to some Structural forecasting because of the extra curricular certs I acquired through the years. (Such as a Structural fire on a 4 story condo we had to condemn a month and a half ago, not even allowing fire investigators, all tenants belongings will be demolished with it) M.E. is my bread and butter, Structural is my moonlight pleasure (maybe 7 jobs a year)

As for not wanting to believe the official story is bunk...I get it. I didn't want to either, my whole adventure into this started because of a college project attempting to prove what we need to change so it doesn't happen again. Nothing added up on the models or anything of the such...It took off from there.


As for momentary load ratings, as well as violent sheer comp I am completely with you that no building can handle that, not even buildings built in high seismic activity areas. You are also 100 percent correct that the energy has to go somewhere. Though straight down through the path of greatest resistance??

Also, with this core design....How could it gain that much momentum? The official report says the floors gave way and started to pancake, which any college level engineer or architect knows that is impossible, at least how we saw it. We all know you must remove the core for what we saw to happen...

Let's remove it on those floors that was effected by fire and just drop the upper portion on the larger...Give or take about 50k tons on top of 470k tons...As it attempts to travel lower and lower, it will be slowed by friction and compression...also as it gets lower and lower it will be facing denser stronger material married with more mass.

Not to mention, it will be forced to face the core at it's strongest point... Vertical, intact, attempting to compress that or break it. 70 floors and lower was cross sectioned, 44 and lower was fully boxed framed (supports themselves as well as bracing)....Multiples of the upper mass (exoskeleton went from 2-3 inches to almost 8 inches as you got lower)...Fighting the the intact core would be all but impossible for the tiny and weak upper half.

Then you have the issue of the upper half...It started to vaporize at onset of the fall. It was mostly vaporized before it was half way down?? Where did the energy come from if the top had vaporized?Also, what is this vaporization?

As for how they could get to the building, it was easy with who was running security. They had easy access. Plus for months and months there were employees reporting odd sounds, loud work being done by new people in the building, power outages (which is almost unheard-of in data processing centers) and many many accounts of suspect activity. Gaining access doesn't bug me, plus the towers were mostly vacant anyways.

Also, these buildings would not be difficult to demo, nor would you need all the charges you stated (I agree with other designs yes)..You would just need to attack the core, basement, lower bedrock anchors and the inner spandle plates, it would be like a wilting flower lol. Wouldn't​ be pretty, but it would work and would stay mostly in their own foot print as we saw. I would leave the floors intact with the exoskeleton..Like a flower.

All these areas would be easy to work on and not draw attention, not to mention the buildings extremely low occupancy..Not hard. Also they were still on a keyed access system.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 27, 2017, 06:48:57 AM
Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on March 27, 2017, 06:26:23 AM
What would be the motive for something like this? To go to war in Afghanistan?
The Iraq war was motivated by Oil and WMD, "they" did not need to kill 3000 Americans to go there.

They needed shock value...It worked...All America could think (I live in America) was kill...Kill... Revenge. Before that, America had no interest for war with anyone. Their requests were turned down left and right.

Remember, neither Afghanistan nor Iraq was approved by any part of our government nor the UN...Bush said I don't care going anyways, don't care about consequences..Which should not have happened.

Yes WMDs (which was an obvious fabrication) was a fake motivator for the oil and to Dethrone Saddam...But he also said they were hiding people responsible for 9/11 there, he also said the country had a part in it. They definitely used 9/11 as a motivator. For a while...Anything you wanted done here, just say 9/11 and you got it. It changed the nation.

Even when the military got to Iraq, Bush said he would not engage unless they used chemical weapons. They never used chemical weapons, he said to hell with it and engaged anyways. Bush and his goons are lower than the lowest nor will they be punished for it.

He was going to finish what his daddy started, loss of life, impact on millions, genocide, everything else be fucking damned.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on March 27, 2017, 06:52:29 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 27, 2017, 06:31:41 AM
Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on March 27, 2017, 05:55:10 AM
I dont doubt that USA standards in the 70's where better than in RSA now.
My example with the concrete was just an example, I dont think it actually happened in WTC7. Just it can happen in other aspect. Look what happened to the Falcon 9 launch when an internal strut broke because it was badly made even though it was supposed to have huge margins.  These things happen, you can not ignore material failure, I see it all the time from products made in every corner of the world. I had to send 70 LED light fittings back to the supplier a few weeks ago, all made in Germany.

I disagree that a top down pancake can not happen. Steel transmits an impacted force very quickly, faster than concrete. A force from the top down collapse has to go somewhere. The WTC buildings had a concrete coffer type raft foundation. Concrete shatters under high impulse. The drop of those top floors onto the bottom floors transmitted an absolute massive amount of energy. Buildings are designed for static load, no building is designed to take an impulse like that. (Earth quake zone buildings are designed differently)

I have not gone into super detail looking at the events, just that I have a tough time believing anyone will be able to pull off a conspiracy of this size if the USA cant even keep private conversations in the white house quiet.

Hey...I understand​ Completely for the QC part... I mainly deal with mechanical engineering, QC is getting worse. You have to be very careful with venders as well as look at them for the Long haul, not just one shipment. You could get one great shipment, 3 bad lol. I moved over to some Structural forecasting because of the extra curricular certs I acquired through the years. (Such as a Structural fire on a 4 story condo we had to condemn a month and a half ago, not even allowing fire investigators, all tenants belongings will be demolished with it) M.E. is my bread and butter, Structural is my moonlight pleasure (maybe 7 jobs a year)

As for not wanting to believe the official story is bunk...I get it. I didn't want to either, my whole adventure into this started because of a college project attempting to prove what we need to change so it doesn't happen again. Nothing added up on the models or anything of the such...It took off from there.


As for momentary load ratings, as well as violent sheer comp I am completely with you that no building can handle that, not even buildings built in high seismic activity areas. You are also 100 percent correct that the energy has to go somewhere. Though straight down through the path of greatest resistance??

Also, with this core design....How could it gain that much momentum? The official report says the floors gave way and started to pancake, which any college level engineer or architect knows that is impossible, at least how we saw it. We all know you must remove the core for what we saw to happen...

Let's remove it on those floors that was effected by fire and just drop the upper portion on the larger...Give or take about 50k tons on top of 470k tons...As it attempts to travel lower and lower, it will be slowed by friction and compression...also as it gets lower and lower it will be facing denser stronger material married with more mass.

Not to mention, it will be forced to face the core at it's strongest point... Vertical, intact, attempting to compress that or break it. 70 floors and lower was cross sectioned, 44 and lower was fully boxed framed (supports themselves as well as bracing)....Multiples of the upper mass (exoskeleton went from 2-3 inches to almost 8 inches as you got lower)...Fighting the the intact core would be all but impossible for the tiny and weak upper half.

Then you have the issue of the upper half...It started to vaporize at onset of the fall. It was mostly vaporized before it was half way down?? Where did the energy come from if the top had vaporized?Also, what is this vaporization?

As for how they could get to the building, it was easy with who was running security. They had easy access. Plus for months and months there were employees reporting odd sounds, loud work being done by new people in the building, power outages (which is almost unheard-of in data processing centers) and many many accounts of suspect activity. Gaining access doesn't bug me, plus the towers were mostly vacant anyways.

Also, these buildings would not be difficult to demo, nor would you need all the charges you stated (I agree with other designs yes)..You would just need to attack the core, basement, lower bedrock anchors and the inner spandle plates, it would be like a wilting flower lol. Wouldn't​ be pretty, but it would work and would stay mostly in their own foot print as we saw. I would leave the floors intact with the exoskeleton..Like a flower.

All these areas would be easy to work on and not draw attention, not to mention the buildings extremely low occupancy..Not hard. Also they were still on a keyed access system.

Interesting take. The way I understand it, the initial impact from the top floor down would have damaged the entire core. The core is meant to take the whole building load anyway, and that is where the energy would have gone first, before it propagates into concrete foundation below and then subsoil. If the core bent and sheared along its length to the base from the transferred energy, I would expect a fall like we see. Im not sure how that would work, but seems to me the most probable.

For the building to collapse from pan-caking from the top down.
I am not sure, my initial reaction is to agree with you here, as the structures ability to handle the load should improve the lower you get. However if the energy does not get properly absorbed and transferred to the subsoil without damaging structure below, the next 3m drop will still carry a crap load of energy.
To be honest though, I dont see how the collapse can happen floor by floor. So maybe I agree with you there. Consider me undecided here.

What is worth considering is that a LOT of structural damage would have been done to different elements all along the building right after that initial impact of the top floors falling down on the bottom ones. This situation was very unique.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on March 27, 2017, 07:03:31 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 27, 2017, 06:48:57 AM
Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on March 27, 2017, 06:26:23 AM
What would be the motive for something like this? To go to war in Afghanistan?
The Iraq war was motivated by Oil and WMD, "they" did not need to kill 3000 Americans to go there.

They needed shock value...It worked...All America could think (I live in America) was kill...Kill... Revenge. Before that, America had no interest for war with anyone. Their requests were turned down left and right.

Remember, neither Afghanistan nor Iraq was approved by any part of our government nor the UN...Bush said I don't care going anyways, don't care about consequences..Which should not have happened.

Yes WMDs (which was an obvious fabrication) was a fake motivator for the oil and to Dethrone Saddam...But he also said they were hiding people responsible for 9/11 there, he also said the country had a part in it. They definitely used 9/11 as a motivator. For a while...Anything you wanted done here, just say 9/11 and you got it. It changed the nation.

Even when the military got to Iraq, Bush said he would not engage unless they used chemical weapons. They never used chemical weapons, he said to hell with it and engaged anyways. Bush and his goons are lower than the lowest nor will they be punished for it.

He was going to finish what his daddy started, loss of life, impact on millions, genocide, everything else be fucking damned.

As a non-american I am surprised you guys need any motivation to kill anything :)

The issue with this theory is it is a super high risk option.
Giving al qaeda cash to attack the USA is FAR safer than using local American loving people to kill other Americans.
Any person trained to install explosives will know from the very start that something seriously wrong is going on when anyone asks them to install explosives in an occupied building. Apply your knowledge as a contractor to this. How many millions/billions would you need to be paid to not only do this but also keep it a secret for the rest of your life.
You have the negotiating power to get what you want from who ever asked this from you, repeat this for every single person involved.
Even people who hate the USA brag about their attacks afterwards. The USA can not keep their spying secrets out of the public eye, how will they keep something much more volatile out? If you can believe this you can believe anything . .  like the world being flat and stuff . . :)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 27, 2017, 07:08:16 AM
Physics are physics man.

You can't debunk physics with incredulity.

Might be hard to believe but if fires and planes couldn't have caused the collapse what is left?

Please stop comparing 9/11 truthers to flat earthers.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 27, 2017, 07:10:22 AM
Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on March 27, 2017, 06:52:29 AM
Interesting take. The way I understand it, the initial impact from the top floor down would have damaged the entire core. The core is meant to take the whole building load anyway, and that is where the energy would have gone first, before it propagates into concrete foundation below and then subsoil. If the core bent and sheared along its length to the base from the transferred energy, I would expect a fall like we see. Im not sure how that would work, but seems to me the most probable.

For the building to collapse from pan-caking from the top down.
I am not sure, my initial reaction is to agree with you here, as the structures ability to handle the load should improve the lower you get. However if the energy does not get properly absorbed and transferred to the subsoil without damaging structure below, the next 3m drop will still carry a crap load of energy.
To be honest though, I dont see how the collapse can happen floor by floor. So maybe I agree with you there. Consider me undecided here.

What is worth considering is that a LOT of structural damage would have been done to different elements all along the building right after that initial impact of the top floors falling down on the bottom ones. This situation was very unique.

I can see where you would think the initial impact of upper section would have damaged the entire core, however, we need to look at a few things. Considering the way the building shared it's load (core mostly compression, little sheer.. Exoskeleton mostly sheer mild compression..Yes the core could support the weight of the entire building if you could balance it somehow) core damage from top to bottom is extremely unlikely from video evidence. We would have seen effects in the exoskeleton from top to bottom, being the core is the life blood of the building. The floors would have transfered the sheer of the bending core to the exoskeleton and attempt to hand it off. The exoskeleton would have said hell not and failed itself.

We would have either seen a collapse more similar to building 7 (entire building and core movement) or a topple over effect at (model estimates) the 60th floor give or take. That should have been the core area of the most damage from the impact (most load, least support and mass when compared to all inputs)


Yes, I don't like the pancake theory either...However, it is in the NIST report. You and I both know the floors were basically separate from the core and exoskeleton in this design...Their only function literally was to transfer the sheer of the core to exoskeleton, and to allow people to occupy the inside. So the pancake theory is as hollow as it sounds.

I agree with this was a unique situation...However, it cannot be allowed to violate principles of engineering or laws of physics because of it's unique nature.

Not to mention, we haven't even discussed 7 which is more damning than 1 and 2 combined when you attempt to solidify what NIST said then cause was 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 27, 2017, 07:17:56 AM
Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on March 27, 2017, 07:03:31 AM
As a non-american I am surprised you guys need any motivation to kill anything :)

The issue with this theory is it is a super high risk option.
Giving al qaeda cash to attack the USA is FAR safer than using local American loving people to kill other Americans.
Any person trained to install explosives will know from the very start that something seriously wrong is going on when anyone asks them to install explosives in an occupied building. Apply your knowledge as a contractor to this. How many millions/billions would you need to be paid to not only do this but also keep it a secret for the rest of your life.
You have the negotiating power to get what you want from who ever asked this from you, repeat this for every single person involved.
Even people who hate the USA brag about their attacks afterwards. The USA can not keep their spying secrets out of the public eye, how will they keep something much more volatile out? If you can believe this you can believe anything . .  like the world being flat and stuff . . :)

Non American private contractors, very easy to solve (you would be surprised, there are alot of people that don't like us)...We can misplace trillions of dollars (another issue solved by 9/11, be surprised, all that evidence so happened to get destroyed...Lucky day huh?) So money is not an issue.

There were also many government whistle blowers that got "suicided" in the beginning, then you would be surprised, they slowed down in coming out...I wonder why lol.

Our negotiating power only goes so far when the people are against it and the world. (despite common belief, we the people don't like war, it's our tyrannical government that does)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: hoppy on March 27, 2017, 08:11:50 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 26, 2017, 10:33:06 PM
I could buy a tour pass to CERN tomorrow if I so desired.

https://visit.cern/

https://visit.cern/tours

Oh, also.

STAY WITH YOUR GROUP!!!

Quote from: disputeone on March 26, 2017, 08:40:16 PM
Rayzor I have summarised your debate tactics as a reference and guide for you.

*Encourage group shaming and group think as a first priority.

*Always quote and support the official story, if any evidence doesn't support the OS, then deny it and re-quote the official story.

*Deny any and all facts that go against the official story.

*Discredit anyone that goes against the official story.

*Push controlled opposition conspiracy theories e.g aliens, holographic planes, death rays from space.

*Speak from a position of authority on all subjects, never provide proof of authority.

*Give absolutely no quarter, if you can't answer a question honestly descredit the poster and distract the debate.

*Offer the official story as the only explanation, keep trying to exaggerate your opponents position and twist their words out of meaning.

*Attack only the weakest points of your opponent's argument, if there are no weak enough points, create a strawman and tear it to shreds.

This is a free reference if you get stuck.
Don't forget to try the fondue.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Denspressure on March 27, 2017, 09:27:02 AM
Rayzor, can you edit your OP and put this archive link in it? https://archive.org/details/911/day/20010911

It contains a news timeline from before the first crash to finish, a week worth of video.
3000 hours of video.

I am sure it will help many here.

At 00:16 here: https://archive.org/details/911/day/20010911#id/CNN_20010911_130000_CNN_Live_This_Morning/start/13:00:01UTC
You can clearly see the relative thin cuts made into the building by the plane, at the far left and far right.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 27, 2017, 09:31:59 AM
That is pretty cool. After a quick look (on my phone) I can say these things.

China didn't give a shit...

Iraq didn't give a shit..

Russia only just a hair lol
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on March 27, 2017, 01:06:51 PM
Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on March 27, 2017, 04:28:12 AM
Yes, in South Africa.
Nice.

One of my bucket list destinations.

Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on March 27, 2017, 04:28:12 AM
As stated, I dont know the USA laws around this. I would however think that in this case, even in RSA the plans would be made available for public viewing. especially considering how controversial this was.
The plans are still available.

Funny thing is this.

The agency (NIST) in charge of providing the official explanation of why all three buildings (WTC 1/2/7) collapsed that day, seems to have omitted much of this information in compiling their official report, not to mention refusing to release their data inputs used in the computer structural modeling of the collapse.
Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on March 27, 2017, 04:28:12 AM

Just discovered that they finally killed it, it started on Friday morning

http://citizen.co.za/news/1467883/durban-fire-burns-out-on-third-day/ (http://citizen.co.za/news/1467883/durban-fire-burns-out-on-third-day/)[/size]
http://www.sabc.co.za/news/a/8b06ed00408d1d979732b785991bc033/Environmental-dept-investigates-effects-of-Durban-fire-on-residents-20170326 (http://www.sabc.co.za/news/a/8b06ed00408d1d979732b785991bc033/Environmental-dept-investigates-effects-of-Durban-fire-on-residents-20170326)
You offered into evidence your "steel factory," as a comparison for the WTC buildings collapsiong as a result of a fire. When you wrote it was a "steel factory," I figured there might be some instances of building construction using steel and concrete.

Instead, I see now this was more than likely a simple steel framed warehouse, the only concrete present being the floor perhaps.

Please, for the sake of all that is holy, tell me you do not consider this to be anywhere near an apt comparison.

Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on March 27, 2017, 04:28:12 AM
You will have to give me some info on the drive by shooting, I have no idea what that is about and how it is related to 911??
My introduction of the phrase "drive by shooting in Chicago," was analogy of your initial post.

Your first post states how likely you think it is the official reports are correct, calling into question other expert testimony, how it is possible the original construction was faulty and shortcut, etc.

All claims with absolutely ZERO references for support.

Furthermore, you wish to draw highly specious comparisons between a warehouse collapsing due to fire and high rise office buildings.

Surely, as an architect, you understand that was a specious comparison!
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on March 27, 2017, 01:15:59 PM
Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on March 27, 2017, 05:11:27 AM
I am not making any statements of what did or did not happen.
But I am noticing that you dismiss the idea that a contractor could supply bad material (steel, bolts, weld material ext) or even a design issue. But at the same time think its more probable that a conspiracy that would need hundreds of people to pull off is more likely.
I do suppose this is the FES.

Let me get this straight.

You believe none of the union tradesman or contractors would have reported substandard materials or construction?

Hundreds of them, all kept their mouth shut.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on March 27, 2017, 01:20:47 PM
Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on March 27, 2017, 05:42:13 AM
Image if it was a controlled explosive conspiracy. You need hundreds of people with no soul to carry out this exercise and hope that none of them ever gets a change of heart over the preceding years. If even 1 guy gets a change of heart he can hold the whole presidency (or whoever) at complete ransome. It is super easy to have information reveal itself once you are dead. Its even a free google mail feature now. There will be no way to keep this secret.
Hyperbole.

Pretends that people with souls actually occupy high government offices and run things, when in the course of human history, most are noted killers and mass murderers.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 27, 2017, 03:16:55 PM
They could've got guys like Rayzor to set up the explosives. He wouldn't blink.

I agree it's unpleasant to think about but if fires and planes are shown not to have caused the collapse then we need to consider foul play.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on March 27, 2017, 04:13:38 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 26, 2017, 08:44:42 PM
Totes I have presented you with simple evidence (excluding a few metaphors), nor is it any sort of "secret engineering knowledge", it's relatively basic. You have tl;Dr the information or shoulder shrugged it.

No, I haven't. I have provided a tl;dr at the end of some of my posts, but if that is all you read, then that is your own problem.

Quote
I am not sure what you are looking for exactly.

  Objective evidence.

NOT "in my opinion..."
NOT "according to engineering common sense..." (the fact that you actually use that phrase makes me chuckle and roll my eyes)

Quote
Nor am I asking you to make a call right away, just to debate something if you are interested in finding the truth or you disagree. (This does not include ad hominems, tl;dr, or shoulder shrugs)

I'm not going to debate with you what your own opinions are. There is nothing of substance there to debate. You think the collapse was impossible? Great! Why do you think that? If you can't provide anything of substance to debate, there is no point in debating anything.

Quote
If you are not interested in putting in the work or time and just want the answer handed to you. Then there is no point of being here. Just take someones word who has the right to speak with authority on it and leave it there.

I'm just asking for objective evidence. If you don't have any or don't want to give it, then just say so. If all you can provide are assurances based on your own professional opinion, then just say so. No, I am not going to take your word for it, if that is what you are implying.

If you must know, it is my subjective opinion that you aren't even remotely qualified to speak with authority on this issue. I can, however, back up my subjective opinion with objective evidence from your past comments. This is why I don't put any credibility in your subjective conclusions, and why I am requesting objective evidence to support your conclusions.

Quote
Just make sure they have no motivation to lie to you, which Completely rules out the official story or NIST

Yeah, statements like these are just further evidence that you aren't being properly objective. I agree that there is motivation to be found in a 9/11 cover-up. But that doesn't mean a cover-up took place, or that the official story and the NIST should be completely disregarded.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 27, 2017, 04:19:53 PM
Daily reminder the first point raised hasn't been debunked.

Quote from: disputeone on February 13, 2017, 10:49:57 PM
Fall acceleration of building 7.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 27, 2017, 04:33:08 PM
Quote from: Totes
If you must know, it is my subjective opinion that you aren't even remotely qualified to speak with authority on this issue. I can, however, back up my subjective opinion with objective evidence from your past comments. This is why I don't put any credibility in your subjective conclusions, and why I am requesting objective evidence to support your conclusions.

If it's any consolation we are starting to question your honesty also.

I bet the clincher was when those PhD structural engineers said pretty much word for word what Bhs said, that sure convinced me he didn't know what he was talking about. (Not)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 27, 2017, 04:59:06 PM
Actually Hulsey seems to think my argument for wtc 7 is very strong.

If you watch his stuff he talks heaps about resistance causing resistance and the concrete not allowing a free-fall symmetrical collapse.

Funny, that's what I've been saying since my first reply.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 27, 2017, 07:01:51 PM
Totes ::) ::)

I am thoroughly disappointed with you, just another dodge, now you are including ad hominems. It is sad. Just like the others...I can say it is official, dispute was incorrect in his original assessment of you...Though I have to say, I was surprised myself.

Anyways, making this short, I provided very little opinion, I would list design factors of the buildings, explain why something was not possible etc etc. The best you could muster would be a shoulder shrug, or some sort of dodge. Then you make dumb posts adding whatever context you like, yet still literally saying nothing. (Since page 20 you have literally said nothing, even rayzor has said a thing once or twice)

I even tried to set up a time with you so I could seriously debate with you (I did take you serious at one point)..I see why you wouldn't agree in hindsight.

Yet now you can sure fire off ad hominems...Funny.

An opinion I did state was thinking out loud about possible squib markers. I retracted and said I don't care, don't need it, just thinking out loud about something that should be examined. Everything else was just simple facts, never even went into anything super complex.

As for my "engineering common sense" well I apologize...I should have used engineering 101...I won't retract it, because it really is that simple.

Finally, ending this as quick as possible....Addressing your insults....As I say to the other people that call me out, let's go...I have already proven a bunch on here in hard evidence of who I am and what I do, I will keep going. So call me out, let's go...

Though as everyone else, I am sure you will dip, duck dodge and dive away from the issue.... Then, next post call me some sort of name again...Read my sig it is fitting.

Maybe you will surprise me and bring it, you have already surprised me once...

Quote from: disputeone on March 27, 2017, 04:33:08 PM
If it's any consolation we are starting to question your honesty also.


At least wolf, who knows if he will ever come back, had some sort of conversation, an actual back and forth.. was a nice change to the usual clap trap that keeps getting directed at me. Plus, considering he has some required prerequisites....He didn't say huh once...He acknowledged, understood and responded in kind....It was very nice now that i think about it...

Maybe there is just some people in this thread out of their league ::) or at least need to do some basic study of the prerequisites first.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 27, 2017, 09:52:57 PM
Quote
In defense of the 9/11 Truth movement, I have to admit that it took me eight years to finally realize what had happened (you can read about how I became a “truther” here). So I am hardly in a position to criticize others for having such difficulties to come to terms with the immense consequences of the “controlled demolition” theory (this is what usually scares people away, the realization that “if 9/11 was an inside job then…”). Another powerful deterrent is the social and professional stigma attached to being a “fringe lunatic” or “conspiracy theorist” (sometimes even “anti-Semite” and “Holocaust denier”) just for daring the question the official fairytale. Of course, the stakes are sky-high: if 9/11 was an inside job, then the US government is not only absolutely illegitimate, it is in fact an occupation government controlled by either foreign elements, or traitors or both. And there are those who will deliberately stick their head in the sands as deep as possible to avoid to have to contemplate the mind-blowing consequences of the undeniable fact that the so-called “land of the brave” is run by an occupation government which has reduced the so-called “brave” to a serf-like status and that several thousands of US Americans have been deliberately sacrificed to induce a mindless patriotic hysteria (with Chinese-made flags and all) to make it possible to use the poorest US Americans as canon fodder in genocidal wars all over the planet. Yes, that is, indeed, a very painful realization: the American Dream is just that – a dream.

There are also two well-known social psychological phenomena at work here: the Asch Conformity Experiment and the Milgram Obedience Experiment. The first one shows that humans tend to see what they think the majority of their fellow-humans see, while the second one shows the power of authority and its ability to make humans act against their best judgment.

Finally, there is also the well-know “where I sit is where I stand” phenomenon at work: any and all those whose livelihood, reputation or personal self-image directly depends on the “respectability” of the system we are living in, including journalists and bloggers”, have a huge interest in rejecting reality and uphold an absurd narrative simply because their own well-being is directly affected by the “system”. In that sense yes, the 9/11 Truth movement is composed of “fringe” elements, of people who have deliberately given up on official “respectability” and being seen as “serious” and who have chosen to say “the Emperor is naked” even if they get sneered at (but rarely debated!) by the million of volunteer sycophants which form the real power base of the regime in power in Washington, DC.

We are in the last stages of the battle for our souls.

We will either win and build our own future or forever be slaves.

The people in power understand 9/11 is the linchpin that will destroy their power.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on March 27, 2017, 10:39:58 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 27, 2017, 09:52:57 PM
We are in the last stages of the battle for our souls.

We will either win and build our own future or forever be slaves.

The people in power understand 9/11 is the linchpin that will destroy their power.

Nope you'll just keep ranting and raving on the internet and nothing will happen  :)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 27, 2017, 10:47:45 PM
Wait and watch.

May will be an interesting month.



Buckle up.

You underestimate the influence /we/ have.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on March 27, 2017, 11:34:16 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 27, 2017, 07:01:51 PM
Totes ::) ::)

I am thoroughly disappointed with you, just another dodge, now you are including ad hominems. It is sad. Just like the others...I can say it is official, dispute was incorrect in his original assessment of you...Though I have to say, I was surprised myself.

... (long rant consisting of more of the same)

A) Do you not see the irony of complaining about "ad hominems", while simultaneously hurling tons of "ad hominems"? Grow up.
B) If all you give are authority-based arguments, then don't be surprised when people question your authority.

I repeat:

Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 27, 2017, 04:13:38 PM
I'm just asking for objective evidence. If you don't have any or don't want to give it, then just say so. If all you can provide are assurances based on your own professional opinion, then just say so.

--

Quote from: disputeone on March 27, 2017, 09:52:57 PM
We are in the last stages of the battle for our souls.

Here's the problem. You treat this like a holy crusade, rather than a careful examination of evidence.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on March 27, 2017, 11:43:17 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 27, 2017, 07:10:22 AM
I can see where you would think the initial impact of upper section would have damaged the entire core, however, we need to look at a few things. Considering the way the building shared it's load (core mostly compression, little sheer.. Exoskeleton mostly sheer mild compression..Yes the core could support the weight of the entire building if you could balance it somehow) core damage from top to bottom is extremely unlikely from video evidence. We would have seen effects in the exoskeleton from top to bottom, being the core is the life blood of the building. The floors would have transfered the sheer of the bending core to the exoskeleton and attempt to hand it off. The exoskeleton would have said hell not and failed itself.

I was under the initial impression that it was only a curtain wall. But considering the spans a exoskeleton does make more sense.
I am very hesitant to make conclusive statements until I have done some calculations and read some reports. I know too little about the actual structure to make any certain statements. I find it odd that the NIST report is so controversial.

Quote from: totallackey on March 27, 2017, 01:06:51 PM
One of my bucket list destinations.
We don’t see many Americans here, its darn far. Did the flights this January.
Quote from: totallackey on March 27, 2017, 01:06:51 PM
The agency (NIST) in charge of providing the official explanation of why all three buildings (WTC 1/2/7) collapsed that day, seems to have omitted much of this information in compiling their official report, not to mention refusing to release their data inputs used in the computer structural modeling of the collapse.
Seems I can’t continue with this discussion until I have read the report first. Going to be honest, it sounds like work and I am def not here to work 😊

Quote from: totallackey on March 27, 2017, 01:06:51 PM
You offered into evidence your "steel factory," as a comparison for the WTC buildings collapsiong as a result of a fire. When you wrote it was a "steel factory," I figured there might be some instances of building construction using steel and concrete.

Instead, I see now this was more than likely a simple steel framed warehouse, the only concrete present being the floor perhaps.

Please, for the sake of all that is holy, tell me you do not consider this to be anywhere near an apt comparison.
Im sorry I did not make it clear enough that I was only using that as an example of how bad fires can get. Of course a multi-story building is different in almost every way.

Quote from: totallackey on March 27, 2017, 01:15:59 PM
Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on March 27, 2017, 05:11:27 AM
I am not making any statements of what did or did not happen.
But I am noticing that you dismiss the idea that a contractor could supply bad material (steel, bolts, weld material ext) or even a design issue. But at the same time think its more probable that a conspiracy that would need hundreds of people to pull off is more likely.
I do suppose this is the FES.

Let me get this straight.

You believe none of the union tradesman or contractors would have reported substandard materials or construction?

Hundreds of them, all kept their mouth shut.

Why maybe they just hired the ones without the souls. You know, the same guys that work for big government. They are apparently plentiful.

But in all seriousness, quality control issues can arise without good intending people knowing. How would a tradesman know that the company producing the metal bolts was not adding enough or too little carbon to the steel?


About 2 years ago I had to send roofing material back because it had Asbestos in it. Asbestos is illegal in South Africa, so it should not have been possible, yet after lots of testing it was still present. You cant be skeptical of big gov and then give all private companies a free pass.

But this is speculation. I have not read the report, and am clearly not as invested in this as many of you here are.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 12:04:11 AM
What makes you think I didn't carefully evaluate the evidence Totes? Just because it took you 16 years to look into it doesn't mean I'm not 16 years ahead.

Now it is a holy crusade to me. Agreed.

I can't think for you and am not your T.V.



Thanks Mr Wolf we appreciate your input and experience.

I said it before if all we get from the truth movement is that building contractors go to jail then it is still a win for Truth.

We just want to know what really caused the collapses.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 12:10:43 AM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 27, 2017, 04:13:38 PM
I'm just asking for objective evidence. If you don't have any or don't want to give it, then just say so. If all you can provide are assurances based on your own professional opinion, then just say so.

You want your TV to tell you, you won't accept anything until your TV tells you. You don't consider anything that isn't supported by the mainstream media. I am not CNN, I can't give evidence if your definition of evidence is what your TV tells you.

Here is objective evidence, completely undebunked since page one.

Quote from: disputeone on February 13, 2017, 10:49:57 PM
Fall acceleration of building 7.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 28, 2017, 02:10:47 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 27, 2017, 09:52:57 PM
We are in the last stages of the battle for our souls.

I think your soul is forever lost to the conspiracy.   Sad.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 28, 2017, 02:14:26 AM
Quote from: Denspressure on March 27, 2017, 09:27:02 AM
Rayzor, can you edit your OP and put this archive link in it? https://archive.org/details/911/day/20010911

It contains a news timeline from before the first crash to finish, a week worth of video.
3000 hours of video.

I am sure it will help many here.

At 00:16 here: https://archive.org/details/911/day/20010911#id/CNN_20010911_130000_CNN_Live_This_Morning/start/13:00:01UTC
You can clearly see the relative thin cuts made into the building by the plane, at the far left and far right.

Done,  I've linked to the archive from Post 1,   many thanks.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 02:15:43 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 28, 2017, 02:10:47 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 27, 2017, 09:52:57 PM
We are in the last stages of the battle for our souls.

I think your soul is forever lost to the conspiracy.   Sad.

Talk to me when you can debunk the first post I made on this thread.

Cheerio.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 02:18:25 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 26, 2017, 11:14:35 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 26, 2017, 11:02:52 PM
Ok,  dipstick
Lol....You really do follow this script don't you.

Quote from: disputeone on March 26, 2017, 08:40:16 PM
Too apt not to share.

Rayzor I have summarised your debate tactics as a reference and guide for you.

*Encourage group shaming and group think as a first priority.

*Always quote and support the official story, if any evidence doesn't support the OS, then deny it and re-quote the official story.

*Deny any and all facts that go against the official story.

*Discredit anyone that goes against the official story.

*Push controlled opposition conspiracy theories e.g aliens, holographic planes, death rays from space.

*Speak from a position of authority on all subjects, never provide proof of authority.

*Give absolutely no quarter, if you can't answer a question honestly descredit the poster and distract the debate.

*Offer the official story as the only explanation, keep trying to exaggerate your opponents position and twist their words out of meaning.

*Attack only the weakest points of your opponent's argument, if there are no weak enough points, create a strawman and tear it to shreds.

This is a free reference if you get stuck.

You can call him names all you want...However, you have been fulfilling this script to a T (I can actually think of a few things he missed)

Also, the amusing thing...He is more qualified to speak on this subject as well lol. It's always the guy that knows nothing calling others names...

Interesting huh?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 28, 2017, 02:19:58 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 02:15:43 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 28, 2017, 02:10:47 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 27, 2017, 09:52:57 PM
We are in the last stages of the battle for our souls.

I think your soul is forever lost to the conspiracy.   Sad.

Talk to me when you can debunk the first post I made on this thread.

Cheerio.

You mean the brain dead stuff you keep parroting long after it's been debunked for the n'th time?   No thanks,  playing chess with pigeons has lost it's appeal.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 02:21:20 AM
Why did wtc 7 provide no structural resistance for 2.25 seconds?

Please, tell us.

Just saying something has been debunked does not mean it has been debunked.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 02:23:28 AM
We are waiting, if you have already debunked it then it should be easy.

Fall acceleration and symmetry of wtc 7.

PhD engineers think it is very strong evidence and not "brain dead."
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 28, 2017, 02:24:14 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 02:21:20 AM
Why did wtc 7 provide no structural resistance for 2.25 seconds?

Please, tell us.

Just saying something has been debunked does not mean it has been debunked.

It was collapsing.   Did you really not know this, after nearly 100 pages?
 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 02:26:09 AM
So during the collapse for 2.25 seconds the underlying structure provided negligible structural resistance symmetrically making a symmetrical fall acceleration at very close to g?

Is this your position?

Quote from: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 02:23:28 AM
We are waiting, if you have already debunked it then it should be easy.

Fall acceleration and symmetry of wtc 7.

PhD engineers think it is very strong evidence and not "brain dead."
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 28, 2017, 02:28:03 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 02:26:09 AM
So during the collapse for 2.25 seconds the underlying structure provided negligible structural resistance making a fall acceleration at very close to g?

Is this your position?

My position is that you are an idiot.   I suspect you are about to confirm it for me.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 02:29:11 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 28, 2017, 02:28:03 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 02:26:09 AM
So during the collapse for 2.25 seconds the underlying structure provided negligible structural resistance making a fall acceleration at very close to g?

Is this your position?

My position is that you are an idiot.   I suspect you are about to confirm it for me.

Please answer the question.

So during the collapse for 2.25 seconds the underlying structure provided negligible structural resistance making a fall acceleration at very close to g?

Is this your position?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 28, 2017, 02:33:45 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 02:29:11 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 28, 2017, 02:28:03 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 02:26:09 AM
So during the collapse for 2.25 seconds the underlying structure provided negligible structural resistance making a fall acceleration at very close to g?

Is this your position?

My position is that you are an idiot.   I suspect you are about to confirm it for me.

Please answer the question.

So during the collapse for 2.25 seconds the underlying structure provided negligible structural resistance making a fall acceleration at very close to g?

Is this your position?

That's what collapse means. 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 02:35:49 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 02:29:11 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 28, 2017, 02:28:03 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 02:26:09 AM
So during the collapse for 2.25 seconds the underlying structure provided negligible structural resistance making a fall acceleration at very close to g?

Is this your position?

My position is that you are an idiot.   I suspect you are about to confirm it for me.

Please answer the question.

So during the collapse for 2.25 seconds the underlying structure provided negligible structural resistance making a fall acceleration at very close to g?

Is this your position?

Please answer the question.

So during the collapse for 2.25 seconds the underlying structure provided negligible structural resistance making a fall acceleration at very close to g?

Is this your position?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 28, 2017, 02:41:25 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 02:35:49 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 02:29:11 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 28, 2017, 02:28:03 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 02:26:09 AM
So during the collapse for 2.25 seconds the underlying structure provided negligible structural resistance making a fall acceleration at very close to g?

Is this your position?

My position is that you are an idiot.   I suspect you are about to confirm it for me.

Please answer the question.

So during the collapse for 2.25 seconds the underlying structure provided negligible structural resistance making a fall acceleration at very close to g?

Is this your position?

Please answer the question.

So during the collapse for 2.25 seconds the underlying structure provided negligible structural resistance making a fall acceleration at very close to g?

Is this your position?

How else,  you have a point to make I'm sure,  but since we've covered this many many times already you know this.  Do you have something new to add.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 02:42:07 AM
Is this, or is this not your position?

during the collapse for 2.25 seconds the underlying structure provided negligible structural resistance making a fall acceleration at very close to g?

Please answer.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 28, 2017, 02:45:03 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 02:42:07 AM
Is this, or is this not your position?

during the collapse for 2.25 seconds the underlying structure provided negligible structural resistance making a fall acceleration at very close to g?

Please answer.

How many times do I have to agree before you get the message?

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 02:46:07 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 02:42:07 AM
Is this, or is this not your position?

during the collapse for 2.25 seconds the underlying structure provided negligible structural resistance making a fall acceleration at very close to g?

Please answer.

1. Yes this is my position.

2. No this is not my position.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 28, 2017, 02:51:32 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 02:46:07 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 02:42:07 AM
Is this, or is this not your position?

during the collapse for 2.25 seconds the underlying structure provided negligible structural resistance making a fall acceleration at very close to g?

Please answer.

1. Yes this is my position.

2. No this is not my position.

You are confirming my original assertion that you are in fact an idiot.  The building collapsed for 2.25  seconds at close to free fall,  if you have a point to make that's new,  now is your chance.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 02:52:29 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 02:46:07 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 02:42:07 AM
Is this, or is this not your position?

during the collapse for 2.25 seconds the underlying structure provided negligible structural resistance making a fall acceleration at very close to g?

Please answer.

1. Yes this is my position.

2. No this is not my position.

Please answer the question, just a 1 or a 2 will be enough.

It's looking like you are not allowed to answer.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on March 28, 2017, 02:54:07 AM
Not to derail the thread, but I was looking for an example of engineers accidentally messing up a design that could drop a building. Just to show that sh1t happens, and occasionally buildings are not as strong as we presume they are.

 here  (http://99percentinvisible.org/episode/structural-integrity/) is an example of a design mistake that very nearly went completely un-noticed, and could have resulted in a massive building collapse and loss of life. I am not saying this is what happend at WTC, but its worth a footnote.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 28, 2017, 02:54:36 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 02:52:29 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 02:46:07 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 02:42:07 AM
Is this, or is this not your position?

during the collapse for 2.25 seconds the underlying structure provided negligible structural resistance making a fall acceleration at very close to g?

Please answer.

1. Yes this is my position.

2. No this is not my position.

Please answer the question, just a 1 or a 2 will be enough.

It's looking like you are not allowed to answer.

Yes this is my position.   For the nth time.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 03:00:25 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 28, 2017, 02:54:36 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 02:52:29 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 02:46:07 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 02:42:07 AM
Is this, or is this not your position?

during the collapse for 2.25 seconds the underlying structure provided negligible structural resistance making a fall acceleration at very close to g?

Please answer.

1. Yes this is my position.

2. No this is not my position.

Please answer the question, just a 1 or a 2 will be enough.

It's looking like you are not allowed to answer.

Yes this is my position.   For the nth time.

That was actually the first time, if you read back.

Quote from: Shyam Sunder NIST lead investigator
Freefall is an object encountering no structural resistance. Wtc 7s collapse was slower than freefall because there was structural resistance in this particular case

Do you disagree with Shyam Sunder?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 03:04:14 AM
Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on March 28, 2017, 02:54:07 AM
Not to derail the thread, but I was looking for an example of engineers accidentally messing up a design that could drop a building. Just to show that sh1t happens, and occasionally buildings are not as strong as we presume they are.

 here  (http://99percentinvisible.org/episode/structural-integrity/) is an example of a design mistake that very nearly went completely un-noticed, and could have resulted in a massive building collapse and loss of life. I am not saying this is what happend at WTC, but its worth a footnote.

Was the collapse a symmetrical free-fall?

Or did it collapse through the path of least resistance?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 28, 2017, 03:09:26 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 03:00:25 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 28, 2017, 02:54:36 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 02:52:29 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 02:46:07 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 02:42:07 AM
Is this, or is this not your position?

during the collapse for 2.25 seconds the underlying structure provided negligible structural resistance making a fall acceleration at very close to g?

Please answer.

1. Yes this is my position.

2. No this is not my position.

Please answer the question, just a 1 or a 2 will be enough.

It's looking like you are not allowed to answer.

Yes this is my position.   For the nth time.

That was actually the first time, if you read back.

Quote from: Shyam Sunder NIST lead investigator
Freefall is an object encountering no structural resistance. Wtc 7s collapse was slower than freefall because there was structural resistance in this particular case

Do you disagree with Shyam Sunder?

You are misquoting what he said,  which is what Chandler did. 

Here is the real data.

(https://s21.postimg.org/k48sh6f6v/WTC7times.jpg)

Please get to the point if you actually have one,  I suspect that you don't actually have anything new to add apart from your previous inane ramblings and spamming.

I chose this data, specifically to debunk  Hulsey's assertion that the debris impact damage was minimal,  a 20 story gash in the south side is far from minimal.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 03:11:30 AM
You said.

There was negligible structural resistance for 2.25 seconds.

Shyam Sunder said.

Freefall is an object encountering no structural resistance. Wtc 7s collapse was slower than freefall because there was structural resistance in this particular case

Which one of you is correct?

You can't both be right.

Hulsey never asserted the damage was minimal he is considering absolutely all evidence, a table with writing on it is not evidence, it is assertion.

He is nowhere near done, I can't wait for peer review.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 28, 2017, 03:21:37 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 03:11:30 AM
You said.

There was negligible structural resistance for 2.25 seconds.

Shyam Sunder said.

Freefall is an object encountering no structural resistance. Wtc 7s collapse was slower than freefall because there was structural resistance in this particular case

Which one of you is correct?

You can't both be right.

Hulsey never asserted the damage is minimal he is considering absolutely all evidence, he is nowhere near done, I can't wait for peer review

Actually Hulsey said in  his earlier progress reports that the debris impact damage was minimal,  and further stated that the office fires were small and burnt out in 20 minutes.   Neither of these assumptions is true.

None of his student's workbooks even mention fire temperatures,  and none of his data available for download is even remotely relevant to his conclusions.   All they have posted is just stuff  someone else got under FOI.   No model data,  no model outputs that I could see.    I said already I smell a con job.

Also,  It's not clear that the drawings provided under FOI and used by Hulsey are the original design or include the subsequent alterations made for Saloman.  Which involved removing whole floors as well as  extensive restructuring.







Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 03:26:42 AM
Wow you follow the script...

Quote from: disputeone on March 26, 2017, 08:40:16 PM
Rayzor I have summarised your debate tactics as a reference and guide for you.

*Encourage group shaming and group think as a first priority.

*Always quote and support the official story, if any evidence doesn't support the OS, then deny it and re-quote the official story.

*Deny any and all facts that go against the official story.

*Discredit anyone that goes against the official story.

*Push controlled opposition conspiracy theories e.g aliens, holographic planes, death rays from space.

*Speak from a position of authority on all subjects, never provide proof of authority.

*Give absolutely no quarter, if you can't answer a question honestly descredit the poster and distract the debate.

*Offer the official story as the only explanation, keep trying to exaggerate your opponents position and twist their words out of meaning.

*Attack only the weakest points of your opponent's argument, if there are no weak enough points, create a strawman and tear it to shreds.

This is a free reference if you get stuck.

I am sure you can air your issues during peer review. Hulsey is giving us this option.

Isn't science great.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 28, 2017, 03:34:38 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 03:26:42 AM
Wow you follow the script...

Quote from: disputeone on March 26, 2017, 08:40:16 PM
Rayzor I have summarised your debate tactics as a reference and guide for you.

*Encourage group shaming and group think as a first priority.

*Always quote and support the official story, if any evidence doesn't support the OS, then deny it and re-quote the official story.

*Deny any and all facts that go against the official story.

*Discredit anyone that goes against the official story.

*Push controlled opposition conspiracy theories e.g aliens, holographic planes, death rays from space.

*Speak from a position of authority on all subjects, never provide proof of authority.

*Give absolutely no quarter, if you can't answer a question honestly descredit the poster and distract the debate.

*Offer the official story as the only explanation, keep trying to exaggerate your opponents position and twist their words out of meaning.

*Attack only the weakest points of your opponent's argument, if there are no weak enough points, create a strawman and tear it to shreds.

This is a free reference if you get stuck.

I am sure you can air your issues during peer review. Hulsey is giving us this option.

Isn't science great.

Did you actually have a point or not.   After 100 pages of having nothing new to add,  I suspect not.   
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 03:36:39 AM
Fall acceleration and symmetry of wtc 7.

Is my strongest evidence, I believe, I has moar.

It hasn't been satisfactorily explained using the official stories version of collapse.

I can explain it easily.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 28, 2017, 03:44:27 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 03:36:39 AM
Fall acceleration and symmetry of wtc 7.

Is my strongest evidence, I believe, I has moar.

It hasn't been satisfactorily explained using the official stories version of collapse.

I can explain it easily.

Why don't you.  "Explain it easily"
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 03:50:48 AM
I keep bringing it up because you won't talk about it.

I admit I have a vested interest in this, it's obvious by now how much I care.

What is your excuse for 100 pages of dodging my first reply?

Here is where we left it.

Quote from: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 03:11:30 AM
You said.

There was negligible structural resistance for 2.25 seconds.

Shyam Sunder said.

Freefall is an object encountering no structural resistance. Wtc 7s collapse was slower than freefall because there was structural resistance in this particular case

Which one of you is correct?

You can't both be right.

Why not just debate honestly, you could say Shyam was wrong originally then they changed their analysis to a three stage collapse.  (in my opinion an attempt not to address the free-fall.)

Let's debate, no ad hominems.

Here is me explaining what we saw happen to wtc 7, please note it looks nearly identical. More often than not wtc 7s collapse is faster, smoother and more symmetrical.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 28, 2017, 03:56:17 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 03:50:48 AM
I keep bringing it up because you won't talk about it.

No you keep bringing it up because you can't read or don't understand the answers given over and over.   So it seems you've still got nothing other than  "I think it's controlled demolition"  therefore it must be. 
Seems like a pretty tenuous basis for a conspiracy that will eventually take your soul and sanity.

I'll refrain from pointing out that demolishing WTC7 makes no logical sense from any rational point of view.   Oh, wait,  I just did. 

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 03:57:51 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 03:50:48 AM
Here is where we left it.

Quote from: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 03:11:30 AM
You said.

There was negligible structural resistance for 2.25 seconds.

Shyam Sunder said.

Freefall is an object encountering no structural resistance. Wtc 7s collapse was slower than freefall because there was structural resistance in this particular case

Which one of you is correct?

You can't both be right.

Why not just debate honestly.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 28, 2017, 04:02:20 AM
Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on March 28, 2017, 02:54:07 AM
Not to derail the thread, but I was looking for an example of engineers accidentally messing up a design that could drop a building. Just to show that sh1t happens, and occasionally buildings are not as strong as we presume they are.

 here  (http://99percentinvisible.org/episode/structural-integrity/) is an example of a design mistake that very nearly went completely un-noticed, and could have resulted in a massive building collapse and loss of life. I am not saying this is what happend at WTC, but its worth a footnote.

Great example of how easily mistakes can be made.   In the case of WTC7 there was a Con Edison power station that they had to build over, and that led to a weird cantilever structure, that bridged the sub station,  NIST concluded that the unusual structure played no part in the ultimate collapse,  but there was other strange things done to that building when Saloman Brothers spent 200 million removing floors and installing large back up diesel generators.   One other factor in the collapse of WTC7 is the damage caused by the debris from the collapse of WTC1.   Then there's the fires that burned uncontrolled for 7 hours.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 04:03:49 AM
Hulsey is addressing all this Rayzor.

He is putting everything into the model they will give him. If the information is purposefully withheld he can't be held responsible for not including it.

I can't wait for peer review.

Oh and if you had actually read his stuff he states clearly that he is not releasing his data until after peer review.

So quit it with the con job hey? It's disgusting. The man is infinitely more qualified than you are to investigate building collapse.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 28, 2017, 04:07:38 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 04:03:49 AM
Hulsey is addressing all this Rayzor.

He is putting everything into the model they will give him. If the information is purposefully withheld he can't be held responsible for not including it.

I can't wait for peer review.

Have you downloaded his model?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 04:08:19 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 04:03:49 AM
Hulsey is addressing all this Rayzor.

Oh and if you had actually read his stuff he states clearly that he is not releasing his data until after peer review.

So quit it with the con job hey? It's disgusting. The man is infinitely more qualified than you are to investigate building collapse.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 04:14:45 AM






Don't be scared, it's only science.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 28, 2017, 04:20:34 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 04:08:19 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 04:03:49 AM
Hulsey is addressing all this Rayzor.

Oh and if you had actually read his stuff he states clearly that he is not releasing his data until after peer review.

So quit it with the con job hey? It's disgusting. The man is infinitely more qualified than you are to investigate building collapse.

There's nothing in any of the work diaries from mid 2015 onwards?   How is that being open and transparent.  Did his students quit?

If he's written a paper, perhaps you could post a link to it.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 04:27:37 AM
He is not releasing his data until after peer review.

He's been infinitely more honest and open than NIST was.

I can't be more clear.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 04:32:52 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 13, 2017, 10:36:59 PM
What real evidence is there for a conspiracy about 911?

Quote from: disputeone on February 13, 2017, 10:49:57 PM
Fall acceleration of building 7.

Welp, here we are, 100 pages later.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 28, 2017, 04:39:38 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 04:08:19 AM

Oh and if you had actually read his stuff he states clearly that he is not releasing his data until after peer review.


So where exactly did you read that?   

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 04:43:24 AM
I could dig around but he says it clearly in his latest two videos.

(I know right, why bother with peer review, NIST didn't.)

How can you "smell a con job" here but not with NIST?

Honesty I am curious.

https://www.elsevier.com/connect/7-steps-to-publishing-in-a-scientific-journal

Hulsey is working through it. He's not rushing it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 28, 2017, 04:47:31 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 04:43:24 AM
I could dig around but he says it clearly in his latest two videos.

(I know right, why bother with peer review, NIST didn't.)

Quote from: Rayzor on March 28, 2017, 04:39:38 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 04:08:19 AM

Oh and if you had actually read his stuff he states clearly that he is not releasing his data until after peer review.


So where exactly did you read that?   



So he never actually wrote that?   You were just being dishonest  by accusing me of not reading something he never wrote?

NIST did actually have open public review meetings,  you are misinformed.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 04:51:25 AM
I was not being dishonest perhaps I should have said "studied" instead of read.

It is quite common to wait on peer review before releasing your model, especially with something so controversial.

NIST had no peer review and the public meetings were a literal show and tell.

Where do you think architects and engineers came from?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 28, 2017, 04:53:19 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 04:51:25 AM
Where do you think architects and engineers came from?

Richard Gage  had a clever idea how to make money from conspiracy theorists.

How much have you donated?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 04:53:49 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 28, 2017, 04:53:19 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 04:51:25 AM
Where do you think architects and engineers came from?

Richard Gage  had a clever idea how to make money from conspiracy theorists.

How much have you donated?


You disgust me.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 04:57:51 AM
All you are doing is trying to distract and discredit.

It's been 100 pages.

What possibly inspired you to start this thread?

If your aim is to bury discussion why start the discussion?

I think you made a huge mistake.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 28, 2017, 04:58:37 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 04:53:49 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 28, 2017, 04:53:19 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 04:51:25 AM
Where do you think architects and engineers came from?

Richard Gage  had a clever idea how to make money from conspiracy theorists.

How much have you donated?


You disgust me.

LOL,  by the sounds of that response, they got themselves a live one.

With that, I'll leave you to continue your inane spamming.  Have fun,  sucker.



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 04:59:35 AM
Here is where we left it after I asked for half a page for you to answer a question.

Quote from: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 03:50:48 AM
Here is where we left it.

Quote from: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 03:11:30 AM
You said.

There was negligible structural resistance for 2.25 seconds.

Shyam Sunder said.

Freefall is an object encountering no structural resistance. Wtc 7s collapse was slower than freefall because there was structural resistance in this particular case

Which one of you is correct?

You can't both be right.

Why not just debate honestly.

You have not addressed it you have been trying to distract and discredit.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on March 28, 2017, 08:56:45 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 02:26:09 AM
So during the collapse for 2.25 seconds the underlying structure provided negligible structural resistance symmetrically making a symmetrical fall acceleration at very close to g?

Not symmetrical.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on March 28, 2017, 09:03:39 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 28, 2017, 04:47:31 AM
NIST did actually have open public review meetings,  you are misinformed.
Rayzor: "Town hall meetings are sciency..."
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on March 28, 2017, 09:04:19 AM
Quote from: User324 on March 28, 2017, 08:56:45 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 02:26:09 AM
So during the collapse for 2.25 seconds the underlying structure provided negligible structural resistance symmetrically making a symmetrical fall acceleration at very close to g?

Not symmetrical.
Very symmetrical.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on March 28, 2017, 09:11:56 AM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 27, 2017, 04:13:38 PM
I agree that there is motivation to be found in a 9/11 cover-up. But that doesn't mean a cover-up took place, or that the official story and the NIST should be completely disregarded.
What weight do you assign a final report that:
1) Was not subject to peer review;
2) Fails to identify data sates used for inputs/results/conclusions?

Of course, anyone with half a brain totally disregards that report.

The NIST reports are the equivalent of OJ Simpson putting on the murder gloves over latex gloves.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on March 28, 2017, 09:27:29 AM
Quote from: totallackey on March 28, 2017, 09:04:19 AM
Quote from: User324 on March 28, 2017, 08:56:45 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 02:26:09 AM
So during the collapse for 2.25 seconds the underlying structure provided negligible structural resistance symmetrically making a symmetrical fall acceleration at very close to g?

Not symmetrical.
Very symmetrical.

Burden of proof is on you. Show me evidence.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on March 28, 2017, 09:39:05 AM
Quote from: User324 on March 28, 2017, 09:27:29 AM
Burden of proof is on you. Show me evidence.
I believe all you need to do is look at a video.
(https://media4.giphy.com/media/ZlArbfiGCAJGw/200.webp#1)
(https://media0.giphy.com/media/su6yPHTSkShYA/200w.webp#2)
I think you ask 100 people, all of them will say it looks symmetrical.

If it looks like a duck/walks like duck/quacks like a duck...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on March 28, 2017, 09:53:13 AM
Quote from: totallackey on March 28, 2017, 09:39:05 AM
Quote from: User324 on March 28, 2017, 09:27:29 AM
Burden of proof is on you. Show me evidence.
I believe all you need to do is look at a video.
(https://media4.giphy.com/media/ZlArbfiGCAJGw/200.webp#1)
(https://media0.giphy.com/media/su6yPHTSkShYA/200w.webp#2)
I think you ask 100 people, all of them will say it looks symmetrical.

If it looks like a duck/walks like duck/quacks like a duck...

How would you define symmetrical. Either you have an odd definition of it or this is by far not symmetrical.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 28, 2017, 09:59:57 AM
Quote from: User324 on March 28, 2017, 09:53:13 AM
Quote from: totallackey on March 28, 2017, 09:39:05 AM
Quote from: User324 on March 28, 2017, 09:27:29 AM
Burden of proof is on you. Show me evidence.
I believe all you need to do is look at a video.

(https://media0.giphy.com/media/su6yPHTSkShYA/200w.webp#2)
I think you ask 100 people, all of them will say it looks symmetrical.

If it looks like a duck/walks like duck/quacks like a duck...

How would you define symmetrical. Either you have an odd definition of it or this is by far not symmetrical.

You have got to be kidding me...You have always had moronic arguments, but this one is impressive even for you.

Asymmetrical

(http://i67.tinypic.com/23ixh88.jpg)

Symmetrical

(https://media4.giphy.com/media/ZlArbfiGCAJGw/200.webp#1)


Wow...Just wow...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on March 28, 2017, 10:10:38 AM
Damn, you're right, that freaking symmetry! It's killing me!

(https://img1.picload.org/image/rlwiidcw/symmetrie.png)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on March 28, 2017, 10:12:20 AM
Quote from: User324 on March 28, 2017, 09:53:13 AM
How would you define symmetrical. Either you have an odd definition of it or this is by far not symmetrical.
Perhaps it would be best for you describe what you do not find symmetrical about the collapse as shown in these images.

So, as specifically as you can, write down what is NOT symmetrical regarding the collapse shown in the images.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on March 28, 2017, 10:13:35 AM
Quote from: totallackey on March 28, 2017, 10:12:20 AM
Quote from: User324 on March 28, 2017, 09:53:13 AM
How would you define symmetrical. Either you have an odd definition of it or this is by far not symmetrical.
Perhaps it would be best for you describe what you do not find symmetrical about the collapse as shown in these images.

So, as specifically as you can, write down what is NOT symmetrical regarding the collapse shown in the images.

One post above, guess you haven't seen it:

Quote from: User324 on March 28, 2017, 10:10:38 AM

(https://img1.picload.org/image/rlwiidcw/symmetrie.png)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on March 28, 2017, 10:17:31 AM
Quote from: User324 on March 28, 2017, 10:10:38 AM
Damn, you're right, that freaking symmetry! It's killing me!

(https://img1.picload.org/image/rlwiidcw/symmetrie.png)

The entire building commenced collapse from the bottom.

Your imaginary box?

Highly imaginary.

One can clearly see the red box is off kilter, clearly omitting a significant portion of the building.

The vertical red line on the left is nowhere near all encompassing of the actual building.

The orange line?

Whatever the fuck that is supposed to represent is lost to me...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 28, 2017, 10:54:41 AM
I can draw an orange line on anything I want to...Doesn't mean it represents anything...

Another fantastic "argument" for user....

Geez...


Oh and I forgot

Congrats to rayzor for 2 straight pages of constant ad hominems...I see he has stopped entirely of even the attempt at an argument. Well done!
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on March 28, 2017, 11:20:07 AM
Watch 00:19


Neither the box nor the orange lines are perfectly accurate. Red box is rectuangualar, top line is supposed to aligne with the top of the building. Its obviously not trying to show how big the building is but how unsymmetrical the collapse was.

(https://img1.picload.org/image/rlwiidcw/symmetrie.png)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 28, 2017, 12:04:06 PM
What a few degrees of tilt of an intact structure at the last .5 second of it's collapse is not symmetrical to you (the last half second, it was landing on top of its own mass ground level, even the most perfect demos have a few degrees tilt)? Maybe for someone not familiar with Structural mechanics, but for someone who is, that is a complete impossibility as well as symmetrical.

0:25 is the best footage, you can see the complete removal of the core
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on March 28, 2017, 12:49:59 PM
Quote from: User324 on March 28, 2017, 11:20:07 AM
Watch 00:19


Neither the box nor the orange lines are perfectly accurate. Red box is rectuangualar, top line is supposed to aligne with the top of the building. Its obviously not trying to show how big the building is but how unsymmetrical the collapse was.

(https://img1.picload.org/image/rlwiidcw/symmetrie.png)

Again, your red and orange lines do not align with the building, either in these photos or in any fashion, real or imaginary.

Your red line clearly dips before the actual roof line, the orange line angles directly through the upmost left corner of the building as shown in the photo.

The left portion of the building might be 1/32nd of an inch lower than the right in the photo, the way I see it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 28, 2017, 04:03:07 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 28, 2017, 10:54:41 AM

Congrats to rayzor for 2 straight pages of constant ad hominems...I see he has stopped entirely of even the attempt at an argument. Well done!

Thank you,  I also see we have reached 100 pages without you having either reached a decision on what you think happened, or presented any of your 10 years of  research into 911.   

I can tell you what didn't happen on 911,  would you like to know?

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 05:06:00 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 28, 2017, 04:03:07 PM
I can tell you what didn't happen on 911,  would you like to know?

Wtc 7s collapse was not caused by fires and debris?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 28, 2017, 05:15:04 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 28, 2017, 04:03:07 PM
Thank you,  I also see we have reached 100 pages without you having either reached a decision on what you think happened, or presented any of your 10 years of  research into 911.   

I can tell you what didn't happen on 911,  would you like to know?

Such a dumb ass!! F!!! You just blow my mind still...Even now... Absolutely mind boggling...

I have attempted to get into things and all I get is deflection, then you make statements like that. You must be some character in real life..

Also, I said starting page one here I wanted to get into no speculation, yet, that is all you can focus on because you have no argument otherwise.

So again...I don't care about proving what happened, I care about proving what did not happen, and that is what I can prove.

So would you like to know what didn't happen September eleventh?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 28, 2017, 06:12:26 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 28, 2017, 05:15:04 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 28, 2017, 04:03:07 PM
Thank you,  I also see we have reached 100 pages without you having either reached a decision on what you think happened, or presented any of your 10 years of  research into 911.   

I can tell you what didn't happen on 911,  would you like to know?

Such a dumb ass!! F!!! You just blow my mind still...Even now... Absolutely mind boggling...

I have attempted to get into things and all I get is deflection, then you make statements like that. You must be some character in real life..

Also, I said starting page one here I wanted to get into no speculation, yet, that is all you can focus on because you have no argument otherwise.

So again...I don't care about proving what happened, I care about proving what did not happen, and that is what I can prove.

So would you like to know what didn't happen September eleventh?

You have never attempted any kind of argument other than to offer your unsupported opinions on what didn't happen.  "it didn't happen like we saw" Is a typical BHS argument.

Even then you presented nothing of substance to back up those unqualified opinions.

None of the evidence I've presented has been addressed by you, or that free-fall looney dipstickone.    So either put up or GTFO.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 06:18:19 PM
You cant touch my argument, since page one.

I will ask you one more time to prove you have the balls to call me a loony while looking me in the eyes.

Are you upset you answered a question honestly and it backfired?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 06:20:42 PM
Rayzor. Please stop dodging questions. I have answered all your questions honestly, why be dishonest?

Please answer.

Quote from: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 04:59:35 AM
Here is where we left it after I asked for half a page for you to answer a question.

Quote from: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 03:50:48 AM
Here is where we left it.

Quote from: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 03:11:30 AM
You said.

There was negligible structural resistance for 2.25 seconds.

Shyam Sunder said.

Freefall is an object encountering no structural resistance. Wtc 7s collapse was slower than freefall because there was structural resistance in this particular case

Which one of you is correct?

You can't both be right.

Why not just debate honestly.

You have not addressed it you have been trying to distract and discredit.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 28, 2017, 06:36:16 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 06:18:19 PM
You cant touch my argument, since page one.

I will ask you one more time to prove you have the balls to call me a loony while looking me in the eyes.

Are you upset you answered a question honestly and it backfired?

Huh?   You mean your failed free-fall argument?   

Just because you can't think logically doesn't mean you have to go around beating people up.   That's  demented.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 06:52:03 PM
You haven't attempted to explain why the building provided no structural resistance for 2.25 seconds.

Would you like to try?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Gaia_Redonda on March 28, 2017, 07:05:18 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 28, 2017, 06:36:16 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 06:18:19 PM
You cant touch my argument, since page one.

I will ask you one more time to prove you have the balls to call me a loony while looking me in the eyes.

Are you upset you answered a question honestly and it backfired?

Huh?

Just because I can't think logically doesn't mean I have to go around beating people up.   That's  demented.
Indeed it is.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 07:09:26 PM
Rayzor stop projecting, all I said was if you wanna call me a loony then you can do it to my face, like a man.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Gaia_Redonda on March 28, 2017, 07:17:33 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 07:09:26 PM
Rayzor stop projecting, all I said was if you wanna call me a loony then you can do it to my face, like a man.
You're asking too much of the Rayzorshill... ;)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: rabinoz on March 28, 2017, 08:00:21 PM
Quote from: Gaia_Redonda on March 28, 2017, 07:17:33 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 07:09:26 PM
Rayzor stop projecting, all I said was if you wanna call me a loony then you can do it to my face, like a man.
You're asking too much of the Rayzorshill... ;)
if you wanna call Rayzor a Rayzorshill then do it to his face, like a ???.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 08:08:22 PM
I actually offered to meet him at the pub and buy him a beer.

He declined.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Gaia_Redonda on March 28, 2017, 08:11:23 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 08:08:22 PM
I actually offered to meet him at the pub and buy him a beer.

He declined.

I have similar experiences with lying forumers. Bad for them.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 28, 2017, 08:20:12 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 08:08:22 PM
I actually offered to meet him at the pub and buy him a beer.

He declined.

Actually, he made fun of you for it...Then continued calling you names and personal attacks.

Violence should be the last resort...But sometimes, unfortunately, it's fitting.

Especially when someone is a nonstop liar, word twister, constant personal attacks, pretends to be your friend for a moment just to come around and call you names (back biter) and just all in all a shitty person...

At least someone needs to leave the salt shaker lid loose or something.

Oh, and welcome back Gaia....You know there are a few that believe you are an alter ego of legba...Welcome back one way or another  ;D :-*
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 28, 2017, 08:35:06 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 28, 2017, 08:20:12 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 08:08:22 PM
I actually offered to meet him at the pub and buy him a beer.

He declined.

Actually, he made fun of you for it...Then continued calling you names and personal attacks.

Violence should be the last resort...But sometimes, unfortunately, it's fitting.

Especially when someone is a nonstop liar, word twister, constant personal attacks, pretends to be your friend for a moment just to come around and call you names (back biter) and just all in all a shitty person...

Funny you should bring up the issue of personal attacks,   we have a crazy conspiracy theorist  who denies he has made up his mind after ten years of 911 research.   And then we have a fruitcake lift mechanic who wants to punch up people when they refuse to answer the same questions over and over.

Care to point out one instance where I have lied.    That should be interesting.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 08:45:48 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 06:52:03 PM
You haven't attempted to explain why the building provided no structural resistance for 2.25 seconds.

Would you like to try?

Enlighten me.

Taking shots at my mental health isn't an answer.

If you think I am as dumb as you claim I would recommend using the stairs always.

I didn't threaten to "beat you up" I offered to buy you a beer to get a measure of who we both are and what is appropriate to say.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 08:47:13 PM
Here's an example of a lie.

Quote from: Rayzor on March 28, 2017, 08:35:06 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 28, 2017, 08:20:12 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 08:08:22 PM
I actually offered to meet him at the pub and buy him a beer.

He declined.

Actually, he made fun of you for it...Then continued calling you names and personal attacks.

Violence should be the last resort...But sometimes, unfortunately, it's fitting.

Especially when someone is a nonstop liar, word twister, constant personal attacks, pretends to be your friend for a moment just to come around and call you names (back biter) and just all in all a shitty person...

Funny you should bring up the issue of personal attacks,   we have a crazy conspiracy theorist  who denies he has made up his mind after ten years of 911 research.   And then we have a fruitcake lift mechanic who wants to punch up people when they refuse to answer the same questions over and over.

Care to point out one instance where I have lied.    That should be interesting.

Blatant lie.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 28, 2017, 09:09:31 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 28, 2017, 08:35:06 PM
you should bring up the issue of personal attacks,   we have a crazy conspiracy theorist  who denies he has made up his mind after ten years of 911 research.   And then we have a fruitcake lift mechanic who wants to punch up people when they refuse to answer the same questions over and over.

Care to point out one instance where I have lied.    That should be interesting.

Without even having to leave this page

Quote from: Rayzor on March 28, 2017, 06:12:26 PM
You have never attempted any kind of argument other than to offer your unsupported opinions on what didn't happen.  "it didn't happen like we saw" Is a typical BHS argument.

Even then you presented nothing of substance to back up those unqualified opinions.

None of the evidence I've presented has been addressed by you, or that free-fall looney dipstickone.    So either put up or GTFO.

That's a blatant lie plus ad hominems.

As for other examples, it's easy...Just go backwards page by page..You will see a minimum of one ad hominem, personal attack, lie, or word twist per page...However, on average you will see multiples...

Not to mention, the very post of yours I am replying to proved my point.

Sad.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Twerp on March 28, 2017, 10:15:45 PM
One thing I can tell you for sure. Physically fighting over this would not change one thing. Rayzor might be able to beat Dispute up without half trying. That doesn't make his arguments any better nor does it make him any better of a person. Ditto if Dispute can easily beat up Rayzor. And what happened on 9/11 will still be exactly the same no matter who wins.

I don't even know who came up with this idea but it's silly.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 10:23:29 PM
Quote from: Boots on March 28, 2017, 10:15:45 PM
One thing I can tell you for sure. Physically fighting over this would not change one thing. Rayzor might be able to beat Dispute up without half trying. That doesn't make his arguments any better nor does it make him any better of a person. Ditto if Dispute can easily beat up Rayzor. And what happened on 9/11 will still be exactly the same no matter who wins.

I don't even know who came up with this idea but it's silly.

I agree boots, I never wanted to "beat anyone up."

I'm just sick of being called crazy, it really sets me off.

It's way easier to say shit things from behind a computer than to actually say it to someones face.

I get very sensitive over people gaslighting others.

You just don't know who that person is or what they are going through.

Here is the proper response to someone struggling with their mental health.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69823.msg1887365#msg1887365

Please note none of us rub his face in it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Twerp on March 28, 2017, 10:39:46 PM
If someone calls you crazy on this site just read my sig and laugh it off. You're no crazier than they are. Some make better arguments than others but I think we're all in the same boat crazy-wise! ;D
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 10:48:18 PM
Quote from: Boots on March 28, 2017, 10:39:46 PM
If someone calls you crazy on this site just read my sig and laugh it off. You're no crazier than they are. Some make better arguments than others but I think we're all in the same boat crazy-wise! ;D

I laughed it off for 70 pages.

I'll try to continue, good advice thanks.

I just want an actual debate.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Twerp on March 28, 2017, 10:56:01 PM
Sounds good!

It's just that all my life I have marveled at this strange phenomenon where two people are having an argument and they can't resolve it so they have a fight about it. Who is the better fighter has zero bearing on who was right or wrong in the argument!

Perhaps this idea is driven by the movies where the good guy always wins. Irl the good guy does not necessarily win.

Anyway, I'll quit now. Just thought I would throw in a little diversion. Now that we've reached 100!  ;D
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 11:09:03 PM
It never had anything to do with the debate.

I had a tough childhood, I remember on multiple occasions my mum calling the cops on my dad cause he hit her. They would arrive and my dad only ever had to say one thing.

"She's crazy."

Not one charge was laid, ever, my Mum was too scared to divorce him because he would get sole custody just with that one phrase.

"She's crazy."

I remember the police took my Mum away for a mental health evaluation with two black eyes, I was screaming the whole time "he's lying he hit her, he's lying he hit her." Needless to say my mothers black eyes paled in comparison to my reward for telling the truth. Again, no charges were ever filed.

Now she's in her 60's and a great deal of my time goes into looking after her because 16 years of abuse with no one believing her pushed her over the edge mentally.

It just absolutely makes me see red when someone plays the crazy card.

Good guys don't always win.

Wow that was deep sorry.

Oh well context.

Have some free ammunition Rayzor, I know how much it gets you off.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 11:12:34 PM
Back on topic, I hope someone can address this, it's been up for grabs since page one.

Should be easy.

Quote from: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 08:45:48 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 06:52:03 PM
You haven't attempted to explain why the building provided no structural resistance for 2.25 seconds.

Would you like to try?

Enlighten me.

Taking shots at my mental health isn't an answer.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 28, 2017, 11:45:17 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 11:12:34 PM
Back on topic, I hope someone can address this, it's been up for grabs since page one.

Should be easy.

Quote from: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 08:45:48 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 06:52:03 PM
You haven't attempted to explain why the building provided no structural resistance for 2.25 seconds.

Would you like to try?

Enlighten me.

Taking shots at my mental health isn't an answer.

I did say I wouldn't answer your dumb question for the n'th time.   But I will,  If you promise to  never ask again.   Listen Carefully...

IT WAS  FALLING DOWN,   COLLAPSING.   I HAVE VIDEO EVIDENCE PROVING THAT FACT.


Now ask it again,  I dare you to show us all how deranged you really are.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on March 28, 2017, 11:47:10 PM
Did some light reading on WTC7 building yesterday. Reading from some personal accounts of firefighters, it seems super unlikely that the building was purposely dropped.
It seems WTC7 was almost completely evacuated by the fire department before it collapsed. There where not even firefighters inside because a collapse due to fire and structural damage seemed imminent. So they cleared the area for quite a while before the building fell. This does not sound like sabotage.

It all makes for interesting reading.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 29, 2017, 12:02:37 AM
Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on March 28, 2017, 11:47:10 PM
Did some light reading on WTC7 building yesterday. Reading from some personal accounts of firefighters, it seems super unlikely that the building was purposely dropped.
It seems WTC7 was almost completely evacuated by the fire department before it collapsed. There where not even firefighters inside because a collapse due to fire and structural damage seemed imminent. So they cleared the area for quite a while before the building fell. This does not sound like sabotage.

It all makes for interesting reading.

No one is arguing it shouldn't have collapsed at all.

Just not a 2.25 second symmetrical freefall.

Quote from: Rayzor on March 28, 2017, 11:45:17 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 11:12:34 PM
Back on topic, I hope someone can address this, it's been up for grabs since page one.

Should be easy.

Quote from: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 08:45:48 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 06:52:03 PM
You haven't attempted to explain why the building provided no structural resistance for 2.25 seconds.

Would you like to try?

Enlighten me.

Taking shots at my mental health isn't an answer.

I did say I wouldn't answer your dumb question for the n'th time.   But I will,  If you promise to  never ask again.   Listen Carefully...

IT WAS  FALLING DOWN,   COLLAPSING.   I HAVE VIDEO EVIDENCE PROVING THAT FACT.


Now ask it again,  I dare you to show us all how deranged you really are.


Why didn't the structure provide any structural resistance as it collapsed? Surely you aren't saying that all building collapses are freefall?

Can you at least see what I am saying Boots?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 29, 2017, 12:04:42 AM
Is Hulsey also crazy Rayzor.

You know his argument mirrors my own.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 29, 2017, 12:08:28 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 29, 2017, 12:04:42 AM
Is Hulsey also crazy Rayzor.

You know his argument mirrors my own.


Hulsey just says  ( incorrectly ) that it wasn't fire that caused the collapse,   you on the other hand think it was controlled demolition,  so claiming Hulsey mirrors your argument is a lie.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 29, 2017, 12:09:27 AM
I also think fire and debris didn't bring it down.

Is Hulsey crazy?

Are all building collapses free fall?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 29, 2017, 12:10:49 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 29, 2017, 12:02:37 AM
Why didn't the structure provide any structural resistance as it collapsed? Surely you aren't saying that all building collapses are freefall?

No,  but just because it was free fall doesn't automatically mean it was controlled demolition.   That's the logical flaw in your argument that I pointed out about 100 pages ago,  and many times since.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 29, 2017, 12:11:36 AM
Free-fall means no structural resistance.

Can you explain why wtc 7 had no structural resistance?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 29, 2017, 12:14:17 AM
I can.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 29, 2017, 12:14:47 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 29, 2017, 12:09:27 AM
I also think fire and debris didn't bring it down.

Is Hulsey crazy?

Are all building collapses free fall?

Is Hulsey crazy?   He is for getting paid by a group with an agenda which revolves around making money by pushing conspiracy.

No not all building collapses are free fall,  and just because a collapse is free fall doesn't mean controlled demolition. 


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 29, 2017, 12:15:58 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 29, 2017, 12:11:36 AM
Free-fall means no structural resistance.

Can you explain why wtc 7 had no structural resistance?

I can.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 29, 2017, 12:16:31 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 29, 2017, 12:11:36 AM
Free-fall means no structural resistance.

Can you explain why wtc 7 had no structural resistance?

Yes.  it's been covered by myself and others in this thread,  why don't you try reading the replies for a change instead of pissing everyone off with continually spamming the same stuff.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 29, 2017, 12:17:42 AM
Please cite where you explained why wtc 7 had no structural resistance.

The NIST report doesn't cover it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 29, 2017, 12:20:57 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 29, 2017, 12:17:42 AM
Please cite where you explained why wtc 7 had no structural resistance.

The NIST report doesn't cover it.

No,  why don't you tell us why you think it was controlled demolition.   Please offer some real evidence rather than just your personal opionion or speculation.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 29, 2017, 12:22:40 AM
I think it was a CD because of collapse symmetry and fall acceleration.

Quote from: disputeone on March 29, 2017, 12:17:42 AM
Please cite where you explained why wtc 7 had no structural resistance.

The NIST report doesn't cover it.

If you cant just admit it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sceptimatic on March 29, 2017, 12:28:46 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 29, 2017, 12:10:49 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 29, 2017, 12:02:37 AM
Why didn't the structure provide any structural resistance as it collapsed? Surely you aren't saying that all building collapses are freefall?

No,  but just because it was free fall doesn't automatically mean it was controlled demolition.   That's the logical flaw in your argument that I pointed out about 100 pages ago,  and many times since.
It was a full on steel framed building, like a grid. They do not collapse into their own footprint/basement unless two things happen.

1. A big godzilla appears that is so huge, it actually makes the tower look like a marshmallow against it's foot. Godzilla then stamps on the tower and bang we have a top down symmetrical type collapse into it's own basement.

2. Someone pre-planned, over many months or even years, a controlled demolition of the building.


There is one more possibility. It's as extreme as the Godzilla one but, here goes.

They attached two huge jump type leads to the bottom of the steel supports and sent juice into the tower which made all the structural steel glow then melt, shattering the concrete as it does this, then all the steel just melts and falls at near free fall speed,as the concrete pulverises more.


I feel a bit silly here but I'm going to hazard a guess that number 2 could be the reason.
What does everyone else think?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Twerp on March 29, 2017, 12:30:04 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 29, 2017, 12:02:37 AM
Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on March 28, 2017, 11:47:10 PM
Did some light reading on WTC7 building yesterday. Reading from some personal accounts of firefighters, it seems super unlikely that the building was purposely dropped.
It seems WTC7 was almost completely evacuated by the fire department before it collapsed. There where not even firefighters inside because a collapse due to fire and structural damage seemed imminent. So they cleared the area for quite a while before the building fell. This does not sound like sabotage.

It all makes for interesting reading.

No one is arguing it shouldn't have collapsed at all.

Just not a 2.25 second symmetrical freefall.

Quote from: Rayzor on March 28, 2017, 11:45:17 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 11:12:34 PM
Back on topic, I hope someone can address this, it's been up for grabs since page one.

Should be easy.

Quote from: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 08:45:48 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 06:52:03 PM
You haven't attempted to explain why the building provided no structural resistance for 2.25 seconds.

Would you like to try?

Enlighten me.

Taking shots at my mental health isn't an answer.

I did say I wouldn't answer your dumb question for the n'th time.   But I will,  If you promise to  never ask again.   Listen Carefully...

IT WAS  FALLING DOWN,   COLLAPSING.   I HAVE VIDEO EVIDENCE PROVING THAT FACT.


Now ask it again,  I dare you to show us all how deranged you really are.


Why didn't the structure provide any structural resistance as it collapsed? Surely you aren't saying that all building collapses are freefall?

Can you at least see what I am saying Boots?

Yeah I watched the video you posted about that. Mostly I'm just waiting to see if someone has a good answer for it. But I agree that so far I haven't seen much. Totes said it wasn't necessarily impossible for there to be negligible resistance for that two second period. I was hoping to see more discussion on that. "It was collapsing" doesn't seem like much of an answer since the question is why is it collapsing at free-fall. I'm not sure which video Rayzor is referring to but I would take a look at it if I knew where it was.

Is this Hulsey investigation going to have credibility when it's complete? I would be very interested in the results of a peer reviewed report. Especially if it was reviewed by scientists who weren't already leaning toward whichever conclusion the report points to.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 29, 2017, 12:31:51 AM
We can't rule out Godzilla yet scepti.

;D ;D

Hulseys work will show clearly what had to happen to cause the collapse we saw. It will 100% be peer reviwed and scrutinized fully. They are following the scientific method to a T.

Thanks mate.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 29, 2017, 12:49:30 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 29, 2017, 12:22:40 AM
I think it was a CD because of collapse symmetry and fall acceleration.

Quote from: disputeone on March 29, 2017, 12:17:42 AM
Please cite where you explained why wtc 7 had no structural resistance.

The NIST report doesn't cover it.

If you cant just admit it.

That's just your opinion,  what you need is evidence,  all the available evidence says it collapsed due to debris damage and fire.   If you want to prove that it was controlled demolition you need proof not opinions.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 29, 2017, 12:57:00 AM
Quote from: Boots on March 29, 2017, 12:30:04 AM

Yeah I watched the video you posted about that. Mostly I'm just waiting to see if someone has a good answer for it. But I agree that so far I haven't seen much. Totes said it wasn't necessarily impossible for there to be negligible resistance for that two second period. I was hoping to see more discussion on that. "It was collapsing" doesn't seem like much of an answer since the question is why is it collapsing at free-fall. I'm not sure which video Rayzor is referring to but I would take a look at it if I knew where it was.

Is this Hulsey investigation going to have credibility when it's complete? I would be very interested in the results of a peer reviewed report. Especially if it was reviewed by scientists who weren't already leaning toward whichever conclusion the report points to.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1duxy_911-nbc-predicts-wtc7-collapse_news

Hulsey said in a progress review that the debris damage was minimal and the fires were small office fires and burnt out in 20 minutes. 




Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 29, 2017, 12:57:24 AM
Hulsey is working on proof be patient.

Quote from: disputeone on March 29, 2017, 12:17:42 AM
Please cite where you explained why wtc 7 had no structural resistance.

The NIST report doesn't cover it.

Please try to answer, we all want to know.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 29, 2017, 01:11:31 AM
Please answer Rayzor.

Why did wtc 7 have no structural resistance for 2.25 seconds?

Everyone wants an answer.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 29, 2017, 01:20:08 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 29, 2017, 01:11:31 AM
Please answer Rayzor.

Why did wtc 7 have no structural resistance for 2.25 seconds?

Everyone wants an answer.

Sigh?  I've change my mind,  you are worse than crazy,  you are retarded as well,   

ANSWER:  The structure supporting the building collapsed.  Collapsing == no structural resistance.



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 29, 2017, 01:23:09 AM
Please don't call me crazy. I really, really, don't like it.

Please try to answer the question.

Quote from: disputeone on March 29, 2017, 01:11:31 AM
Please answer Rayzor.

Why did wtc 7 have no structural resistance for 2.25 seconds?

Everyone wants an answer.

Collapse doesn't equal no structural resistance. Wtc 7 collapsed slower than free fall towards the end because of structural resistance. Not all collapses are at free-fall. Very few actually.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 29, 2017, 01:30:15 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 29, 2017, 01:23:09 AM
Please don't call me crazy. I really, really, don't like it.

Please try to answer the question.

Quote from: disputeone on March 29, 2017, 01:11:31 AM
Please answer Rayzor.

Why did wtc 7 have no structural resistance for 2.25 seconds?

Everyone wants an answer.

Collapse doesn't equal no structural resistance. Wtc 7 collapsed slower than free fall towards the end because of structural resistance. Not all collapses are at free-fall. Very few actually.

You've got nothing but prejudice and delusional thinking left to support a controlled demolition for WTC7,  not to even mention that it would make no sense to anyone but a crazed conspiracy theorist like you to demolish a building teetering on the verge of collapse.  Think about that for a minute or two.   

911 truthers are as bad if not worse than flat earthers in their logical thought processes.

Free fall does not mean controlled demoliton

Let's see if purple 36 point makes it into your tiny brain...

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 29, 2017, 03:10:36 AM
You are hysterical and embarrassing yourself. We can continue this later.

Quote from: Boots on March 29, 2017, 12:30:04 AM
I'm just waiting to see if someone has a good answer for it. But I agree that so far I haven't seen much. Totes said it wasn't necessarily impossible for there to be negligible resistance for that two second period. I was hoping to see more discussion on that. "It was collapsing" doesn't seem like much of an answer since the question is why is it collapsing at free-fall.

Address my points at your leisure Rayzor.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 29, 2017, 03:12:08 AM
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on March 29, 2017, 03:50:00 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 29, 2017, 12:10:49 AM
No,  but just because it was free fall doesn't automatically mean it was controlled demolition.   That's the logical flaw in your argument that I pointed out about 100 pages ago,  and many times since.
So, there should be plenty of real-life examples of buildings in free fall due to fire/debris damage.

I would love to see your references/examples!

Thanks!
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 29, 2017, 05:03:31 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 29, 2017, 01:20:08 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 29, 2017, 01:11:31 AM
Please answer Rayzor.

Why did wtc 7 have no structural resistance for 2.25 seconds?

Everyone wants an answer.

Sigh?  I've change my mind,  you are worse than crazy,  you are retarded as well,   

ANSWER:  The structure supporting the building collapsed.  Collapsing == no structural resistance.

You are such a fucking piece of shit... Seriously....Meet up with him faggot.

He has tried to be nice after him and boots spoke....He even explained why he hated being called crazy. Anyone...I repeat ANYONE with a shred of humanity would not call him crazy after learning the real reason he hated it. Yet you continue on and on calling him that.

You are such a fucking loser nobody, that is all you have.....Sorry boots, I know what you were saying, but I could care less about the 9/11 debate with rayzor...People like him just need an ass kicking. It's all they understand, however, even that is unlikely for a troll like this.

I wish there was an IQ limit for this thread...That would at a minimum exclude rayzor....Fucking pathetic loser.

Oh...And your argument of "it was falling"..Shows that you are attempting to over use that double digit IQ of yours. Quiet, adults are talking... Pathetic
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 29, 2017, 05:18:28 AM
Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on March 28, 2017, 11:47:10 PM
Did some light reading on WTC7 building yesterday. Reading from some personal accounts of firefighters, it seems super unlikely that the building was purposely dropped.
It seems WTC7 was almost completely evacuated by the fire department before it collapsed. There where not even firefighters inside because a collapse due to fire and structural damage seemed imminent. So they cleared the area for quite a while before the building fell. This does not sound like sabotage.

It all makes for interesting reading.

We'll keep in mind, the firefighters had just seen two impossibilities (1 and 2 collapse)...They were scared all the buildings were going to collapse. Especially 6 and 4... They didn't know what to say or do, just imagine losing so many friends and co-workers​ at one time in something that has never happened before. Especially when right before they collapsed they were reporting the fires were under control and on their way out.

So all buildings were suspect, I would do the same thing. Plus 6 and 4 were destroyed compared to 7...Though they were afraid of collapse, they did not.

Also, I don't know how fire fighters are in South Africa, what training or qualifications/power they have. Here though, they don't have the power/qualifications or training to make a call on a building. For example, the most recent fire I went to here (4 story condo, concrete base, wood exoskeleton, steel spine), burned for almost 3 days. Firefighters kept everone out, fought the fire from the outside and played the control game while it extinguished itself.

After it was finally out, they had one portion of the structure that the upper 2 stories collapsed, other than that it was "intact"...So at that point, yes first responders kept people (including fire fighters) from entering. However, they had no power to make a call about anything. That is when they called my self and a few others to come make the call. After a few days of investigation, we unfortunately had to make the call of condemning it. It is a tough call you cannot take lightly, excluding you are saying to everyone they aren't getting one piece of their personal belongings back. There was also a possible fatality involved. We attempted a drone search..Well anyways.

The point...That is the way power of command works here. Firefighters fight the fires. They make no calls on anything else
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on March 29, 2017, 05:21:15 AM
Some more light reading  here, its a summery of the NIST document.  (https://www.nist.gov/el/faqs-nist-wtc-7-investigation)

I dont think there is much reason to think the NIST study is dramatically wrong in their assessment.
Rayzor is correct, just because a building fell at free fall for a portion of its total collapse time, does not mean that there was demolition involved. Total collapse time was about 10 seconds, you are only disputing 2,5 seconds.

Further more, from the reports, the building collapsed internally first, then pulled the external skin down with it. From the videos you see a free fall only after a major structural collapse has already happened. Meaning you are only seeing the collapse of the external skin. Once columns have buckled they produce very little if any vertical support, this is probably where your 2,5 seconds of free fall happen.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on March 29, 2017, 05:41:10 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 29, 2017, 05:18:28 AM
We'll keep in mind, the firefighters had just seen two impossibilities (1 and 2 collapse)...They were scared all the buildings were going to collapse. Especially 6 and 4... They didn't know what to say or do, just imagine losing so many friends and co-workers​ at one time in something that has never happened before. Especially when right before they collapsed they were reporting the fires were under control and on their way out.

So all buildings were suspect, I would do the same thing. Plus 6 and 4 were destroyed compared to 7...Though they were afraid of collapse, they did not.

Also, I don't know how fire fighters are in South Africa, what training or qualifications/power they have. Here though, they don't have the power/qualifications or training to make a call on a building. For example, the most recent fire I went to here (4 story condo, concrete base, wood exoskeleton, steel spine), burned for almost 3 days. Firefighters kept everone out, fought the fire from the outside and played the control game while it extinguished itself.

After it was finally out, they had one portion of the structure that the upper 2 stories collapsed, other than that it was "intact"...So at that point, yes first responders kept people (including fire fighters) from entering. However, they had no power to make a call about anything. That is when they called my self and a few others to come make the call. After a few days of investigation, we unfortunately had to make the call of condemning it. It is a tough call you cannot take lightly, excluding you are saying to everyone they aren't getting one piece of their personal belongings back. There was also a possible fatality involved. We attempted a drone search..Well anyways.

The point...That is the way power of command works here. Firefighters fight the fires. They make no calls on anything else

During a fire, the fire fighters make all the calls. Health and safety comes first. Obviously afterwards engineers do assessments. You are probably right, they probably just cleared everyone from the buildings after 1&2 fell. Somewhere I read they just evacuated the whole area anyway.

Yeah, I had to condemn an entire prison complex a while back. We still have some legacy apartheid buildings here that are not fit for occupation. It was not a hard call and I did not feel bad doing it, prisoners are human too.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 29, 2017, 05:53:38 AM
Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on March 29, 2017, 05:21:15 AM
Some more light reading  here, its a summery of the NIST document.  (https://www.nist.gov/el/faqs-nist-wtc-7-investigation)

I dont think there is much reason to think the NIST study is dramatically wrong in their assessment.
Rayzor is correct, just because a building fell at free fall for a portion of its total collapse time, does not mean that there was demolition involved. Total collapse time was about 10 seconds, you are only disputing 2,5 seconds.

Further more, from the reports, the building collapsed internally first, then pulled the external skin down with it. From the videos you see a free fall only after a major structural collapse has already happened. Meaning you are only seeing the collapse of the external skin. Once columns have buckled they produce very little if any vertical support, this is probably where your 2,5 seconds of free fall happen.

I am fully aware of the NIST report, the content, and their "conclusion"... Yes an entire column buckling provides little resistance (that is the whole point of a demo, removing sections so the building can maintain enough velocity to demolish the sections that are not removed), however, one column compromised on one floor (this is giving NIST credit this happened) is not going to produce the result we saw visually.

 I am fully aware of the core collapsing in a second before the rest of the building (we saw the penthouse reaction) also the total time being around 6.5-7 seconds...This is exactly what I would expect to see from Completely removing the core. Bedrock anchors removal first (upper and lower shaped charges, 10 meter spaced Vertical) we have the penthouse drop..

Then remove the mid 80 percent of the mids and corners, alternating on the other (this will also removed the spandle plates attached to the core) (we saw concussive markers just at these areas, what they are is speculation. They are certainly not floor compression because they were only at strategic locations, as well as was seen during its time of free fall..Very damning in my eyes)..Leave the floors attached to the Exoskeleton, as the core collapses (and it will as the Exoskeleton was for sheer not vertical load, that was the main job of the core) the exoskeleton will follow the path of the core like a wilting flower.

This will only work with removing all necessary components of the core, not making one support hot on one floor...It is 100 percent impossible to solidify what we saw with what we are supposed to accept the cause to be.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 29, 2017, 06:01:54 AM
Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on March 29, 2017, 05:41:10 AM
During a fire, the fire fighters make all the calls. Health and safety comes first. .

Oh absolutely, for public safety. That is all the calls they can make though. They cannot make a call on what a structure will do, they cannot demo a building or anything else.

Just as they did at my most recent example...They got everyone the hell away, deal with the details later. They made the call to not fight any more of the fires, just play containment and keep your distance. Plus, imagine how jumpy you would be in the situation, just saw two 110 story buildings come down when the fire was under control...Many of your friends and colleagues was inside.

That is why I used my most recent example, because it was close the the 9/11 situation. A fire got to the point where the fire fighters said it was to dangerous to try and put the fire out...So they just played containment and let it burn out...They didn't "measure the walls" or "start getting it ready to demo" like you hear so much disinformation on. They got everyone the hell away (including themselves) played containment and that's it.

Then they call people like me to come make the calls of what to do with the building, if it's safe for investigators to enter etc etc.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 29, 2017, 06:11:23 AM
Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on March 29, 2017, 05:21:15 AM

Further more, from the reports, the building collapsed internally first, then pulled the external skin down with it. From the videos you see a free fall only after a major structural collapse has already happened. Meaning you are only seeing the collapse of the external skin. Once columns have buckled they produce very little if any vertical support, this is probably where your 2,5 seconds of free fall happen.

The reports do not reflect reality MaNaeSWolf we can see that the majority of the internal structure is intact at the point of free fall.



This is clearly shown by their model which barely achieved collapse even leaving out the concrete fire proofing and neglecting key structural elements with their model.



This is not an acceptable model, it doesn't nearly reflect reality, the inputs are classified and was never peer reviewed or even properly scrutinized until recently.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 29, 2017, 06:35:14 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 29, 2017, 05:03:31 AM

You are such a fucking piece of shit... Seriously....Meet up with him faggot.

He has tried to be nice after him and boots spoke....He even explained why he hated being called crazy. Anyone...I repeat ANYONE with a shred of humanity would not call him crazy after learning the real reason he hated it. Yet you continue on and on calling him that.

You are such a fucking loser nobody, that is all you have.....Sorry boots, I know what you were saying, but I could care less about the 9/11 debate with rayzor...People like him just need an ass kicking. It's all they understand, however, even that is unlikely for a troll like this.

I wish there was an IQ limit for this thread...That would at a minimum exclude rayzor....Fucking pathetic loser.

Oh...And your argument of "it was falling"..Shows that you are attempting to over use that double digit IQ of yours. Quiet, adults are talking... Pathetic

Nice,  just not really the sort of logical argument I would expect from someone with an engineering degree.   You will later accuse me of ad hominem attacks,  and  I'll remind you I sometimes respond in kind.

I actually agree I wish there was an IQ limit for this thread,  dipstick one wouldn't make the grade.   He just can't stop himself from spamming the thread with the same crap.  Maybe he's OCD as well as loopy.

I wonder what his friends and relatives think when he complains that some anonymous person on a flat earth forum thinks he is a conspiracy fruitcake.   I can only  guess what they might think..

I'll make a deal,  if he stops continuously spamming the thread with his brain damaged "free fall" crap,  I'll stop calling his sanity into question.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on March 29, 2017, 06:49:01 AM
Quote from: Boots on March 29, 2017, 12:30:04 AM
Totes said it wasn't necessarily impossible for there to be negligible resistance for that two second period. I was hoping to see more discussion on that. "It was collapsing" doesn't seem like much of an answer since the question is why is it collapsing at free-fall.

MaNaeSWolf sums up my opinion well:

Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on March 29, 2017, 05:21:15 AM
Further more, from the reports, the building collapsed internally first, then pulled the external skin down with it. From the videos you see a free fall only after a major structural collapse has already happened. Meaning you are only seeing the collapse of the external skin. Once columns have buckled they produce very little if any vertical support, this is probably where your 2,5 seconds of free fall happen.

If you want some actual numbers, you might be able to estimate the "structural resistance" using the bending moment of the exterior steel columns. The answer won't be anywhere near precise, but you might be able to get an order-of-magnitude estimate. Good luck! (I don't have much free time this week, so I can't do it now. If no one else tries, I might do it in a week or two.)

Here is how the exterior buckled according to the NIST:

(http://ae911truth.info/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Floors-7-14-Buckling.png)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 29, 2017, 06:54:35 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 29, 2017, 06:35:14 AM
not really the sort of logical argument I would expect from someone with an engineering degree.   You will later accuse me of ad hominem attacks,  and  I'll remind you I sometimes respond in kind.

I actually agree I wish there was an IQ limit for this thread,  dipstick one wouldn't make the grade.   He just can't stop himself from spamming the thread with the same crap.  Maybe he's OCD as well as loopy.

I wonder what his friends and relatives think when he complains that some anonymous person on a flat earth forum thinks he is a conspiracy fruitcake.   I can only  guess what they might think..

I'll make a deal,  if he stops continuously spamming the thread with his brain damaged "free fall" crap,  I'll stop calling his sanity into question.

It's low brow, uneducated, as well as warranted in this situation. Reread my post to you. You crossed the line...no more of your stuttering back talk...You have lost all humanity in my eyes, worthless would be an understatement. (That white stuff that builds up on the side of your mouth when you are hot has more purpose)

After he explained the back story of being called crazy you should have ceased and desist at that very moment (as any human with a shred of humanity inside them would) with using that phrase.

Yet you continued, even now...Keep going on and on...

I have not a name to call you that is suiting...Just lower than human, or even a basic mammal I suppose. I am sure it will mean nothing to someone as yourself....I don't expect it to.

It would be great if you just left this place...No one would miss you, though I doubt I, or the forum in general, would be so lucky. I just get depressed when I am constantly reminded "people" like you do Actually exist.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on March 29, 2017, 06:56:20 AM
Babyhighspeed - I completely agree that this building could have been dropped just as shown with controlled demolition. But I am not convinced that a complete collapse was impossible due to fire.
I do agree that it is unusual and unlikely.
The firefighters absolutely did not do a structural analysis of the building before its collapse, they would not have a clue what to look for.

When I look at Disputeone's videos, there is a strong relationship between the video you see and the computer simulation. Pause the first video at 1:35 and play back with the simulation. I think the simulation is a good indication of what could have happened. The penthouse(?) disappears following with clear buckling of the facade right under it before the collapse started. clearly, as Babyhighspeed also mentions, the core was stripped out first.
What surprises me is that the other section of the building also collapsed. I would have expected the collapse to stop at the 0:29 seconds mark in the simulation, and then the rest of the building should keep standing from that point forward.
What was mentioned in the report was lateral movement of an entire floor structure. If one whole floor area had significant horizontal movement, moving the connection points between beam and columns in any horizontal direction far enough, all the columns above that point would lose their base. It would be similar to removing one (2 actually, 1 row above and 1 row below) whole floor of columns. This is mentioned in the report, and recommends that future designs allow for more slip joints on primary beams.

Babyhighspeed what would happen to any multistory building if you pushed the bases of all the columns on one floor horizontally in any one direction? You will need some serious cross bracing to keep the building together.

Disclaimer* I have not read the entire report, so it is possible you know whats in it a lot better than I do.
I just find this interesting.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 29, 2017, 06:57:44 AM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 29, 2017, 06:49:01 AM
Quote from: Boots on March 29, 2017, 12:30:04 AM
Totes said it wasn't necessarily impossible for there to be negligible resistance for that two second period. I was hoping to see more discussion on that. "It was collapsing" doesn't seem like much of an answer since the question is why is it collapsing at free-fall.

MaNaeSWolf sums up my opinion well:

Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on March 29, 2017, 05:21:15 AM
Further more, from the reports, the building collapsed internally first, then pulled the external skin down with it. From the videos you see a free fall only after a major structural collapse has already happened. Meaning you are only seeing the collapse of the external skin. Once columns have buckled they produce very little if any vertical support, this is probably where your 2,5 seconds of free fall happen.

If you want some actual numbers, you might be able to estimate the "structural resistance" using the bending moment of the exterior steel columns. The answer won't be anywhere near precise, but you might be able to get an order-of-magnitude estimate. Good luck! (I don't have much free time this week, so I can't do it now. If no one else tries, I might do it in a week or two.)

Here is how the exterior buckled according to the NIST:

(http://ae911truth.info/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Floors-7-14-Buckling.png)


There is absolutely no evidence to support that buckling conclusion Totes, can you see how that conclusion from NIST goes against all video evidence.

It is merely an assertion by NIST.

I am not sure why you parrot it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 29, 2017, 07:00:44 AM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 29, 2017, 06:49:01 AM


Please don't interrupt or start deflecting, or anything of the sort. I am enjoying the conversation with wolf...He is the first one to come in that has the qualifications needed to discuss (funny he has understood every word I have said unlike you people)..He is also discussing, not deflecting, name calling, ad hominems, twisting, lies etc etc...Direct answer for direct answer.

I am thoroughly enjoying it...This is all I wanted, too bad it took a 100 pages, but I will take it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 29, 2017, 07:01:24 AM
It was a lateral movement of column 79 which caused a beam to slide off a girder MaNaeSWolf  according to the NIST report, there was certainly no lateral movement of an entire floor.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on March 29, 2017, 07:02:21 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 29, 2017, 06:57:44 AM
There is absolutely no evidence to support that buckling conclusion Totes, can you see how that conclusion from NIST goes against all video evidence.

I haven't seen any videos of the base of the tower as it is collapsing. Too much dust. If you have any, I would love to see it.

@babyhighspeed: I wasn't talking to you, nor did I do any of the things you accused me of.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 29, 2017, 07:05:12 AM
All the video evidence that isn't classified is on youtube totes.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on March 29, 2017, 07:08:15 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 29, 2017, 07:05:12 AM
All the video evidence that isn't classified is on youtube totes.

Great. And I've looked through a lot of it. Again, I haven't seen any videos of the base of the tower as it is collapsing. If you have, feel free to link to it or something.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 29, 2017, 07:12:40 AM
I agree there is absolutely no evidence to support that buckling conclusion.

That's what I said, thanks for clarifying.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on March 29, 2017, 07:18:42 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 29, 2017, 07:01:24 AM
It was a lateral movement of column 79 which caused a beam to slide off a girder MaNaeSWolf  according to the NIST report, there was certainly no lateral movement of an entire floor.
Yes, I caught that. They claim that is what started it. Obviously I have not gone through every detail of the simulation, few have.
This is what happens after this happens
1 - By dropping one column, and one section of floor, the floors above have no support at that point.
*here I am going to mention that a lot of designs would have been able to brace well enough for the forces above to transfer across to other surrounding columns, this was probably not the case here
2 - By dropping that one point, the connection between the above column and connecting beams move down.
3 - When the beams move down in the central point, the connection between beam and alternate supporting column pivots and moves inward towards the center.
4 - This shift the entire floor towards the center with the main beams. (this is what I mean by moving an entire floor laterally)
5 - as this happens the columns next to the central column (79) are no longer vertical, but at a slight (and increasing) angle, this rapidly reduces their ability to support a load.
6 - this effect cascades outwards.

Basically a house of cards falling down.
What is strange to me, is that most modern designs have cross bracing, that "should" have prevented this total collapse. One column failing is usually not enough.
That said, I am not letting this out into the realm of impossible yet.

I just realized that my above "illistration' might be a bit unclear', so ask if I need more clarity
Edited for some clarity
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 29, 2017, 07:22:15 AM
Thanks nah you were perfectly clear, I'm nowhere near the level of you or Bhs on this but I've done a fair bit of reading.

One column failing is absolutely not usually enough.

Especially not for a symmetrical free-fall collapse.

You have been the best poster for the O/S yet, I hope Hulseys model will help clarify what actually happened. Especially during peer review.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 29, 2017, 07:23:10 AM
Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on March 29, 2017, 06:56:20 AM
Babyhighspeed - I completely agree that this building could have been dropped just as shown with controlled demolition. But I am not convinced that a complete collapse was impossible due to fire.
I do agree that it is unusual and unlikely.
The firefighters absolutely did not do a structural analysis of the building before its collapse, they would not have a clue what to look for.

When I look at Disputeone's videos, there is a strong relationship between the video you see and the computer simulation. Pause the first video at 1:35 and play back with the simulation. I think the simulation is a good indication of what could have happened. The penthouse(?) disappears following with clear buckling of the facade right under it before the collapse started. clearly, as Babyhighspeed also mentions, the core was stripped out first.
What surprises me is that the other section of the building also collapsed. I would have expected the collapse to stop at the 0:29 seconds mark in the simulation, and then the rest of the building should keep standing from that point forward.
What was mentioned in the report was lateral movement of an entire floor structure. If one whole floor area had significant horizontal movement, moving the connection points between beam and columns in any horizontal direction far enough, all the columns above that point would lose their base. It would be similar to removing one (2 actually, 1 row above and 1 row below) whole floor of columns. This is mentioned in the report, and recommends that future designs allow for more slip joints on primary beams.

Babyhighspeed what would happen to any multistory building if you pushed the bases of all the columns on one floor horizontally in any one direction? You will need some serious cross bracing to keep the building together.

Disclaimer* I have not read the entire report, so it is possible you know whats in it a lot better than I do.
I just find this interesting.

You can add 20 slip joints and that won't compensate for a foot of horizontal movement lol...You are still going to have a serious Structural issue, and even a possibility of a localized collapse failure.

Ok..I see we can agree my very brief explanation, (I actually have more detailed descriptions in this thread if I can dig them up) is an accurate representation of how the building would be demoed, as well as what we saw would be an accurate representation of a building that did get CDed.

We can also agree it would be unlikely if not impossible for a localized fire to emulate a controlled demolition.

So we can step from there for a moment....Let's move the discussion, could a localized fire, in the manor according to NIST have emulated a controlled demolition.

Let's look at the beam moving horizontally they say moved (almost 6 inches) at the floor proposed. We can determine​ it was not multiple, as multiples would have shown an Exoskeleton reaction.

Actually, let's move to this first. On the NIST model they showed the floors collapsing having a detrimental effect upon the overall Vertical and compression stability of the building. This alone is Incorrect, let's say we had floors collapse, the core would become vertically stronger with each missing floor.

Now...If we kept dumping floors (say 85 percent or more) then yes, the core could collapse in a multitude of directs (not into its own foot print) as it would have lost too much of it's sheer protection of the Exoskeleton. However, this would have obviously looked entirely different than what we saw. Nor do I predict an entire building collapse... Also, remember, the lower 20 of the core, since it was boxed supported could have stood without the Exoskeleton (it would obviously had to have ditched the floors)

I am trying to stay with only one or two subjects per post, since the subject matter is so big.


As for your question at the end...If you pushed ALL core columns one floor horizontally past the 20th floor, collapse, no argument. Even at the base, 95 percent collapse. Though this would not be possible with the NIST model.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 29, 2017, 07:32:53 AM
Wolf As to your comment to dispute...yes, there were cross sected supports through the entire core. The upper 20 were cross sected up to the floor below the penthouse.

Now the lower 20, they changed the columns and supports all together. They went to boxed I beams for the columns, was about 15 times the density of the upper core, they were cross sectioned AND a complete seperate box frame.

This was the first thing that tipped me off to the NIST model...They say the failure occured here?? Especially one beam? I see this entirely impossible, as do models I and others have ran..I am sure this is why they won't release their inputs.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on March 29, 2017, 07:42:45 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 29, 2017, 07:32:53 AM
Wolf As to your comment to dispute...yes, there were cross sected supports through the entire core. The upper 20 were cross sected up to the floor below the penthouse.

Now the lower 20, they changed the columns and supports all together. They went to boxed I beams for the columns, was about 15 times the density of the upper core, they were cross sectioned AND a complete seperate box frame.

This was the first thing that tipped me off to the NIST model...They say the failure occured here?? Especially one beam? I see this entirely impossible, as do models I and others have ran..I am sure this is why they won't release their inputs.

The structure you describe is what I would have expected from a basic modern designed high rise at WTC7. This is also why it is strange to me. The simulated collapse looks like a completely un-braced domino structure building.
Ill see if I can do some more reading. But unlikely that Ill be back too soon, have loads of work to now catch up thanks to this subject.

Was fun chatting, I hope you guys don't kill each other before I come back.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 29, 2017, 07:47:31 AM
Thanks Wolf it's been great.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 29, 2017, 07:52:40 AM
Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on March 29, 2017, 07:42:45 AM
The structure you describe is what I would have expected from a basic modern designed high rise at WTC7. This is also why it is strange to me. The simulated collapse looks like a completely un-braced domino structure building.
Ill see if I can do some more reading. But unlikely that Ill be back too soon, have loads of work to now catch up thanks to this subject.

Was fun chatting, I hope you guys don't kill each other before I come back.

NOOO!!! My only source of reasonable, educated and direct conversation!! What the Lord giveth, the Lord taketh away  >:(

Just messing with you, come back anytime.

As for your assumption of the model, that was mine as well obviously. However, they needed to make it look as close to the actual collapse as possible. Since the actual collapse obviously had the complete core removed with zero resistance, they had little option​ in their model I suppose. Hence their statement they would never release the inputs... I wouldn't either if I were them obviously.

It was also obvious just from watching the model, how many inputs they left out. Even something basic such as shift in core density and rigidity, connection tension, thermal load sharing etc etc etc..

I would have been given a hard F if I presented that to a professor.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Denspressure on March 29, 2017, 08:08:23 AM
If Babyhighspeed gets eaten he will just be reincarnated as an alt.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 29, 2017, 08:32:45 AM
Quote from: Denspressure on March 29, 2017, 08:08:23 AM
If Babyhighspeed gets eaten he will just be reincarnated as an alt.

Lol...Yep like magic.

Will just be incarnated into the denspressure machine...Just ask hoppy and jroa  ;D
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on March 29, 2017, 09:17:15 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 29, 2017, 12:49:30 AM
That's just your opinion,  what you need is evidence,  all the available evidence says it collapsed due to debris damage and fire.   If you want to prove that it was controlled demolition you need proof not opinions.

All the available evidence does not point collapse due to debris and fire.

There is the fact that buildings made of steel and concrete do not collapse in and on themselves due to debris and fire.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on March 29, 2017, 09:19:08 AM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 29, 2017, 06:49:01 AM

Here is how the exterior buckled according to the NIST:

(http://ae911truth.info/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Floors-7-14-Buckling.png)

Absolutely zero evidence for the NIST to even publish this model.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on March 29, 2017, 09:23:41 AM
Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on March 29, 2017, 05:21:15 AM
Some more light reading  here, its a summery of the NIST document.  (https://www.nist.gov/el/faqs-nist-wtc-7-investigation)

I dont think there is much reason to think the NIST study is dramatically wrong in their assessment.
Rayzor is correct, just because a building fell at free fall for a portion of its total collapse time, does not mean that there was demolition involved. Total collapse time was about 10 seconds, you are only disputing 2,5 seconds.

Further more, from the reports, the building collapsed internally first, then pulled the external skin down with it. From the videos you see a free fall only after a major structural collapse has already happened. Meaning you are only seeing the collapse of the external skin. Once columns have buckled they produce very little if any vertical support, this is probably where your 2,5 seconds of free fall happen.

Thanks for the paper.

Here is one piece of bull cookies discovered within:

"The symmetric appearance of the downward fall of WTC 7 was primarily due to the greater stiffness and strength of its exterior frame relative to the interior framing."

This sentence alone is pure and utter bullshit.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Denspressure on March 29, 2017, 01:09:37 PM
I guess this is CGI too because it looks unlikely?

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 29, 2017, 05:08:15 PM
Quote from: totallackey on March 29, 2017, 09:17:15 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 29, 2017, 12:49:30 AM
That's just your opinion,  what you need is evidence,  all the available evidence says it collapsed due to debris damage and fire.   If you want to prove that it was controlled demolition you need proof not opinions.

All the available evidence does not point collapse due to debris and fire.
Um,  yes it does,   there is video and photographic as well as numerous witness statements testifying to the damage caused by debris from WTC1 and the subsequent fires. 
Whereas there is no evidence of controlled demolition,  none,  zip,  nada,  that parrot won't zoom with a million volts.

Quote from: totallackey on March 29, 2017, 09:17:15 AM
There is the fact that buildings made of steel and concrete do not collapse in and on themselves due to debris and fire.

This one did.   

The only plausible argument for controlled demolition is opinion based not evidence based.  The dipstickone arguments,  "it looked like a controlled demolition"  the brain damaged "free fall"  "loss of structural resistance"  arguments.

Not to mention for the nth time that there is no logic in demoing a building already on the verge of collapse.

So,  no evidence,   no logic,   no hidden conspiracy  then the crazies start with the personal attacks,  easy to see why that is, they've got nothing else.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 29, 2017, 05:14:10 PM
There is plenty of evidence in the building design alone.

The building wasn't "teetering on collapse" firemen aren't qualified to make that call. No structural analysis was done before collapse you have no right to make that claim

We have a PhD engineer, a talented and experienced architect and a very good fitter all explaining why total loss of structural resistance is impossible for wtc 7.

MaNaeSWolf explained it very well. He didn't need ad hominems he debated like an experienced professional. You should take notes.

Wasn't it funny that MaNaeSWolf and Bhs could debate like two professionals in their fields?

Seemed like everything Bhs and Myself made perfect sense to an architect.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 29, 2017, 05:18:07 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 29, 2017, 07:32:53 AM
Wolf As to your comment to dispute...yes, there were cross sected supports through the entire core. The upper 20 were cross sected up to the floor below the penthouse.

Now the lower 20, they changed the columns and supports all together. They went to boxed I beams for the columns, was about 15 times the density of the upper core, they were cross sectioned AND a complete seperate box frame.

This was the first thing that tipped me off to the NIST model...They say the failure occured here?? Especially one beam? I see this entirely impossible, as do models I and others have ran..I am sure this is why they won't release their inputs.

Time for the word game of the day,  what new word did Babybullshit just introduce into structural engineering?

A special prize for the first person to translate "sected"  into something that has meaning.

"Sected"?
"Cross sectioned"?  did he mean cross braced?  some internal bracing in the boxed columns?   Who the fuck knows?
"Column Density" instead of tensile strength?   Or did he mean 15 times the number of columns,  you can only guess what he really meant

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 29, 2017, 05:20:01 PM
Wow a typo.

Cross sectioned.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_section_(geometry)

Quote
the intersection of a body in 3D space with a plane, or the analog in higher-dimensional space. Cutting an object into slices creates many parallel cross sections. A cross section of 3D space that is parallel to two of the axes is a contour line

What do I win?

Please stop what you are doing.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 29, 2017, 05:22:15 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 29, 2017, 05:20:01 PM
Wow a typo.

Cross sectioned.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross_section_(geometry)

What do I win?

Please stop what you are doing.

Now tell me what cross sectioned means in this context. 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 29, 2017, 05:24:29 PM
It means the tower was braced horizontally and vertically, even cross braced at 45° angles.

Read some structural engineering.

The only people calling Bhs a fraud have no right to.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 29, 2017, 05:25:43 PM
What do I win?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 29, 2017, 05:31:06 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 29, 2017, 05:24:29 PM
It means the tower was braced horizontally and vertically, even cross braced at 45° angles.

Read some structural engineering.

The only people calling Bhs a fraud have no right to.

LOL,  you are just guessing,  he got it completely wrong  multiple times,  he proves over and over he is just full of bullshit,  the fact that you don't see it,  just shows how easily fooled people like you are. 

Then we come to "15 times the density",  god only knows what he is on about?     He's definitely a phoney.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 29, 2017, 05:33:03 PM
Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on March 29, 2017, 07:42:45 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 29, 2017, 07:32:53 AM
Wolf As to your comment to dispute...yes, there were cross sected supports through the entire core. The upper 20 were cross sected up to the floor below the penthouse.

Now the lower 20, they changed the columns and supports all together. They went to boxed I beams for the columns, was about 15 times the density of the upper core, they were cross sectioned AND a complete seperate box frame.

This was the first thing that tipped me off to the NIST model...They say the failure occured here?? Especially one beam? I see this entirely impossible, as do models I and others have ran..I am sure this is why they won't release their inputs.

The structure you describe is what I would have expected from a basic modern designed high rise at WTC7. This is also why it is strange to me. The simulated collapse looks like a completely un-braced domino structure building.
Ill see if I can do some more reading. But unlikely that Ill be back too soon, have loads of work to now catch up thanks to this subject.

Was fun chatting.

Funny cause me and MaNaeSWolf totally got it, looks like it just went over your head.

Please stop with the personal attacks, it's unbecoming.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 29, 2017, 05:36:40 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 29, 2017, 05:25:43 PM
What do I win?

You didn't actually get the sequence right.   The translation I came up with was as follows

He typed "cross sected" several times  when he meant to type "cross sectioned"  but actually meant "cross braced"    At this point I roll my eyes and walk away.

Of course that might all be wrong,  who can tell?

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 29, 2017, 05:39:38 PM
Well Bhs makes perfect sense if you have some structural knowlege.

Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on March 29, 2017, 07:42:45 AM
The structure you describe is what I would have expected from a basic modern designed high rise at WTC7. This is also why it is strange to me. The simulated collapse looks like a completely un-braced domino structure building.

You are the only one who didn't get it by the looks.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 29, 2017, 05:42:37 PM
We're happy to dumb it down for you, just quit it with the personal attacks please.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 29, 2017, 05:44:46 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 29, 2017, 05:39:38 PM
You are the only one who didn't get it by the looks.

Wolf was being polite, just as I was for a long time,  I stopped being polite a while back when he started his personal attacks. 

He just keeps doing his word salad incoherent answers,  it's a red flag to anyone who knows what to look for.



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 29, 2017, 05:46:25 PM
Please don't speak for others.

You have no right to tell us anyone elses opinions. It is incredibly dishonest.

Do you want to debate or do you want to just keep throwing shit?

We would all appreciate it if you threw shit somewhere else.

Quote from: disputeone on March 29, 2017, 05:42:37 PM
We're happy to dumb it down for you, just quit it with the personal attacks please.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 29, 2017, 05:47:13 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 29, 2017, 05:44:46 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 29, 2017, 05:39:38 PM
You are the only one who didn't get it by the looks.

Wolf was being polite, just as I was for a long time,  I stopped being polite a while back when he started his personal attacks. 

He just keeps doing his word salad incoherent answers,  it's a red flag to anyone who knows what to look for.

Such a useless penguin and I don't mean the bird...

Prove something....If not GTFO....
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 29, 2017, 05:51:12 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 29, 2017, 05:47:13 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 29, 2017, 05:44:46 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 29, 2017, 05:39:38 PM
You are the only one who didn't get it by the looks.

Wolf was being polite, just as I was for a long time,  I stopped being polite a while back when he started his personal attacks. 

He just keeps doing his word salad incoherent answers,  it's a red flag to anyone who knows what to look for.

Such a useless penguin and I don't mean the bird...

Prove something....If not GTFO....

You mean prove you aren't what you claim to be,  I think I just did.

BTW what is "15 times the density"  in relation to box columns,  I couldn't figure that one out. 

Also did we get the translation of "cross sected"   right?  You meant to type "cross sectioned"  but actually meant "cross braced"   

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 29, 2017, 05:53:16 PM
Things gain density under compression.

This isn't hardcore engineering Rayzor, first year stuff.

Quote from: disputeone on March 29, 2017, 05:42:37 PM
We're happy to dumb it down for you, just quit it with the personal attacks please.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 29, 2017, 05:55:53 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 29, 2017, 05:53:16 PM
Things gain density under compression.

This isn't hardcore engineering Rayzor, first year stuff.

Nope,  that doesn't make sense.   I did high pressure research for a time,  I know about compressibility of steel.  Can you calculate what pressure you'd need to increase the density of steel by 15 times?   Dumbass.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 29, 2017, 06:01:55 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 29, 2017, 05:51:12 PM
You mean prove you aren't what you claim to be,  I think I just did.

BTW what is "15 times the density"  in relation to box columns,  I couldn't figure that one out. 

Also did we get the translation of "cross sected"   right?  You meant to type "cross sectioned"  but actually meant "cross braced"

I typed what I wanted and it wasn't directed towards you nor do I care to explain.

You need more than 2 IQ digits to enter the discussion...Sorry..
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 29, 2017, 06:02:09 PM
You are still hysterical Rayzor, I will continue this later.

"The density, or more precisely, the volumetric mass density, of a substance is its mass per unit volume. The symbol most often used for density is ρ (the lower case Greek letter rho), although the Latin letter D can also be used."

https://www.aggregateresearch.com/news/understanding-the-density-of-concrete/

Was he speaking about individual steel beams I thought he was talking about the entire structure.

We'll continue this when you calm down.

We are all sick of the personal attacks Rayzor, please stop with the personal attacks and try to debate.

Otherwise let it go, why are you still posting here if you just want to throw shit.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 29, 2017, 06:08:00 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 29, 2017, 06:01:55 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 29, 2017, 05:51:12 PM
You mean prove you aren't what you claim to be,  I think I just did.

BTW what is "15 times the density"  in relation to box columns,  I couldn't figure that one out. 

Also did we get the translation of "cross sected"   right?  You meant to type "cross sectioned"  but actually meant "cross braced"

I typed what I wanted and it wasn't directed towards you nor do I care to explain.

You need more than 2 IQ digits to enter the discussion...Sorry..

You can't explain because "15 times the density"  makes no sense,   go back to your wheelhouse designing experiments  proving gravity doesn't exist. 

@dipstick  here's a clue,   what do you think the density and pressure of the iron at the center of the earth is?    Hint,  it's nowhere near 15 times the density.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 29, 2017, 06:11:58 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 29, 2017, 06:02:09 PM
We are all sick of the personal attacks Rayzor, please stop with the personal attacks and try to debate.

After the last round of personal attacks by Babybullshit,  I told him I'd respond in kind.   By my reckoning it's long past time that this know nothing blowhard was called to account.

I do appreciate that he like to defend the dumb and helpless crazies,  that's a point in his favour,  but give him time, he'll wake up that some are way beyond being defended.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 29, 2017, 06:14:57 PM
He was standing up for a mate.

I can understand why it seems so alien to you.

Please stop calling people crazy, it is inappropriate and no one enjoys reading it. Taking words and phrases out of context is dishonest.

Thanks.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 29, 2017, 06:19:19 PM
Quote from: Bhs
They went to boxed I beams for the columns, was about 15 times the density of the upper core,

I see it now.

The lower column had 15x the mass per area of the upper column.

Simples.

"The density, or more precisely, the volumetric mass density, of a substance is its mass per unit volume. The symbol most often used for density is ρ (the lower case Greek letter rho), although the Latin letter D can also be used.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 29, 2017, 06:40:31 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 29, 2017, 06:19:19 PM
Quote from: Bhs
They went to boxed I beams for the columns, was about 15 times the density of the upper core,

I see it now.

The lower column had 15x the mass per area of the upper column.

Simples.

"The density, or more precisely, the volumetric mass density, of a substance is its mass per unit volume. The symbol most often used for density is ρ (the lower case Greek letter rho), although the Latin letter D can also be used.

You are wrong,  and what's worse your just guessing.   Which is what everyone ends up doing when Babybullshit tries to pretend he knows what he's talking about.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 29, 2017, 06:47:01 PM
Please stop twisting peoples words.

It was very simple, took me all of fifteen seconds to know what he meant.

I don't see your issue. It follows logically the lower core structure would be far denser (have more mass per unit volume) than the upper core structure.

Do you dispute this?

Edit for semantics.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 29, 2017, 06:48:07 PM
I am not in the fucking mood dumb ass. Been dealing with Storm damage at the shop all damn day.

Its a quick way to say more lying sack of shit...More mass, more strength etc etc.. I knew who I was talking to and it wasn't you. We communicated just fine..

GTFO
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 29, 2017, 07:40:47 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 29, 2017, 06:47:01 PM
Please stop twisting peoples words.

It was very simple, took me all of fifteen seconds to know what he meant.

I don't see your issue. It follows logically the lower core structure would be far denser (have more mass per area) than the upper core structure.

Do you dispute this?

Density is mass per unit volume not area,  but why I should bother teaching you high school physics?    I highlighted it in red and you still missed it. 

Anyway,  15 times more dense doesn't make sense on any level,  so he must have meant something other than density,  but what that actually was, nobody knows.

We have a person who claims to have a PhD in engineering.  But doesn't know the difference between cross section and cross bracing,   and a conspiracy nutter who doesn't know area from volume,  but then again this is the same idiot who thought that a line had two dimensions, so I guess that misunderstanding extends to where he thinks areas have three dimensions.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 29, 2017, 07:44:53 PM
Please stop gaslighting people, it is inappropriate and unnecessary.

Please stop the ad hominems, it contributes nothing to the debate.

Read MaNaeSWolf's posts and try to debate like he does, without the personal attacks.

Thanks.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 29, 2017, 08:27:16 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 29, 2017, 07:40:47 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 29, 2017, 06:47:01 PM
Please stop twisting peoples words.

It was very simple, took me all of fifteen seconds to know what he meant.

I don't see your issue. It follows logically the lower core structure would be far denser (have more mass per area) than the upper core structure.

Do you dispute this?

Density is mass per unit volume not area,  but why I should bother teaching you high school physics?    I highlighted it in red and you still missed it. 

Volume is the number of cubic units that make up a solid figure.

Volume.
The amount of space that a substance or object occupies, or that is enclosed within a container.
"the sewer could not cope with the volume of rainwater"

What would you call mass per space occupied?

I'd call it density.

What is more dense; a tilt up concete panel or a wall of maxi bricks?

The concrete tilt up is far denser.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 29, 2017, 08:37:04 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 29, 2017, 08:27:16 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 29, 2017, 07:40:47 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 29, 2017, 06:47:01 PM
Please stop twisting peoples words.

It was very simple, took me all of fifteen seconds to know what he meant.

I don't see your issue. It follows logically the lower core structure would be far denser (have more mass per area) than the upper core structure.

Do you dispute this?

Density is mass per unit volume not area,  but why I should bother teaching you high school physics?    I highlighted it in red and you still missed it. 

Volume is the number of cubic units that make up a solid figure.

Volume.
The amount of space that a substance or object occupies, or that is enclosed within a container.
"the sewer could not cope with the volume of rainwater"

What would you call mass per space occupied?

I'd call it density.

What is more dense; a tilt up concete panel or a wall of maxi bricks?

The concrete tilt up is far denser.

Correct,   well done.   There may be hope for you yet,  good to see you found that dictionary again.  Maybe you won't keep making those dumb mistakes.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 29, 2017, 08:43:04 PM
But it was you that made the mistake.

The bottom of the column was indeed far denser than the top.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 29, 2017, 10:38:16 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 29, 2017, 08:43:04 PM
But it was you that made the mistake.

The bottom of the column was indeed far denser than the top.

Huh?   there's that reality disconnect back again,  it was you who confused area with volume,  and where did you get this weird idea that the bottom of the column is more dense than the top? 

He wasn't talking about density at all, as per usual,  he got all muddled up.    He was talking about overall strength of the structure, didn't you get that?   I think you have lost the plot again,   



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 29, 2017, 10:41:54 PM
Please stop calling me crazy.

Do you think strength would be proportionate to mass per volume?
Goes back to my maxi brick wall vs a concrete tilt up. The concrete tilt up is far more dense and much stronger.

Gaslighting people is a very poor debate tactic indeed, you are acting very poorly.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 29, 2017, 10:52:53 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 29, 2017, 10:41:54 PM
Please stop calling me crazy.

Do you think strength would be proportionate to mass per volume?
Goes back to my maxi brick wall vs a concrete tilt up. The concrete tilt up is far more dense and much stronger.

Gaslighting people is a very poor debate tactic indeed, you are acting very poorly.

Just try a bit harder in future to understand what people post,  read a bit more carefully,   for a while it was funny watching you misreading and misunderstanding simple things,  but it's gotten old, and annoying in the extreme,  so it's back to the ignore bin for you...   

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 29, 2017, 10:54:48 PM
Can you please answer the question?

Ignoring someone because you can't answer their questions is really weak.

Do you think strength would be proportionate to mass per volume?
Goes back to my maxi brick wall vs a concrete tilt up. The concrete tilt up is far more dense and much stronger.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 29, 2017, 10:59:24 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 29, 2017, 10:41:54 PM
Please stop calling me crazy.

Do you think strength would be proportionate to mass per volume?
Goes back to my maxi brick wall vs a concrete tilt up. The concrete tilt up is far more dense and much stronger.

Gaslighting people is a very poor debate tactic indeed, you are acting very poorly.

Still calling people crazy I see.... I would expect nothing more from such a small inferior little man.

I give it to you, in the attempts to be nice...When I lost the humanity for him I was out..That shit was too far.

I was talking about density...That was one part...The metal is thicker, bigger, Simply more of it, then add the cross sectioned supports, then the box frame etc etc...Simply more shit than up top I could keep going but don't care to. Speaking for it in terms of density was a nice easy round word that took care of many variables..

I was speaking to an architect... We had zero issue communicating...It was pleasant, a nice change.

He knew how I was rounding...He made comments as well that were "improper" by text book, but just fine in the field..I knew 100 percent what he was saying. People use slang individually different, then you add in different counties.

No one gives a shit when you are working, we aren't there to impress each other with words...We are there to get shit done. If everyone used the entire phrase for every single thing, we would get nothing done, spend all day flapping our gums.

I have used abbreviations here as well, no one knows what the fuck those are, at least here. That is the main way I communicate, especially in the M.E. side..So I have tried to use more neutral languages for dipshits like yourself.

It's cool...You will keep splitting hairs on everything possible you can..It's your game and all you have...Small is what small does
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Denspressure on March 29, 2017, 11:04:35 PM
Quality of thread is dropping fast.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 29, 2017, 11:05:26 PM
Also check it out.

www.mech.eng.cam.ac.uk (https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www-mech.eng.cam.ac.uk/profiles/fleck/papers/1.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjajoGuxv3SAhVBxVQKHQzYCmoQFgggMAE&usg=AFQjCNGiWD7HO7xu-cGfbVn3stKYdhlb_Q&sig2=KIOMvgmI25bGWbpyTcVfWA)

Even in semantics I think I am correct.

Density increases strength.

It is strange me and Wolf knew exactly what Bhs was talking about.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 29, 2017, 11:08:33 PM
Quote from: Denspressure on March 29, 2017, 11:04:35 PM
Quality of thread is dropping fast.

Yeah I know...It was never that high to begin with in all honesty. No one would ever conversate...The reason it has dropped so much further is alot my fault. When I realized the type person rayzor is after his comments, I lost humanity for the guy.

The highlight, and the only time this thread was used correctly was when wolf appeared. I enjoyed that thoroughly.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 29, 2017, 11:33:22 PM
Well, I think we can start to address how a single column failure can lead to a symmetrical collapse at freefall.

The thermal expansion model NIST used has been shown to be dubius at best. No one has been able to get their results with NIST's numbers which, imo, screams dishonesty.

I will allow the thermal expansion to cause a failure in column 79, How did the failure of a single column lead to the symmetrical free-fall collapse of an asymmetrical building subject to asymmetrical damage.

My position is that the core was destroyed by explosives before pulling the rest of the building down with smaller charges.

Video evidence supports this, we see the core collapse while the building holds steady then with a great deal of the interior left the building falls symmetrically very close to 9.81m/s2.

I am arguing that the remaining supports would cause an asymmetrical collapse or even a slow progressive collapse much slower than the acceleration of gravity. However I would predict both an asymmetrical collapse and a fall acceleration much slower than 9.81m/s2.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 30, 2017, 01:06:19 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 29, 2017, 10:59:24 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 29, 2017, 10:41:54 PM
Please stop calling me crazy.

Do you think strength would be proportionate to mass per volume?
Goes back to my maxi brick wall vs a concrete tilt up. The concrete tilt up is far more dense and much stronger.

Gaslighting people is a very poor debate tactic indeed, you are acting very poorly.

Still calling people crazy I see.... I would expect nothing more from such a small inferior little man.

I give it to you, in the attempts to be nice...When I lost the humanity for him I was out..That shit was too far.

I was talking about density...That was one part...The metal is thicker, bigger, Simply more of it, then add the cross sectioned supports, then the box frame etc etc...Simply more shit than up top I could keep going but don't care to. Speaking for it in terms of density was a nice easy round word that took care of many variables..

I was speaking to an architect... We had zero issue communicating...It was pleasant, a nice change.

He knew how I was rounding...He made comments as well that were "improper" by text book, but just fine in the field..I knew 100 percent what he was saying. People use slang individually different, then you add in different counties.

No one gives a shit when you are working, we aren't there to impress each other with words...We are there to get shit done. If everyone used the entire phrase for every single thing, we would get nothing done, spend all day flapping our gums.

I have used abbreviations here as well, no one knows what the fuck those are, at least here. That is the main way I communicate, especially in the M.E. side..So I have tried to use more neutral languages for dipshits like yourself.

It's cool...You will keep splitting hairs on everything possible you can..It's your game and all you have...Small is what small does

You do it every time you attempt a subject with any technical content,  even now you are still misusing the term density,  and "cross sectioned"  when I assume you actually meant "cross braced"

The steel is not more dense because there is more of it,   that's as silly as dispute claiming the steel was compressed 15 times. 

And no,  people don't communicate at any level of discussion by misusing basic terms like you do,  it leads to confusion and mistakes,   You keep digging that hole deeper every time you try.

Either you know the topic and have sub standard communication skills,  or you don't know shit and are faking it. Failing any evidence otherwise, I'm going with the latter.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 30, 2017, 01:17:51 AM
I never claimed the steel was compressed by a factor of fifteen Rayzor, steel is far too dense already to compress by a factor of fifteen.

Having more steel and concrete increases the density and strength of a structure, what are you even arguing against?

Please stop twisting peoples words, I don't appreciate it and it's not helping your position.

Can you please address my post above?

If people are genuinely interested in the truthers position, this video explains our evidence well, by professionals in their fields. There are heaps of PhDs on the video explaining mine and Bhs main arguments.

It even addresses the psychological issues involved with questioning the official story.



Rayzor please stop the ad hominems.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Denspressure on March 30, 2017, 01:21:39 AM
It could be worse. At least we aren't arguing about acceleration and if the acceleration rate can be constant. That would be absolutely mental.

Hahaha.

....

Oh....
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 30, 2017, 01:24:24 AM
Quote from: Denspressure on March 30, 2017, 01:21:39 AM
It could be worse. At least we aren't arguing about acceleration and if the acceleration rate can be constant. That would be absolutely mental.

Hahaha.

....

Oh....

Do you think the truth position on 9/11 is stupid too?

It's cool if you do but please throw in an argument for the O/S.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Denspressure on March 30, 2017, 01:31:47 AM
Would it make you feel good about your truther self if I said I believe it was a controlled demolition or something?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 30, 2017, 01:36:11 AM
Not at all.

I want you to consider the evidence and make your own opinion.

Just justify it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 30, 2017, 01:38:38 AM
Here is a rather good argument imo.

Quote from: disputeone on March 29, 2017, 11:33:22 PM
Well, I think we can start to address how a single column failure can lead to a symmetrical collapse at freefall.

The thermal expansion model NIST used has been shown to be dubious at best. No one has been able to get their results with NIST's numbers which, imo, screams dishonesty.

I will allow the thermal expansion to cause a failure in column 79, How did the failure of a single column lead to the symmetrical free-fall collapse of an asymmetrical building subject to asymmetrical damage.

My position is that the core was destroyed by explosives before pulling the rest of the building down with smaller charges.

Video evidence supports this, we see the core collapse while the building holds steady then with a great deal of the interior left the building falls symmetrically very close to 9.81m/s2.

I am arguing that the remaining supports would cause an asymmetrical collapse or even a slow progressive collapse much slower than the acceleration of gravity. However I would predict both an asymmetrical collapse and a fall acceleration much slower than 9.81m/s2.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Denspressure on March 30, 2017, 01:46:36 AM
There is a 9/11 thread on a dutch forum with 1380 pages. This thread is nothing.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 30, 2017, 01:48:45 AM
Quote from: Denspressure on March 30, 2017, 01:46:36 AM
There is a 9/11 thread on a dutch forum with 1380 pages. This thread is nothing.

Thanks for your opinion.

It wasn't what I asked but I will accept it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Denspressure on March 30, 2017, 01:55:03 AM
The collapse was asymmetric and not 9,xx m/s

The approach taken by NIST is summarized in Section 3.6 of the final summary report, NCSTAR 1A (released Nov. 20, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201A.pdf) and detailed in Section 12.5.3 of NIST NCSTAR 1-9 (available at http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-9%20Vol%202.pdf).

The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:

    Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
    Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
    Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity


This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above. In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 30, 2017, 02:05:36 AM
I've read the NIST report.

Thanks again.

gravitational acceleration = 9.8m/s2
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 30, 2017, 02:08:06 AM
I'd really like someone to try to address this if possible.

Quote from: disputeone on March 29, 2017, 11:33:22 PM
Well, I think we can start to address how a single column failure can lead to a symmetrical collapse at freefall.

The thermal expansion model NIST used has been shown to be dubious at best. No one has been able to get their results with NIST's numbers which, imo, screams dishonesty.

I will allow the thermal expansion to cause a failure in column 79, How did the failure of a single column lead to the symmetrical free-fall collapse of an asymmetrical building subject to asymmetrical damage.

My position is that the core was destroyed by explosives before pulling the rest of the building down with smaller charges.

Video evidence supports this, we see the core collapse while the building holds steady then with a great deal of the interior left the building falls symmetrically very close to 9.81m/s2.

I am arguing that the remaining supports would cause an asymmetrical collapse or even a slow progressive collapse much slower than the acceleration of gravity. However I would predict both an asymmetrical collapse and a fall acceleration much slower than 9.81m/s2.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Denspressure on March 30, 2017, 02:11:14 AM
The fall was not symmetrical.
It did not fall at 9.81m/s2
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 30, 2017, 02:23:08 AM
Thanks again for your opinion.

(https://s17.postimg.org/avwycd98v/WTC7collapse1.gif)

Quote from: NIST
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)

https://www.nist.gov/el/faqs-nist-wtc-7-investigation

Quote from: Google
Gravitational acceleration (symbolized g) is an expression used in physics to indicate the intensity of a gravitational field. It is expressed in meters per second squared (m/s 2 ). At the surface of the earth, 1 g is about 9.8 m/s 2 .
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on March 30, 2017, 03:48:13 AM
So FYI. I am going through the engineering drawings of WTC 7 while I am running renders. Turns out almost all (not all) of the cross bracing was in the external skin (outer walls) I am finding very little bracing in the core.
Seems the design theory was to brace the building with the outer skin. It seems very stiff actually. And the internal structure was just to provide vertical support.
This increases usable floor area internally, reduces columns without having the bracing take up floor space.
The elevator shafts do not seem to be a braced core.

There is some bracing internally, but the main bracing truss seems to be connecting column 74 to 80. The idea seems to be to spread the lateral forces to the outer wall. (Yes, the outer wall was super stiff!)
From what I can see with my quick assessment, critical columns where
74, 77, 80 - connected to one girder
79, 76 - another girder
59, 62 - I think another girder, but have not found the drawings of it
60, 63 - I think another girder, but have not found the drawings of it

Those columns have bracing between them, almost functioning as girders that would distribute lateral forces to the outer skin.
This building was not designed like the WTC 1+2 buildings at all. Completely different structural system
It seems to be a typical domino structure braced on the other skin.

Babyhighspeed, unless I am missing a lot of bracing, this building did not have a stiff inner core.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 30, 2017, 03:53:57 AM
Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on March 30, 2017, 03:48:13 AM
So FYI. I am going through the engineering drawings of WTC 7 while I am running renders. Turns out almost all (not all) of the cross bracing was in the external skin (outer walls) I am finding very little bracing in the core.
Seems the design theory was to brace the building with the outer skin. It seems very stiff actually. And the internal structure was just to provide vertical support.
This increases usable floor area internally, reduces columns without having the bracing take up floor space.
The elevator shafts do not seem to be a braced core.

Correct.

Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on March 30, 2017, 03:48:13 AM
There is some bracing internally, but the main bracing truss seems to be connecting column 74 to 80. The idea seems to be to spread the lateral forces to the outer wall. (Yes, the outer wall was super stiff!)
From what I can see with my quick assessment, critical columns where
74, 77, 80 - connected to one girder
79, 76 - another girder
59, 62 - I think another girder, but have not found the drawings of it
60, 63 - I think another girder, but have not found the drawings of it

Awesome research.

Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on March 30, 2017, 03:48:13 AM
Those columns have bracing between them, almost functioning as girders that would distribute lateral forces to the outer skin.
This building was not designed like the WTC 1+2 buildings at all. Completely different structural system
It seems to be a typical domino structure braced on the other skin.

The question I would then ask is how a steel framed concrete reinforced building built from the outside in have a 2.25 second symmetrical free-fall of its outer structure caused by fire?(1)

The house of cards analogy is inept, I think, because of the symmetry of the free-fall.

(1)https://www.nist.gov/pba/questions-and-answers-about-nist-wtc-7-investigation

Edit for reference.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on March 30, 2017, 04:17:57 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 30, 2017, 03:53:57 AM
The question I would then ask is how a steel framed concrete reinforced building built from the outside in have a 2.25 second symmetrical free-fall of it's outer structure caused by fire?1

The house of cards analogy is inept, i think, because of the symmetry of the free-fall.

1https://www.nist.gov/pba/questions-and-answers-about-nist-wtc-7-investigation

It was a steel frame building.
The concrete did not play much role in the structure from what I can tell.

So dont think of the building as being reinforced from the inside vs outside. It is one structural system that works together.
An engineers has to primary work against 2 forces (very basically) the vertical forces from the weight of the building and internal loading. And then the lateral forces from wind. The whole thing has to work together to distribute all the forces together down to the foundations.
In WTC7 the outer skin provided most of the lateral strength against wind, while the internal columns provided almost all of the vertical support.

So using the domino structure as an example.
Imagine building a domino tower. The dominos are very good at taking a vertical load, but if you pushed the tower even slightly it would topple.
So to fix this, you wrap the tower with paper all around. The paper cant take much vertical load, but is stiff enough to hold the tower together if you give it a slight push. It all works very well, until one day someone pulls a domino piece out from inside. The whole inside would collapse first, then the paper would stand for a bit before crumbling in, because it cant stand by itself.
You can test this yourself at home.
(if anyone find a problem with my metaphor because it does not exactly match the conditions of WTC7, go have a long hard look in a mirror first, before you tell me otherwise, it was a metaphor)
This is more or less what seems to have happened here.

It was not a silly design choice either, the Architects try to provide as much open floor space as possible for a variety of tenant requirements. This was one way to achieve long floor spans and few internal braced columns.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 30, 2017, 04:28:35 AM
Emphasis on more or less.

The free-fall and symmetry of collapse should not have happened. I would have paid it if it folded in on itself, but nope, straight down through itself at free-fall.

I'm not sure if you have done any reading on demolitions but in my gif above you can see clear squibs from the intact columns on the right in the model.



You said yourself you expected the collapse to stop based on the model, and it does actually stop, they didnt model the whole collapse at all, NIST actually admits they can't explain the complete destruction of the three towers they only explain the collapse initiation.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on March 30, 2017, 04:37:32 AM

The collapse makes a bit more sense to me after having gotten hold of the plans.
That said, it is still a very strange collapse.
I have the manufacturers drawings, I want to look at the joints between the floor beams and the outer columns.
I feel there should have been more support provided from the outer skin.


I completely understand why people dont think it should have fallen.

I will try respond properly after I have gone over some more stuff.
But for now I have to go.


edited because South Africa's lingo is not international
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 30, 2017, 04:38:24 AM
You're awesome man, thanks.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on March 30, 2017, 05:14:51 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 29, 2017, 05:08:15 PM
Quote from: totallackey on March 29, 2017, 09:17:15 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 29, 2017, 12:49:30 AM
That's just your opinion,  what you need is evidence,  all the available evidence says it collapsed due to debris damage and fire.   If you want to prove that it was controlled demolition you need proof not opinions.

All the available evidence does not point collapse due to debris and fire.
Um,  yes it does,   there is video and photographic as well as numerous witness statements testifying to the damage caused by debris from WTC1 and the subsequent fires. 
Whereas there is no evidence of controlled demolition,  none,  zip,  nada,  that parrot won't zoom with a million volts.

Quote from: totallackey on March 29, 2017, 09:17:15 AM
There is the fact that buildings made of steel and concrete do not collapse in and on themselves due to debris and fire.

This one did.   

The only plausible argument for controlled demolition is opinion based not evidence based.  The dipstickone arguments,  "it looked like a controlled demolition"  the brain damaged "free fall"  "loss of structural resistance"  arguments.

Not to mention for the nth time that there is no logic in demoing a building already on the verge of collapse.

So,  no evidence,   no logic,   no hidden conspiracy  then the crazies start with the personal attacks,  easy to see why that is, they've got nothing else.
"The only plausible argument for controlled demolition is opinion based not evidence based..."

I do not know how many times it needs to be repeated before you understand this:

The ARGUMENT FOR CONTROLLED DEMOLITION IS EVIDENCE BASED!

Many experts have looked at the collapse of WTC 7.

They stated, "It looks like a controlled demolition."

You see?

When you see something with your own eyes THAT CONSTITUTES FUCKING EVIDENCE!

WHAT THE FUCK IS THE MATTER WITH YOU!?!?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 30, 2017, 05:15:56 AM
Quote from: totallackey on March 30, 2017, 05:14:51 AM
Many experts have looked at the collapse of WTC 7.

2836 architects and structural engineers1 (http://www.ae911truth.org) at last count.

Edit. Citation.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on March 30, 2017, 10:05:49 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 30, 2017, 05:15:56 AM
Quote from: totallackey on March 30, 2017, 05:14:51 AM
Many experts have looked at the collapse of WTC 7.

2836 architects and structural engineers1 (http://www.ae911truth.org) at last count.

Edit. Citation.

I thought they'd be there with full name so I could write an email to some of them. But it's just a number, nothing more. Worthless garbage.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on March 30, 2017, 10:18:04 AM
Quote from: User324 on March 30, 2017, 10:05:49 AM
I thought they'd be there with full name so I could write an email to some of them. But it's just a number, nothing more. Worthless garbage.

Why can't you write them?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 30, 2017, 02:40:07 PM
Quote from: User324 on March 30, 2017, 10:05:49 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 30, 2017, 05:15:56 AM
Quote from: totallackey on March 30, 2017, 05:14:51 AM
Many experts have looked at the collapse of WTC 7.

2836 architects and structural engineers1 (http://www.ae911truth.org) at last count.

Edit. Citation.

I thought they'd be there with full name so I could write an email to some of them. But it's just a number, nothing more. Worthless garbage.

http://www.ae911truth.org/contact-us.html

2342 Shattuck Avenue Suite 189
Berkeley
CA 94704

It's ok to be scared.

Real bravery isn't not being scared, bravery is being scared but doing what is right regardless of fear.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Twerp on March 30, 2017, 03:17:18 PM
I'd say this investigation could help themselves by getting into the current century.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 30, 2017, 03:18:24 PM
Which one?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Twerp on March 30, 2017, 04:21:20 PM
The one that requires you to go buy an envelope and paper and write a letter and then buy a stamp and stick it on the envelope in order to contact them.

Edit: I thought that was all the options available from that link. Now I see you can call them or send an email from their page. So, I guess I'll retract my comment.  :)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 30, 2017, 04:23:18 PM
Quote from: Boots on March 30, 2017, 04:21:20 PM
The one that requires you to go buy an envelope and paper and write a letter and then buy a stamp and stick it on the envelope in order to contact them.

Edit: I thought that was all the options available from that link. Now I see you can call them or send an email from their page. So, I guess I'll retract my comment.  :)

Not at all, one issue is the threats and harrassment you get for being a professional "truther" I can fully understand these people not wanting their personal emails and phone numbers published on the internet.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 30, 2017, 04:30:48 PM
Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on March 30, 2017, 04:37:32 AM

The collapse makes a bit more sense to me after having gotten hold of the plans.
That said, it is still a very strange collapse.
I have the manufacturers drawings, I want to look at the joints between the floor beams and the outer columns.
I feel there should have been more support provided from the outer skin.


I completely understand why people dont think it should have fallen.

I will try respond properly after I have gone over some more stuff.
But for now I have to go.


edited because South Africa's lingo is not international






See if this helps.  The paper notes that columns 79 and 80 were directly below the east penthouse.

http://www.structuremag.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov071.pdf
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 30, 2017, 04:33:50 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 30, 2017, 04:30:48 PM
Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on March 30, 2017, 04:37:32 AM

The collapse makes a bit more sense to me after having gotten hold of the plans.
That said, it is still a very strange collapse.
I have the manufacturers drawings, I want to look at the joints between the floor beams and the outer columns.
I feel there should have been more support provided from the outer skin.


I completely understand why people dont think it should have fallen.

I will try respond properly after I have gone over some more stuff.
But for now I have to go.


edited because South Africa's lingo is not international






See if this helps.  The paper notes that columns 79 and 80 were directly below the east penthouse.

http://www.structuremag.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov071.pdf

Is it just me? Or is there no citations on that document.

Nope, no citations.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 30, 2017, 05:23:20 PM
Here are some great peer-reviewed papers on some issues on 9/11.

https://911inacademia.com/journal-papers/

http://www.journalof911studies.com/J911S/articles/

I am sure I will be told an non peer reviewed opinion article in a magazine with no citations debunks all of it, however this is not how the scientific method works.

We can't dismiss peer reviewed papers out of hand we need to take them head in if we are to refute their findings.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/the-cause-of-the-destruction-of-the-world-trade-center-buildings-on-september-11-2001-and-the-admissibility-of-expert-testimony-under-the-standards-developed-in-daubert-v-merrell-dow-pharmaceutical/

http://www.journalof911studies.com/wtc-destruction-an-analysis-of-peer-reviewed-technical-literature/

http://www.journalof911studies.com/were-explosives-the-source-of-the-seismic-signals-emitted-from-new-york-on-september-11-2001/

http://www.journalof911studies.com/anomalies-of-the-air-defense-on-911/
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 30, 2017, 06:46:59 PM
Here's a bit of speculation out of interest.

I'm not claiming this as evidence, merely coincidences. It can easily be ignored by most people.

To a ritual magician this being intentional seems as if it is absolutely unavoidable.

Great care is taken with symbolism and meaning in any ritual magick, for example masonic lodges are built in the cardinal directions, to face east you face east with the entire building, I am not so lucky and have to arrange a room to suit the cardinal directions east is slightly offset into the corner instead of running parallel to the room.

This is important to consider, any ritual done without proper respect and diligence to symbolism will surely fail.

The world is starting to wake up to magick, see memetic magick for example. I have been saying from the start it is actual group chaos magick they are performing, this was ignored until we had things happen in accordance with will that we are unable to explain.

https://bullshit.ist/meme-magic-is-real-you-guys-16a497fc45b3

Now people are really starting to look into how our will can shape our reality with correct symbolism and practice.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_magic

This is important to consider when looking at the ritualistic aspects of 9/11.


>Twin Towers the same proportions as the Pillars Boaz and Jachin at The Temple of Solomon
>WTC7 renamed Soloman Brothers Building
>Temple of Solomon destroyed on Tisha B'Av: "9th day of the 11th month"
>Eleven years to the day before 9/11, HW Bush gives famous "New World Order" speech
>Eleven years to the day after 9/11, Benghazi happens
>Also on a 9-11, Kristallnacht, Chilean coup, Pentagon constrution
>10 is, in Kaballah, God/perfection. 11 is to exceed perfection (e.g. Apollo 11 first to land on the moon), 9 to 11 implies skipping past it
>Twin Towers form an 11 in the sky
>Each is 110ft tall
>Event happens roughly between 9-11am
>First plane to hit is AA11; AA is a "11".
>93 is Thelema, the principle of "do what thou wilt"
>Flight 93 in Shanksville
>First plane hits the 93rd floor, second hits at 9:03am
>Two planes hit the WTC, 11 and 175. Add these and split by two makes 93.


I am not putting this forward as evidence, mainly as curiousity to those that have accepted the towers collapse as impossible and are looking for motive.

The world and nature of our reality is far deeper than we know.

This is why I consider this a battle for our souls.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sokarul on March 30, 2017, 07:42:51 PM
Fire can't cause collapse?

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/30/us/atlanta-i-85-fire/index.html
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 30, 2017, 07:54:17 PM
Quote from: sokarul on March 30, 2017, 07:42:51 PM
Fire can't cause collapse?

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/30/us/atlanta-i-85-fire/index.html

1/10 for effort...boo.

All concrete no steel framing (road mix of concrete is much different than on a high rise, much larger mix of water. The water can boil in a fire compromising stability of the concrete), much less mass...You know...I am not even going to continue with everything wrong in your insinuation. ::)

Not to mention, it started to collapse, then stopped. Then later finally collapsed...

Also, no one is saying firing cannot cause a building to have a Structural failure.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sokarul on March 30, 2017, 08:10:22 PM
So this line : "Reginald DesRoches, a professor at Georgia Tech University, said most structural materials lose strength when subjected to high temperature." only applies to road material, not building materials?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 30, 2017, 08:19:19 PM
Quote from: sokarul on March 30, 2017, 08:10:22 PM
So this line : "Reginald DesRoches, a professor at Georgia Tech University, said most structural materials lose strength when subjected to high temperature." only applies to road material, not building materials?

What exactly is your argument?? Or do you just feel like arguing to argue?

No one has argued that....Least not here. Every degree of temp will weaken steel or concrete... You win ???

That is why buildings are designed to distribute the thermal load. Not even talking about fire, just day to day "normal existence"..

However, if we are going to look at fire as a potential cause of a structural failure of any design...We need to look at where the fire is, how hot it is, how much area it covers etc etc etc.

It is being presented that the fire present at 1, 2 ,7 did not meet the requirements for complete symmetric collapse. Possible localized asymmetric structural failures, even that is a bit iffy, though plausible.

Come on sokarul, are you just bored?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 30, 2017, 08:27:56 PM
1/10 for effort...boo.

Trying to keep this thread clean but.

Quote from: disputeone on March 30, 2017, 08:25:18 PM

Symmetry of collapse and fall acceleration are out main arguments for wtc 7, saying, "it possibly could have collapsed" doesn't touch them.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sokarul on March 30, 2017, 08:48:34 PM
Just found it amusing the fire brought down the structure.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 30, 2017, 08:51:36 PM
Quote from: sokarul on March 30, 2017, 08:48:34 PM
Just found it amusing the fire brought down the structure.

Could you please explain how it has anything to do with our arguments?

Fire damages things, I concede it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 30, 2017, 08:58:21 PM
I have spent time in Atlanta...Their traffic sucks at all hours, too many trees, not enough roads. This is going to be very bad for them.

That is strange.. just some random fire "40 foot high wall"...They were using foam too, apparently it would not go out. Looked hot too.

Very weird.... Terrorism or vandalism, how do you even do that without being seen on a highway? Maybe an entire package and drop it off then jet?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 30, 2017, 09:17:49 PM
They've declined to comment on what caused the fire so far.

Now thats what I call a raging inferno, wow. I'm happy no one died.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 30, 2017, 09:38:29 PM
Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on March 30, 2017, 03:48:13 AM
This building was not designed like the WTC 1+2 buildings at all. Completely different structural system
It seems to be a typical domino structure braced on the other skin.

Babyhighspeed, unless I am missing a lot of bracing, this building did not have a stiff inner core.

Didn't see you post yesterday. PATH 1993 survey has good information (they also show the Salomon modifications).. I will see if I can get ahold of the prints again, I didn't pull them the last time. They may be on Google as well, I glanced, though there are others much better at the "internets" than I.

Mainly I found just a floor diag or two, which is of no good.

The core was stiff, just not to the level of wtc 1 or 2 below the 44th floor. However, it had to be stiff, especially in the lower levels, that is why elevator access was in goofy places, on some of the lower floors.

The biggest reason is from the gravity columns design on 5-7. This was in response to the substation below that was not rated for the total weight or sheer of a 40+ story building. So they added Caissons​ to the relatively small foundation...The gravity columns redirected loads to the small footprint. That is why the building had strange elevator access points..Also why the Solomon Brothers could build their design, which was basically a building inside a building, yet they had to do this on the upper floors, would have never worked on the lowers.

They also increased the stiffness of the lower core by further bracing it after this retrofit.

When I first saw 7 fall and was a believer in the official story, I thought there was a failure in the 5 floor diaphragm. However, after studying the design, that convinced me any extreme failure from fire on a lower floor would be prone to topple the building.

I will get more in-depth later, about to go out right now.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 30, 2017, 09:55:06 PM
Wtc 7 had 29 high capacity, high speed commercial elevators in reinforced concrete shafts.

Access to these shafts would allow access to all of the vertical structural supports needed to destroy the core as we saw.

This applies to wtc 1 and 2 also, just on a much larger scale.

Interesting to consider.

(https://s22.postimg.org/xytky2prl/20170331_125641.jpg)

Edit. Pic.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 30, 2017, 10:08:21 PM
(https://s28.postimg.org/78v5esg8d/wtc7_nist_collapse_floorplan.jpg)

(https://s9.postimg.org/b60ukdey7/wtc7_3pm_fire.jpg)

Sorry, what?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on March 31, 2017, 12:07:38 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 30, 2017, 09:38:29 PM
Didn't see you post yesterday. PATH 1993 survey has good information (they also show the Salomon modifications).. I will see if I can get ahold of the prints again, I didn't pull them the last time. They may be on Google as well, I glanced, though there are others much better at the "internets" than I.

Mainly I found just a floor diag or two, which is of no good.

The core was stiff, just not to the level of wtc 1 or 2 below the 44th floor. However, it had to be stiff, especially in the lower levels, that is why elevator access was in goofy places, on some of the lower floors.

The biggest reason is from the gravity columns design on 5-7. This was in response to the substation below that was not rated for the total weight or sheer of a 40+ story building. So they added Caissons​ to the relatively small foundation...The gravity columns redirected loads to the small footprint. That is why the building had strange elevator access points..Also why the Solomon Brothers could build their design, which was basically a building inside a building, yet they had to do this on the upper floors, would have never worked on the lowers.

They also increased the stiffness of the lower core by further bracing it after this retrofit.

When I first saw 7 fall and was a believer in the official story, I thought there was a failure in the 5 floor diaphragm. However, after studying the design, that convinced me any extreme failure from fire on a lower floor would be prone to topple the building.

I will get more in-depth later, about to go out right now.

I would like to see the retrofit, it might be substantially different to what I have.
What I am trying to figure out now is how the beams connecting to the outer skin sheared so easily. I have hundreds of manufacturing drawings, and don't have the time to go over all of them.

I really believe the the external walls had the ability to keep the building from toppling. Have you seen the structural elevations! The external skin was not going to let the building just fall over. It was designed to keep it together.
Maybe I can post an elevation here. But for me the drawings are clear to why the collapse was symmetrical, there was little chance of the building falling out of the external footprint.

Please see if you can find the retrofit drawings, might make a difference in my review.

So far the only internal bracing I am finding are trusses between columns
61-61A-62
73-76
74-77-80
Important to note, none of these trusses link to the external skin.

Quote from: disputeone on March 30, 2017, 09:55:06 PM
Wtc 7 had 29 high capacity, high speed commercial elevators in reinforced concrete shafts.

Access to these shafts would allow access to all of the vertical structural supports needed to destroy the core as we saw.

This applies to wtc 1 and 2 also, just on a much larger scale.

Interesting to consider.

I have basic drawings of the elevator shafts and one half assed engineering section of the stairs, so I might be missing a lot.
From what I have, the reinforced concrete is definitely not strong enough to support anything beyond the elevators and local structures. The wall thickness is too narrow on ground floor for what you would expect for a 20+ floor building. Same for the stair case. I dont have any architectural drawings, maybe those will tell a different story. The concrete around these structures is most probably for 2 reasons.
1 - elevator structures need a lot of anchoring points along the shaft. It is common practice to encase shafts in either brick work or concrete. Obviously brick work would not be used in such a high building.
2 - Fire escape stairs MUST have high fire rated walls. Its not uncommon to surround them in concrete even for much smaller buildings. I do not have a lot of experience with elevators that may be used during emergencies, as normal building elevators are not rated for use during evacuations. But if you are even considering this application for your elevators, you better be sure all the walls are fire rated at 4 hours + (not sure what USA requirements are)

And I found a specification that surrounds the steel with 5cm of concrete. 5cm of concrete can only be for fireproofing, it has no structural capacity.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on March 31, 2017, 12:14:38 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/Y1HDPtV.png)


This is what the external skin looks like. These are not minor steel beams they where using to keep it together either. Godzilla would not have gotten through that. Somewhere I saw pictures of the collapsed WTC7 building rubble, you could still see pictures of the external structures still highly intact. I am not sure how this building could have fallen over unless the external structure was severed first.

edit note


This is the east elevation, west looks similar. The east and west elevations are heavily braced, more so than North and South, this is because the edison substation is below the northern facade. So the buildings moments have to be pulled back to support the large spans and overhangs on the Northern facade. This is what would have to be destroyed before the building can have a non-symmetrical collapse.
Northern face is lighter than above, and south is fairly strong, but not as stiff as east or west.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 31, 2017, 12:16:15 AM
You are a champion MaNaeSWolf.

Your honesty and integrity are to be commended.

I'm an elevator technician by trade.

Edit.

All commercial elevators shafts are fireproofed by code in Aus.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on March 31, 2017, 12:28:08 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 31, 2017, 12:16:15 AM
You are a champion MaNaeSWolf.

Your honesty and integrity are to be commended.

I'm an elevator technician by trade.

Edit.

All commercial elevators shafts are fireproofed by code in Aus.

Thanks, its a far more fun discussion that most things here at The Flat Earth Society at the moment.

We have fairly good fireproofing codes in South Africa too, our regulators seem to just copy UK and Aus standards.


edit because auto-correct is stupid

wait, I had to do this twice now. (edit number 3), the abbreviation for The Flat Earth Society automatically adjusts to "google"?! It does not even ask me to adjust it! CONSPIRACY!!
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 31, 2017, 12:45:07 AM
T.FES. without the dot changes to Google.

There's a filter.

Something something other site. Definitely a conspiracy ;)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 31, 2017, 01:16:08 AM
Lets use NIST buckling model for example, they claim the outer and inner structure at the bottom pretty well "ceased to exist" which allowed a 2.25 second free-fall.

(http://ae911truth.info/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Floors-7-14-Buckling.png)

Now we have a very stiff cross braced outer structure which has apparently completely vaporized on the lower floors, (7-14) which allowed the tower to fall with no / negligible structural resistance. I understand the outer structure isn't vertically load bearing and wouldn't hold the entire weight of the building without the core, 100% paid.

I'll pay up to the fires causing the collapse of the core. (Dubious) How did we have such symmetry after the external structure was severed / buckled. According to the NIST model, and due to the varying stiffness we should not have seen such symmetry during free-fall.



I agree that the symmetry isn't a smoking gun nor is the free-fall. It's the combination of the two which I believe are impossible.

A progressive, reasonably symmetrical collapse with such a strong outer frame (leaving out how fires completely destroyed the core) after the core was removed isn't that unlikely, however at free-fall?

We still have the problem of a crossbraced outer structure collapsing into itself very close to 9.8m/s2 even if for the sake of simplicity we assume the entire inner structure was destroyed. (In video evidence we can see the tower start it's free-fall with a lot of the west side of the interior still reasonably intact.)

I understand lift shafts arent load bearing in and of themselves always but we have say (estimating) 250mm thick concrete shafts reinforced with reebar and braced to the support structures, we then have two T 150mm by 16mm rails and two T 100mm by 8mm counterweight rails, these are pinned into the concrete every 1500mm with an average of six 12mm high tensile trubolts, the shaft is absolutely over designed for the lifts, nearly all of the static load is taken through the rails into the concrete slab, dynamic loads are taken through the shaft by the rails and rail brackets.

My point is this is a very stiff, very strong structure that has actually gained stiffness and strength from the high tensile metal.

I can't understand how the whole building fell into itself at free-fall after a single column failure.



Partial collapse slower than free-fall?
Absolutely would have bought it.

Sorry for the tl:dr.

Edit, sorry for the lame vid, got me with a good title... there are still a few views of the collapse can just watch with the sound off.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 31, 2017, 01:42:53 AM
And then no building codes where changed after 9/11. I would have banned buildings like wtc 7 if that's what happens with a smaller than average office fire.

The architects and especially engineers who designed wtc 7 should have gone to jail. Failing that I believe people in the construction company who built wtc 7 should have gone to jail.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 31, 2017, 04:10:01 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 31, 2017, 01:42:53 AM
And then no building codes where changed after 9/11. I would have banned buildings like wtc 7 if that's what happens with a smaller than average office fire.

The architects and especially engineers who designed wtc 7 should have gone to jail. Failing that I believe people in the construction company who built wtc 7 should have gone to jail.

Wrong.  Many changes  30 or so design recommendations  and 17 ICC code changes,  maybe others.  were made after 9/11.    http://www.ctbuh.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=%2BYb7cly6880%3D&tabid=2684&language=en-US


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 31, 2017, 04:27:10 AM
That document only concerns wtc 1 and 2 please try to keep up.

Why not address my argument?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 02, 2017, 01:57:53 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 31, 2017, 04:27:10 AM
That document only concerns wtc 1 and 2 please try to keep up.

Why not address my argument?

What argument was that?   Are you going to argue that the ICC code changes don't apply to WTC7?

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 02, 2017, 02:00:02 AM
Rayzor see how MaNaeSWolf can debate with integrity?

Why can't you?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 02, 2017, 02:04:35 AM
Quote from: disputeone on April 02, 2017, 02:00:02 AM
Rayzor see how MaNaeSWolf can debate with integrity?

Why can't you?

So asking you what your argument actually is, in your weird opinion space  indicates a lack of integrity.   Oh, well,  back to the ignore bin for you.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 02, 2017, 02:07:27 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 29, 2017, 11:33:22 PM
Well, I think we can start to address how a single column failure can lead to a symmetrical collapse at freefall.

The thermal expansion model NIST used has been shown to be dubius at best. No one has been able to get their results with NIST's numbers which, imo, screams dishonesty.

I will allow the thermal expansion to cause a failure in column 79, How did the failure of a single column lead to the symmetrical free-fall collapse of an asymmetrical building subject to asymmetrical damage.

My position is that the core was destroyed by explosives before pulling the rest of the building down with smaller charges.

Video evidence supports this, we see the core collapse while the building holds steady then with a great deal of the interior left the building falls symmetrically very close to 9.81m/s2.

I am arguing that the remaining supports would cause an asymmetrical collapse or even a slow progressive collapse much slower than the acceleration of gravity. However I would predict both an asymmetrical collapse and a fall acceleration much slower than 9.81m/s2.

Quote from: disputeone on March 31, 2017, 01:16:08 AM
Lets use NIST buckling model for example, they claim the outer and inner structure at the bottom pretty well "ceased to exist" which allowed a 2.25 second free-fall.

(http://ae911truth.info/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Floors-7-14-Buckling.png)

Now we have a very stiff cross braced outer structure which has apparently completely vaporized on the lower floors, (7-14) which allowed the tower to fall with no / negligible structural resistance. I understand the outer structure isn't vertically load bearing and wouldn't hold the entire weight of the building without the core, 100% paid.

I'll pay up to the fires causing the collapse of the core. (Dubious) How did we have such symmetry after the external structure was severed / buckled. According to the NIST model, and due to the varying stiffness we should not have seen such symmetry during free-fall.



I agree that the symmetry isn't a smoking gun nor is the free-fall. It's the combination of the two which I believe are impossible.

A progressive, reasonably symmetrical collapse with such a strong outer frame (leaving out how fires completely destroyed the core) after the core was removed isn't that unlikely, however at free-fall?

We still have the problem of a crossbraced outer structure collapsing into itself very close to 9.8m/s2 even if for the sake of simplicity we assume the entire inner structure was destroyed. (In video evidence we can see the tower start it's free-fall with a lot of the west side of the interior still reasonably intact.)

I understand lift shafts arent load bearing in and of themselves always but we have say (estimating) 250mm thick concrete shafts reinforced with reebar and braced to the support structures, we then have two T 150mm by 16mm rails and two T 100mm by 8mm counterweight rails, these are pinned into the concrete every 1500mm with an average of six 12mm high tensile trubolts, the shaft is absolutely over designed for the lifts, nearly all of the static load is taken through the rails into the concrete slab, dynamic loads are taken through the shaft by the rails and rail brackets.

My point is this is a very stiff, very strong structure that has actually gained stiffness and strength from the high tensile metal.

I can't understand how the whole building fell into itself at free-fall after a single column failure.



Partial collapse slower than free-fall?
Absolutely would have bought it.

Sorry for the tl:dr.

Edit, sorry for the lame vid, got me with a good title... there are still a few views of the collapse can just watch with the sound off.

Have at it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 02, 2017, 02:23:15 AM
Quote from: disputeone on April 02, 2017, 02:07:27 AM
Have at it.

For me the only question is why?   It was teetering on the verge of collapse,  why would you even bother to demolish it.

But since you raise the issue of HOW did it collapse,  the video shows clearly the east penthouse collapsing first,  and the north wall being pulled inwards,  as the core of the building collapsed. The north wall  it might have great strength vertically but once it starts to buckle inwards all bets are off. 

If the eye witness accounts are taken into consideration,  there is no evidence at all for controlled demolition.  It's a lame excuse for a conspiracy if that's all you've got.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 02, 2017, 02:27:21 AM
That's the official story, lets talk about how the building collapsed and how a single column failure might cause it to collapse.

I've raised some interesting points, if we are lucky MaNaeSWolf will come back and keep discussing it.

Edit, The evidence is the symmetry of collapse and fall acceleration, there is plenty of evidence, there are also eyewitnesses for explosives so I don't know why you would claim that.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 02, 2017, 07:39:40 PM
Quote from: disputeone on April 02, 2017, 02:27:21 AM
That's the official story, lets talk about how the building collapsed and how a single column failure might cause it to collapse.

I've raised some interesting points, if we are lucky MaNaeSWolf will come back and keep discussing it.

Edit, The evidence is the symmetry of collapse and fall acceleration, there is plenty of evidence, there are also eyewitnesses for explosives so I don't know why you would claim that.

The collapse wasn't all that symmetrical,  If we had a view of the collapse from the South I think it would tell a different story,   as for free-fall we covered that already many times. 

In any event the question still remains.  WHY would you even bother when it was already teetering on the verge of collapse.   Seems a huge leap to make to conclude that is was a conspiracy.  Especially since its from ambiguous circumstantial evidence.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 02, 2017, 09:28:16 PM
Rayzor we are trying to have a good technical discussion.

You have never covered the free-fall.

Please leave your speculation out of it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 02, 2017, 10:15:08 PM
Quote from: disputeone on April 02, 2017, 09:28:16 PM
Rayzor we are trying to have a good technical discussion.

You have never covered the free-fall.

Please leave your speculation out of it.

Free fall does not equal controlled demolition,  this was covered exhaustively even after you kept spamming the thread continuously.   You have a short memory. 

You are avoiding the question that destroys your conspiracy theory.   

WHY would you even bother doing a controlled demolition of WTC7  when it was already teetering on the verge of collapse.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 02, 2017, 10:27:32 PM
Symmetrical free-fall through the path of greatest resistance doesn't leave many other options.

Please cite sources for your claim of wtc 7 being "on the verge of collapse."

You've stated what you believe, if you don't want to debate then please don't post.

Edit typo.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 02, 2017, 10:31:28 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 02, 2017, 02:04:35 AM
back to the ignore bin for you.

Please do this.

If my arguments are as stupid as you claim everyone will see it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 02, 2017, 10:41:58 PM
Quote from: disputeone on April 02, 2017, 10:27:32 PM
Symmetrical free-fall through the path of greatest resistance doesn't leave many other options.

Please cite sources for your claim of wtc 7 being "on the verge of collapse."

You've stated what you believe, if you don't want to debate then please don't post.

Edit typo.

Huh?  didn't you actually watch that video you've been spamming us with?



Here are some more.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1duxy_911-nbc-predicts-wtc7-collapse_news


Nobdy was surprised when it collapsed. 

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 02, 2017, 10:52:18 PM
Quote from: disputeone on April 02, 2017, 10:27:32 PM
Please cite sources for your claim of wtc 7 being "on the verge of collapse."

News reporters can't make calls on buildings. Neither can firemen.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 02, 2017, 10:56:41 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 02, 2017, 10:41:58 PM
Nobdy was surprised when it collapsed.

We've been through this, you can't speak for 7.5 billion people, attempting to is dishonest.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 02, 2017, 11:14:30 PM
Quote from: disputeone on April 02, 2017, 10:56:41 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 02, 2017, 10:41:58 PM
Nobdy was surprised when it collapsed.

We've been through this, you can't speak for 7.5 billion people, attempting to is dishonest.

LOL
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 02, 2017, 11:17:55 PM
Awesome post.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on April 03, 2017, 12:10:36 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 02, 2017, 10:15:08 PM
WHY would you even bother doing a controlled demolition of WTC7  when it was already teetering on the verge of collapse.

You are back... Lovely ::)

This isn't a fantasy world, this building couldn't "teeter" like a Lincoln log set stacked too high...You can keep repeating this all you want, it will not help with it's coherence.

As for reporters doing what reporters are suppose to do and making things dramatic, worst case speculation...Empty rhetoric..Scared and confused firefighters being scared another building might fall after what they have went through... Understandable​ 100 percent...

Though my speculation...I think the idea 7 is about to fall was circulated as part of the story, part of the script. Circulated to the media and circulated out on the street. This is why BBC messed up and aired it too early...Why they kept trying to pound in our heads (7 is about to go anytime)...Yet you didn't hear a word about 6, 4 or others that was damaged many many times greater and on fire much much worse than the lightly damaged 7 with very minimal fires.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 03, 2017, 12:18:44 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 03, 2017, 12:10:36 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 02, 2017, 10:15:08 PM
WHY would you even bother doing a controlled demolition of WTC7  when it was already teetering on the verge of collapse.

You are back... Lovely ::)

This isn't a fantasy world, this building couldn't "teeter" like a Lincoln log set stacked too high...You can keep repeating this all you want, it will not help with it's coherence.

As for reporters doing what reporters are suppose to do and making things dramatic, worst case speculation...Empty rhetoric..Scared and confused firefighters being scared another building might fall after what they have went through... Understandable​ 100 percent...

Though my speculation...I think the idea 7 is about to fall was circulated as part of the story, part of the script. Circulated to the media and circulated out on the street. This is why BBC messed up and aired it too early...Why they kept trying to pound in our heads (7 is about to go anytime)...Yet you didn't hear a word about 6, 4 or others that was damaged many many times greater and on fire much much worse than the lightly damaged 7 with very minimal fires.

So your argument is that they circulated false information about the imminent collapse of WTC7 to hide the fact that it was going to be demolished  after suffering severe debris damage and  burning uncontrolled for 7 hours,  and was visibly leaning.     

I don't think you realize how illogical that sounds?

"lightly damaged" ==/== 20 story gash in south side.
"very minimal fires"  ==/== smoke billowing from all floors for hours.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on April 03, 2017, 12:35:55 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 03, 2017, 12:18:44 AM
So your argument is that they circulated false information about the imminent collapse of WTC7 to hide the fact that it was going to be demolished  after suffering severe debris damage and  burning uncontrolled for 7 hours,  and was visibly leaning.     

I don't think you realize how illogical that sounds?

Actually my argument is the building could not fall as seen with the supposed catalyst.

My speculation is different.

It isn't rocket science..It's call greasing...Done all the time in business all the way to good liars and anywhere in between.

Easy example, if I worked somewhere, and I knew I didn't want to go to work on a Friday, so I planned to call in sick. Would it be better to plant the seed Wednesday I am not feeling super well and build on it...Or just called Friday morning and say I'm sick?

Which is more believable?

Quote
"lightly damaged" ==/== 20 story gash in south side.

Exaggerated and superficial..
Quote
"very minimal fires"  ==/== smoke billowing from all floors for hours.
A Down right lie
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 03, 2017, 01:01:18 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 03, 2017, 12:35:55 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 03, 2017, 12:18:44 AM
So your argument is that they circulated false information about the imminent collapse of WTC7 to hide the fact that it was going to be demolished  after suffering severe debris damage and  burning uncontrolled for 7 hours,  and was visibly leaning.     

I don't think you realize how illogical that sounds?

Actually my argument is the building could not fall as seen with the supposed catalyst.

My speculation is different.

It isn't rocket science..It's call greasing...Done all the time in business all the way to good liars and anywhere in between.

Easy example, if I worked somewhere, and I knew I didn't want to go to work on a Friday, so I planned to call in sick. Would it be better to plant the seed Wednesday I am not feeling super well and build on it...Or just called Friday morning and say I'm sick?

Which is more believable?

Quote
"lightly damaged" ==/== 20 story gash in south side.

Exaggerated and superficial..
Quote
"very minimal fires"  ==/== smoke billowing from all floors for hours.
A Down right lie

You are overreaching,  you should learn the facts before calling me a liar. 

Firefighter Tiernach Cassidy: It was fully engulfed.  That whole building – there were pieces of tower
two in building seven and the corners of the building missing and whatnot.  But just looking up at it
from ground level, however many stories it was, 40-some-odd, you could see the flames going straight
through from one side of the building to the other.  That’s an entire block.


The facts are as follows. 

1. Building Seven was seriously damaged early in the day and this damage progressed as the day went on.
2. FDNY members at the scene, whose testimony has been preserved, directly perceived this damage.
3. These FDNY members rationally concluded from what they perceived that the building was in danger of collapse.
4. The collapse warnings in the FDNY collection are merely the manifestation of this rational conclusion.

If you want to dispute the above you would have to assert that the FDNY was part of the conspiracy.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 03, 2017, 02:11:40 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 03, 2017, 12:35:55 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 03, 2017, 12:18:44 AM
"very minimal fires"  ==/== smoke billowing from all floors for hours.
A Down right lie

I think you are the one lying.   But what else is new.

(https://s21.postimg.org/f5loy02tz/WTC7_Fires1.jpg)

(https://s22.postimg.org/us5u61fup/WTC7_fires2.jpg)

(https://s4.postimg.org/6oua99efx/WTC_fires4.jpg)

The major damage was to the other side many reports confirm a 20 story gash in WTC7 from WTC1 debris.

(https://s10.postimg.org/poz6vnz15/WTC7_fires3.jpg)

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 03, 2017, 02:47:10 AM
20 story gash in the outer structure, the outer structure isn't vertically load bearing, the external structure being damaged does not explain the collapse at all, this is why NIST didn't include it as a cause.

The fires were average office fires, as claimed by NIST.

I wanted to talk about a single column failure and the sort of damage and collapse that would ultimately lead to. I would still like to discuss it actually.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 03, 2017, 05:22:38 PM
Quote from: disputeone on April 03, 2017, 02:47:10 AM
20 story gash in the outer structure, the outer structure isn't vertically load bearing, the external structure being damaged does not explain the collapse at all, this is why NIST didn't include it as a cause.

The fires were average office fires, as claimed by NIST.

I wanted to talk about a single column failure and the sort of damage and collapse that would ultimately lead to. I would still like to discuss it actually.

So you only accept what the NIST report says when it agrees with your loopy controlled demolition theory?  That's called cherry picking.

Can you cite where NIST claimed these were "ordinary" office fires.    An ordinary office fire doesn't burn for 7 hours with no sprinkler system,  and engulf multiple floors.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 03, 2017, 05:50:01 PM
Please don't take shots at posters mental health, you know how I feel about it.

The outer structures job was to stop the building from toppling, a gash in the outside structure wouldn't cause or really contribute to a vertical collapse.

Yes, the fires burned with no other fuel than the material in wtc 7, no jet fuel no magic fire, nothing. Just regular office fires burning from the fuel available in the building.

Here's your citation.

Quote
The fuel for the fires was ordinary office combustibles at ordinary combustible load levels.
There was no use of accelerants.
The spread of fire from combustible to combustible was governed by ordinary fire physics.

https://www.nist.gov/el/faqs-nist-wtc-7-investigation
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 03, 2017, 06:05:09 PM
Quote from: disputeone on April 03, 2017, 05:50:01 PM
Please don't take shots at posters mental health, you know how I feel about it.

Huh?  What potshots?   

Quote from: disputeone on April 03, 2017, 05:50:01 PM
The outer structures job was to stop the building from toppling, a gash in the outside structure wouldn't cause or really contribute to a vertical collapse.

So you are saying a 20 story gash in the outer structure could lead to toppling?


Quote from: disputeone on April 03, 2017, 05:50:01 PM
Yes, the fires burned with no other fuel than the material in wtc 7, no jet fuel no magic fire, nothing. Just regular office fires burning from the fuel available in the building.

Here's your citation.

Quote
The fuel for the fires was ordinary office combustibles at ordinary combustible load levels.
There was no use of accelerants.
The spread of fire from combustible to combustible was governed by ordinary fire physics.

https://www.nist.gov/el/faqs-nist-wtc-7-investigation

Agreed,  office fires can easily reach temperatures over 1000C and far field temperatures of 800C over wide areas.  More than enough to weaken the steel.

Still no answer as to WHY you would even bother to demolish a building on the verge of collapse.



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 03, 2017, 06:18:17 PM
Do you now agree they were ordinary office fires?

Of course damaging the outer structure will make the building more prone to toppling. No doubt. Wtc 7 didn't topple.

I don't care about weakened steel caused by fire, NIST cites lateral thermal expansion causing column 79 to fail by sliding from a girder.

Lets talk about the failure of column 79, I am happy to work from there. How did a failure of a single column lead to what we saw?

As for wtc 7 being "on the verge of collapse" that is nothing more than speculation, a proper building analysis wasn't done, people looked at it and thought "better stand clear" you can't tell what's happening inside a building from looking at it from the outside, people merely guessed and were told that it might fall.

I believe it was brought down to destroy evidence, that is speculation, talking about the physics of the building collapse isn't speculation.

I am happy to start from the failure of column 79, if you want I can dispute the fire models NIST used also.

(https://s29.postimg.org/4ji9lms9z/Screenshot_20170404-091426.png)

http://www1.ae911truth.org/faqs/761-fraud-exposed-in-nist-wtc-7-reports-part-1.html
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 05, 2017, 01:14:06 AM
Quote from: disputeone on April 03, 2017, 06:18:17 PM
Do you now agree they were ordinary office fires?

Of course damaging the outer structure will make the building more prone to toppling. No doubt. Wtc 7 didn't topple.

I don't care about weakened steel caused by fire, NIST cites lateral thermal expansion causing column 79 to fail by sliding from a girder.

Lets talk about the failure of column 79, I am happy to work from there. How did a failure of a single column lead to what we saw?

As for wtc 7 being "on the verge of collapse" that is nothing more than speculation, a proper building analysis wasn't done, people looked at it and thought "better stand clear" you can't tell what's happening inside a building from looking at it from the outside, people merely guessed and were told that it might fall.

I believe it was brought down to destroy evidence, that is speculation, talking about the physics of the building collapse isn't speculation.

I am happy to start from the failure of column 79, if you want I can dispute the fire models NIST used also.


I was hoping our friendly South African  Wolf might have taken up what initiiated the collapse,  but I can say that NIST's temperature data is very very conservative. 
More recent research and modelling shows much higher temperature profiles for high rise office fires, especially those covering multiple floors such as WTC1,2 and 7

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277237623_Multi-story_Fire_Analysis_for_High-Rise_Buildings

I've posted this research several times before in this thread,  but I doubt you've taken the time to read it.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 05, 2017, 01:19:07 AM
So you disagree with the NIST report?

I had read it (your article) before you posted it.

Been waiting since page one to have an actual technical discussion with you.

Wolf gave his 2c.

Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on March 29, 2017, 07:18:42 AM
What is strange to me, is that most modern designs have cross bracing, that "should" have prevented this total collapse. One column failing is usually not enough.


Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on March 30, 2017, 04:37:32 AM
I completely understand why people dont think it should have fallen.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 05, 2017, 02:32:34 AM
If your claim is the fires were hot enough to cause the failure of column 79 then fine, I already said I would work from there.

My prediction purely based on the Building design and logic is that after column 79 failed the load would be shared between the adjacent columns, most likely causing local failures and isolated collapses. These columns are rated at least at twice their working load overall, easily. This isn't factoring in unbalanced loads from local failures, but this is why we build to such a high safety margin.

(https://s18.postimg.org/a3ah8g8x5/WTC7-floor-plan-collapse-initial-failure-_NIST-co.gif)

We can clearly see the asymmetry of the building design and the asymmetry of the alleged damage. A failure in column 79 might cause the partial collapse of another few columns, I'd pay a partial building collapse. It is clearly not a critical column, as the collapse progressed to 76, 77 and 78 it would encounter massive structural resistance from the core. I think the total destruction of wtc 7 is impossible without CD.

We have to remember that wtc 7 had a very strong core, and a very stiff and strong outer structure.

Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on March 31, 2017, 12:14:38 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/Y1HDPtV.png)


This is what the external skin looks like. These are not minor steel beams they where using to keep it together either. Godzilla would not have gotten through that.

The cores job in nearly any building is to hold the building up against the mass of the building and gravity, the core is not designed to be laterally load bearing, that is why we see buildings swept away by floods intact as you have shown earlier in the thread.

Wtc 7s outer structure was primarily to keep the building from falling over, it was cross-braced and very strong, more than capable of providing structural resistance in the event of the collapse of the outer frame we saw.

More than that the failure of column 79 led to the failure of the entire core, any architect or engineer knows that this shouldn't happen. Buildings are designed to share load throughout their structure otherwise we end with massive stress on individual connections and the connection shearing. I think the symmetry, free-fall and near total destruction of wtc 7 are impossible without controlled demolition.

Edit. Typos.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 05, 2017, 10:26:04 PM
(https://s23.postimg.org/4kl90ml5n/20170406_132052.jpg)

Just a quick visual reference as to what we mean by a cross braced outer structure. Very strong, very stiff although we could competely remove it without the building coming close to a vertical collapse.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 06, 2017, 07:27:24 PM
Do not go gentle into that good night
Dylan Thomas, 1914 - 1953

Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
Because their words had forked no lightning they
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight,
And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way,
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight
Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

And you, my father, there on the sad height,
Curse, bless, me now with your fierce tears, I pray.
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 13, 2017, 12:29:53 AM
Quote from: disputeone on April 05, 2017, 02:32:34 AM
If your claim is the fires were hot enough to cause the failure of column 79 then fine, I already said I would work from there.

My prediction purely based on the Building design and logic is that after column 79 failed the load would be shared between the adjacent columns, most likely causing local failures and isolated collapses. These columns are rated at least at twice their working load overall, easily. This isn't factoring in unbalanced loads from local failures, but this is why we build to such a high safety margin.

(https://s18.postimg.org/a3ah8g8x5/WTC7-floor-plan-collapse-initial-failure-_NIST-co.gif)

We can clearly see the asymmetry of the building design and the asymmetry of the alleged damage. A failure in column 79 might cause the partial collapse of another few columns, I'd pay a partial building collapse. It is clearly not a critical column, as the collapse progressed to 76, 77 and 78 it would encounter massive structural resistance from the core. I think the total destruction of wtc 7 is impossible without CD.

We have to remember that wtc 7 had a very strong core, and a very stiff and strong outer structure.

Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on March 31, 2017, 12:14:38 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/Y1HDPtV.png)


This is what the external skin looks like. These are not minor steel beams they where using to keep it together either. Godzilla would not have gotten through that.

The cores job in nearly any building is to hold the building up against the mass of the building and gravity, the core is not designed to be laterally load bearing, that is why we see buildings swept away by floods intact as you have shown earlier in the thread.

Wtc 7s outer structure was primarily to keep the building from falling over, it was cross-braced and very strong, more than capable of providing structural resistance in the event of the collapse of the outer frame we saw.

More than that the failure of column 79 led to the failure of the entire core, any architect or engineer knows that this shouldn't happen. Buildings are designed to share load throughout their structure otherwise we end with massive stress on individual connections and the connection shearing. I think the symmetry, free-fall and near total destruction of wtc 7 are impossible without controlled demolition.

Here is where we left it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 13, 2017, 03:21:33 AM


You've got nothing, you never had and you never will.

>muh tv.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 13, 2017, 03:33:35 AM
I'll start from wherever you like Jimmy.

If you believe the official story I will start from the very beginning and we can talk about it.

You seem honest and intelligent. I would like an actual debate.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 13, 2017, 06:20:06 PM
The "nutter" in my video above asks how we got DNA evidence from out of the molten steel and pulverized concrete, he then wants to know how we had the DNA of the "terrorists" in caves in Afghanistan farming goats to begin with.

Can you imagine someone asking that question?? What a conspiracy nutter!! The TV already told us not to ask questions, what sort of madman would ask questions after our TV told us we didn't need to ask questions!?

My god, all this negative talk about our lord and saviour (the TV) is making me angry, lets all gather around the warm light of our televisions and turn our brains off and pray to the TV.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 13, 2017, 06:39:45 PM
Anyone then?

I challenge anyone to justify the official story, anyone at all.

Stop making comments in the FE forums and debate, show us the official story stands up to scrutiny.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on April 14, 2017, 12:59:57 AM
Quote from: disputeone on April 13, 2017, 06:39:45 PM
Anyone then?

echo echo echo
echo
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on April 14, 2017, 06:05:35 AM
It's very easy. Nobody has the time and motivation to stay in this thread... I quote myself:

"... people like you are so often convinced they "won" the debate, but actually their stupidity, stubbornness and incredible amount of insults did just lead to everyone leaving the discussion."
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on April 14, 2017, 07:13:08 AM
Quote from: User324 on April 14, 2017, 06:05:35 AM
It's very easy. Nobody has the time and motivation to stay in this thread... I quote myself:

"... people like you are so often convinced they "won" the debate, but actually their stupidity, stubbornness and incredible amount of insults did just lead to everyone leaving the discussion."

^
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sokarul on April 14, 2017, 10:51:58 AM
Quote from: disputeone on April 13, 2017, 06:39:45 PM
Anyone then?

I challenge anyone to justify the official story, anyone at all.

Stop making comments in the FE forums and debate, show us the official story stands up to scrutiny.
Official story starting from where?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: hoppy on April 14, 2017, 04:12:07 PM
Quote from: sokarul on April 14, 2017, 10:51:58 AM
Quote from: disputeone on April 13, 2017, 06:39:45 PM
Anyone then?

I challenge anyone to justify the official story, anyone at all.

Stop making comments in the FE forums and debate, show us the official story stands up to scrutiny.
Official story starting from where?
How about starting at the begining, crazy Muslems want to kill Americans.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on April 14, 2017, 05:41:20 PM
Quote from: User324 on April 14, 2017, 06:05:35 AM
It's very easy. Nobody has the time and motivation to stay in this thread... I quote myself:

"... people like you are so often convinced they "won" the debate, but actually their stupidity, stubbornness and incredible amount of insults did just lead to everyone leaving the discussion."

Present a real argument besides insults and empty rhetoric, then just maybe you can claim this position.

Quote from: TotesReptilian on April 14, 2017, 07:13:08 AM
Quote from: User324 on April 14, 2017, 06:05:35 AM
It's very easy. Nobody has the time and motivation to stay in this thread... I quote myself:

"... people like you are so often convinced they "won" the debate, but actually their stupidity, stubbornness and incredible amount of insults did just lead to everyone leaving the discussion."

^

Disappointing coming from someone who is supposed to be intelligent. Also, please read above...


The only blame I will take is my words towards rayzor, he crossed a line anyone with humanity should not have crossed on a personal level. I regret none that I have said to him
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 14, 2017, 05:48:18 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 14, 2017, 05:41:20 PM
The only blame I will take is my words towards rayzor, he crossed a line anyone with humanity should not have crossed on a personal level. I regret none that I have said to him

How about the fact that you ran away whenever a hard question was asked,  and then pretended you were undecided all along.   

If you want to start with the insults again,  I'll start responding in kind,  it didn't end well for dipstickone last time around.   


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on April 14, 2017, 06:03:30 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 14, 2017, 05:48:18 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 14, 2017, 05:41:20 PM
The only blame I will take is my words towards rayzor, he crossed a line anyone with humanity should not have crossed on a personal level. I regret none that I have said to him

How about the fact that you ran away whenever a hard question was asked,  and then pretended you were undecided all along.   

If you want to start with the insults again,  I'll start responding in kind,  it didn't end well for dipstickone last time around.

Clap trap...I answered the questions directly in my own words. I can't help if it didn't compute for you.

The only person besides dispute who came in that had any personal experience to speak from was an architect. We communicated fantastically, and English wasn't even his first language! He followed everything I was saying and agreed.

He is still undecided, yet did I say anything insulting whatsoever?? Nadda, because we just had an honest conversation...Which is all I ever wanted.

You are a different subject..You went way beyond this subject matter and said things only a garbage can of a person would say.

Even now, you can't even stop lying...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on April 14, 2017, 06:50:43 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 14, 2017, 05:41:20 PM
Quote from: User324 on April 14, 2017, 06:05:35 AM
It's very easy. Nobody has the time and motivation to stay in this thread... I quote myself:

"... people like you are so often convinced they "won" the debate, but actually their stupidity, stubbornness and incredible amount of insults did just lead to everyone leaving the discussion."

Present a real argument besides insults and empty rhetoric, then just maybe you can claim this position.

Quote from: TotesReptilian on April 14, 2017, 07:13:08 AM
Quote from: User324 on April 14, 2017, 06:05:35 AM
It's very easy. Nobody has the time and motivation to stay in this thread... I quote myself:

"... people like you are so often convinced they "won" the debate, but actually their stupidity, stubbornness and incredible amount of insults did just lead to everyone leaving the discussion."

^

Disappointing coming from someone who is supposed to be intelligent. Also, please read above...

*eyeroll*
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: markjo on April 14, 2017, 07:05:14 PM
After 108 pages of debate (and I use the term loosely), I thing that it's pretty safe to say that the only truth about 9/11 is that you guys will never agree as to what is the truth about 9/11.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on April 14, 2017, 07:26:34 PM
Disappointing though usual answer totes

Quote from: markjo on April 14, 2017, 07:05:14 PM
After 108 pages of debate (and I use the term loosely), I thing that it's pretty safe to say that the only truth about 9/11 is that you guys will never agree as to what is the truth about 9/11.

I agree with this 100 percent.

I don't even agree with some of my own ideas of what happened, I am always in self deliberation.

However, one thing I do agree on is what didn't happen, and that was suppose to be the point of this thread.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sceptimatic on April 14, 2017, 07:29:42 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 14, 2017, 07:26:34 PM
Disappointing though usual answer totes

Quote from: markjo on April 14, 2017, 07:05:14 PM
After 108 pages of debate (and I use the term loosely), I thing that it's pretty safe to say that the only truth about 9/11 is that you guys will never agree as to what is the truth about 9/11.

I agree with this 100 percent.

I don't even agree with some of my own ideas of what happened, I am always in self deliberation.

However, one thing I do agree on is what didn't happen, and that was suppose to be the point of this thread.
Absolutely.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 14, 2017, 07:43:50 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 14, 2017, 07:26:34 PM
Disappointing though usual answer totes

Quote from: markjo on April 14, 2017, 07:05:14 PM
After 108 pages of debate (and I use the term loosely), I thing that it's pretty safe to say that the only truth about 9/11 is that you guys will never agree as to what is the truth about 9/11.

I agree with this 100 percent.

I don't even agree with some of my own ideas of what happened, I am always in self deliberation.

However, one thing I do agree on is what didn't happen, and that was suppose to be the point of this thread.

I started this thread to see what the the truth is about 9/11 conspiracy.   At least we now know how delusional and paranoid these  9/11 crazies actually are,  striking parallels with the way flat earthers think.

So, dipstickone has mental problems,  his OCD spamming is a good clue to his problem, I fear that there is nothing much anyone here can do to help him,  I'd advise him to just stay away from places where the crazies congregate, like flat earth forums.  Seek professional help.

Babyhighspeed isn't doing him any favours by encouraging his delusions.




Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: observer on April 14, 2017, 08:45:51 PM
108 pages?

Do you really think you'll change brainwashed people's minds? 9/11 is much more clear than the faked moon landings. No planes, CGI is evident from the deconstruction of the the 3 live videos aired. Explosives were heard in the basement by first responders, building 7 was "pulled", fires have NEVER in the history of sky scrapers brought down a building at free-fall speed to produce molten steel. They don't have scientific evidence that backs this and anyone who still believes the official 9/11 story in 2017 is not worth the debate or time. Check the huge list of architects who signed against the official story. They don't have answers because there aren't answers. They'll just constantly shove the lies down the throats and keep you concentrating on that. 9/11 was a false flag operation and billions of dollars were made from it by the elite. They own America and to an extent the entire western world.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 14, 2017, 09:23:42 PM
Quote from: observer on April 14, 2017, 08:45:51 PM
108 pages?

Do you really think you'll change brainwashed people's minds? 9/11 is much more clear than the faked moon landings. No planes, CGI is evident from the deconstruction of the the 3 live videos aired. Explosives were heard in the basement by first responders, building 7 was "pulled", fires have NEVER in the history of sky scrapers brought down a building at free-fall speed to produce molten steel. They don't have scientific evidence that backs this and anyone who still believes the official 9/11 story in 2017 is not worth the debate or time. Check the huge list of architects who signed against the official story. They don't have answers because there aren't answers. They'll just constantly shove the lies down the throats and keep you concentrating on that. 9/11 was a false flag operation and billions of dollars were made from it by the elite. They own America and to an extent the entire western world.

LOL  Who exactly is "they"?   The same ones that fake the satellites and hide the flat earth?



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: observer on April 14, 2017, 10:05:58 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 14, 2017, 09:23:42 PM
Quote from: observer on April 14, 2017, 08:45:51 PM
108 pages?

Do you really think you'll change brainwashed people's minds? 9/11 is much more clear than the faked moon landings. No planes, CGI is evident from the deconstruction of the the 3 live videos aired. Explosives were heard in the basement by first responders, building 7 was "pulled", fires have NEVER in the history of sky scrapers brought down a building at free-fall speed to produce molten steel. They don't have scientific evidence that backs this and anyone who still believes the official 9/11 story in 2017 is not worth the debate or time. Check the huge list of architects who signed against the official story. They don't have answers because there aren't answers. They'll just constantly shove the lies down the throats and keep you concentrating on that. 9/11 was a false flag operation and billions of dollars were made from it by the elite. They own America and to an extent the entire western world.

LOL  Who exactly is "they"?   The same ones that fake the satellites and hide the flat earth?
Nope, "they" = the ones who believe the official 9/11 story
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 14, 2017, 10:24:56 PM
Quote from: observer on April 14, 2017, 10:05:58 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 14, 2017, 09:23:42 PM
Quote from: observer on April 14, 2017, 08:45:51 PM
108 pages?

Do you really think you'll change brainwashed people's minds? 9/11 is much more clear than the faked moon landings. No planes, CGI is evident from the deconstruction of the the 3 live videos aired. Explosives were heard in the basement by first responders, building 7 was "pulled", fires have NEVER in the history of sky scrapers brought down a building at free-fall speed to produce molten steel. They don't have scientific evidence that backs this and anyone who still believes the official 9/11 story in 2017 is not worth the debate or time. Check the huge list of architects who signed against the official story. They don't have answers because there aren't answers. They'll just constantly shove the lies down the throats and keep you concentrating on that. 9/11 was a false flag operation and billions of dollars were made from it by the elite. They own America and to an extent the entire western world.

LOL  Who exactly is "they"?   The same ones that fake the satellites and hide the flat earth?
Nope, "they" = the ones who believe the official 9/11 story

That's a nonsensical answer.    I believe most of the official story,  but,  I don't "own" America,  or control the entire western world.   
I'll go further and point out that applies to most if not all of the people who believe the official story. 

Nonsense answers usually are a good indicator of someone who is just trolling,  your next answer will decide.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: observer on April 14, 2017, 10:39:59 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 14, 2017, 10:24:56 PM
Quote from: observer on April 14, 2017, 10:05:58 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 14, 2017, 09:23:42 PM
Quote from: observer on April 14, 2017, 08:45:51 PM
108 pages?

Do you really think you'll change brainwashed people's minds? 9/11 is much more clear than the faked moon landings. No planes, CGI is evident from the deconstruction of the the 3 live videos aired. Explosives were heard in the basement by first responders, building 7 was "pulled", fires have NEVER in the history of sky scrapers brought down a building at free-fall speed to produce molten steel. They don't have scientific evidence that backs this and anyone who still believes the official 9/11 story in 2017 is not worth the debate or time. Check the huge list of architects who signed against the official story. They don't have answers because there aren't answers. They'll just constantly shove the lies down the throats and keep you concentrating on that. 9/11 was a false flag operation and billions of dollars were made from it by the elite. They own America and to an extent the entire western world.

LOL  Who exactly is "they"?   The same ones that fake the satellites and hide the flat earth?
Nope, "they" = the ones who believe the official 9/11 story

That's a nonsensical answer.    I believe most of the official story,  but,  I don't "own" America,  or control the entire western world.   
I'll go further and point out that applies to most if not all of the people who believe the official story. 

Nonsense answers usually are a good indicator of someone who is just trolling,  your next answer will decide.

You're not the brightest from the sheep herd are you?

How you got from "I believe most of the official story" to "but I don't own America" is beyond the normal realm of understanding. If it's because it says "They own America" then you are not capable of reading and understanding basic sentence constructs.

So I completely agree with your last sentence:
Quote
Nonsense answers usually are a good indicator of someone who is just trolling

And to put you out of your misery for not being able to understand something so simple, i'll break it down for you..

"9/11 was a false flag operation and billions of dollars were made from it by the elite."
This means those who orchestrated the events and murders on 9/11 made billions of dollars (overall) from the fake wars on terror that followed, arms deals, central banks, insurance money, oil and more which is all available to research online. The elite (that I mentioned) "own America and to an extent the entire western world." So here, "They" refers to the ones I just mentioned one punctuation mark i.e. one character prior to the word. And if you want to learn more on how to use the word they and what it means in normal every day life then here http://www.dictionary.com/browse/they

And if you're going to go one step further and say "then why did you say it refers to the ones who believe the official story?" then I answered about my first reference of "They" - that's how it usually works. Then again, I can't expect you to understand basic English when you believe the official 9/11 story that fires and the weight of the floors obliterated 3 buildings on 9/11 at free-fall speed.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on April 14, 2017, 11:27:25 PM
I guess in real life you guys drive around a roundabout 50 times, and every round expecting that there would suddenly appear a new exit.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 14, 2017, 11:53:55 PM
Quote from: User324 on April 14, 2017, 11:27:25 PM
I guess in real life you guys drive around a roundabout 50 times, and every round expecting that there would suddenly appear a new exit.

ROTFL    That's what arguing with these crazy 9/11 conspiracy theorists is exactly like.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: observer on April 15, 2017, 05:30:20 AM
9/11 believers.
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-yljf4rUfoAQ/VE1Xv7hT4II/AAAAAAAASKc/uai9s8GASaM/s1600/01%2BSheep%2BTV.jpg)

Simple as that.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 15, 2017, 07:02:21 AM
Conspiracy nutters.

(https://s3.postimg.org/brto7939v/conspiracy.jpg)

Even simpler.

Now let's hear you use the word "sheeple"  that will complete the trifecta.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 16, 2017, 06:02:13 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 15, 2017, 07:02:21 AM
Conspiracy nutters.

The best argument you have had for 100+ pages has been calling people crazy Rayzor.

Please take note of this.

Totes go back to Shareblue.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 16, 2017, 06:06:12 PM
I could sit here and talk about the overwhelmingly obvious mental illness symptoms you display Rayzor, but I wanted to talk about how the buildings fell.

It's a pity you felt like you had to call people crazy instead of debate.

(https://s2.postimg.org/idaid1s2h/1492334491326.jpg)

Edit.

Quote from: Rayzor on April 14, 2017, 09:23:42 PM
LOL  Who exactly is "they"?

You know exactly who, you get so upset when I mention it.

(https://s21.postimg.org/g62gm1bav/1492332503359.jpg)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 16, 2017, 07:59:19 PM
What if I pay a few judges $150 or so each, just honest unbiased intelligent posters that we can agree on?

I then put up $500 for the "winner" of the debate as decided by the judges, we can follow a proper debate structure and method, if after a set period of time the official story side beats us in debate I will happily transfer the prize and admit that we lost the debate.

debate method pdf (https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.edu.gov.mb.ca/k12/cur/socstud/frame_found_sr2/tns/tn-13.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjx3-LyvqrTAhVKkJQKHVWJA9gQFggfMAI&usg=AFQjCNErXyWbKBbcv1LGFyCXyW7H7Hj4CQ&sig2=HOUbqRE_mNPMmw-x8jCAWQ)

We can modify the rules for an online debate to have word limits instead of time limits.

I'm more than happy to take anyone on myself but I think Bhs will be down for this also.

Open offer.

*$ AUD.

I just want people to see that I am not a "nutter" and we do have evidence.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: observer on April 17, 2017, 12:36:03 AM
Comment from YouTube argument.. worth sharing

Truther to sheep:

Quote
Your evidence: Fox News, NBC, CBS, BBC? And then actors who coincidentally report the same scripted things before any investigation even started?

Our evidence: Firefighters, first responders, workers at WTC, janitors in the basement levels, video evidence, physics, science, architects, scientists, bomb experts, demolition experts, video compositing experts, families of victims, actions of government immediately after, clearing up crime scene before the dust even reached the ground, the profits made by USA and Israel as a result and the list goes on..

There's no comparison, you live in your deluded world, I'll stick to reality. I'm done with you.

As I said, the sheep to anyone who challenges their delusions:

(https://i.imgflip.com/1ndm9y.jpg)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on April 17, 2017, 02:08:48 AM
Quote from: disputeone on April 16, 2017, 06:06:12 PM
I could sit here and talk about the overwhelmingly obvious mental illness symptoms you display Rayzor, but I wanted to talk about how the buildings fell.

It's a pity you felt like you had to call people crazy instead of debate.

That is all rayzor has...Even after you explained why you hate that phrase, he continued...Even now he still continues. I have already made it obviously clear how I feel to him and to others, no need to rehash. At least currently as I am in a good mood after walking back from the bar.

(Oh...And I just saw the "rayzor song"...Really is sad, also quite the obvious deflection and reflection at the same time)

Quote from: disputeone on April 16, 2017, 07:59:19 PM
What if I pay a few judges $150 or so each, just honest unbiased intelligent posters that we can agree on?

I then put up $500 for the "winner" of the debate as decided by the judges, we can follow a proper debate structure and method, if after a set period of time the official story side beats us in debate I will happily transfer the prize and admit that we lost the debate.

debate method pdf (https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.edu.gov.mb.ca/k12/cur/socstud/frame_found_sr2/tns/tn-13.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjx3-LyvqrTAhVKkJQKHVWJA9gQFggfMAI&usg=AFQjCNErXyWbKBbcv1LGFyCXyW7H7Hj4CQ&sig2=HOUbqRE_mNPMmw-x8jCAWQ)

We can modify the rules for an online debate to have word limits instead of time limits.

I'm more than happy to take anyone on myself but I think Bhs will be down for this also.

Open offer.

*$ AUD.

I just want people to see that I am not a "nutter" and we do have evidence.

Hmmm...This is interesting...I would be down for sure. Though it would need to be said, we would be debating what did not happen...Leaving speculation out of the equation.

I would leave it to dispute to find the parties responsible for judgement and other responsibilities (long story short it's his baby, I will just participate) as my free time of late has been very minimal. However I will fund it...

500 is a fun prize...However, if people are serious, let's move it up a notch...How about boosting the grand prize to 5,000?? That would dictate the time to getting a serious discussion if it exist right?? We can also increase if people are feeling confident.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on April 17, 2017, 02:14:02 AM
Oh...And to show I am not blowing hot air here..

(http://i67.tinypic.com/2qjvpys.jpg)

If there are serious people, as I said, we can keep adding zeros if it comes to that.. and if I run out of petty cash from my sock drawer, i can get my check book if need be.

But who am I? Just a crazy, no good, useless conspiracy theorist right?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 17, 2017, 02:28:54 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 17, 2017, 02:14:02 AM
But who am I? Just a crazy, no good, useless conspiracy theorist right?

If that's true it should be easy to win the debate and the prize. ::)

Pretty fair terms guys, this isn't a Heiwa challenge, there's some money to be made here.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 17, 2017, 03:48:46 AM
Easy money.

I'm working overseas for a few weeks,  so internet access might be hit and miss.   I don't need the money but, I'm happy to see the back of dipstickone once and for all,  and yes he really is obsessing about 9/11,  crazy doesn't even begin to cover it.

As far as no argument goes,  I've proven over and over, beyond doubt that the planes existed and crashed into the twin towers, the Pentagon and Shanksville,  as per the official story.   The only tint tiny shed of doubt might be to haggle over collapse mechanisms.  But that's hardly a basis for such a far reaching conspiracy,  to believe that is all it takes for some un-identified "they"  to have murdered thousands in cold blood,  and not a single whistle blower anywhere any time.   

Yes, you'd have to be fucking crazy as a loon.   Oh wait....



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 17, 2017, 03:50:56 AM
You can't explain the collapses that we saw.

Especially wtc 7s.

Edit.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 17, 2017, 02:08:48 AM
Though it would need to be said, we would be debating what did not happen...Leaving speculation out of the equation.

All we have to show is the NIST report doesn't cover the collapses.

QED.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 17, 2017, 03:57:42 AM
If the collapses don't make physical  sense based on the catalyst we have all the evidence we will ever need to show foul play.

It's the equivalent of seeing a car crash into a house and the house vaporize and say "it had to be the car that caused it to vaporize because we saw the car hit it."

Physics doesn't work like that.

"Not a single whistleblower."

>2800 architects and engineers lmao.
www.ae911truth.org
www.wtc7investigation.org

Anyway who are your picks for judges. I would like engineers and / or scientists.

Rama Set, Jack Black, Rabinoz, Mikey T, OBM, itsatorus etc.

I would object to say user321 as a judge because he has an obvious bias same with sceptimatic for example.

Edit.

MaNaeSWolf would be a fantastic judge if we could convince him to do it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 17, 2017, 04:15:09 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 17, 2017, 03:48:46 AM
not a single whistle blower anywhere any time.

Yes, you'd have to be fucking crazy as a loon.   Oh wait....

I'd like you to apologize for that post and admit that statement was either ignorant, or an outright lie.









Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 17, 2017, 04:15:40 AM
Quote from: disputeone on April 17, 2017, 03:50:56 AM

All we have to show is the NIST report doesn't cover the collapses.

QED.

Not at all, you have to prove conclusively that it was a conspiracy   ( other than the Al Qaeda conspiracy that's already proven ).

You can't even prove controlled demolition of WTC7, all you have is that it was teetering on the edge of collapse, and when it fell,  some dipshit thought it "looked like a demolition job",   well go fly a kite,  what building collapse doesn't look like a demolition?

You've got nothing,  never had anything other than delusions and paranoid conspiracies.   ( Oh almost forgot your weird occult crap )

While you're pondering that conundrum,  tell me who this mysterious "they" actually is.   
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: observer on April 17, 2017, 04:16:24 AM
Quote from: disputeone on April 17, 2017, 03:57:42 AM
If the collapses don't make physical  sense based on the catalyst we have all the evidence we will ever need to show foul play.

It's the equivalent of seeing a car crash into a house and the house vaporize and say "it had to be the car that caused it to vaporize because we saw the car hit it."

Physics doesn't work like that.

"Not a single whistleblower."

>2800 architects and engineers lmao.
www.ae911truth.org
www.wtc7investigation.org

Anyway who are your picks for judges. I would like engineers and / or scientists.

Rama Set, Jack Black, Rabinoz, Mikey T, OBM, itsatorus etc.

I would object to say user321 as a judge because he has an obvious bias same with sceptimatic for example.

Edit.

MaNaeSWolf would be a fantastic judge if we could convince him to do it.

I'll be a judge.. but I'm very very biased towards truth so I can give my verdict now. The sheep Rayzor loses.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 17, 2017, 04:18:32 AM
Quote from: disputeone on April 17, 2017, 04:15:09 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 17, 2017, 03:48:46 AM
not a single whistle blower anywhere any time.

Yes, you'd have to be fucking crazy as a loon.   Oh wait....

I'd like you to apologize for that post and admit that statement was either ignorant, or an outright lie.


I can show you videos on youtube that prove the earth is flat, the moon is a hologram,  that shape-shifting lizards are everywhere..   

The ae911 truthers are only in for money,  like  Gaga Gage and his minions.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 17, 2017, 04:19:26 AM
Quote from: observer on April 17, 2017, 04:16:24 AM
Quote from: disputeone on April 17, 2017, 03:57:42 AM
If the collapses don't make physical  sense based on the catalyst we have all the evidence we will ever need to show foul play.

It's the equivalent of seeing a car crash into a house and the house vaporize and say "it had to be the car that caused it to vaporize because we saw the car hit it."

Physics doesn't work like that.

"Not a single whistleblower."

>2800 architects and engineers lmao.
www.ae911truth.org
www.wtc7investigation.org

Anyway who are your picks for judges. I would like engineers and / or scientists.

Rama Set, Jack Black, Rabinoz, Mikey T, OBM, itsatorus etc.

I would object to say user321 as a judge because he has an obvious bias same with sceptimatic for example.

Edit.

MaNaeSWolf would be a fantastic judge if we could convince him to do it.

I'll be a judge.. but I'm very very biased towards truth so I can give my verdict now. The sheep Rayzor loses.

LOL
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 17, 2017, 04:19:45 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 17, 2017, 04:15:40 AM
Quote from: disputeone on April 17, 2017, 03:50:56 AM

All we have to show is the NIST report doesn't cover the collapses.

QED.

Not at all, you have to prove conclusively that it was a conspiracy   ( other than the Al Qaeda conspiracy that's already proven ).

You can't even prove controlled demolition of WTC7, all you have is that it was teetering on the edge of collapse, and when it fell,  some dipshit thought it "looked like a demolition job",   well go fly a kite,  what building collapse doesn't look like a demolition?

You've got nothing,  never had anything other than delusions and paranoid conspiracies.   ( Oh almost forgot your weird occult crap )

While you're pondering that conundrum,  tell me who this mysterious "they" actually is.   


That's a strawman argument.

If the physics don't make sense the physics don't make sense.

You can't trump physics with incredulity. Can you please provide a citation for Al-Qaeda's involvement being "proven" I'd like to see it.

Quote from: Rayzor on April 17, 2017, 04:18:32 AM
Quote from: disputeone on April 17, 2017, 04:15:09 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 17, 2017, 03:48:46 AM
not a single whistle blower anywhere any time.

Yes, you'd have to be fucking crazy as a loon.   Oh wait....

I'd like you to apologize for that post and admit that statement was either ignorant, or an outright lie.


I can show you videos on youtube that prove the earth is flat, the moon is a hologram,  that shape-shifting lizards are everywhere..   

The ae911 truthers are only in for money,  like  Gaga Gage and his minions.


You said there was no whistleblowers, I showed you there were plenty of whistleblowers, I'd like you to apologize.

Those videos do not prove the earth is flat and you know it.

Another strawman argument. The judges will see this.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 17, 2017, 04:22:24 AM
Anyway enough of this, who would you like the judges to be? How long will the debate last? What format will we use.

Lets actually talk.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 17, 2017, 04:24:34 AM
Quote from: disputeone on April 17, 2017, 04:19:45 AM

You said there was no whistleblowers, I showed you there were plenty of whistleblowers, I'd like you to apologize.


You should apologize for being a complete nuff nuff,  not one those videos identify who is supposed to be behind the conspiracy,  or how it was done.

In any case the collapse mechanism is all you've got.  And that's pretty tenuous ground.

Fail  0/10

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 17, 2017, 04:26:07 AM
The firefighters were pretty clear about explosions, those are whistleblowers, like it or not. Please stop calling people names it makes it look like it's all you have.

Enough of this nonsense.

Quote from: disputeone on April 17, 2017, 04:22:24 AM
Anyway enough of this, who would you like the judges to be? How long will the debate last? What format will we use.

Lets actually talk.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 17, 2017, 04:37:47 AM
Also Rayzor how dare you compare Gage and especially Hulsey, a distinguished Professor and one of the best forensic structural engineers in the world to flat earthers, not even mentioning the two thousand eight hundred and fifty architects and structural engineers that agree with him.

We will not be dismissed as you dismiss flat earthers, trying to compare truthers to holographic mooners or reptillian believers is just a non argument, not to mention dishonest.

Trying to discredit your debate partner instead of attacking their arguments is not allowed in any formal debate, you have been doing it since page one.

Edit, I've got much, much more than the collapses, I just believe wtc 7 is the smoking gun.

Oh I forgot to respond about your statement of proving that planes crashed into the Pentagon and Shanksville.

Lmao, citation please.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 17, 2017, 04:51:56 AM
Quote from: disputeone on April 17, 2017, 04:37:47 AM

Oh I forgot to respond about your statement of proving that planes crashed into the Pentagon and Shanksville.

Lmao, citation please.

What's the main thing you see on http://www.wtc7evaluation.org/  the answer is appeals for donations,  none of the data is available,  go GFY.   Hulsey is a conman.

As far a Richard Gage goes he is a confidence trickster,  he discovered that there are stupid people in the world who would pay him money.

Oh,  I almost forgot Al Qaeda,   they planned it,  trained for it,  and don't forget that this was their second attempt on the WTC,  they proudly confessed to the conspiracy.    You really should stop watching those lying misleading youtube videos, they will rot your brain.

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/video/osama-bin-laden-911-confession-13506877

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 17, 2017, 04:56:33 AM
>stop watching testimony from professionals.

>watch this news article of osama's "confession"

Oh lordy.

I will ignore your disgusting attempts to discredit PhD truthers.

Quote from: disputeone on April 17, 2017, 04:22:24 AM
Anyway enough of this, who would you like the judges to be? How long will the debate last? What format will we use.

Lets actually talk.

Edit.

Oh and which "Osama" confessed?
(https://s9.postimg.org/op063yzwv/ce4cc3754102e79f3856bbdaf6b8bbb8f543513f.jpg)

Just kidding, I know.

(https://s18.postimg.org/9bgl4nueh/bin_laden_videos.jpg)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 17, 2017, 05:00:28 AM
Quote from: disputeone on April 17, 2017, 04:56:33 AM
>stop watching testimony from professionals.

>watch this news article of osama's "confession"

Oh lordy.

I will ignore your disgusting attempts to discredit PhD truthers.

Quote from: disputeone on April 17, 2017, 04:22:24 AM
Anyway enough of this, who would you like the judges to be? How long will the debate last? What format will we use.

Lets actually talk.

You choose the judges,  but I think the tribe has already spoken,  the poll results are already in.   So knock yourself out.

I'll be back,  internet connection permitting,  to see what stupid things you are saying in a day or so.

EDIT:   Another reality check for you.   https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/mar/15/alqaida.september11

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 17, 2017, 05:05:26 AM
The poll results are not reflective of the debate merely peoples opinions on 9/11.

Another strawman, you are very bad at this.
The judges could say we won the debate while still (wanting to) believing the official story or vice versa, winning a debate is not conclusive proof of anything.

I will be saying what I have been stating undebunked since page one.

Fall acceleration and symmetry of wtc 7 given the catalyst we were told and saw.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 17, 2017, 05:19:16 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 17, 2017, 05:00:28 AM
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2007/mar/15/alqaida.september11

These are the same people that told you about the WMD's and that the Iraq war wasn't for oil and geopolitical control.

I am sure you will understand that I don't consider news articles to be 100% proof.

That article even has to say "Alleged confession", because that is all it really is.

Tell me what you think he would have to gain by confessing in gitmo.

Quote
It is not clear why Mohammed would have wished to confess to such a wide-ranging number of outrages. The alleged confession is likely, however, to stiffen the resolve of the Bush administration in pursuing its controversial policy of putting the biggest cases of suspected terrorism through the closed military hearings.

You are the definition of a sheep.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: observer on April 17, 2017, 05:19:43 AM
disputeone you're wasting you time. This tool is a completely sheep and a pretty ignorant one at that. He's got NOTHING and we all know he never will... so better to just feel proud of the common sense that we have to see 9/11 for what it really was. Mass murder for a new world order (their words, not ours)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 17, 2017, 05:25:41 AM
Thanks man I appreciate it.

It's not so much for Rayzor, truthers don't lose debates, popular mechanics was banned from debating us and NIST never even wanted to try. It bothers me how people feel justified in saying we have no evidence then run away from the evidence we present.

Your picture sums it up well.

(https://i.imgflip.com/1ndm9y.jpg)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 17, 2017, 05:28:16 AM
Quote from: disputeone on April 17, 2017, 05:25:41 AM
Your picture sums it up well.

(https://i.imgflip.com/1ndm9y.jpg)

Agreed I think that's a perfect image of a 911 truther.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 17, 2017, 05:30:44 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 17, 2017, 05:00:28 AM
Quote from: disputeone on April 17, 2017, 04:22:24 AM
Anyway enough of this, who would you like the judges to be? How long will the debate last? What format will we use.

Lets actually talk.

You choose the judges.

Alright.

Totallackey Observer and hoppy.

My argument is that you suck. I can safely assume we won regardless of your rebuttal to my point of you sucking.

Let's do this properly or not at all hey?

Edit.

Quote from: Rayzor on April 17, 2017, 05:28:16 AM
Quote from: disputeone on April 17, 2017, 05:25:41 AM
Your picture sums it up well.

(https://i.imgflip.com/1ndm9y.jpg)

Agreed I think that's a perfect image of a 911 truther.

(https://s14.postimg.org/ogwoh2jzl/superhulsey.jpg)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on April 17, 2017, 10:06:48 AM
This can't be won by name calling rayzor (seeing you are still using that phrase towards dispute after he explained the back story a month ago shows one more time the garbage can of nothing you are)..

Seeing that is all you are going to present is nonsense and name calling...Even before the official contest begins, none of your cronies joined with you, I guess that is a forfeit?

I would like to donate the winnings to the FES website....They don't accept Monopoly money though...Better pay up too, don't want John Davis looking for a knee cap.


Toodle-pip loser (this is metaphorical as well as literal)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on April 17, 2017, 11:22:33 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 17, 2017, 05:00:28 AM
Quote from: disputeone on April 17, 2017, 04:56:33 AM
Quote from: disputeone on April 17, 2017, 04:22:24 AM
Anyway enough of this, who would you like the judges to be?
You choose the judges,  but I think the tribe has already spoken,  the poll results are already in.   So knock yourself out.
Quote from: disputeone on April 17, 2017, 05:30:44 AM
Alright.

Totallackey Observer and hoppy.
I will be a judge.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 17, 2017, 12:32:13 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 17, 2017, 10:06:48 AM
This can't be won by name calling rayzor (seeing you are still using that phrase towards dispute after he explained the back story a month ago shows one more time the garbage can of nothing you are)..

Seeing that is all you are going to present is nonsense and name calling...Even before the official contest begins, none of your cronies joined with you, I guess that is a forfeit?

I would like to donate the winnings to the FES website....They don't accept Monopoly money though...Better pay up too, don't want John Davis looking for a knee cap.


Toodle-pip loser (this is metaphorical as well as literal)

Name calling?    Really,  you don't see the irony in that.     I see you already wimped our of the $5000 debate prize,   no surprise there.   

GTFO,  what a fake.  I don't ever recall meeting a Texan before like you.  Maybe you aren't a real Texan?

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on April 17, 2017, 04:39:33 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 17, 2017, 12:32:13 PM
Name calling?    Really,  you don't see the irony in that.     I see you already wimped our of the $5000 debate prize,   no surprise there.   

GTFO,  what a fake.  I don't ever recall meeting a Texan before like you.  Maybe you aren't a real Texan?

Oh I feely admit to calling you names..I also have explained why and the line you crossed to deserve such treatment, also the fact you still continue. When someone loses humanity in my eyes, I have zero respect for them.

As for "whimping" out of said contest...It was a logical conclusion from your actions, if I am wrong, great let's continue. As I said before, my free time isn't like it was the beginning of this thread so dispute is organizing this, plus it was his idea. I will just back it, and provide info when needed.

So, if you aren't backing out, then let's continue on with whatever needs to be done. First, please post up proof of ability to pay the grand prize (this can be alone, or if you are forming a team, it can be conjoined, also, if you/team want to sweeten the pot no problem more can be added at any time).. second, judges needed to be selected.

As for the rest of your post...Lol...You are breaking my heart, the words of a blow hard no body with zero humanity really cut me deep Shrek.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 17, 2017, 07:17:33 PM
Quote from: disputeone on April 17, 2017, 04:22:24 AM
Anyway enough of this, who would you like the judges to be? How long will the debate last? What format will we use.

Lets actually talk.

You need to play ball before saying anyone chickened out.

Who would you like the judges to be? I have given a few suggestions in an earlier post.

Work with me here. Try to be honest.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Mikey T. on April 17, 2017, 08:36:24 PM
Not sure how you are going to find impartial judges here.  Either you have people who believe 911 was staged and will vote with D1 or you have people who believe the 911 report (or most of it at least) and they will side with Rayzor. 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 17, 2017, 08:43:56 PM
Do you think you could just judge the debate on its merit and put your opinion to the side?

The winning team is not necessarily correct they just won the debate.

I nominated you to judge cause I think you are intelligent and impartial.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on April 17, 2017, 08:51:26 PM
Quote from: Mikey T. on April 17, 2017, 08:36:24 PM
Not sure how you are going to find impartial judges here.  Either you have people who believe 911 was staged and will vote with D1 or you have people who believe the 911 report (or most of it at least) and they will side with Rayzor.

Good question, honest judges would be the only answer.

Wolf is the best candidate I can think of, seems honest, is mostly neutral, and has the needed prerequisites.

However, other people here are qualified, and if they are honest, they could come to an honest conclusion.

Such as a jury who can only consider evidence not stricken from the record. Even if the defendant said I did it, yet the confession was struck from the record they might have to let him go.

Point being, an honest judge can make a ruling from just the evidence and leave the heart out of it.

Since we are only going to be debating what could not have happened this is possible
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 17, 2017, 08:54:01 PM
I agree, I would only set out to prove fires and a single column failure couldn't have caused the collapse of wtc 7 we saw, furthermore that the NIST report doesn't explain the collapses adequately.

This has been my point since my first reply. I think I can prove it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on April 18, 2017, 12:42:50 AM
Quote from: disputeone on April 17, 2017, 08:43:56 PM
Do you think you could just judge the debate on its merit and put your opinion to the side?

Yes I can.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sceptimatic on April 18, 2017, 12:45:26 AM
Quote from: observer on April 17, 2017, 04:16:24 AM
Quote from: disputeone on April 17, 2017, 03:57:42 AM
If the collapses don't make physical  sense based on the catalyst we have all the evidence we will ever need to show foul play.

It's the equivalent of seeing a car crash into a house and the house vaporize and say "it had to be the car that caused it to vaporize because we saw the car hit it."

Physics doesn't work like that.

"Not a single whistleblower."

>2800 architects and engineers lmao.
www.ae911truth.org
www.wtc7investigation.org

Anyway who are your picks for judges. I would like engineers and / or scientists.

Rama Set, Jack Black, Rabinoz, Mikey T, OBM, itsatorus etc.

I would object to say user321 as a judge because he has an obvious bias same with sceptimatic for example.

Edit.

MaNaeSWolf would be a fantastic judge if we could convince him to do it.

I'll be a judge.. but I'm very very biased towards truth so I can give my verdict now. The sheep Rayzor loses.
Rayzor is no sheep.
What Rayzor is doing, is PROTOCOL.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 19, 2017, 06:40:14 AM
Quote from: disputeone on April 17, 2017, 08:54:01 PM
I agree, I would only set out to prove fires and a single column failure couldn't have caused the collapse of wtc 7 we saw, furthermore that the NIST report doesn't explain the collapses adequately.

This has been my point since my first reply. I think I can prove it.

You have lost already you just don't realize  it.

The best you can hope to achieve with that approach is that the reason for the collapse of WTC7 is not explained adequately by NIST.

How do you make the logical leap from there to a massive evil conspiracy that has remained hidden and undetected.   

The answer is simple and staring you in the face, you just have to take off the blinkers.   There is in fact a massive evil conspiracy and what's more it's not even hidden or secret.   The aims of this conspiracy are well known,  Al Qaeda,  ISIS,   global caliphate,  clash of cultures.

GAME OVER

I donate the $5000 prize to John Davis to help maintain the website.  Now, it's up to BabyHighSpeed to honour his pledge.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on April 19, 2017, 07:00:55 AM
Quote
I would object to say user321 as a judge because he has an obvious bias same with sceptimatic for example.
Putting my username in the same sentence as "sceptimatic" is a pretty hard insult.
I might have to report your post.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on April 19, 2017, 07:47:12 AM
Sorry rayzor we are leaving speculation out.

You agreed to the terms, so in order for there to be a winner/loser we have to start from the beginning. I retracted my post of you losing by default because you said that was incorrect....So we need to begin from the start.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 17, 2017, 04:39:33 PM
So, if you aren't backing out, then let's continue on with whatever needs to be done. First, please post up proof of ability to pay the grand prize (this can be alone, or if you are forming a team, it can be conjoined, also, if you/team want to sweeten the pot no problem more can be added at any time).. second, judges needed to be selected.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 19, 2017, 08:05:33 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 19, 2017, 07:47:12 AM
Sorry rayzor we are leaving speculation out.

You agreed to the terms, so in order for there to be a winner/loser we have to start from the beginning. I retracted my post of you losing by default because you said that was incorrect....So we need to begin from the start.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 17, 2017, 04:39:33 PM
So, if you aren't backing out, then let's continue on with whatever needs to be done. First, please post up proof of ability to pay the grand prize (this can be alone, or if you are forming a team, it can be conjoined, also, if you/team want to sweeten the pot no problem more can be added at any time).. second, judges needed to be selected.


What speculation?

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on April 19, 2017, 08:18:09 AM
My whole purpose of accepting disputes deal was to prove what didn't happen. I could give two shits if Godzilla or a space beam destroyed the towers. My whole purpose is to prove the official story is incorrect.

I will do this with modeling (Modeling through my company, I will release my inputs, as well as modeling through another company), Structural tolerances and design, other experts testimony, etc etc etc. This will be by the books. I will release enough of my info so my company and personal records can be verified for authenticity and credentials. Any outside testimony I bring will do the same.

This is why I bumped it up to 5k, to make it worth at least a couple hours of my time. To be honest, I would rather it be around 75k, to justify the man hours. However, I know people wouldn't put that kind of money up here, so I kept it reasonable, even though would put me at a loss.

This thread I have been chit chatting..However, with money being on the line, I will actually take this seriously and it will be by the books, and zero speculation
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 19, 2017, 08:31:07 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 19, 2017, 08:18:09 AM
My whole purpose of accepting disputes deal was to prove what didn't happen. I could give two shits if Godzilla or a space beam destroyed the towers. My whole purpose is to prove the official story is incorrect.

I will do this with modeling (Modeling through my company, I will release my inputs, as well as modeling through another company), Structural tolerances and design, other experts testimony, etc etc etc. This will be by the books. I will release enough of my info so my company and personal records can be verified for authenticity and credentials. Any outside testimony I bring will do the same.

This is why I bumped it up to 5k, to make it worth at least a couple hours of my time. To be honest, I would rather it be around 75k, to justify the man hours. However, I know people wouldn't put that kind of money up here, so I kept it reasonable, even though would put me at a loss.

This thread I have been chit chatting..However, with money being on the line, I will actually take this seriously and it will be by the books, and zero speculation

No,  you are changing the whole point of  the discussion,  this is about whether islamic terrorist hijackers flew planes into the twin towers causing the subsequent  collapse.

There is more than enough evidence to prove the planes were hijacked and were flown into the twin towers.
The precise collapse mechanism is still subject to open debate.   If that's all your argument is going to be then I'm out.

What did you think it was about?   Or are you still undecided.   






Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on April 19, 2017, 08:43:13 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 19, 2017, 07:47:12 AM
Sorry rayzor we are leaving speculation out.

It sounds really ironic if a conspiracy theorist says "we are leaving speculation out".
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on April 19, 2017, 08:46:26 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 19, 2017, 08:31:07 AM
No,  you are changing the whole point of  the discussion,  this is about whether islamic terrorist hijackers flew planes into the twin towers causing the subsequent  collapse.

There is more than enough evidence to prove the planes were hijacked and were flown into the twin towers.
The precise collapse mechanism is still subject to open debate.   If that's all your argument is going to be then I'm out.

What did you think it was about?   Or are you still undecided.

This was the first thing I said when accepting the proposed contest by dispute and you accepted..

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 17, 2017, 02:08:48 AM
Hmmm...This is interesting...I would be down for sure. Though it would need to be said, we would be debating what did not happen...Leaving speculation out of the equation.

I cannot prove speculation, especially enough to win a judge panel, especially a panel I am sure will have those that believe the official story. However, with being able to prove the buildings could not have fallen as told in the Official story. That the damage from the supposed planes could have not caused collapse as we saw or even at all. To prove that 7 could not have fallen at all with the supposed catalyst, especially into its own foot print, and especially at the observed rate...That will be enough to debunk the official story.

This is how I am going to do this..
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 19, 2017, 08:18:09 AM
My whole purpose of accepting disputes deal was to prove what didn't happen. I could give two shits if Godzilla or a space beam destroyed the towers. My whole purpose is to prove the official story is incorrect.

I will do this with modeling (Modeling through my company, I will release my inputs, as well as modeling through another company), Structural tolerances and design, other experts testimony, etc etc etc. This will be by the books. I will release enough of my info so my company and personal records can be verified for authenticity and credentials. Any outside testimony I bring will do the same.

This is why I bumped it up to 5k, to make it worth at least a couple hours of my time. To be honest, I would rather it be around 75k, to justify the man hours. However, I know people wouldn't put that kind of money up here, so I kept it reasonable, even though would put me at a loss.

This thread I have been chit chatting..However, with money being on the line, I will actually take this seriously and it will be by the books, and zero speculation

We can even get into flight dynamics, though I will bring pilots and other experts into the debate, as I don't have a specialty there, at least in the navigation side. Though I can comment on mechanical properties in the planes themselves, and on the engines used..Their capabilities etc.

Though we must start at the beginning

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 17, 2017, 04:39:33 PM
So, if you aren't backing out, then let's continue on with whatever needs to be done. First, please post up proof of ability to pay the grand prize (this can be alone, or if you are forming a team, it can be conjoined, also, if you/team want to sweeten the pot no problem more can be added at any time).. second, judges needed to be selected.

I am ready whenever
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 19, 2017, 09:03:01 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 19, 2017, 08:46:26 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 19, 2017, 08:31:07 AM
No,  you are changing the whole point of  the discussion,  this is about whether islamic terrorist hijackers flew planes into the twin towers causing the subsequent  collapse.

There is more than enough evidence to prove the planes were hijacked and were flown into the twin towers.
The precise collapse mechanism is still subject to open debate.   If that's all your argument is going to be then I'm out.

What did you think it was about?   Or are you still undecided.

This was the first thing I said when accepting the proposed contest by dispute and you accepted..

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 17, 2017, 02:08:48 AM
Hmmm...This is interesting...I would be down for sure. Though it would need to be said, we would be debating what did not happen...Leaving speculation out of the equation.

I cannot prove speculation, especially enough to win a judge panel, especially a panel I am sure will have those that believe the official story. However, with being able to prove the buildings could not have fallen as told in the Official story. That the damage from the supposed planes could have not caused collapse as we saw or even at all. To prove that 7 could not have fallen at all with the supposed catalyst, especially into its own foot print, and especially at the observed rate...That will be enough to debunk the official story.

This is how I am going to do this..
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 19, 2017, 08:18:09 AM
My whole purpose of accepting disputes deal was to prove what didn't happen. I could give two shits if Godzilla or a space beam destroyed the towers. My whole purpose is to prove the official story is incorrect.

I will do this with modeling (Modeling through my company, I will release my inputs, as well as modeling through another company), Structural tolerances and design, other experts testimony, etc etc etc. This will be by the books. I will release enough of my info so my company and personal records can be verified for authenticity and credentials. Any outside testimony I bring will do the same.

This is why I bumped it up to 5k, to make it worth at least a couple hours of my time. To be honest, I would rather it be around 75k, to justify the man hours. However, I know people wouldn't put that kind of money up here, so I kept it reasonable, even though would put me at a loss.

This thread I have been chit chatting..However, with money being on the line, I will actually take this seriously and it will be by the books, and zero speculation

We can even get into flight dynamics, though I will bring pilots and other experts into the debate, as I don't have a specialty there, at least in the navigation side. Though I can comment on mechanical properties in the planes themselves, and on the engines used..Their capabilities etc.

Though we must start at the beginning

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 17, 2017, 04:39:33 PM
So, if you aren't backing out, then let's continue on with whatever needs to be done. First, please post up proof of ability to pay the grand prize (this can be alone, or if you are forming a team, it can be conjoined, also, if you/team want to sweeten the pot no problem more can be added at any time).. second, judges needed to be selected.

I am ready whenever

Let's suppose for the sake of argument that you do a model that you think "proves" the collapse impossible, you then have to come up with a theory that explains the collapse exactly as we saw.  You would then have to find proof  of demolition charges being fortuitously placed exactly where the planes hit,  the inexplicable delay before they were detonated. 

But lets assume you manage the impossible make history in structural engineering circles and prove all that,  how does that invalidate the official story?

I could just as easily claim that it was the islamic terrorists who planted the demolition charges.  After all they already did it once before with a truck in the basement.

The question being debated is was 9/11 a conspiracy  ( other than the obvious Al Qaeda conspiracy),  not whether you can prove the collapse mechanism.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on April 19, 2017, 09:22:58 AM
Proving what I said I can prove would be sufficient in winning the contest.

With that being proven, that would be well enough to prove a conspiracy. You said you have read the official report and know if well. If I prove what I said I can, how in the world would that not be enough to prove one of the largest if not largest conspiracy of American history?

We can speculate after the contest is over.

I also don't need to convince you, just the panel
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on April 19, 2017, 09:36:12 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 19, 2017, 09:03:01 AM
Let's suppose for the sake of argument that you do a model that you think "proves" the collapse impossible, you then have to come up with a theory that explains the collapse exactly as we saw.  You would then have to find proof  of demolition charges being fortuitously placed exactly where the planes hit,  the inexplicable delay before they were detonated. 

But lets assume you manage the impossible make history in structural engineering circles and prove all that,  how does that invalidate the official story?

I could just as easily claim that it was the islamic terrorists who planted the demolition charges.  After all they already did it once before with a truck in the basement.

The question being debated is was 9/11 a conspiracy  ( other than the obvious Al Qaeda conspiracy),  not whether you can prove the collapse mechanism.
It would seem to me if it could be demonstrated WTC 1, 2, and 7, did NOT collapse according to the OS, it would NOT BE necessary to demonstrate the mechanism.

It was the government's job to explain the collapse of these buildings.

You have already signed on to that explanation.

Now, if it can be demonstrated, via proper science, experimentation, and modeling the government explanation is full of shit, you will not accept that science unless it explains EVERYTHING!?!?

The US Government explanation =  a good ass fucking without the common courtesy of a reach around and you happily accept that.

Any science that might be able to disprove the OS in regard to collapse and now all of a sudden you not only want the sensation of anal but you need a frenchie to go along with it...

Kinda sick...

You realize the folly of your protest here, correct?

I mean, Rayzor, your entire response to BHS is laughable to the point of Monty Python.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: observer on April 20, 2017, 02:13:21 PM


Watch it Rayzor, then get out of your basement finally
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Papa Legba on April 20, 2017, 02:28:04 PM
110 pages of tl;dr false dialectic garbage & - of course - the sock-army is no nearer finding out who did it...

Cos that is their purpose...

FFS, it took me a morning's research to turn up these two:

http://www.aecom.com/

https://investor.vanguard.com/corporate-portal/

See?

Wasn't hard was it?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 20, 2017, 03:58:58 PM
Quote from: observer on April 20, 2017, 02:13:21 PM

Watch it Rayzor, then get out of your basement finally

At the moment,  I'm several thousand miles from home,  and I don't have a decent internet connection to watch your bullshit conspiracy crap.

Oh,  and I don't have a basement either,  so maybe it's you that needs to get out more.  :)

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on April 20, 2017, 04:14:17 PM
Quote from: Papa Legba on April 20, 2017, 02:28:04 PM
110 pages of tl;dr false dialectic garbage & - of course - the sock-army is no nearer finding out who did it...

Cos that is their purpose...

FFS, it took me a morning's research to turn up these two:

http://www.aecom.com/

https://investor.vanguard.com/corporate-portal/

See?

Wasn't hard was it?

I have no idea if this is an insult or what....But welcome back...

You are truly a sex idle....Missed you  :-*
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Papa Legba on April 20, 2017, 09:36:31 PM
STFU Geoff'n'Kerstin.

Did you know it's impossible to find out who the major shareholders in Vanguard are?

Well, it is...

Which is completely normal, totally legit, etc, etc, the usual.

Dick Cheney's rumoured to have $100's of millions invested in them though; which is nice for him, as they've been doing EVER so well since 9/11!

As for AECOM, they've got fingers in every single military-industrial boondoggle going; they came outa nowhere in the 1990's, got handed a $5 billion contract to renovate the Pentagon & were working on it when the 'plane' hit...

All just 'coincidence' eh?

The connections between them & Tishman are lulzy too; all aboard the 9/11 gravy train!
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: observer on April 21, 2017, 04:08:42 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 20, 2017, 03:58:58 PM
Quote from: observer on April 20, 2017, 02:13:21 PM

Watch it Rayzor, then get out of your basement finally

At the moment,  I'm several thousand miles from home,  and I don't have a decent internet connection to watch your bullshit conspiracy crap.

Oh,  and I don't have a basement either,  so maybe it's you that needs to get out more.  :)

9/11 Sheep to information, facts and science: "bullshit conspiracy crap" - Ooooh the irony

(http://www.clipartkid.com/images/686/husbands-vs-anniversaries-my-random-thoughts-61iiLi-clipart.gif)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on April 22, 2017, 02:20:01 AM
Looks like the proposed contest is going to be dead in the water....

I am Jack's complete lack of surprise ::)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 22, 2017, 04:02:58 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 22, 2017, 02:20:01 AM
Looks like the proposed contest is going to be dead in the water....

I am Jack's complete lack of surprise ::)

You should know,  you were the one that killed it,  and no I'm not surprised either,  if that's what you were trying to say.

It's fitting that it's you who posts an un-parsable sentence,   "I am Jack's complete lack of surprise ::)"   
I can't even begin to comprehend what you are trying to say in that  garbled mess.   

PS.  OK,  Google tells me it's a quote from "Fight Club",   seems appropriate for BabyBullshit.
 

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on April 22, 2017, 04:26:17 PM
Don't defect...I have been waiting...

Step one princess..

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 19, 2017, 08:46:26 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 17, 2017, 04:39:33 PM
So, if you aren't backing out, then let's continue on with whatever needs to be done. First, please post up proof of ability to pay the grand prize (this can be alone, or if you are forming a team, it can be conjoined, also, if you/team want to sweeten the pot no problem more can be added at any time).. second, judges needed to be selected.

I am ready whenever
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 22, 2017, 05:16:03 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 22, 2017, 04:26:17 PM
Don't defect...I have been waiting...

Step one princess..

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 19, 2017, 08:46:26 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 17, 2017, 04:39:33 PM
So, if you aren't backing out, then let's continue on with whatever needs to be done. First, please post up proof of ability to pay the grand prize (this can be alone, or if you are forming a team, it can be conjoined, also, if you/team want to sweeten the pot no problem more can be added at any time).. second, judges needed to be selected.

I am ready whenever

Just post your proof that 9/11 was NOT carried out by islamic terrorists,  and  I'll give you a million dollars.    All you have to do is convince me.




Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on April 22, 2017, 08:05:08 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 22, 2017, 05:16:03 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 22, 2017, 04:26:17 PM
Don't defect...I have been waiting...

Step one princess..

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 19, 2017, 08:46:26 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 17, 2017, 04:39:33 PM
So, if you aren't backing out, then let's continue on with whatever needs to be done. First, please post up proof of ability to pay the grand prize (this can be alone, or if you are forming a team, it can be conjoined, also, if you/team want to sweeten the pot no problem more can be added at any time).. second, judges needed to be selected.

I am ready whenever

Just post your proof that 9/11 was NOT carried out by islamic terrorists,  and  I'll give you a million dollars.    All you have to do is convince me.

Let's stick with the original plan..


Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 19, 2017, 08:46:26 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 17, 2017, 04:39:33 PM
So, if you aren't backing out, then let's continue on with whatever needs to be done. First, please post up proof of ability to pay the grand prize (this can be alone, or if you are forming a team, it can be conjoined, also, if you/team want to sweeten the pot no problem more can be added at any time).. second, judges needed to be selected.

I am ready whenever

You are up..
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sokarul on April 22, 2017, 09:13:02 PM
As evident by your blind belief in god you clearly are afraid of the truth and only seek out what helps you to be less afraid.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 22, 2017, 09:25:35 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 22, 2017, 08:05:08 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 22, 2017, 05:16:03 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 22, 2017, 04:26:17 PM
Don't defect...I have been waiting...

Step one princess..

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 19, 2017, 08:46:26 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 17, 2017, 04:39:33 PM
So, if you aren't backing out, then let's continue on with whatever needs to be done. First, please post up proof of ability to pay the grand prize (this can be alone, or if you are forming a team, it can be conjoined, also, if you/team want to sweeten the pot no problem more can be added at any time).. second, judges needed to be selected.

I am ready whenever

Just post your proof that 9/11 was NOT carried out by islamic terrorists,  and  I'll give you a million dollars.    All you have to do is convince me.

Let's stick with the original plan..


Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 19, 2017, 08:46:26 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 17, 2017, 04:39:33 PM
So, if you aren't backing out, then let's continue on with whatever needs to be done. First, please post up proof of ability to pay the grand prize (this can be alone, or if you are forming a team, it can be conjoined, also, if you/team want to sweeten the pot no problem more can be added at any time).. second, judges needed to be selected.

I am ready whenever

You are up..

No problem,  I'm upping the ante,  there's a million on the table, but it's up to you to make your case and convince me that  that 9/11 was NOT carried out by Islamic extremists.

Stop dodging.   Take your best shot,  I'll forget all of your insults, and take a fair view of any evidence you can present.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on April 22, 2017, 09:27:15 PM
Quote from: sokarul on April 22, 2017, 09:13:02 PM
As evident by your blind belief in god you clearly are afraid of the truth and only seek out what helps you to be less afraid.

Wow sokarul... I am very disappointed in this..Didn't think you were this kind of person.

One...my beliefs in the higher power I believe in I clearly state as a belief. I say there is circumstantial evidence, but it is a belief. So no...This isn't the same thing at all. My rejection of macro evolution and the origins nonsense has nothing to do with my beliefs. I am not a young earth creationist, I believe the time line they have is incorrect, so more time does not effect me at all. (Nor is 9/11 issue a belief whatsoever, it is soundly based off science, logic and Reality)

Nor do I spout hypothesis as absolute fact, I am honest that it is a belief. Perhaps you should try looking in the mirror one day before you say this, you will be surprised what you find if you are honest with yourself.


As for "afraid"...This is just as ignorant. If I was afraid or a coward, I would just go along with the flow, with group think, and join the rest of the majority with belittling the minority or those that are different. The safest Haven on the planet is with the majority, swimming with  the current....just hope it isn't heading off a cliff.

So again, before accusing others of cowardice mentalities, take a gander in the mirror if you can look at yourself...Again, you might be surprised what you find.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on April 22, 2017, 09:35:24 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 22, 2017, 09:25:35 PM
No problem,  I'm upping the ante,  there's a million on the table, but it's up to you to make your case and convince me that  that 9/11 was NOT carried out by Islamic extremists.

Stop dodging.   Take your best shot,  I'll forget all of your insults, and take a fair view of any evidence you can present.

I don't feel you understand the amount of money that is. 5,000 usd is a fair amount. Not so much to break someone stable, but enough to make it interesting.

If you want to be a heiwa with such a large proposed amount, then that is your perogative. It seems a bit extreme to me...

If you are being truthful, then you will need to prove you can pay this large sum, I will follow suit. I already posted my original prize up, but I can increase it if there is a reason.

Second, there still needs to be judges picked. Maybe 5?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sokarul on April 22, 2017, 09:41:57 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 22, 2017, 09:27:15 PM
Quote from: sokarul on April 22, 2017, 09:13:02 PM
As evident by your blind belief in god you clearly are afraid of the truth and only seek out what helps you to be less afraid.

Wow sokarul... I am very disappointed in this..Didn't think you were this kind of person.
Ok, terrific

Quote
One...my beliefs in the higher power I believe in I clearly state as a belief. I say there is circumstantial evidence, but it is a belief. So no...This isn't the same thing at all. My rejection of macro evolution and the origins nonsense has nothing to do with my beliefs. I am not a young earth creationist, I believe the time line they have is incorrect, so more time does not effect me at all. (Nor is 9/11 issue a belief whatsoever, it is soundly based off science, logic and Reality)
Somewhere you said you were raised atheist and "found" god. You were scared and a priest saying everything will be ok if you donate money believe in god and Jesus.

Quote
Nor do I spout hypothesis as absolute fact, I am honest that it is a belief. Perhaps you should try looking in the mirror one day before you say this, you will be surprised what you find if you are honest with yourself.
umm ok....

Quote
As for "afraid"...This is just as ignorant. If I was afraid or a coward, I would just go along with the flow, with group think, and join the rest of the majority with belittling the minority or those that are different. The safest Haven on the planet is with the majority, swimming with  the current....just hope it isn't heading off a cliff.
Actually many conspiracy theories arise from fear. People fear hat they don't understand so then they make something up to help them be leas afraid. No ignorant things abut that. Look at religion. Whats less scary "We don't know where anything came from." or "God created everything."

Quote
So again, before accusing others of cowardice mentalities, take a gander in the mirror if you can look at yourself...Again, you might be surprised what you find.
I didn't mention anything "cowardice mentalities" so....
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on April 22, 2017, 10:00:06 PM
Sokarul

Wow....Twisting my words AND generalizing...On a role tonight I see?

Well going down the list...

I didn't "find" God...

I have stated many many times my hatred of organized religions, that I would join a group to help demolish them if it didn't infringe on our personal rights. You will never catch me in a church..I never give money to religious organizations with exception to St. Jude's children's​ hospital.


Nothing frightens about evolution or Origins, I just don't agree with it..there is no evidence besides faith. I already stated how it wouldn't effect my beliefs if true..You are just trying to gas light me with generalized nonsensical rhetoric.

As for what's more frightening?? I would say there being a higher power... If we are nothing but s cosmic fart, who gives a shit about anything right? From dust into dust, and eventually our lovely sun will destroy our cute little planet...And finally, one day the universe will collapse in on itself, and then repeat this all over again.

I would also venture there being a higher power frightens athiest, in a way your accusations could just be mirroring your own fears. Many people don't like the notion of having to answer to something, or not being the "top dog"...We all know humans love being the first link in the food chain.

Cowardice mentality is no different than sticking your head in the sand out of fear, which is what you are accusing me of.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on April 23, 2017, 05:20:13 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 22, 2017, 09:35:24 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 22, 2017, 09:25:35 PM
No problem,  I'm upping the ante,  there's a million on the table, but it's up to you to make your case and convince me that  that 9/11 was NOT carried out by Islamic extremists.

Stop dodging.   Take your best shot,  I'll forget all of your insults, and take a fair view of any evidence you can present.

I don't feel you understand the amount of money that is. 5,000 usd is a fair amount. Not so much to break someone stable, but enough to make it interesting.

If you want to be a heiwa with such a large proposed amount, then that is your perogative. It seems a bit extreme to me...

If you are being truthful, then you will need to prove you can pay this large sum, I will follow suit. I already posted my original prize up, but I can increase it if there is a reason.

Second, there still needs to be judges picked. Maybe 5?

........?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 23, 2017, 11:08:40 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 23, 2017, 05:20:13 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 22, 2017, 09:35:24 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 22, 2017, 09:25:35 PM
No problem,  I'm upping the ante,  there's a million on the table, but it's up to you to make your case and convince me that  that 9/11 was NOT carried out by Islamic extremists.

Stop dodging.   Take your best shot,  I'll forget all of your insults, and take a fair view of any evidence you can present.

I don't feel you understand the amount of money that is. 5,000 usd is a fair amount. Not so much to break someone stable, but enough to make it interesting.

If you want to be a heiwa with such a large proposed amount, then that is your perogative. It seems a bit extreme to me...

If you are being truthful, then you will need to prove you can pay this large sum, I will follow suit. I already posted my original prize up, but I can increase it if there is a reason.

Second, there still needs to be judges picked. Maybe 5?

........?

First up,  I do actually have a million in cash,  I don't care if you believe me or not.   Second I'm only offering it to you, no-one else,  because I know you can't prove that 9/11 wasn't done by Islamic terrorists.   If you can convince me you are correct,  the million is yours.   I'm serious.

I don't expect you to match the bet,  if you can't convince me then you can just walk away at anytime.   No penalties.

So give it your best shot, what have you got that you have uncovered in those 10 years of 9/11 research you claim to have done.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 24, 2017, 04:51:15 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 22, 2017, 09:25:35 PM
convince me that  that 9/11 was NOT carried out by Islamic extremists.

Impossible as shown in bold. You have made a predetermined hypothesis and are only looking for evidence to fit your narrative. Like NIST did. You know better than I that nothing will change your mind.

Quote from: sokarul on April 22, 2017, 09:13:02 PM
You clearly are afraid of the truth and only seek out what helps you to be less afraid.

My irony meter just blew up, damnit sock, I need a new irony meter now.

9/11 being a CIA / MOSSAD false flag is much scarier than Intikams mates getting lucky and doing what no organized military has been able to do for a very long time.

@Bhs I wouldn't bother anymore, if I was you.

One poster said the debate was a "stalemate" I would agree, we have shown the collapses to be physically impossible considering the supposed cause of damage.

Rayzor has called us crazy and the MSM (mostly) supports the O/S.

Both are points of debate however I feel one argument is stronger.

If this is a "stalemate" we are wasting our time with people too scared to think for themsleves.

Hope you are well bro, sokarul has come out to play since he thought ue could turn it into a circlejerk, it's all (((they))) have wanted from the start.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 24, 2017, 05:00:39 PM
Did you and Sock dance in the street together like the Israeli intelligence on 9/11?

Quote
1)The FEMA metallurgy report.

The analysis performed on the WTC steel by Professor Jonathan Barnett proves that it was attacked by some form of munition, since it was riddled with holes and had been severely eroded/melted by something containing high concentrations of sulfur.

“The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified.”

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_apc.pdf

A one-inch column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges–which are curled like a paper scroll–have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes–some larger than a silver dollar–let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending–but not holes.

https://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/2002Spring/steel.html

2) The hijackers’ VISA applications.

Investigating the attacks, political journal National Review obtained copies of the VISA applications for 15 of the 19 named hijackers, and in the process found that all 15 should have been refused entry to the country.


 
“A new report accuses the State Department of staggering lapses in its visa program that gave Sept. 11 hijackers entry into the United States.

The political journal National Review obtained the visa applications for 15 of the 19 hijackers — and evidence that all of them should have been denied entry to the country.”

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=130051&page=1#.UM_4YG9RWWw

3) Clairvoyance.

The former Pakistani foreign secretary claims he was told by top-level American officials at a UN meeting in July 2001, that military action would be taken against Afghanistan by October.

“Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October.”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1550366.stm

4) Military grade munitions.

Professor Niels Harrit published a peer-reviewed paper in 2009 proving the existence of high-energy thermite residue in four out of four WTC samples.

http://benthamopen.com/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.pdf

5) The bin Laden “confession tape” is a demonstrable fraud.

Professor Bruce Lawrence, head of Duke University’s religious studies’ department and the foremost Bin Laden expert, argues that the increasingly secular language in the video and audio tapes of Osama (his earliest ones are littered with references to God and the Prophet Mohammed) are inconsistent with his strict Islamic religion, Wahhabism.

He notes that, on one video, Bin Laden wears golden rings on his fingers, an adornment banned among Wahhabi followers.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1212851/Has-Osama-Bin-Laden-dead-seven-years–U-S-Britain-covering-continue-war-terror.html

Urban dictionary: Magic Video Tape.

This is the VHS tape that was miraculously found by US troops in Afghanistan which contained an alleged confession by Osama bin Laden to be the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. He previously denied involvement so it was fortuitous that this tape was found in a country the size of Texas. The man in the video tape does not really look like bin Laden but the media has failed to point this out.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=magic+video+tape

6) Israeli intelligence were literally caught “dancing in celebration”.

Amazing, but provable, and not quite as amazing as being caught and then let go.

THERE was ruin and terror in Manhattan, but, over the Hudson River in New Jersey, a handful of men were dancing.

As the World Trade Centre burned and crumpled, the five men celebrated and filmed the worst atrocity ever committed on American soil as it played out before their eyes.

Who do you think they were? Palestinians? Saudis? Iraqis, even? Al-Qaeda, surely? Wrong on all counts. They were Israelis – and at least two of them were Israeli intelligence agents, working for Mossad, the equivalent of MI6 or the CIA.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/five-israelis-were-seen-filming-as-jet-liners-ploughed-into-the-twin-towers-on-september-11-2001-1.829220

7) British university study confirms that 9/11 “Conspiracy Theorists” are the sane ones.

We all knew this anyway, but for what it’s worth:-

Recent studies by psychologists and social scientists in the US and UK suggest that contrary to mainstream media stereotypes, those labeled “conspiracy theorists” appear to be saner than those who accept the official versions of contested events.

The most recent study was published on July 8th by psychologists Michael J. Wood and Karen M. Douglas of the University of Kent (UK). Entitled “What about Building 7? A social psychological study of online discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories,” the study compared “conspiracist” (pro-conspiracy theory) and “conventionalist” (anti-conspiracy) comments at news websites.


 
The authors were surprised to discover that it is now more conventional to leave so-called conspiracist comments than conventionalist ones: “Of the 2174 comments collected, 1459 were coded as conspiracist and 715 as conventionalist.” In other words, among people who comment on news articles, those who disbelieve government accounts of such events as 9/11 and the JFK assassination outnumber believers by more than two to one. That means it is the pro-conspiracy commenters who are expressing what is now the conventional wisdom, while the anti-conspiracy commenters are becoming a small, beleaguered minority.

http://www.presstv.com/detail/2013/07/12/313399/conspiracy-theorists-v%20s-govt-dupes

8.) Cheney likely gave a direct order not to shoot down flight 77.

The testimony of Norman Mineta before the 9/11 commission seems to suggest Cheney was kept aware of the path of flight 77 as it approached the Pentagon, and that he repeated an order not to shoot it down.

MR. HAMILTON: We thank you for that. I wanted to focus just a moment on the Presidential Emergency Operating Center. You were there for a good part of the day. I think you were there with the vice president. And when you had that order given, I think it was by the president, that authorized the shooting down of commercial aircraft that were suspected to be controlled by terrorists, were you there when that order was given?

MR. MINETA: No, I was not. I was made aware of it during the time that the airplane coming into the Pentagon. There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, “The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out.” And when it got down to, “The plane is 10 miles out,” the young man also said to the vice president, “Do the orders still stand?” And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, “Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?

http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/alibis/cheney.html

9) Who really gained?

Massive corporate contracts in a region which for the last 60 years had been pretty much off-limits to America because of the Cold War and the counter influence of the Soviet Union?

Most of Israel’s enemies taken out of action and replaced with pro-US governments?

Come on.

10) This.

Read both parts.

A pilot who wrote a conspiracy theory book about 9/11 is dead after he shot his two teenage children and family dog before turning the gun on himself.

Micalia Phillips, 14, and her 17-year-old brother Alex, were also found dead at the home inside the gated Forrest Meadows community.

The former airline pilot’s controversial conspiracy book The Big Bamboozle: 9/11 and the War on Terror was released last year.

While he was writing it, Marshall believed that his life was in danger because of the allegations involved.

According to Santa Barbara View, during the editing and pre-marketing process of Marshall’s book, he expressed some degree of paranoia because the nonfiction work accused the George W. Bush administration of being in cahoots with the Saudi intelligence community in training the hijackers who died in the planes used in the attacks.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2275258/Phillip-Marshall-Former-airline-pilot-conspiracy-theorist-shot-dead-teenage-children-dog-turning-gun-himself.html

Investigative Reporter Finds Holes In Official Finding Of Murder-Suicide In California Death of 9/11 Author.

The 9/11 author who was found dead in his California home earlier this month was right-handed, but authorities determined that he shot himself in the left side of the head, a prominent investigative journalist reports.

The bodies of Phillip Marshall, his two children, and the family dog were found on February 2, and officials quickly determined it was a murder-suicide. But the Washington, D.C.-based Wayne Madsen Report (WMR) has found evidence that contradicts the official finding. WMR reports that Marshall might have possessed something in his Murphys, California, home that prompted someone to commit murder. Also, the community in Calaveras County is pushing for the sheriff’s office to conduct a more thorough investigation.

http://legalschnauzer.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/investigative-reporter-finds-holes-in.html

There are of course, probably 100 or more clues that this was a false flag attack, but I have focused on a few simply for brevity. Please feel free to add your own. For me, it begins and ends with the method used to bring down WTC 1 and 2. It is a scientific fact that the steel columns were attacked by some form of military thermite munition, which almost certainly eradicates al Qaeda from further inquiry into their collapses.

QED.

F*ck off, JIDF.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 24, 2017, 07:56:19 PM
Quote from: disputeone on April 24, 2017, 05:00:39 PM
Did you and Sock dance in the street together like the Israeli intelligence on 9/11?

<snipped>:
QED.

F*ck off, JIDF.

All of those points are old news and have been debunked many times, the fact that you trot them out as some kind of proof,  just shows you are looking from inside the 9/11 conspiracy echo chamber.

The funniest one is the "thermite residue"   which actually turned out to be red oxide paint chips from the rust proofing primer used on the steel.   Classic conspiracy stuff.

The FEMA metallurgical report you cited doesn't support evidence of explosives,  just corrosion and high temperatures.   

JIDF?    You really are living in fantasy land.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 24, 2017, 08:52:46 PM
They aren't my points, just interesting reference. I gave my strongest point in the first reply.

It hasn't been debunked.

Quote from: disputeone on February 13, 2017, 10:49:57 PM
Fall acceleration of building 7.

Not even touched.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 24, 2017, 09:24:46 PM
Quote from: disputeone on April 24, 2017, 08:52:46 PM
They aren't my points, just interesting reference. I gave my strongest point in the first reply.

It hasn't been debunked.

Quote from: disputeone on February 13, 2017, 10:49:57 PM
Fall acceleration of building 7.

Not even touched.

Why do you think that proves controlled demolition? 

( Having asked that question about a hundred times,  and never got a satisfactory answer )
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 24, 2017, 09:26:58 PM
It proves the building had (for all intents and purposes) zero structural resistance as it fell, add the symmetry and collapse through the path of greatest resistance and we have strong evidence in and of itself.

Furthermore;


Quote from: disputeone on March 29, 2017, 11:33:22 PM
Well, I think we can start to address how a single column failure can lead to a symmetrical collapse at freefall.

The thermal expansion model NIST used has been shown to be dubius at best. No one has been able to get their results with NIST's numbers which, imo, screams dishonesty.

I will allow the thermal expansion to cause a failure in column 79, How did the failure of a single column lead to the symmetrical free-fall collapse of an asymmetrical building subject to asymmetrical damage.

My position is that the core was destroyed by explosives before pulling the rest of the building down with smaller charges.

Video evidence supports this, we see the core collapse while the building holds steady then with a great deal of the interior left the building falls symmetrically very close to 9.81m/s2.

I am arguing that the remaining supports would cause an asymmetrical collapse or even a slow progressive collapse much slower than the acceleration of gravity. However I would predict both an asymmetrical collapse and a fall acceleration much slower than 9.81m/s2.

Quote from: disputeone on March 31, 2017, 01:16:08 AM
Lets use NIST buckling model for example, they claim the outer and inner structure at the bottom pretty well "ceased to exist" which allowed a 2.25 second free-fall.

(http://ae911truth.info/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Floors-7-14-Buckling.png)

Now we have a very stiff cross braced outer structure which has apparently completely vaporized on the lower floors, (7-14) which allowed the tower to fall with no / negligible structural resistance. I understand the outer structure isn't vertically load bearing and wouldn't hold the entire weight of the building without the core, 100% paid.

I'll pay up to the fires causing the collapse of the core. (Dubious) How did we have such symmetry after the external structure was severed / buckled. According to the NIST model, and due to the varying stiffness we should not have seen such symmetry during free-fall.



I agree that the symmetry isn't a smoking gun nor is the free-fall. It's the combination of the two which I believe are impossible.

A progressive, reasonably symmetrical collapse with such a strong outer frame (leaving out how fires completely destroyed the core) after the core was removed isn't that unlikely, however at free-fall?

We still have the problem of a crossbraced outer structure collapsing into itself very close to 9.8m/s2 even if for the sake of simplicity we assume the entire inner structure was destroyed. (In video evidence we can see the tower start it's free-fall with a lot of the west side of the interior still reasonably intact.)

I understand lift shafts arent load bearing in and of themselves always but we have say (estimating) 250mm thick concrete shafts reinforced with reebar and braced to the support structures, we then have two T 150mm by 16mm rails and two T 100mm by 8mm counterweight rails, these are pinned into the concrete every 1500mm with an average of six 12mm high tensile trubolts, the shaft is absolutely over designed for the lifts, nearly all of the static load is taken through the rails into the concrete slab, dynamic loads are taken through the shaft by the rails and rail brackets.

My point is this is a very stiff, very strong structure that has actually gained stiffness and strength from the high tensile metal.

I can't understand how the whole building fell into itself at free-fall after a single column failure.



Partial collapse slower than free-fall?
Absolutely would have bought it.

Sorry for the tl:dr.

Edit, sorry for the lame vid, got me with a good title... there are still a few views of the collapse can just watch with the sound off.

Quote from: disputeone on April 05, 2017, 02:32:34 AM
If your claim is the fires were hot enough to cause the failure of column 79 then fine, I already said I would work from there.

My prediction purely based on the Building design and logic is that after column 79 failed the load would be shared between the adjacent columns, most likely causing local failures and isolated collapses. These columns are rated at least at twice their working load overall, easily. This isn't factoring in unbalanced loads from local failures, but this is why we build to such a high safety margin.

(https://s18.postimg.org/a3ah8g8x5/WTC7-floor-plan-collapse-initial-failure-_NIST-co.gif)

We can clearly see the asymmetry of the building design and the asymmetry of the alleged damage. A failure in column 79 might cause the partial collapse of another few columns, I'd pay a partial building collapse. It is clearly not a critical column, as the collapse progressed to 76, 77 and 78 it would encounter massive structural resistance from the core. I think the total destruction of wtc 7 is impossible without CD.

We have to remember that wtc 7 had a very strong core, and a very stiff and strong outer structure.

Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on March 31, 2017, 12:14:38 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/Y1HDPtV.png)


This is what the external skin looks like. These are not minor steel beams they where using to keep it together either. Godzilla would not have gotten through that.

The cores job in nearly any building is to hold the building up against the mass of the building and gravity, the core is not designed to be laterally load bearing, that is why we see buildings swept away by floods intact as you have shown earlier in the thread.

Wtc 7s outer structure was primarily to keep the building from falling over, it was cross-braced and very strong, more than capable of providing structural resistance in the event of the collapse of the outer frame we saw.

More than that the failure of column 79 led to the failure of the entire core, any architect or engineer knows that this shouldn't happen. Buildings are designed to share load throughout their structure otherwise we end with massive stress on individual connections and the connection shearing. I think the symmetry, free-fall and near total destruction of wtc 7 are impossible without controlled demolition.

Edit. Typos.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 24, 2017, 09:30:18 PM
That's my argument and I am happy with it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 24, 2017, 09:37:14 PM
Quote from: disputeone on April 24, 2017, 09:30:18 PM
That's my argument and I am happy with it.

Are you aware that your logic is flawed?     ( I seem to remember pointing this out many times as well )

Controlled demolition is not the only explanation for the collapse mechanism.     
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 24, 2017, 09:38:51 PM
You won't engage my argument, this no longer bothers me.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 24, 2017, 09:43:11 PM
Quote from: disputeone on April 24, 2017, 09:38:51 PM
You won't engage my argument, this no longer bothers me.

No problem,  just stop lying and saying that your stupid "Free Fall" argument hasn't been debunked.   


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 24, 2017, 09:55:45 PM
It hasn't been debunked.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 24, 2017, 10:10:14 PM
Quote from: disputeone on April 24, 2017, 09:55:45 PM
It hasn't been debunked.

I just debunked it,  for the hundredth time,  are you having trouble with reading comprehension again?    Is that famous reality disconnect coming back?

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sceptimatic on April 24, 2017, 10:56:33 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 24, 2017, 10:10:14 PM
Quote from: disputeone on April 24, 2017, 09:55:45 PM
It hasn't been debunked.

I just debunked it,  for the hundredth time,  are you having trouble with reading comprehension again?    Is that famous reality disconnect coming back?
Give it up Rayzor. You have no argument and you know it.
You're keeping the nonsense official line running for whatever reasons you have, whether it's just to be contrary or more sinister means. I don't really know the truth to that, but whatever it is, you absolutely know that buildings like that would not free fall, or near free fall without the aid of a full control of collapse.

So, either godzilla squashed them in record time or they were demolished by controlled detonation.
That's basically it. There's not argument that any top section would ever crush 90% of the rest of that STEEL framed INTENSE grid system with super strong central 47 steel core columns.
It's certainly not going to happen by warping steel trusses holding up a metal floor pan covered in concrete all around and on each floor, then also do it at near free fall speed.

It just wouldn't happen and still wouldn't happen if you built any structure out of any material and tried the same thing.

You know this and I'm 1 million percent sure you know this.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on April 25, 2017, 02:06:29 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 23, 2017, 11:08:40 PM
First up,  I do actually have a million in cash,  I don't care if you believe me or not.   Second I'm only offering it to you, no-one else,  because I know you can't prove that 9/11 wasn't done by Islamic terrorists.   If you can convince me you are correct,  the million is yours.   I'm serious.

First up...No you don't lol....

Second...You can offer it to me only, but there still needs to be a panel to judge. You agreed to dispute's terms.

Expanding...

People who have that type of money don't throw it around freely. I could have thrown millions around, but f that. 5,000 was fair enough for me...it is fair for everyone on a real contest, Not enough to break someone stable, but enough to make it interesting.

You could not even prove a 5,000 dollar prize (I did for records, just to show not bsing, truth is easy)....Yet you want me to believe in a million dollar prize lol.... The proof is in the pudding, post it up. I will return in suit, though I apologize, I don't have a million dollars in cash at home or at the shop. Only around a quarter million, though I can provide the rest through bank records. Customized to your request.

Reiterating the second point...The deal was for a panel of judges to choose the winner....not one on one. You agreed to this.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 25, 2017, 03:03:13 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 25, 2017, 02:06:29 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 23, 2017, 11:08:40 PM
First up,  I do actually have a million in cash,  I don't care if you believe me or not.   Second I'm only offering it to you, no-one else,  because I know you can't prove that 9/11 wasn't done by Islamic terrorists.   If you can convince me you are correct,  the million is yours.   I'm serious.

First up...No you don't lol....

Second...You can offer it to me only, but there still needs to be a panel to judge. You agreed to dispute's terms.

Expanding...

People who have that type of money don't throw it around freely. I could have thrown millions around, but f that. 5,000 was fair enough for me...it is fair for everyone on a real contest, Not enough to break someone stable, but enough to make it interesting.

You could not even prove a 5,000 dollar prize (I did for records, just to show not bsing, truth is easy)....Yet you want me to believe in a million dollar prize lol.... The proof is in the pudding, post it up. I will return in suit, though I apologize, I don't have a million dollars in cash at home or at the shop. Only around a quarter million, though I can provide the rest through bank records. Customized to your request.

Reiterating the second point...The deal was for a panel of judges to choose the winner....not one on one. You agreed to this.

Ok,  if I prove to you I actually do have a million in cash,  do you agree to finally post your best most convincing argument that 9/11 was NOT done by islamic terrorists.

@sceptimatic,  One question for you,  only one.  Is it true that the ONLY way a building can collapse at free fall rates is controlled demolition?   

I notice dispute runs away whenever I ask.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on April 25, 2017, 03:51:53 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 25, 2017, 03:03:13 AM
Ok,  if I prove to you I actually do have a million in cash,  do you agree to finally post your best most convincing argument that 9/11 was NOT done by islamic terrorists.

Absolutely...I even said I would follow suit
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 25, 2017, 03:58:16 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 25, 2017, 03:03:13 AM
Is it true that the ONLY way a building can collapse at free fall rates is controlled demolition?   

I notice dispute runs away whenever I ask.

I'm not running away, you are the one disconnected from reality there is no need to project it on me.

You are trying to create a strawman.

The free-fall and symmetry are only possible on wtc 7 with a controlled demolition.

I have shown this quoted in this very page.

Also, please see my first reply to this thread.

Edit.

Please feel free to cite any example where a large steel framed concrete reinforced building has collapsed totally at free-fall for two seconds or more not involving a controlled demolition.

Go on I dare you.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 25, 2017, 04:00:15 AM
Quote from: sceptimatic on April 24, 2017, 10:56:33 PM
Give it up Rayzor. You have no argument and you know it.

Also, this.

He does know it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 25, 2017, 05:10:39 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 25, 2017, 03:51:53 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 25, 2017, 03:03:13 AM
Ok,  if I prove to you I actually do have a million in cash,  do you agree to finally post your best most convincing argument that 9/11 was NOT done by islamic terrorists.

Absolutely...I even said I would follow suit

Ok, a deal is a deal.  Here's the Million Dollars in Cash as promised.

(https://s22.postimg.org/nwip37rlt/One_Million.jpg)

PM me your postal address, and I'll drop it in the mail for you.

Now, stop pissing about and convince me that it wasn't Islamic Terrorists that were repsonsible for 9/11.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 25, 2017, 05:19:49 AM
I actually chuckled at pic related. This is stupid tho, you are starting from an impossible premise Rayzor, what does it prove?

A similar situation would be me offering a million whatevers to whoever could convince me Rayzor is not an asshat.

It's impossibru.

(https://s10.postimg.org/pkxaiz5bd/impossibru-16342038.png)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 25, 2017, 05:35:10 AM
Quote from: disputeone on April 25, 2017, 05:19:49 AM
I actually chuckled at pic related. This is stupid tho, you are starting from an impossible premise Rayzor, what does it prove?

A similar situation would be me offering a million whatevers to whoever could convince me Rayzor is not an asshat.

It's impossibru.


You want to start with the insults again,  keep it up and I'll start responding in kind.   You know what that means.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 25, 2017, 05:45:47 AM
IT'S IMPOSSIBRU!!!

Edit.

The debate is over f*ck-knuckle you haven't engaged my first post.

Now I am just here to poke you with a stick.

Asshat.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on April 25, 2017, 10:33:40 AM
@Dispute, I love your flawless argumentation.

Quote from: disputeone on April 25, 2017, 05:45:47 AM
The debate is over f*ck-knuckle

Quote from: disputeone on April 25, 2017, 05:45:47 AM
IT'S IMPOSSIBRU!!!

Quote from: disputeone on April 25, 2017, 05:45:47 AM
Now I am just here to poke you with a stick.

Quote from: disputeone on April 25, 2017, 05:45:47 AM
Asshat.

Quote
This is stupid tho

Quote
It's impossibru.

Quote
you are the one disconnected from reality
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 25, 2017, 02:31:35 PM
You skipped past my argument.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on April 25, 2017, 08:53:36 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 25, 2017, 05:10:39 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 25, 2017, 03:51:53 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 25, 2017, 03:03:13 AM
Ok,  if I prove to you I actually do have a million in cash,  do you agree to finally post your best most convincing argument that 9/11 was NOT done by islamic terrorists.

Absolutely...I even said I would follow suit

Ok, a deal is a deal.  Here's the Million Dollars in Cash as promised.

(https://s22.postimg.org/nwip37rlt/One_Million.jpg)

PM me your postal address, and I'll drop it in the mail for you.

Now, stop pissing about and convince me that it wasn't Islamic Terrorists that were repsonsible for 9/11.

I will state this, I chuckled when I saw this, as much as I don't like to say.

Moving on...You know I said usd at the beginning, or even aud....Or maybe a currency that still exist.

Considering this note was printed in 2008, and is printed for a million...During this time their inflation levels was around 75 billion percent...So off the top of my head, you would need about 300,000,000,000,000 to buy the stamps needed just to send it to me. Better save up...

Though I will say, at least this currency is worth more than the arguments you have attempted on this thread.



Anyways, seeing you can't prove you have 5,000 usd/aud much less a million (lol), also since you have backed out of your agreement of judges and everything else you said...I claim victory by technical K.O.

Whomp
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on April 25, 2017, 10:35:11 PM
Quote from: disputeone on April 25, 2017, 02:31:35 PM
You skipped past my argument.

Yeah, I guess it got lost between all the slurs.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 25, 2017, 10:55:19 PM
Quote from: User324 on April 25, 2017, 10:35:11 PM
Quote from: disputeone on April 25, 2017, 02:31:35 PM
You skipped past my argument.

Yeah, I guess it got lost between all the slurs.

That's fair, address it at your leisure, or don't, it doesn't bother me desu.

I was quite clear about why I am slurring Rayzor currently.

Quote from: disputeone on April 25, 2017, 05:45:47 AM
The debate is over f*ck-knuckle you haven't engaged my first post.

Now I am just here to poke you with a stick.

Asshat.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 25, 2017, 10:58:01 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 25, 2017, 08:53:36 PM

Anyways, seeing you can't prove you have 5,000 usd/aud much less a million (lol), also since you have backed out of your agreement of judges and everything else you said...I claim victory by technical K.O.

Whomp

Not quite so fast.    We had a deal,  I kept my side of the deal and you backed down,  so I have a stronger claim for a victory by TKO than you.

You and I both know that you don't have any proof that it was someone other that Islamic Terrorists,   whereas the overwhelming evidence is that it was in fact a terrorist attack,  and these attacks are continuing today.

Whomp indeed.

BTW,  I could up the ante further to ten trillion dollars if you want to go for it.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 25, 2017, 10:59:51 PM
Edit, mainly for user123.

Here is my argument for wtc 7 if anyone wants to have a go, I'm not really bothered of no one wants to take it on.

Quote from: disputeone on April 24, 2017, 09:26:58 PM
It proves the building had (for all intents and purposes) zero structural resistance as it fell, add the symmetry and collapse through the path of greatest resistance and we have strong evidence in and of itself.

Furthermore;


Quote from: disputeone on March 29, 2017, 11:33:22 PM
Well, I think we can start to address how a single column failure can lead to a symmetrical collapse at freefall.

The thermal expansion model NIST used has been shown to be dubius at best. No one has been able to get their results with NIST's numbers which, imo, screams dishonesty.

I will allow the thermal expansion to cause a failure in column 79, How did the failure of a single column lead to the symmetrical free-fall collapse of an asymmetrical building subject to asymmetrical damage.

My position is that the core was destroyed by explosives before pulling the rest of the building down with smaller charges.

Video evidence supports this, we see the core collapse while the building holds steady then with a great deal of the interior left the building falls symmetrically very close to 9.81m/s2.

I am arguing that the remaining supports would cause an asymmetrical collapse or even a slow progressive collapse much slower than the acceleration of gravity. However I would predict both an asymmetrical collapse and a fall acceleration much slower than 9.81m/s2.

Quote from: disputeone on March 31, 2017, 01:16:08 AM
Lets use NIST buckling model for example, they claim the outer and inner structure at the bottom pretty well "ceased to exist" which allowed a 2.25 second free-fall.

(http://ae911truth.info/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Floors-7-14-Buckling.png)

Now we have a very stiff cross braced outer structure which has apparently completely vaporized on the lower floors, (7-14) which allowed the tower to fall with no / negligible structural resistance. I understand the outer structure isn't vertically load bearing and wouldn't hold the entire weight of the building without the core, 100% paid.

I'll pay up to the fires causing the collapse of the core. (Dubious) How did we have such symmetry after the external structure was severed / buckled. According to the NIST model, and due to the varying stiffness we should not have seen such symmetry during free-fall.



I agree that the symmetry isn't a smoking gun nor is the free-fall. It's the combination of the two which I believe are impossible.

A progressive, reasonably symmetrical collapse with such a strong outer frame (leaving out how fires completely destroyed the core) after the core was removed isn't that unlikely, however at free-fall?

We still have the problem of a crossbraced outer structure collapsing into itself very close to 9.8m/s2 even if for the sake of simplicity we assume the entire inner structure was destroyed. (In video evidence we can see the tower start it's free-fall with a lot of the west side of the interior still reasonably intact.)

I understand lift shafts arent load bearing in and of themselves always but we have say (estimating) 250mm thick concrete shafts reinforced with reebar and braced to the support structures, we then have two T 150mm by 16mm rails and two T 100mm by 8mm counterweight rails, these are pinned into the concrete every 1500mm with an average of six 12mm high tensile trubolts, the shaft is absolutely over designed for the lifts, nearly all of the static load is taken through the rails into the concrete slab, dynamic loads are taken through the shaft by the rails and rail brackets.

My point is this is a very stiff, very strong structure that has actually gained stiffness and strength from the high tensile metal.

I can't understand how the whole building fell into itself at free-fall after a single column failure.



Partial collapse slower than free-fall?
Absolutely would have bought it.

Sorry for the tl:dr.

Edit, sorry for the lame vid, got me with a good title... there are still a few views of the collapse can just watch with the sound off.

Quote from: disputeone on April 05, 2017, 02:32:34 AM
If your claim is the fires were hot enough to cause the failure of column 79 then fine, I already said I would work from there.

My prediction purely based on the Building design and logic is that after column 79 failed the load would be shared between the adjacent columns, most likely causing local failures and isolated collapses. These columns are rated at least at twice their working load overall, easily. This isn't factoring in unbalanced loads from local failures, but this is why we build to such a high safety margin.

(https://s18.postimg.org/a3ah8g8x5/WTC7-floor-plan-collapse-initial-failure-_NIST-co.gif)

We can clearly see the asymmetry of the building design and the asymmetry of the alleged damage. A failure in column 79 might cause the partial collapse of another few columns, I'd pay a partial building collapse. It is clearly not a critical column, as the collapse progressed to 76, 77 and 78 it would encounter massive structural resistance from the core. I think the total destruction of wtc 7 is impossible without CD.

We have to remember that wtc 7 had a very strong core, and a very stiff and strong outer structure.

Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on March 31, 2017, 12:14:38 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/Y1HDPtV.png)


This is what the external skin looks like. These are not minor steel beams they where using to keep it together either. Godzilla would not have gotten through that.

The cores job in nearly any building is to hold the building up against the mass of the building and gravity, the core is not designed to be laterally load bearing, that is why we see buildings swept away by floods intact as you have shown earlier in the thread.

Wtc 7s outer structure was primarily to keep the building from falling over, it was cross-braced and very strong, more than capable of providing structural resistance in the event of the collapse of the outer frame we saw.

More than that the failure of column 79 led to the failure of the entire core, any architect or engineer knows that this shouldn't happen. Buildings are designed to share load throughout their structure otherwise we end with massive stress on individual connections and the connection shearing. I think the symmetry, free-fall and near total destruction of wtc 7 are impossible without controlled demolition.

Edit. Typos.

Quote from: Rayzor on April 25, 2017, 10:58:01 PM
BTW,  I could up the ante further to ten trillion dollars if you want to go for it.

Because what you are proposing is dishonest, there is no opportunity to win, you've made it clear you have already made up your mind.

Do you understand that it is dishonest?

It's cool if you dont.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 25, 2017, 11:01:56 PM
Quote from: disputeone on April 25, 2017, 10:55:19 PM
Quote from: User324 on April 25, 2017, 10:35:11 PM
Quote from: disputeone on April 25, 2017, 02:31:35 PM
You skipped past my argument.

Yeah, I guess it got lost between all the slurs.

That's fair, address it at your leisure, or don't, it doesn't bother me desu.

I was quite clear about why I am slurring Rayzor currently.

Quote from: disputeone on April 25, 2017, 05:45:47 AM
The debate is over f*ck-knuckle you haven't engaged my first post.

Now I am just here to poke you with a stick.

Asshat.

desu
A Japanese word commonly used to indicate the speaker is a retarded wannabe Japanese anime-whore


Seems accurate enough,  at least the retarded part.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 25, 2017, 11:03:22 PM
It means "to be honest."

I do enjoy anime. Attack on Titan is awesome.

Edit. Also deathnote is fantastic.

Naruto is aight.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on April 26, 2017, 12:00:18 AM
Quote from: disputeone on April 25, 2017, 10:55:19 PM
Quote from: User324 on April 25, 2017, 10:35:11 PM
Quote from: disputeone on April 25, 2017, 02:31:35 PM
You skipped past my argument.

Yeah, I guess it got lost between all the slurs.

That's fair, address it at your leisure, or don't, it doesn't bother me desu.

I was quite clear about why I am slurring Rayzor currently.
Well, you know, I am just here to poke you with a stick.

Maybe if I find time later on I'll respond to your argument, but I think it has already been discussed.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 26, 2017, 12:01:20 AM
You are mistaken.

The fall acceleration and symmetry of wtc 7 has not been addressed, here or by NIST and popular mechanics.

Edit.

More like National Institute of Supressing Truth and popular opinion mechanics. Lol.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 26, 2017, 12:24:17 AM
I can link to a few PhD Structural engineers trying to explain the collapse of wtc 7 we saw, however you won't like the conclusions they have drawn so far.

Believe it or not at one point I believed the official story however I found that the O/S and this especially, just can't stand up to scrutiny.

Add NIST's unwillingness to have their model peer reviewed, that it took seven years to even attempt to address thr collapse of wtc 7 and that NIST outrightly censors their inputs as a "matter of national security."

I hope it doesn't happen but I worry they will throw this and a supression order at Professer Leroy Hulsey when he tries to release his model.

However if they took this path there would no longer be an argument for NIST's honesty, not that I believe there is an argument for their honesty currently.

I don't have a problem with you User, Rayzor crossed a line with me and my treatment of him is indicative of this.

It did bother me how you wanted to call me stupid before you even read the NIST report, however I am over it, if you want an honest debate I would be happy to oblige.

Ball is in your court, absolutely no pressure.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on April 26, 2017, 01:14:55 AM
Quote
The fall acceleration and symmetry of wtc 7 has not been addressed, here or by NIST and popular mechanics.
Oh, I certainly have addressed it.

Quote from: User324 on March 28, 2017, 11:20:07 AM
Watch 00:19


Neither the box nor the orange lines are perfectly accurate. Red box is rectuangualar, top line is supposed to aligne with the top of the building. Its obviously not trying to show how big the building is but how unsymmetrical the collapse was.

(https://img1.picload.org/image/rlwiidcw/symmetrie.png)

And
Quote
"It makes perfectly sense that there was an acceleration observed that was more or less, within the error rate matching gravitational acceleration. They even used the words "essentially in free fall", "estimation" and "negligible support" making it very clear that those are approximations and not absolute values."

What this means (so you might understand   ) : There, of course, WAS structural resistance. But given the possibilites of calculating the actual collapsing speed and the supposed free fall speed and the resulting inaccuracies, it can be said that it was neglible."

Quote
Add NIST's unwillingness to have their model peer reviewed, that it took seven years to even attempt to address thr collapse of wtc 7 and that NIST outrightly censors their inputs as a "matter of national security."
I'm not saying and have never been saying that the investigation was performed as it should have been.

Quote
It did bother me how you wanted to call me stupid before you even read the NIST report, however I am over it, if you want an honest debate I would be happy to oblige.
I might even jump into another debate, but since I have low free time and I don't think it would bring any results, I do not think it is worth it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 26, 2017, 01:25:02 AM
That isn't addressing it, at all, just saying nuh-uh.

That's fine I'm cool with it.

(https://s24.postimg.org/npue4w6g5/wtc7naudetxf5.gif)

With the dishnonest lines you added removed there is a clearer picture of the symmetry of collapse.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 26, 2017, 01:30:22 AM
Tell me, why are you insinuating I am stupid for believing this when I have most structural engineers and architects on my side?

Surely PhD Structural Engineers aren't stupid or ignorant when it comes to structural engineering?



Edit for vid.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on April 26, 2017, 01:50:11 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 25, 2017, 10:58:01 PM
Not quite so fast.    We had a deal,  I kept my side of the deal and you backed down,  so I have a stronger claim for a victory by TKO than you.

You and I both know that you don't have any proof that it was someone other that Islamic Terrorists,   whereas the overwhelming evidence is that it was in fact a terrorist attack,  and these attacks are continuing today.

Whomp indeed.

BTW,  I could up the ante further to ten trillion dollars if you want to go for it.

Look...You agreed to the terms of disputes contest, you said let's choose judges etc etc...

Then when I posted this multiple times trying to get to business..

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 17, 2017, 04:39:33 PM
So, if you aren't backing out, then let's continue on with whatever needs to be done. First, please post up proof of ability to pay the grand prize (this can be alone, or if you are forming a team, it can be conjoined, also, if you/team want to sweeten the pot no problem more can be added at any time).. second, judges needed to be selected.

You balked every time (for obvious reasons)... You then started throwing around your stupid million dollars. I told you let's not be stupid, keep it at a legitament amount of 5000 usd. I posted my prize, said I could increase if people get a wild hair, however, felt 5,000 was sufficient.

You continued to balk, now you are trying to pay me in a dead currency (which you don't even have in your possession, you posted from online and added text), even when the currency was alive a 100 trillion dollars would barely buy bread.

You do not even have 5000 dollars yet you have the balls to call me a fraud?? You can't even present a case for the official story yet you have the balls to call me a fraud and call others crazy?? You can prove Absolutely nothing about yourself except for a tour pass any Joe smo can get, yet you have the gall to call me a fraud, when I have posted up customized proof of every damn thing I have said?

This is non sense... It can be summed up in a very brief phrase..

"You have to be this tall to ride this ride"

Sorry razyor, back to the kiddie rides for you, maybe one day you will grow. As of this point you are just out of your league buttercup. No amount of insults, subject changes, gaslighting, belittling or deflection can change this fact sweet cheeks. :-*
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on April 26, 2017, 01:55:42 AM
Dispute

User is in college and firmly under their grasp. Anything authority says he will believe unfortunately, so it is a complete waste of time. His mind is about as open as a fish's anus, though he will attempt to claim otherwise.

It is very inconvenient and downright unpleasant to go against the flow...It takes nuts to endure that. I suppose I don't blame him or anyone else
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 26, 2017, 01:58:21 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 26, 2017, 01:55:42 AM
Dispute

User is in college and firmly under their grasp. Anything authority says he will believe unfortunately, so it is a complete waste of time. His mind is about as open as a fish's anus, though he will attempt to claim otherwise.

It is very inconvenient and downright unpleasant to go against the flow...It takes nuts to endure that. I suppose I don't blame him or anyone else

No, I don't blame them either. It does take a lot of courage to stand against the grain.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on April 26, 2017, 03:42:06 AM
Quote from: disputeone on April 26, 2017, 01:25:02 AM
With the dishnonest lines you added removed there is a clearer picture of the symmetry of collapse.
I have linked the video too, use your own eyes and you'll see the lines are pretty accurate.  If you do not agree, feel free to draw your own lines (at the same time in the video) and post it here.

Quote
when I have most structural engineers and architects on my side?
I do need proof for that or else I cannot accept it.

Quote
User is in college and firmly under their grasp.
I'm not sure how you think college works where I live, but it's probably not as you think it does. I do not receive any information not related to the subject I study; e.g. no political information at all.

Quote
It is very inconvenient and downright unpleasant to go against the flow...It takes nuts to endure that. I suppose I don't blame him or anyone else
The self pitty again, you really cannot get over it.

No offense / joking: Have you ever thought about visiting a psychologist? He might help you with your possibly existing trauma.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 26, 2017, 03:57:37 AM
Quote from: User324 on April 26, 2017, 03:42:06 AM
No offense / joking: Have you ever thought about visiting a psychologist? He might help you with your possibly existing trauma.

Wow man, that's pretty low.

You can believe what you like, if you can't justify it then don't demonize us. I understand in your own way you are trying to justify dismissing our evidence but come on man.

With respect, you are just a kid with no idea about the real world.
It is unpleasant to fight against popular opinion, do I need to start citing examples from history?

As for trauma and seeing a psychologist.

I watched my friend bleed to death a few years back I watched him get stabbed and I watched him die with fear in his heart. Many more friends have died on a bike riding with me, that's also traumatic.

When I was nineteen a good friend of mine was murdered by three other girls over a debt, cut into pieces and found in a wheelie bin. Teardrops and closed caskets.

I do have existing trauma, just a few examples, it's called the real world. When are you c*nts going to think before you say something stupid.

Shits real, now, what the f*ck does any of that have to do with 9/11?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 26, 2017, 04:05:34 AM
Alright user, baby steps, just try to address the bolded section however you feel comfortable.

Quote from: disputeone on March 31, 2017, 01:16:08 AM
Lets use NIST buckling model for example, they claim the outer and inner structure at the bottom pretty well "ceased to exist" which allowed a 2.25 second free-fall.

(http://ae911truth.info/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Floors-7-14-Buckling.png)

Now we have a very stiff cross braced outer structure which has apparently completely vaporized on the lower floors, (7-14) which allowed the tower to fall with no / negligible structural resistance. I understand the outer structure isn't vertically load bearing and wouldn't hold the entire weight of the building without the core, 100% paid.

I'll pay up to the fires causing the collapse of the core. (Dubious) How did we have such symmetry after the external structure was severed / buckled. According to the NIST model, and due to the varying stiffness we should not have seen such symmetry during free-fall.



I agree that the symmetry isn't a smoking gun nor is the free-fall. It's the combination of the two which I believe are impossible.

A progressive, reasonably symmetrical collapse with such a strong outer frame (leaving out how fires completely destroyed the core) after the core was removed isn't that unlikely, however at free-fall?

We still have the problem of a crossbraced outer structure collapsing into itself very close to 9.8m/s2 even if for the sake of simplicity we assume the entire inner structure was destroyed. (In video evidence we can see the tower start it's free-fall with a lot of the west side of the interior still reasonably intact.)

I understand lift shafts arent load bearing in and of themselves always but we have say (estimating) 250mm thick concrete shafts reinforced with reebar and braced to the support structures, we then have two T 150mm by 16mm rails and two T 100mm by 8mm counterweight rails, these are pinned into the concrete every 1500mm with an average of six 12mm high tensile trubolts, the shaft is absolutely over designed for the lifts, nearly all of the static load is taken through the rails into the concrete slab, dynamic loads are taken through the shaft by the rails and rail brackets.

My point is this is a very stiff, very strong structure that has actually gained stiffness and strength from the high tensile metal.

I can't understand how the whole building fell into itself at free-fall after a single column failure.

(https://s24.postimg.org/npue4w6g5/wtc7naudetxf5.gif)

Partial collapse slower than free-fall?
Absolutely would have bought it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on April 26, 2017, 04:29:10 AM
Quote
With respect, you are just a kid with no idea about the real world.
I do not agree with that.

Quote
It is unpleasant to fight against popular opinion, do I need to start citing examples from history?
I have never said that's not the case.

Quote
As for trauma and seeing a psychologist.
I do have existing trauma
What I wrote was directed to Bhs (just in case you thought it was directed to you). I mentioned it because I have noticed that in nearly every post of him that I read (especially in the other thread with the inflatearth guy) he mentiones it.

Quote
I do have existing trauma, just a few examples, it's called the real world. When are you c*nts going to think before you say something stupid.
So, you think trauma patients do not deserve treatment since it is just how the world works?
Anyway, I didn't even say he must have trauma. It was actually a honest and sincere advice.

Quote
Alright user, baby steps, just try to address the bolded section however you feel comfortable.
I am not a structural engineer so I cannot judge that. But as far as I know you're a fitter, so I do not think that belongs to your core-competence either.

What I though CAN say is that the fall was not symmetrical and I'm pretty sure that not most of the engineers think it was controlled demolition.

You ignored those two points and have answered neither of them. I'll give you another chance.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 26, 2017, 04:41:26 AM
Does my job preclude me from reading?
Did you get scared of the content?

Can you cite a more symmetrical collapse?

(https://s24.postimg.org/npue4w6g5/wtc7naudetxf5.gif)

Controlled demolition or otherwise?

I have 2850 architects and engineers, you better start getting signatures supporting the NIST report then.

You can't assume they accept the O/S because the news told us the O/S, that is what you are trying to do.

It seems you have two points.

1. You're a tradesman so nuh-uh.

2. The news says you're wrong so nuh-uh.

My rebuttal for each of these points is "looks like you win again ;)"

Good day sir.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 26, 2017, 04:45:48 AM
Quote from: User324 on April 26, 2017, 04:29:10 AM
Quote
Alright user, baby steps, just try to address the bolded section however you feel comfortable.
I am not a structural engineer so I cannot judge that. But as far as I know you're a fitter, so I do not think that belongs to your core-competence either.

Now this guy, this guy is a structural engineer, a very good one at that.



Edit.

@Bhs isn't this just the crux of the matter.

Quote
I am not a structural engineer so I cannot judge that.

"I haven't and won't do the research but, nuh-uh"

We then present testimony from structural engineers, only to the rebuttal, "nuh-uh". It's just so boring.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 26, 2017, 04:57:24 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 26, 2017, 01:50:11 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 25, 2017, 10:58:01 PM
Not quite so fast.    We had a deal,  I kept my side of the deal and you backed down,  so I have a stronger claim for a victory by TKO than you.

You and I both know that you don't have any proof that it was someone other that Islamic Terrorists,   whereas the overwhelming evidence is that it was in fact a terrorist attack,  and these attacks are continuing today.

Whomp indeed.

BTW,  I could up the ante further to ten trillion dollars if you want to go for it.

Look...You agreed to the terms of disputes contest, you said let's choose judges etc etc...

Then when I posted this multiple times trying to get to business..

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 17, 2017, 04:39:33 PM
So, if you aren't backing out, then let's continue on with whatever needs to be done. First, please post up proof of ability to pay the grand prize (this can be alone, or if you are forming a team, it can be conjoined, also, if you/team want to sweeten the pot no problem more can be added at any time).. second, judges needed to be selected.

You balked every time (for obvious reasons)... You then started throwing around your stupid million dollars. I told you let's not be stupid, keep it at a legitament amount of 5000 usd. I posted my prize, said I could increase if people get a wild hair, however, felt 5,000 was sufficient.

You continued to balk, now you are trying to pay me in a dead currency (which you don't even have in your possession, you posted from online and added text), even when the currency was alive a 100 trillion dollars would barely buy bread.

You do not even have 5000 dollars yet you have the balls to call me a fraud?? You can't even present a case for the official story yet you have the balls to call me a fraud and call others crazy?? You can prove Absolutely nothing about yourself except for a tour pass any Joe smo can get, yet you have the gall to call me a fraud, when I have posted up customized proof of every damn thing I have said?

This is non sense... It can be summed up in a very brief phrase..

"You have to be this tall to ride this ride"

Sorry razyor, back to the kiddie rides for you, maybe one day you will grow. As of this point you are just out of your league buttercup. No amount of insults, subject changes, gaslighting, belittling or deflection can change this fact sweet cheeks. :-*

LOL,  so that confirms it,  you've wasted 10 years of your life researching 9/11 conspiracy theories and come up with nothing,  not even when offered million dollars did you even make an effort to prove your case. 

That tells me everything I need to know.   
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on April 26, 2017, 04:58:39 AM
Quote from: User324 on April 26, 2017, 04:29:10 AM
What I wrote was directed to Bhs (just in case you thought it was directed to you). I mentioned it because I have noticed that in nearly every post of him that I read (especially in the other thread with the inflatearth guy) he mentiones it.

Clap trap... I mentioned twice about myself..Every other time was wholly generic, explaining how group think works.

Even this time on this thread I mentioned absolutely nothing about myself, it was clearly generic.

Calling me crazy, mentally unfit, needing therapy etc is just your way of fighting my point of the truths of group think. The typical actions of people like yourself, performing admirably at a young age. Well done.

Quote from: User324 on April 26, 2017, 03:42:06 AM
I'm not sure how you think college works where I live, but it's probably not as you think it does. I do not receive any information not related to the subject I study; e.g. no political information at all.

I see you have zero idea how group think works.

Quote from: User324 on April 26, 2017, 04:29:10 AM
Quote
With respect, you are just a kid with no idea about the real world.
I do not agree with that.

Disagreement does not change Reality unfortunately. This has nothing to do with any of the conversation...We are all idiots at that age, just the way it is.



And adding this...For the design of the building it was absolutely symmetrical if it was a "natural" collapse from the failure of one support. To get what we saw you have to remove mass...And remove it in a fucking hurry. Impossible from one core support failing.

You have myself a PhD M.E. with extracurricular structural emphasis. Also an architect that appeared here for a bit agreed and was concerned. Knock dispute all you want, but he works in the field and you develop a feel for things. Plus the supposed "low men on the totem pole" as you tried to write him off as...They are much more knowledgeable than you think. I have had very good suggestions on design and improvements from such people.

I would much rather have someone with experience, and proven track record than some twat straight out of college... Especially now days.

Don't like that there are 1,000s upon 1,000s of people who are qualified that will tell you the same. I don't really know anyone that believes it in the field through my friendship or acquaintance. Some are vocal like myself, others don't want to deal with it or get in the thick so they just ignore it.

I am willing to put a currently non provable bet that at least 85 percent of people in the field don't believe it, if they all cared enough to speak out against it. Though I am happy with the 55 known percent, as well as about the same amount of the general populous.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 26, 2017, 05:00:37 AM
Quote from: disputeone on April 26, 2017, 04:41:26 AM
I have 2850 architects and engineers, you better start getting signatures supporting the NIST report then.

Out of about 800,000 in the USA alone,  So only a few loonies support  Richard (aka Gaga) Gage?    What was your point again?


PS Argumentum Ad Populum is considered invalid logic anyway.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 26, 2017, 05:06:00 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 26, 2017, 04:57:24 AM
LOL,  so that confirms it,  you've wasted 10 years of your life researching 9/11 conspiracy theories and come up with nothing,  not even when offered million dollars did you even make an effort to prove your case. 

That tells me everything I need to know.

[sarcasm]
Looks like you win again Rayzor.
[/sarcasm]

Quote from: Rayzor on April 26, 2017, 05:00:37 AM
Quote from: disputeone on April 26, 2017, 04:41:26 AM
I have 2850 architects and engineers, you better start getting signatures supporting the NIST report then.

Out of about 800,000 in the USA alone,  So only a few loonies support  Richard (aka Gaga) Gage?    What was your point again?


PS Argumentum Ad Populum is considered invalid logic anyway.

My point is the majority of structural engineers and architects don't believe the official story, especially if they actually look into it like we made MaNaeSWolf look into it.

I hope he comes back, it's pretty hard to look into, especially with his knowledge, it's pretty confronting.

Just to clarify, are you calling Professor Leroy Hulsey a "loony" I'd like you to be clear on this.

Shill as hard as you like Rayzor I am done caring.

Actually why don't you try to address the bolded section of my reply that I first addressed to user123, baby steps.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on April 26, 2017, 05:07:52 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 26, 2017, 04:57:24 AM
LOL,  so that confirms it,  you've wasted 10 years of your life researching 9/11 conspiracy theories and come up with nothing,  not even when offered million dollars did you even make an effort to prove your case. 

That tells me everything I need to know.

The deflection is real lol. Everyone has seen all they need...You have had ample chances. You backed out of the entire judge panel contest you agreed to. Could not prove anything again...Even your bs million dollars of dead currency you did not even possess lmao, so even by some nonsensical technicality you didn't even win there lmao.

So pathetic. Prove nothing, has nothing, yet you think you can call everyone crazy, losers and frauds...Yet you are one of the biggest if not biggest here.

It really is always the cheater accusing the other of cheating isn't it??

Now to the reality we all see now...

(http://i67.tinypic.com/15xtkle.jpg)

Sorry buttercup​...You are way out of your league.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on April 26, 2017, 05:30:09 AM
Quote from: disputeone on April 26, 2017, 04:41:26 AM
(https://s24.postimg.org/npue4w6g5/wtc7naudetxf5.gif)
I'd recommend you reading into this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

Just because from one perspective for a certain time the collapse appears symmetrical, does not mean it actually is - which it isn't, what my video proofs beyond doubt.

Quote
I have 2850 architects and engineers, you better start getting signatures supporting the NIST report then.
That doesn't mean much. And it is certainly not "most of the architects and structural engineers".

Quote
I see you have zero idea how group think works.
Then explain me a) how it works and b) in which way it does make it a bad thing.

Quote
55 known percent

Source?

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 26, 2017, 06:04:04 AM
Did you read your article on cognitive dissonance?

You are displaying it denying the unnatural symmetry during free-fall.



Trying to diagnose people over the internet is a really, really, really weak debate tactic.

As for group think, you were here calling me an idiot for questioning the official story while you haven't even read the official story.

This is a prime example of what it is and how it is harmful.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on April 26, 2017, 06:07:37 AM
Lol user.. Is there a handbook or something?

Again, throwing the mental issue card around to explain a view conflicting of yours. Very nice.

The number of architects and engineers dispute stated was from one place, there are many more that are vocal in other sites and public areas. Also, as I stated in a previous post ..

Quote
I don't really know anyone that believes it in the field through my friendship or acquaintance. Some are vocal like myself, others don't want to deal with it or get in the thick so they just ignore it.

Many ignore it, either they don't care, don't think their professional opinion would matter (which is seeming logical), or don't want to get mixed up in conflict.

As for group think...I am not sure how you do not understand how it works or how it's bad.

Ever heard of a cult you are "free to leave"  anytime? Most have claimed that. Yet the psychological warfare of group think and shaming works wonders. Confining them physically is not needed. This is just a quick example, as it would take a fair amount of time to devise an accurate explanation of the psychological mechanics. If I thought you really wanted an answer, I might divulge, however, I have a gut feeling you could care less. I might be wrong, though have strong odds I am not.

As for 55 percent...It was a rounded number of averages. America is hovering right around 50 percent in the populous depending on which poll..We will say +- 8% to be fair.

World polling depends on where the poll takes place. Some places are as high as 80 percent saying the official story is bogus, other places are as low as 30 percent.

So I averaged everything at 55 percent...As I said, add the +- if you would like.


Anyways It is impossible for a building designed as 7 to fall as it did with the catalyst proposed. There is no way around this, anyone who is in the profession can look at the blue prints and understand this.

Though to me, I see no reason to complicate it. Seems as logic to me honestly. Appears there are a large number of people who feel the same that are not "qualified" to say so
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 26, 2017, 06:19:25 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 26, 2017, 06:07:37 AM
Anyways It is impossible for a building designed as 7 to fall as it did with the catalyst proposed. There is no way around this, anyone who is in the profession can look at the blue prints and understand this.

Also wtc 1 and 2 collapse was impossible.

Also passenger planes going faster than possible at an altitude that should reduce max speed by a massive amount.

Also the impossible molten steel, and the indestructible nosecone.

Also the pentagon plane, rotflmfao.

And the plane that vaporized in the dirt. ::)

Plus the absolutely overwhelming amount of circumstantial evidence involving motive, suspicious circumstances lucky larry etc.

We have no shortage of evidence. You could literally drown in it but you're scared to dip a toe.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on April 26, 2017, 07:07:49 AM
Quote
Trying to diagnose people over the internet is a really, really, really weak debate tactic.
Recommend reading a wiki article =/= diagnose.

[I'll write more later, no time right now]
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on April 26, 2017, 08:49:26 AM
Quote from: disputeone on April 26, 2017, 06:04:04 AM
You are displaying it denying the unnatural symmetry during free-fall.
Only thing I'm saying is it was obviously not a symmetrical fall, and I have proven that with the video & picture. Unless you claim the video to be fake, the fall was not even close to being entirely symmtrical.
You saying it was "unnatural symmetry" is your opinon, which I respect, but it doesn't change it is an opinon and not a fact.

Quote
My point is the majority of structural engineers and architects don't believe the official story
Again - source?

Quote
Ever heard of a cult you are "free to leave"  anytime? Most have claimed that. Yet the psychological warfare of group think and shaming works wonders. Confining them physically is not needed. This is just a quick example, as it would take a fair amount of time to devise an accurate explanation of the psychological mechanics. If I thought you really wanted an answer, I might divulge, however, I have a gut feeling you could care less. I might be wrong, though have strong odds I am not.
I'm not saying group think does not exist. But
1) I do not think I get influenced at university the way you think I'd get influenced (in contrary, I know a lot of "special" people with whom I love to discuss a lot of stuff. But yeah, I'm probably lucky that I have a bunch of really smart friends (way smarter than me)).
2) Might it not be that group think gives, in an evolutionary sense*, some advantages and thus is somehow a "natural" behaviour?
I would be interested in the psychological mechanics, mainly because I'm somewhat interested in psychology generally.
*No need to jump into a evolution debate now; "evolution" of this kind could happen with a creator aswell :)

Quote
As for 55 percent...It was a rounded number of averages. America is hovering right around 50 percent in the populous depending on which poll..We will say +- 8% to be fair.
I'd still like to see a source (direct link to such a poll).

Quote
Anyways It is impossible for a building designed as 7 to fall as it did with the catalyst proposed.
That is your opinon and not a hard fact.


Quote from: Disputeone
Also wtc 1 and 2 collapse was impossible.
Same here, opinon, not fact.

Quote
Also passenger planes going faster than possible at an altitude that should reduce max speed by a massive amount.
1) How fast did the planes go (+source)
2) How fast should it be able to go (+source)

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on April 26, 2017, 09:12:12 AM
Quote from: User324 on April 26, 2017, 08:49:26 AM
I'm not saying group think does not exist. But
1) I do not think I get influenced at university the way you think I'd get influenced (in contrary, I know a lot of "special" people with whom I love to discuss a lot of stuff).
2) Might it not be that group think gives, in an evolutionary sense*, some advantages and thus is somehow a "natural" behaviour?
I would be interested in the psychological mechanics, mainly because I'm somewhat interested in psychology generally.
*No need to jump into a evolution debate now; "evolution" of this kind could happen with a creator aswell :)
I absolutely agree 100 percent humans want to be a part of a pack. We are group beings (why do you think so many get scared alone, see things etc). I have said this before on the evolution thread... This is why group think is so powerful, it plays to an ingrained piece of our mind as powerful or even more so as our sexual desires.

The reason I keep saying about college is you really have no idea how "molded" you are becoming. It is a well oiled machine, and perhaps not out of malice, but you certainly are.

Quote
I'd still like to see a source (direct link to such a poll).

I will find them, I am sure you can as well...It is not secret info or anything of the such. Private companies, news, and many other groups have done random polls for some times. There are some on this thread as well, just God knows what pages they are on.

Quote
That is your opinon and not a hard fact.
This is something I can say without it being an opinion, these things are in my specialty unlike other things we have spoken about. Unless reality changed for that time only.


Quote
1) How fast did the planes go (+source)
2) How fast should it be able to go (+source)

Depending on which of the multitude of planes you are talking about. High 400s to mid 500s mph. This is not secret information, all stated clearly in the official report.

There is information on this thread about all of this, if why the planes could not hold together at that speed and altitude, not to mention the Maneuvers pulled at that speed and altitude. Simulations have been shown, typically the plane will lose a wing and spiral, or sometimes just cut. Or such as the Pentagon, the plane engines would have only been an inch or two off the grass doing going a speed it could not handle, after a maneuver it could not do...

All by pilots that could not even handle a Cessna... Veteran pilots have tried these things in flight sims and had no luck.

There is much to discuss on that, however, alot of it is on this thread already
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on April 26, 2017, 10:49:02 AM
Quote from: User324 on April 26, 2017, 08:49:26 AM

Only thing I'm saying is it was obviously not a symmetrical fall, and I have proven that with the video & picture. Unless you claim the video to be fake, the fall was not even close to being entirely symmtrical.
You saying it was "unnatural symmetry" is your opinon, which I respect, but it doesn't change it is an opinon and not a fact.
You lines and video do nothing to disprove symmetry.

The lines are nowhere near the actual roofline on the left hand side of the photo you introduced.

I do not know what you are looking at, but like I wrote earlier, the roofline on the left hand side of the photo is actually an eighth of an inch to a quarter of an inch above the line, making the orange line a ridiculous proposition.

Quote from: User324 on April 26, 2017, 08:49:26 AM
Again - source?
I would think the absence of official signatories to the OS would be strong indicator that a majority of engineers and architects DO NOT BELIEVE THE OS.

Officially, nearly 3000 have stated so publicly.

I have yet to encounter anyone in the field that publicly supports the OS.

Quote from: User324 on April 26, 2017, 08:49:26 AM
1) How fast did the planes go (+source)
"The government's calculations put the speed of the first plane at 494 mph, and the second at 586 mph. The MIT analysis determined the first plane was traveling 429 mph, and the second 537 mph, The Times said."
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/speed-likely-factor-in-wtc-collapse-25-02-2002/ (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/speed-likely-factor-in-wtc-collapse-25-02-2002/)

Quote from: User324 on April 26, 2017, 08:49:26 AM
2) How fast should it be able to go (+source)
Not that fast.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22716 (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22716)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on April 26, 2017, 11:28:30 AM
Hi,

@totallackey
Quote
The lines are nowhere near the actual roofline on the left hand side of the photo you introduced.

I do not know what you are looking at, but like I wrote earlier, the roofline on the left hand side of the photo is actually an eighth of an inch to a quarter of an inch above the line, making the orange line a ridiculous proposition.
Feel free to draw them in a way you think would be better, I honestly do not understand where you think the line should be.
I guess if you watch the video frame by frame, you'll realize my lines are pretty accurate.

Quote
Officially, nearly 3000 have stated so publicly.
I'm not aware of that - source?

Quote
Not that fast.
I did briefly skim thorugh that thread, but it didn't provide the information I was looking for, but maybe I have missed it.

@Bhs
Quote
The reason I keep saying about college is you really have no idea how "molded" you are becoming. It is a well oiled machine, and perhaps not out of malice, but you certainly are.
In what manner have I become "moleded"?
What is your suggestion to solve the "problem" with university brain washing?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on April 26, 2017, 11:42:18 AM
Quote from: User324 on April 26, 2017, 11:28:30 AM


@Bhs
Quote
The reason I keep saying about college is you really have no idea how "molded" you are becoming. It is a well oiled machine, and perhaps not out of malice, but you certainly are.
In what manner have I become "moleded"?
What is your suggestion to solve the "problem" with university brain washing?

Always use your own head...Ask why something is a fact..Never lose your critical thinking skills... Understand motivation versus non motivation...Never have an ego for yourself or humanity in general...Take advice from people who have walked the walk, not just talk the talk.

Example, if someone that has something to gain from telling you something...Always critical think it...Always ask why. You would be surprise how many times you won't get an answer.

Don't take the words of someone who has only read books in an echo chamber as gospel...However, someone who has walked the walk and actually "does"...Pay more attention.

Example...Don't take relationship advice from someone who has been divorced 3 times, money advice from a broke person, cleanliness advice from someone who lives in a pigsty.

I could go on....

Cutting it short, I only say these things because I am attempting to help you avoid somethings that sneak up on you.

Take it for what it is worth...You more than likely think I am a nut..But I did well in the system and won, and I have done well for myself after I was out. Nor do I have a thing to gain by saying any of this to you, it is actually a loss of my time. As I said, proof is in the pudding.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on April 26, 2017, 12:36:54 PM
Quote from: User324 on April 26, 2017, 11:28:30 AM
Hi,
Feel free to draw them in a way you think would be better, I honestly do not understand where you think the line should be.
I guess if you watch the video frame by frame, you'll realize my lines are pretty accurate.
I do not need to watch the video frame-by-frame.

The red line, on the left of the picture you provided, clearly dips below the roof line. The left side of the red lined box you superimposed on the picture does not encompass the entire left side of the picture. 

You draw them better.
Quote from: User324 on April 26, 2017, 11:28:30 AM
Quote
Officially, nearly 3000 have stated so publicly.
I'm not aware of that - source?

http://www.ae911truth.org/

Quote from: User324 on April 26, 2017, 11:28:30 AM
I did briefly skim thorugh that thread, but it didn't provide the information I was looking for, but maybe I have missed it.
Rather than briefly skim through it, try actually reading it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on April 26, 2017, 01:07:50 PM
Quote
Always use your own head...Never lose your critical thinking skills...
I'm pretty confident that I'm doing that (using my own head) and not doing that (losing critical thinking skills)  ;)


Quote
Ask why something is a fact
I do not think that this makes sense too often or can/should be done to often. If I'd wonder why something is a fact, I could go to google scholar or similar and read the studies myself, but this would obviously be a waste of time mostly (I do it every once in a while tho).


Quote
Understand motivation versus non motivation...Never have an ego for yourself or humanity in general...
I do not understand those two to be honest, might be the language barrier.
Wouldn't "have an ego for humanity" mean caring for humanity (other humans)?

Quote
Cutting it short, I only say these things because I am attempting to help you avoid somethings that sneak up on you.
I greatly appreciate that.  :)

@totallackey
Quote
You draw them better.
I don't think so.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 26, 2017, 02:33:29 PM
Nice work avoiding actually talking about the building collapses.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 26, 2017, 06:14:23 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 26, 2017, 05:07:52 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 26, 2017, 04:57:24 AM
LOL,  so that confirms it,  you've wasted 10 years of your life researching 9/11 conspiracy theories and come up with nothing,  not even when offered million dollars did you even make an effort to prove your case. 

That tells me everything I need to know.

The deflection is real lol. Everyone has seen all they need...You have had ample chances. You backed out of the entire judge panel contest you agreed to. Could not prove anything again...Even your bs million dollars of dead currency you did not even possess lmao, so even by some nonsensical technicality you didn't even win there lmao.

So pathetic. Prove nothing, has nothing, yet you think you can call everyone crazy, losers and frauds...Yet you are one of the biggest if not biggest here.

It really is always the cheater accusing the other of cheating isn't it??

Now to the reality we all see now...

(http://i67.tinypic.com/15xtkle.jpg)

Sorry buttercup​...You are way out of your league.

LOL  "Buttercup"   that's about your speed I guess.    Even your insults are lame.

BTW,   I do have a few of those  million dollar notes,  also some ten trillion dollar ones,  just PM me your address and I'll post one to you.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 26, 2017, 06:27:22 PM
Can I haz ones?

To buy cheezburgerz?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 27, 2017, 12:54:48 AM
Quote from: disputeone on April 26, 2017, 06:27:22 PM
Can I haz ones?

To buy cheezburgerz?

You want the million dollars or the ten trillion dollars?   

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 27, 2017, 01:11:24 AM
Doez teh 10 trillzion buys moar cheezburgerz?

(https://s28.postimg.org/gc1ynzjl9/ichc.jpg)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 27, 2017, 02:20:11 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 26, 2017, 09:12:12 AM
Depending on which of the multitude of planes you are talking about. High 400s to mid 500s mph. This is not secret information, all stated clearly in the official report.

There is information on this thread about all of this, if why the planes could not hold together at that speed and altitude, not to mention the Maneuvers pulled at that speed and altitude. Simulations have been shown, typically the plane will lose a wing and spiral, or sometimes just cut. Or such as the Pentagon, the plane engines would have only been an inch or two off the grass doing going a speed it could not handle, after a maneuver it could not do...

I missed that post, very nice.

Please bear in mind this stuff is Bhs' bread and butter and he has every right to give his professional opinion on the matter and if you don't like it it is up to you to explain how the planes could so easily and so consistently exceed their design capability to what should have been a factor of failure.

Quote
why the planes could not hold together at that speed and altitude, not to mention the Maneuvers pulled at that speed and altitude.

Wow and a PhD M.E who has worked specifically with aeronautical engineering is just telling us this, off his own back, being called every name under the sun and standing by his convictions while people try to discredit him.

With this in mind we can understand why we don't have more engineer signatures on ae911truth, Architects and Engineers working for a wage can ruin their career and reputation just for stating their professional opinion.

That is why I hold the ones that are brave enough to make the sacrifice to stand up for the truth in the highest esteem. It's not easy and it definitely shouldn't be laughed at.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 27, 2017, 03:15:27 AM
Quote from: disputeone on April 27, 2017, 02:20:11 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 26, 2017, 09:12:12 AM
Depending on which of the multitude of planes you are talking about. High 400s to mid 500s mph. This is not secret information, all stated clearly in the official report.

There is information on this thread about all of this, if why the planes could not hold together at that speed and altitude, not to mention the Maneuvers pulled at that speed and altitude. Simulations have been shown, typically the plane will lose a wing and spiral, or sometimes just cut. Or such as the Pentagon, the plane engines would have only been an inch or two off the grass doing going a speed it could not handle, after a maneuver it could not do...

I missed that post, very nice.

Please bear in mind this stuff is Bhs' bread and butter and he has every right to give his professional opinion on the matter and if you don't like it it is up to you to explain how the planes could so easily and so consistently exceed their design capability to what should have been a factor of failure.

Quote
why the planes could not hold together at that speed and altitude, not to mention the Maneuvers pulled at that speed and altitude.

Wow and a PhD M.E who has worked specifically with aeronautical engineering is just telling us this, off his own back, being called every name under the sun and standing by his convictions while people try to discredit him.

With this in mind we can understand why we don't have more engineer signatures on ae911truth, Architects and Engineers working for a wage can ruin their career and reputation just for stating their professional opinion.

That is why I hold the ones that are brave enough to make the sacrifice to stand up for the truth in the highest esteem. It's not easy and it definitely shouldn't be laughed at.

He's completely wrong about that flight envelope exceeding the airframe capability,   But he's been wrong about almost everything else,  so who cares what he thinks.

I can recall he didn't even know the right term for ground effect.  Let alone that it was a non issue anyway.   He kept calling it downburst  LOL.   
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 27, 2017, 03:21:01 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 27, 2017, 03:15:27 AM
Nuh-uh.

Looks like you win again Rayzor.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 27, 2017, 03:28:44 AM
Here, have a bone.

Quote
9/11: Speeds Reported For World Trade Center Attack Aircraft Analyzed
For Immediate Release

(PilotsFor911Truth.org) - Much controversy has surrounded the speeds reported for the World Trade Center attack aircraft. However, none of the arguments for either side of the debate have been properly based on actual data, until now. Pilots For 9/11 Truth have recently analyzed data provided by the National Transportation Safety Board in terms of a "Radar Data Impact Speed Study" in which the NTSB concludes 510 knots and 430 knots for United 175 (South Tower) and American 11 (North Tower), respectively. A benchmark has been set by the October 1999 crash of Egypt Air 990, a 767 which exceeded it's maximum operating limits causing in-flight structural failure, of which data is available to compare to the WTC Attack Aircraft.

Egypt Air 990 (EA990) is a 767 which was reported to have entered a dive and accelerated to a peak speed of .99 Mach at 22,000 feet. Boeing sets maximum operating speeds for the 767 as 360 Knots and .86 Mach. The reason for two airspeed limitations is due to air density at lower vs. higher altitudes. To understand equivalent dynamic pressures on an airframe of low vs. high altitude, there is an airspeed appropriately titled "Equivalent Airspeed" or EAS[1]. EAS is defined as the airspeed at sea level which produces the same dynamic pressure acting on the airframe as the true airspeed at high altitudes.[2]

Pilots For 9/11 Truth have calculated the Equivalent Airspeed for EA990 peak speed of .99 Mach at 22,000 feet as the equivalent dynamic effects of 425 knots at or near sea level. This airspeed is 65 knots over max operating for a 767, 85 knots less than the alleged United 175, and 5 knots less than the alleged American 11. Although it may be probable for the alleged American 11 to achieve such speed as 430 knots is only 5 knots over that of EA990 peak speed, It is impossible for the alleged United 175 to achieve the speeds reported by the NTSB using EA990 as a benchmark

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/wtc_speed
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 27, 2017, 03:31:24 AM
Quote from: disputeone on April 27, 2017, 03:28:44 AM

Pilots for 911 truth are a bunch of retired cessna jockeys. 


Here's a 757 doing a 350 (kias) knots into the wind, ( ~400 mph) pass at 50ft,   so suck on that for a while.



Corrected speed from here.  http://rnzaf.proboards.com/thread/19260/rnzaf-display-fast-pass-speed

Obviously the plane didn't fall apart as claimed by BHS and the numnuts over at pilots4911 lies.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 27, 2017, 03:33:17 AM
Source for speed and design of plane please.

Is all you have really ad-hominems?

It's just been so many pages of pathetic. We're so tired of it.

Edit. Found the plane.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_767

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_757

Totally different planes the 757 is a narrow body plane whereas the 767 is a wide body plane.

Where you lying or are you just an idiot?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 27, 2017, 03:41:30 AM
This is an apple.

(https://s4.postimg.org/8zpcivbnh/apple-04.jpg)

This is not.

(https://s14.postimg.org/cqa42hald/orange-01.jpg)

Please edit your post where it says a 767.

Your video betrays it.

Edit.

Thanks for editing the speed from 500mph lmao.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on April 27, 2017, 03:46:46 AM
Quote from: User324 on April 26, 2017, 01:07:50 PM
@totallackey
Quote
You draw them better.
I don't think so.
What, you cannot draw the red line of the box to encompass the actual left side of the building?

You are informing everyone here that your superimposed red line box does not actually encompass the left side of the building...

Okay, thanks.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 27, 2017, 03:55:11 AM
Quote
you can glide at 300 knots in a Boeing jet with 3 degrees down, like going down hill you can exceed the speed limit coasting.

The best way to understand pilots for truth claims, they are all BS. Pilots for truth quote mine anyone and then turn that into some piece of "evidence" for their claims. The video is a perfect example of asking question cold, and then quote mining the results - instead of doing any math, we have opinions pilots for truth can use to mislead and act like "experts".

Please stop posting pictures of fruit.   It makes it look like you are an idiot...

And while we are discussing the airframe limitations..

2.   A Boeing 767-200 airframe is rated to .86 of Mach speed (speed of sound) at any altitude before the risk of structural failure. It as the aircraft approaches the speed of sound when the properties extreme high and low pressure areas can have destructive effects on the airframe. This figure is as with all limits set conservatively.

The speed of sound at sea level is about 761 mph,  so a 767 airframe is designed  to handle  0.86 * 761 = 654  mph without structural failure.

Case closed.

In any event,  AA11 never exceeed the normal limits,  UA175 was in a long dive.   As many "truthers" point out,  it's hard to control at those speeds you end up crashing.  Funny that,  all these planes did exactly that.   Crash that is.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 27, 2017, 04:08:26 AM
Thankyou for editing the post from a 767 to a 757, it was originally a very dishonest post, I am glad you edited it multiple times to fit the facts.

Thanks.

767 can't go that fast at that altitude.

Case closed.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 27, 2017, 04:12:00 AM
Quote from: disputeone on April 27, 2017, 04:08:26 AM
Thankyou for editing the post from a 767 to a 757, it was originally a very dishonest honest post, I am glad you edited it multiple times to fit the facts.

Thanks.

That's just frogshit and you know it,  stop being such a wanker.   I was already correcting it when you posted your oversized fruit fetish pictures. 

Fact is that both 757 and 767 airframe capabilities are both relevant.     0.86 Mach for the 767  == 654 mph  at sea level
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 27, 2017, 04:12:45 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 27, 2017, 04:12:00 AM
Quote from: disputeone on April 27, 2017, 04:08:26 AM
Thankyou for editing the post from a 767 to a 757, it was originally a very dishonest honest post, I am glad you edited it multiple times to fit the facts.

Thanks.

That's just frogshit and you know it,  stop being such a wanker.   I was already correcting it when you posted your oversized fruit fetish pictures. 

Fact is that both 757 and 767 airframe capabilities are both relevant.

Thankyou for correcting your post to fit the facts nevertheless.

It came across as dishonest to me, you were either wrong about the aircraft and speed originally, or you lied..

Edit. Typos :/
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 27, 2017, 04:21:45 AM
Quote from: disputeone on April 27, 2017, 04:12:45 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 27, 2017, 04:12:00 AM
Quote from: disputeone on April 27, 2017, 04:08:26 AM
Thankyou for editing the post from a 767 to a 757, it was originally a very dishonest honest post, I am glad you edited it multiple times to fit the facts.

Thanks.

That's just frogshit and you know it,  stop being such a wanker.   I was already correcting it when you posted your oversized fruit fetish pictures. 

Fact is that both 757 and 767 airframe capabilities are both relevant.

Thankyou for correcting your post to fit the facts nevertheless.

It came across as dishonest to me, you were either wrong about the aircraft and speed originally, or you lied..

Edit. Typos :/

No,  I posted the speed as it was claimed in the youtube video blurb,  and corrected it when I found the quote from the pilot who actually flew the plane,  I corrected it before you even pointed it out,  and yet you accuse me of being misleading.   

If that's any indication of your integrity,  you are lying scum.

As far as apples and oranges are concerned,  you seem to be unaware that both 757 and 767's were used in the terrorist attacks.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 27, 2017, 04:24:48 AM
Is this what I get for thanking you for checking your facts?

Next time I won't. I hope you continue to check your facts however.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 27, 2017, 04:26:36 AM
Quote from: disputeone on April 27, 2017, 04:24:48 AM
Is this what I get for thanking you for checking your facts?

Next time I won't. I hope you continue to check your facts however.

So what was the apples and oranges post about?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on April 27, 2017, 04:30:21 AM
Quote from: disputeone on April 27, 2017, 03:33:17 AM
Is all you have really ad-hominems?

It's just been so many pages of pathetic. We're so tired of it.

I don't know. I feel more like he's actually presenting facts and you're the one crying around and throwing insults, no?

Quote from: disputeone
are you just an idiot?
Quote from: disputeone
he is a decent human being, I can't say the same about you.
Quote from: disputeone
They are however both eternal newfags.
Quote from: disputeone
You guys are so butthurt. ;D
Quote from: disputeone
Hillary supporter hey?
Quote from: disputeone
Cause you are all asshats.

I'd say you're the perfect example of a hypocrite.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 27, 2017, 04:30:57 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 27, 2017, 04:26:36 AM
Quote from: disputeone on April 27, 2017, 04:24:48 AM
Is this what I get for thanking you for checking your facts?

Next time I won't. I hope you continue to check your facts however.

So what was the apples and oranges post about?

My point was the speed we saw, for the planes, exceeded their design specifications and was previously thought to be unattainable for those aircraft.

I am aware of the ((757)), it ((hit)) the pentagon, Flight 77. I was discussing the planes that hit wtc 1 and 2 flight 175 and 11, both boeng 767s.

Edit. Quote.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on April 27, 2017, 04:55:41 AM
Quote from: disputeone on April 27, 2017, 04:30:57 AM
My point was the speed we saw, for the planes, exceeded their design specifications and was previously thought to be unattainable for those aircraft
Design specification includes tons of safety measures. Ask Bhs - he, as an engineer, knows that.
Next.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 27, 2017, 05:05:34 AM
No, I'm talking about how fast the plane can go with the power available and the resistance caused by the atmosphere at such a low flying altitude.

Edit. Reminder you haven't explained the free-fall of wtc 7 yet, please keep your arrogance in check.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on April 27, 2017, 05:15:23 AM
Quote from: disputeone on April 27, 2017, 05:05:34 AM
No, I'm talking about how fast the plane can go with the power available and the resistance caused by the atmosphere at such a low flying altitude.
I haven't seen any proof nor evidence for that claim.
Next.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 27, 2017, 05:20:58 AM
Quote from: shyam sunder
Free-fall would be an object with no structural components below it.

There was structural resistance provided in this particular case. (http://)

Quote from: User324 on April 27, 2017, 05:15:23 AM
Quote from: disputeone on April 27, 2017, 05:05:34 AM
No, I'm talking about how fast the plane can go with the power available and the resistance caused by the atmosphere at such a low flying altitude.
I haven't seen any proof nor evidence for that claim.
Next.

Quote from: disputeone on April 27, 2017, 03:28:44 AM
Here, have a bone.

Quote
9/11: Speeds Reported For World Trade Center Attack Aircraft Analyzed
For Immediate Release

(PilotsFor911Truth.org) - Much controversy has surrounded the speeds reported for the World Trade Center attack aircraft. However, none of the arguments for either side of the debate have been properly based on actual data, until now. Pilots For 9/11 Truth have recently analyzed data provided by the National Transportation Safety Board in terms of a "Radar Data Impact Speed Study" in which the NTSB concludes 510 knots and 430 knots for United 175 (South Tower) and American 11 (North Tower), respectively. A benchmark has been set by the October 1999 crash of Egypt Air 990, a 767 which exceeded it's maximum operating limits causing in-flight structural failure, of which data is available to compare to the WTC Attack Aircraft.

Egypt Air 990 (EA990) is a 767 which was reported to have entered a dive and accelerated to a peak speed of .99 Mach at 22,000 feet. Boeing sets maximum operating speeds for the 767 as 360 Knots and .86 Mach. The reason for two airspeed limitations is due to air density at lower vs. higher altitudes. To understand equivalent dynamic pressures on an airframe of low vs. high altitude, there is an airspeed appropriately titled "Equivalent Airspeed" or EAS[1]. EAS is defined as the airspeed at sea level which produces the same dynamic pressure acting on the airframe as the true airspeed at high altitudes.[2]

Pilots For 9/11 Truth have calculated the Equivalent Airspeed for EA990 peak speed of .99 Mach at 22,000 feet as the equivalent dynamic effects of 425 knots at or near sea level. This airspeed is 65 knots over max operating for a 767, 85 knots less than the alleged United 175, and 5 knots less than the alleged American 11. Although it may be probable for the alleged American 11 to achieve such speed as 430 knots is only 5 knots over that of EA990 peak speed, It is impossible for the alleged United 175 to achieve the speeds reported by the NTSB using EA990 as a benchmark

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/wtc_speed
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on April 27, 2017, 05:27:39 AM
Quote from: User324 on April 27, 2017, 05:15:23 AM
Quote from: disputeone on April 27, 2017, 05:05:34 AM
No, I'm talking about how fast the plane can go with the power available and the resistance caused by the atmosphere at such a low flying altitude.
I haven't seen any proof nor evidence for that claim.
Next.
"I just posted this message to 911Blogger thread on this topic:

Levels of Improbability,

To keep it simple, let’s say there were just two components to the question -- could the official story be true, with respect to UA175? (1) Could the airplane fly at 510 knots at that low altitude? (2) Could an inexperienced pilot hit the target unaided?

Assume such things as, a vanilla 767-200 series aircraft did impact the tower, the radar data were correct, and NTSB did the math correctly.

One component in the probability is whether the aircraft flew at the airspeed reported, call that P(A).

The other component in the probability is whether an inexperienced pilot successfully flew it into the tower, call that P(B). [This also could be called, probability that A is true, given B is true, or P(A|B), but I’m not going to use that notation]

The joint probability would be the product of these two, or P(A,B) = P(A) * P(B)

I would assign a probability to P(A) of something like 30%, or 0.3. That would be an airspeed improbability.

I would assign a probability to P(B) of something like 10%, or 0.1.

Both these would have a descriptor “improbable,” even though one is quite a bit more improbable than the other.

The joint probability would be .3 * .1 = .03 (3%). I would call that an aeronautical improbability.

Even 3% has the descriptor “improbable,” even though it probably should be called “very improbable.” I'm reserving the "impossible" word for 0% probability.

Dwain"
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=20178&st=120&p=10787558&#entry10787558 (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=20178&st=120&p=10787558&#entry10787558)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 27, 2017, 05:30:14 AM
Great post. That's a really good thread.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on April 27, 2017, 05:32:13 AM
Quote
EA990 as a benchmark
Oh now that's one legit argument...
Look, this guy with lung cancer survived for 30 years after diagnose, let's take that as benchmark for life expectation with lung cancer.


Quote
One component in the probability is whether the aircraft flew at the airspeed reported, call that P(A).

The other component in the probability is whether an inexperienced pilot successfully flew it into the tower, call that P(B). [This also could be called, probability that A is true, given B is true, or P(A|B), but I’m not going to use that notation]

The joint probability would be the product of these two, or P(A,B) = P(A) * P(B)

I would assign a probability to P(A) of something like 30%, or 0.3. That would be an airspeed improbability.

I would assign a probability to P(B) of something like 10%, or 0.1.

Both these would have a descriptor “improbable,” even though one is quite a bit more improbable than the other.

The joint probability would be .3 * .1 = .03 (3%). I would call that an aeronautical improbability.

Even 3% has the descriptor “improbable,” even though it probably should be called “very improbable.” I'm reserving the "impossible" word for 0% probability.
Lol, you're really funny  ;D
That's what happen if you try to use maths to "proof" an opinon that lacks factual evidence.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 27, 2017, 05:33:06 AM
That was from a pilot, check the source, it is just his professional opinion.

Edit.

The factual evidence is the planes speed and the ((pilots)) inexperience.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on April 27, 2017, 05:37:55 AM
Quote from: User324 on April 27, 2017, 05:32:13 AM
Lol, you're really funny  ;D
That's what happen if you try to use maths to "proof" an opinon that lacks factual evidence.
Funny?

Probably...

The pilot who wrote the post I quoted?

Probably funny too, but was dead serious when he wrote the post, and probably good at math and assigning statistical probabilities to most questions regarding flight capabilities of aircraft.

FACT ONE: the reported speed according to the OS.

FACT TWO: Pilot inexperience.

Tell us...what other facts are missing?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on April 27, 2017, 05:47:56 AM
Quote
Probably funny too, but was dead serious when he wrote the post, and probably good at math and assigning statistical probabilities to most questions regarding flight capabilities of aircraft.
That "statisctical probability" was the biggest statistical bullshit I have ever seen, and I have seen a lot.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on April 27, 2017, 05:48:57 AM
Just for you two:
Statistics is a branch of mathematics dealing with the collection, analysis, interpretation, presentation, and organization of data
-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistics
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on April 27, 2017, 05:57:16 AM
Quote from: User324 on April 27, 2017, 05:47:56 AM
That "statisctical probability" was the biggest statistical bullshit I have ever seen, and I have seen a lot. = I have no reasoned argument, therfore it becomes necessary for me to post NUH UH!!!
FTFY.

No need to thank me.

But you can try to post a reasoned argument anytime.

Maybe you can assign a statistical probability of a 767 flying at 510 knots with you as the pilot, capable of striking a target at the altitude of 1000 feet above sea level.

I would state the statistical probability of that to be ZERO.
Quote from: User324 on April 27, 2017, 05:48:57 AM
Just for you two:
Statistics is a branch of mathematics dealing with the collection, analysis, interpretation, presentation, and organization of data
-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistics
Thanks for telling us what we already know.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 27, 2017, 06:08:40 AM
The data was the planes speed and design. I think there is a language barrier here.

The pilot also offered his professional opinion on the capability of the alleged hijacker.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on April 27, 2017, 06:12:34 AM
I see fucking rayzor is at it again in the previous page. Give him an inch off his leash and he always bites at the mailman. A very dumb dog to say the least.

Anyways, word twisting and lies are his specialty, though subsequently and unfortunately is only trick...A one trick pony always gets boring.

This is why he had to bs his way out of the challenge of a judge panel. Anyways, that is one thing most Discerning people have already learned with rayzor...So I won't waste further time addressing his lies, twisting and non sense.

Let's move on the an actual comment.

Quote from: User324 on April 27, 2017, 04:55:41 AM
Quote from: disputeone on April 27, 2017, 04:30:57 AM
My point was the speed we saw, for the planes, exceeded their design specifications and was previously thought to be unattainable for those aircraft
Design specification includes tons of safety measures. Ask Bhs - he, as an engineer, knows that.
Next.

What safety measures are we talking about? Electrical or mechanical? Yes there were both, though the electrical would have to be override. Not sure how that was accomplished to be honest.

Anyways addressing rayzor's B.S. video...Number one, that plane was not going the supposed speed proposed in the video. The engine tonality gives that away. I would say about 315-330 mph...Even if I give it 400mph, (which I don't) that is still short of the stated speed in the official story. Much much slower...When you are over clocked, every 10 mph matters detrimentally... Just like a sub pass crunch depth, every foot is like a mile.

This also some sort of demonstration, so I am sure the plane was not loaded with fuel or people. I watch stuff like this in person about 2 times a year, maybe three. Manufacturers will put their birds through absolute hell to show how robust they are. Vertical pitch straight off the run way, over clocks etc etc etc.... As said though, these are without load and with the best of the best pilot behind the Helm.

Nor would these birds ever be able to pass a P.O., C.O., or even an S.C.O. after all this abuse. It literally tears the planes apart Structurally over time...Even these pro pilots, demonstrating the end limits for their manufacturer's babies would never, and never have, put them through something near what supposedly happened during 9/11 (talking about maneuvering not running into a building)...There is a reason for that...


Another thing people are ignoring...We aren't speaking about a simple low altitude over clock..We are talking about actually maneuvering at such speeds, this is a completely different animal, adds tremendously to the failure rate and impossibility...This is why pilots have not been able to repeat it on simulations, this is aero simulations have shown the planes breaking apart (not tearing it apart as rayzor claimed, but usually losing the leading wing)...

This is leaving alone the Pentagon non sense, and the impossible inches off the ground lol

You put all these mechanical impossibilities together with having 3 pilots who couldn't even handle a 100 mph Cessna...Doing something literally billy bad ass pilots couldn't?

Then to say this happened not once, twice, but three times without hitch? Lol...When I win the power Ball 3 times and get struck by lightning twice, perhaps we can talk then.

Stopping here for now, there is literally too much to rattle on about, plus I just got up


Edit Just a quick one, checked out where this video came from, it was a private exhibition at a reunion at the RNZAF base in Whenuapi... As I said above, definitely an exhibition...So adding to all I said above, the plane isn't even civilian spec lol.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on April 27, 2017, 06:32:44 AM
Quote from: disputeone on April 27, 2017, 06:08:40 AM
The data was the planes speed and design. I think there is a language barrier here.

The pilot also offered his professional opinion on the capability of the alleged hijacker.
Flight experience of the pilot also = HARD DATA!
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 27, 2017, 06:40:43 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 27, 2017, 06:12:34 AM
Anyways addressing rayzor's B.S. video...Number one, that plane was not going the supposed speed proposed in the video. The engine tonality gives that away. I would say about 315-330 mph...Even if I give it 400mph, (which I don't) that is still short of the stated speed in the official story. Much much slower...When you are over clocked, every 10 mph matters detrimentally... Just like a sub pass crunch depth, every foot is like a mile.

This also some sort of demonstration, so I am sure the plane was not loaded with fuel or people. I watch stuff like this in person about 2 times a year, maybe three. Manufacturers will put their birds through absolute hell to show how robust they are. Vertical pitch straight off the run way, over clocks etc etc etc.... As said though, these are without load and with the best of the best pilot behind the Helm.

Nor would these birds ever be able to pass a P.O., C.O., or even an S.C.O. after all this abuse. It literally tears the planes apart Structurally over time...Even these pro pilots, demonstrating the end limits for their manufacturer's babies would never, and never have, put them through something near what supposedly happened during 9/11 (talking about maneuvering not running into a building)...There is a reason for that...

You show your ignorance yet again.   The pilot who flew that 757 high speed low altitude pass has this to say...


"I was the captain of that particular shot, filmed during a Squadron open-day a couple of years ago. It's part of a routine that has been performed over thirty times at various airshows and practices around the world including RIAT Fairford 2003, Kemble 2006, RAF Waddington 2006, Warbirds Over Wanaka 2004, Avalon 2005.

The low pass is flown into wind at 350 knots (indicated) and 100 feet above the runway. It's a 2g pull up to between 45 and 55 degrees nose up pitch (although there has been higher) and the zoom climb ends at an altitude between 8000 and 10000 feet depending on the type of pull up used. The sequence does not end with a loop as some of the readers speculate, but in fact with a 60 degree wingover at around 220 knots. It is easily possible to enhance this maneouver with a steeper climb and bank but there is no need - it is spectacular already, and safe."

350 kias == 403 mph

As for wrecking the plane,  it looks just fine to me,   no bits falling off?   

So what speed do you think is MMO for a 767?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on April 27, 2017, 07:03:32 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 27, 2017, 06:40:43 AM
You show your ignorance yet again.   The pilot who flew that 757 high speed low altitude pass has this to say...
Your ignorance is clearly on display.

You are going to quote A TRAINED AND QUALIFIED AIR SHOW PILOT about the maneuvers HE is capable of performing...

Quote from: Rayzor on April 27, 2017, 06:40:43 AM
"I was the captain of that particular shot, filmed during a Squadron open-day a couple of years ago. It's part of a routine that has been performed over thirty times at various airshows and practices around the world including RIAT Fairford 2003, Kemble 2006, RAF Waddington 2006, Warbirds Over Wanaka 2004, Avalon 2005.

The low pass is flown into wind at 350 knots (indicated) and 100 feet above the runway. It's a 2g pull up to between 45 and 55 degrees nose up pitch (although there has been higher) and the zoom climb ends at an altitude between 8000 and 10000 feet depending on the type of pull up used. The sequence does not end with a loop as some of the readers speculate, but in fact with a 60 degree wingover at around 220 knots. It is easily possible to enhance this maneouver with a steeper climb and bank but there is no need - it is spectacular already, and safe."
None of the maneuvers were performed by an inexperienced pilot.

The TRAINED PILOT CLEARLY STATES IT WAS NOT LEVEL FLIGHT.

Quote from: Rayzor on April 27, 2017, 06:40:43 AM
350 kias == 403 mph
A speed not close to those speeds attributed to WTC1, 2, or the Pentagon.

Quote from: Rayzor on April 27, 2017, 06:40:43 AM
As for wrecking the plane,  it looks just fine to me,   no bits falling off?   

So what speed do you think is MMO for a 767?
It looks fine because it is under the control of A TRAINED PILOT!

Go get certified flight training in a Cessna, get behind the stick of a 767, and do the same maneuver.

Get back with us after they use a chamois to blot up your remains.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on April 27, 2017, 07:11:00 AM
Lol... My post addresses this. As well as the speed. The pilot's statements confirm what I heard in the engines... Nor was he going 400 when he passed the camera from the description the pilot made. I am missing your point.

My post also addresses your "falling apart" nonsense I have never said ::)

Not to mention, this plane is not even an accurate representation from both a load point of view, and it isn't even civilian. I addressed all this in my post, don't feel like repeating
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on April 27, 2017, 07:39:26 AM
Quote from: totallackey on April 27, 2017, 05:57:16 AM
Maybe you can assign a statistical probability of a 767 flying at 510 knots with you as the pilot, capable of striking a target at the altitude of 1000 feet above sea level.
[...]
Thanks for telling us what we already know.
You definitely know nothing about statistics and prove it every post you make.

Quote
The data was the planes speed and design. I think there is a language barrier here.
I'm pretty sure there is not. You do not understand statistics and what kind of data is valid to use.


Anyway, what are actually your theories?
--> Were there planes flying into the buildings?
--> Who flew them? Where passenger inside the planes?
--> What made the towers collapse? Who would have planned that, who executed it etc.?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on April 27, 2017, 08:08:04 AM
Quote from: User324 on April 27, 2017, 07:39:26 AM
Quote from: totallackey on April 27, 2017, 05:57:16 AM
Maybe you can assign a statistical probability of a 767 flying at 510 knots with you as the pilot, capable of striking a target at the altitude of 1000 feet above sea level.
[...]
Thanks for telling us what we already know.
You definitely know nothing about statistics and prove it every post you make.
I may not know much about statistics, but let's see...

normal/abnormal/range/data/improbable/probability/mean/average/median...

Just some of the terms I learned in my classes.

Received a 3.8 for my final grade in of those classes.

Did a final paper on the OJ Simpson case.

Submitted late, so that final paper received a C, bringing down my final grade.

But rather than taking a shot at what I do or do not know, how about you simply point out what you find wrong concerning the pilot's post I provided.

So again:
Quote from: totallackey on April 27, 2017, 05:57:16 AM
Maybe you can assign a statistical probability of a 767 flying at 510 knots with you as the pilot, capable of striking a target at the altitude of 1000 feet above sea level...

The immediate above statement stands.
What data would you use?

I say flight capability of the air frame, the reported speed, and pilot experience, are all relevant data.

Quote
The data was the planes speed and design. I think there is a language barrier here.
Quote from: User324 on April 27, 2017, 07:39:26 AM
I'm pretty sure there is not. You do not understand statistics and what kind of data is valid to use.
I agree.

There is not a language barrier.

There is a barrier.

You are not posting direct counters to the pilot's post.
Quote from: User324 on April 27, 2017, 07:39:26 AM
Anyway, what are actually your theories?
--> Were there planes flying into the buildings?
--> Who flew them? Where passenger inside the planes?
--> What made the towers collapse? Who would have planned that, who executed it etc.?
Try answering the question regarding your data set relative to the OS story of the planes first.

Then you can try to glean more info.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 27, 2017, 08:09:39 AM
Quote from: totallackey on April 27, 2017, 07:03:32 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 27, 2017, 06:40:43 AM
350 kias == 403 mph
A speed not close to those speeds attributed to WTC1, 2, or the Pentagon.

I'd probably listen more to what you say if you weren't so insulting and childish with your attitude.

But you are in fact correct in the 757 case,  the speed in the video of the 757 flyby was nothing like the impact speed of the 757 that hit the Pentagon,   the video flyby was actually faster. by 50 mph or so.   Case Closed.

(https://s13.postimg.org/m8f0apjuv/Impact_Speeds.jpg)

The AA11 did not exceed the flight envelope for a 767,  and UA175 was at the end of a long dive.   Still well below MMO at impact.

But as anyone can tell you 911 Truthers are never interested in the truth.

That impact data is from the MIT analysis  http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20III%20Aircraft%20speed.pdf

Also the pilots didn't have to land,  all they had to do was crash,  ask any pilot and he will tell you crashing is the easiest flight manoevure.

Guess what...

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 27, 2017, 08:14:56 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 27, 2017, 07:11:00 AM
My post also addresses your "falling apart" nonsense I have never said ::)

Liar

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 26, 2017, 09:12:12 AM
why the planes could not hold together at that speed and altitude, not to mention the Maneuvers pulled at that speed and altitude. Simulations have been shown, typically the plane will lose a wing and spiral, or sometimes just cut. Or such as the Pentagon, the plane engines would have only been an inch or two off the grass doing going a speed it could not handle, after a maneuver it could not do...

You just keep changing your story,  that's why I don't really believe anything you have to say.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on April 27, 2017, 08:22:05 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 27, 2017, 08:09:39 AM
Quote from: totallackey on April 27, 2017, 07:03:32 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 27, 2017, 06:40:43 AM
350 kias == 403 mph
A speed not close to those speeds attributed to WTC1, 2, or the Pentagon.

I'd probably listen more to what you say if you weren't so insulting and childish with your attitude.
And if you quit posting LIES, you might grow up and realize why I am being so insulting as you like to label it.

So far, due to your disingenuous approach, outright lying, and ridiculous/specious methods of argumentation, I find my approach to be 1100 percent LEGIT!

You might want to check with USER324 on that though...he is the resident expert on STATISTICAL percentages.

Quote from: Rayzor on April 27, 2017, 08:09:39 AM
But you are in fact correct in the 757 case,  the speed in the video of the 757 flyby was nothing like the impact speed of the 757 that hit the Pentagon,   the video flyby was actually faster. by 50 mph or so.   Case Closed.
"Flight 77, flying at 530 mph (853 km/h, 237 m/s, or 460 knots) over the Navy Annex Building adjacent to Arlington National Cemetery,[40] crashed into the western side of the Pentagon in Arlington County, Virginia, just south of Washington, D.C., at 09:37:46.[41] " - sourced - NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD

You were saying?

Quote from: Rayzor on April 27, 2017, 08:09:39 AM
The AA11 did not exceed the flight envelope for a 767,  and UA175 was at the end of a long dive.   Still well below MMO at impact.
""Flight 77, flying at 530 mph (853 km/h, 237 m/s, or 460 knots)..."- sourced - NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD

You were saying?

Quote from: Rayzor on April 27, 2017, 08:09:39 AM
But as anyone can tell you OSers are never interested in the truth.
FTFY.

No need to thank me.

Quote from: Rayzor on April 27, 2017, 08:09:39 AM
That impact data is from the MIT analysis  http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20III%20Aircraft%20speed.pdf

Also the pilots didn't have to land,  all they had to do was crash,  ask any pilot and he will tell you crashing is the easiest flight manoevure.

Guess what...
Oh my god...

I asked my brother-in-law.

He told me how difficult it can be to simply find a target by VFR flying a Cessna.

And, you are right, they did not have to land.

They needed to crash into a specific target...

Maintain control of the stick in the meantime...

All at speeds above reported capabilities at reported altitudes by VFR...

Nope, nothing fishy here...

OS explains it all...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on April 27, 2017, 08:27:22 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 27, 2017, 08:14:56 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 27, 2017, 07:11:00 AM
My post also addresses your "falling apart" nonsense I have never said ::)

Liar

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 26, 2017, 09:12:12 AM
why the planes could not hold together at that speed and altitude, not to mention the Maneuvers pulled at that speed and altitude. Simulations have been shown, typically the plane will lose a wing and spiral, or sometimes just cut. Or such as the Pentagon, the plane engines would have only been an inch or two off the grass doing going a speed it could not handle, after a maneuver it could not do...

You just keep changing your story,  that's why I don't really believe anything you have to say.

Yes...I explained exactly what I meant in my posts above...Don't twist or play semantics rayzor..

Also, you wouldn't believe me about anything unless I agree with the opinion you must maintain ::)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 27, 2017, 08:34:18 AM
Quote from: totallackey on April 27, 2017, 08:22:05 AM

And if you quit posting LIES, you might grow up and realize why I am being so insulting as you like to label it.

So far, due to your disingenuous approach, outright lying, and ridiculous/specious methods of argumentation, I find my approach to be 1100 percent LEGIT!

Ok,  care to point out where you think I've lied.

Citing MIT analysis of impact speeds is "ridiculous/specious methods of argumentation"  in your world is it?

Quote from: totallackey on April 27, 2017, 08:22:05 AM
I find my approach to be 1100 percent LEGIT!

Not very good at maths are you?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 27, 2017, 08:37:19 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 27, 2017, 08:27:22 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 27, 2017, 08:14:56 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 27, 2017, 07:11:00 AM
My post also addresses your "falling apart" nonsense I have never said ::)

Liar

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 26, 2017, 09:12:12 AM
why the planes could not hold together at that speed and altitude, not to mention the Maneuvers pulled at that speed and altitude. Simulations have been shown, typically the plane will lose a wing and spiral, or sometimes just cut. Or such as the Pentagon, the plane engines would have only been an inch or two off the grass doing going a speed it could not handle, after a maneuver it could not do...

You just keep changing your story,  that's why I don't really believe anything you have to say.

Yes...I explained exactly what I meant in my posts above...Don't twist or play semantics rayzor..

Also, you wouldn't believe me about anything unless I agree with the opinion you must maintain ::)

So what did you mean when you said  "the planes could not hold together at that speed"

Seems pretty straight forward to me,  so semantic analysis required.   How do you think I twisted your words?

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on April 27, 2017, 08:38:12 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 27, 2017, 08:34:18 AM
Ok,  care to point out where you think I've lied.
Yep, citing the IMPACT speeds and comparing them to your video, rather than the cited actual FLIGHT SPEEDS.

That is lying.

Quote from: Rayzor on April 27, 2017, 08:34:18 AM
Citing MIT analysis of impact speeds is "ridiculous/specious methods of argumentation"  in your world is it?
Yep, citing the IMPACT speeds and comparing them to your video, rather than the cited actual FLIGHT SPEEDS.

Yep, it fits the bill for specious also...
Quote from: Rayzor on April 27, 2017, 08:34:18 AM
Quote from: totallackey on April 27, 2017, 08:22:05 AM
I find my approach to be 1100 percent LEGIT!

Not very good at maths are you?
Good enough to know you deserve a 0% rating.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on April 27, 2017, 08:39:01 AM
Quote
Received a 3.8 for my final grade in of those classes.
What subject did you study, if I may ask?

Quote
But rather than taking a shot at what I do or do not know, how about you simply point out what you find wrong concerning the pilot's post I provided.
...
What data would you use?
There is no usable data, no data = no statistics. Just to make up things like p=0.3 and p=0.1 is a idiotic way to sell an opinion as something more than a simple opinion.



Now seriously guys


This should be so easy, I do not understand how you can make it so complicated.
People seem to agree on the planes' speeds, right?

--> So, if you think those speeds should not have been possible, show your evidence.
--> If you think those speeds are possible, show your evidence.

It's worse than in a Kindergarten...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 27, 2017, 08:45:21 AM
Quote from: totallackey on April 27, 2017, 08:38:12 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 27, 2017, 08:34:18 AM
Ok,  care to point out where you think I've lied.
Yep, citing the IMPACT speeds and comparing them to your video, rather than the cited actual FLIGHT SPEEDS.

That is lying.

Quote from: Rayzor on April 27, 2017, 08:34:18 AM
Citing MIT analysis of impact speeds is "ridiculous/specious methods of argumentation"  in your world is it?
Yep, citing the IMPACT speeds and comparing them to your video, rather than the cited actual FLIGHT SPEEDS.

Yep, it fits the bill for specious also...
Quote from: Rayzor on April 27, 2017, 08:34:18 AM
Quote from: totallackey on April 27, 2017, 08:22:05 AM
I find my approach to be 1100 percent LEGIT!

Not very good at maths are you?
Good enough to know you deserve a 0% rating.

Did you actually read the MIT paper?    I suspect not.

Just a reminder for you.

The 757 AA77 that hit the Pentagon was flying about 50 mph SLOWER than that youtube NZAF 757 flyby. 

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 27, 2017, 08:46:39 AM
Quote from: User324 on April 27, 2017, 08:39:01 AM
--> If you think those speeds are possible, show your evidence.

Already done and dusted.  But I'll repost anyway.

(https://s13.postimg.org/m8f0apjuv/Impact_Speeds.jpg)

The AA11 did not exceed the flight envelope for a 767,  and UA175 was at the end of a long dive.   Still well below MMO at impact.

That impact velocity data is from the MIT analysis  http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20III%20Aircraft%20speed.pdf

And here is a flyby of a 757, at 400 mph  50 mph FASTER than the AA77,  the 757 that hit the Pentagon



"I was the captain of that particular shot, filmed during a Squadron open-day a couple of years ago. It's part of a routine that has been performed over thirty times at various airshows and practices around the world including RIAT Fairford 2003, Kemble 2006, RAF Waddington 2006, Warbirds Over Wanaka 2004, Avalon 2005.

The low pass is flown into wind at 350 knots (indicated) and 100 feet above the runway. It's a 2g pull up to between 45 and 55 degrees nose up pitch (although there has been higher) and the zoom climb ends at an altitude between 8000 and 10000 feet depending on the type of pull up used. The sequence does not end with a loop as some of the readers speculate, but in fact with a 60 degree wingover at around 220 knots. It is easily possible to enhance this maneouver with a steeper climb and bank but there is no need - it is spectacular already, and safe."

Can't see any room for 911 troofers to hide anymore.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on April 27, 2017, 08:48:18 AM
Quote from: User324 on April 27, 2017, 08:39:01 AM
Quote
Received a 3.8 for my final grade in of those classes.
What subject did you study, if I may ask?
Yep.

You may ask.
Quote from: User324 on April 27, 2017, 08:39:01 AM
There is no usable data, no data = no statistics. Just to make up things like p=0.3 and p=0.1 is a idiotic way to sell an opinion as something more than a simple opinion.
So, if there is NO data, then why was data given in the OS?

Types of planes used/Flight speeds of the planes involved in the crashes/amount of hours at the Cessna Flight school by the terrorists/etc...
Quote from: User324 on April 27, 2017, 08:39:01 AM
Now seriously guys
I can't tell...

Quote from: User324 on April 27, 2017, 08:39:01 AM
This should be so easy, I do not understand how you can make it so complicated.
People seem to agree on the planes' speeds, right?

--> So, if you think those speeds should not have been possible, show your evidence.
--> If you think those speeds are possible, show your evidence.

It's worse than in a Kindergarten...
Yeah.

We have posted the evidence.

A licensed pilot who is stating the planes/pilots combination as reported by the OS is a STATISTICAL IMPROBABILITY bordering on a STATISTICAL IMPOSSIBILITY.

Now, you take issue with what that pilot wrote simply because of the way it is written and presented.

Go ahead, write it all out correctly utilizing your prodigious, self professed analytical and statistical skill set and present your findings here.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on April 27, 2017, 08:56:54 AM
@Lackey, you lack some quoting skills :)

Quote
You may ask.
(https://pics.onsizzle.com/if-youre-going-to-be-a-smartass-first-you-have-14694460.png)

Quote
So, if there is NO data, then why was data given in the OS?
What does OS mean. I have not seen any data. Post it here if there is data, then we can discuss it.

Quote
Types of planes used/Flight speeds of the planes involved in the crashes/amount of hours at the Cessna Flight school by the terrorists/etc...
That has nothing to do with the statistics provided, and you should know that.

Quote
We have posted the evidence.
At the moment I can only see rayzors evidence.

Quote
A licensed pilot who is stating the planes/pilots combination as reported by the OS is a STATISTICAL IMPROBABILITY bordering on a STATISTICAL IMPOSSIBILITY.
Statistical means there was data used. It was not. So it's not valid.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on April 27, 2017, 08:58:37 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 27, 2017, 08:45:21 AM
Quote from: totallackey on April 27, 2017, 08:38:12 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 27, 2017, 08:34:18 AM
Ok,  care to point out where you think I've lied.
Yep, citing the IMPACT speeds and comparing them to your video, rather than the cited actual FLIGHT SPEEDS.

That is lying.

Quote from: Rayzor on April 27, 2017, 08:34:18 AM
Citing MIT analysis of impact speeds is "ridiculous/specious methods of argumentation"  in your world is it?
Yep, citing the IMPACT speeds and comparing them to your video, rather than the cited actual FLIGHT SPEEDS.

Yep, it fits the bill for specious also...
Quote from: Rayzor on April 27, 2017, 08:34:18 AM
Quote from: totallackey on April 27, 2017, 08:22:05 AM
I find my approach to be 1100 percent LEGIT!

Not very good at maths are you?
Good enough to know you deserve a 0% rating.

Did you actually read the MIT paper?    I suspect not.

Just a reminder for you.

The 757 AA77 that hit the Pentagon was flying about 50 mph SLOWER than that youtube NZAF 757 flyby.
Yeah, I did.

From that paper: "On the other hand, the velocity given for the plane that plunged into the Pentagon comes from information contained in the recovered flight data recorder."

So, either the guy from MIT is lying or the NTSB is lying, which do you choose?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 27, 2017, 08:59:51 AM
Quote from: User324 on April 27, 2017, 08:56:54 AM
What does OS mean. I have not seen any data. Post it here if there is data, then we can discuss it.

Shorthand for "Official Story"   

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on April 27, 2017, 09:08:10 AM
Quote from: User324 on April 27, 2017, 08:56:54 AM

Quote
So, if there is NO data, then why was data given in the OS?
What does OS mean. I have not seen any data. Post it here if there is data, then we can discuss it.
Rayzor has been posting it.

I have been posting it.

Go ahead and use it.

Quote from: User324 on April 27, 2017, 08:56:54 AM
Quote
Types of planes used/Flight speeds of the planes involved in the crashes/amount of hours at the Cessna Flight school by the terrorists/etc...
That has nothing to do with the statistics provided, and you should know that.
Then why is Rayzor posting it?

Why don't you know it?

Quote from: User324 on April 27, 2017, 08:56:54 AM
Quote
We have posted the evidence.
At the moment I can only see rayzors evidence.
And I have been posting the actual findings from Rayzor's sources to bust him and you into smithereens.

Quote from: User324 on April 27, 2017, 08:56:54 AM
Quote
A licensed pilot who is stating the planes/pilots combination as reported by the OS is a STATISTICAL IMPROBABILITY bordering on a STATISTICAL IMPOSSIBILITY.
Statistical means there was data used. It was not. So it's not valid.
Yeah, the data posted by Rayzor and subject to analysis by the pilots at pilotsfor911truth.

So Rayzor's data is not valid?

Tell everyone here what data we should use.

I have asked you to do this many times.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on April 27, 2017, 09:10:33 AM
Quote from: totallackey on April 27, 2017, 09:08:10 AM
Rayzor has been posting it.

I have been posting it.

Go ahead and use it.
Not sure if trolling or retarded.
That data still has nothing to do with the "statistics" from the pilot.
Feel free to explain the connection you think to see here.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on April 27, 2017, 09:18:22 AM
Quote from: User324 on April 27, 2017, 09:10:33 AM
Not sure if trolling or retarded.
Not trolling and not retarded.

My son is retarded however, so thanks.
Quote from: User324 on April 27, 2017, 09:10:33 AM
That data still has nothing to do with the "statistics" from the pilot.
What statistics from the pilot?

The pilot gave his off hand statistical report concerning the data provided by the OS.

Reported flight speeds = data
Terrorist flight training hours = data
Air frame capabilities at speeds reported = data

According to the pilot, it is his opinion the OS (as far as the planes/terrorists/flight capabilities) = BUPKUS!
Quote from: User324 on April 27, 2017, 09:10:33 AM
Feel free to explain the connection you think to see here.
I have done so, and just did it again.

Now, you go ahead and substitute what data the pilot should use when analyzing the events of 9/11.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on April 27, 2017, 09:20:29 AM
@Rayzor:
Quote from: totallackey on April 27, 2017, 08:58:37 AM
Yeah, I did.

From that paper: "On the other hand, the velocity given for the plane that plunged into the Pentagon comes from information contained in the recovered flight data recorder."

So, either the guy from MIT is lying or the NTSB is lying, which do you choose?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on April 27, 2017, 09:25:27 AM
Quote from: totallackey on April 27, 2017, 09:18:22 AM
Quote from: User324 on April 27, 2017, 09:10:33 AM
Not sure if trolling or retarded.
Not trolling and not retarded.

My son is retarded however, so thanks.
That makes your signature really meaningful...
Quote
A FINE EXAMPLE OF RE-TARD THINKING!
Quote from: Rayzor on April 19, 2017, 09:03:01 AM
I need tongue or its no good...


Quote
What statistics from the pilot?
I quote you
Quote
Levels of Improbability,

To keep it simple, let’s say there were just two components to the question -- could the official story be true, with respect to UA175? (1) Could the airplane fly at 510 knots at that low altitude? (2) Could an inexperienced pilot hit the target unaided?

Assume such things as, a vanilla 767-200 series aircraft did impact the tower, the radar data were correct, and NTSB did the math correctly.

One component in the probability is whether the aircraft flew at the airspeed reported, call that P(A).

The other component in the probability is whether an inexperienced pilot successfully flew it into the tower, call that P(B). [This also could be called, probability that A is true, given B is true, or P(A|B), but I’m not going to use that notation]

The joint probability would be the product of these two, or P(A,B) = P(A) * P(B)

I would assign a probability to P(A) of something like 30%, or 0.3. That would be an airspeed improbability.

I would assign a probability to P(B) of something like 10%, or 0.1.

Both these would have a descriptor “improbable,” even though one is quite a bit more improbable than the other.

The joint probability would be .3 * .1 = .03 (3%). I would call that an aeronautical improbability.

Even 3% has the descriptor “improbable,” even though it probably should be called “very improbable.” I'm reserving the "impossible" word for 0% probability.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on April 27, 2017, 09:29:06 AM
Quote from: User324 on April 27, 2017, 09:25:27 AM
Quote from: totallackey on April 27, 2017, 09:18:22 AM
Quote from: User324 on April 27, 2017, 09:10:33 AM
Not sure if trolling or retarded.
Not trolling and not retarded.

My son is retarded however, so thanks.
That makes your signature really meaningful...
A FINE EXAMPLE OF RE-TARD THINKING!
Quote from: Rayzor on April 19, 2017, 09:03:01 AM
I need tongue or its no good...
RE-tard equals globe earther to me.

According to you, retard equals someone inferior to User324.
Quote from: User324 on April 27, 2017, 09:25:27 AM
Quote
What statistics from the pilot?
I quote you
Quote
Levels of Improbability,

To keep it simple, let’s say there were just two components to the question -- could the official story be true, with respect to UA175? (1) Could the airplane fly at 510 knots at that low altitude? (2) Could an inexperienced pilot hit the target unaided?

Assume such things as, a vanilla 767-200 series aircraft did impact the tower, the radar data were correct, and NTSB did the math correctly.

One component in the probability is whether the aircraft flew at the airspeed reported, call that P(A).

The other component in the probability is whether an inexperienced pilot successfully flew it into the tower, call that P(B). [This also could be called, probability that A is true, given B is true, or P(A|B), but I’m not going to use that notation]

The joint probability would be the product of these two, or P(A,B) = P(A) * P(B)

I would assign a probability to P(A) of something like 30%, or 0.3. That would be an airspeed improbability.

I would assign a probability to P(B) of something like 10%, or 0.1.

Both these would have a descriptor “improbable,” even though one is quite a bit more improbable than the other.

The joint probability would be .3 * .1 = .03 (3%). I would call that an aeronautical improbability.

Even 3% has the descriptor “improbable,” even though it probably should be called “very improbable.” I'm reserving the "impossible" word for 0% probability.
Okay.

He utilizes flight capability and pilot inexperience as two data sets to arrive at his conclusion.

What's the problem with his analysis?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on April 27, 2017, 09:35:15 AM
Quote
RE-tard equals globe earther to me.

Retard equals someone less than to you
Which would then mean Round-Earth-tard and with "tard" as the abbreviation of retard (https://www.internetslang.com/TARD-meaning-definition.asp) it means "round-earth-retard", so we're back to the retard-thing again.

Quote
Retard equals someone less than to you.
What do you mean "someone less than to you"? I'm pretty sure retard just means "mentally behind". "Less than you" sounds really harsh.

Quote
What's the problem with his analysis?
He makes up statistics. Its not valid.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on April 27, 2017, 09:42:16 AM
Quote from: User324 on April 27, 2017, 09:35:15 AM
RE-tard equals globe earther to me.

According to you, retard equals someone inferior to User324.
FTFY.

Quote me accurately.

Quote from: User324 on April 27, 2017, 09:35:15 AM
Quote
What's the problem with his analysis?
He makes up statistics. Its not valid.
You have provided nothing concrete to support your assertion, other than a hearty NUH UH!!!

Got anything of merit?

Anything...???
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on April 27, 2017, 09:51:45 AM
Quote
You have provided nothing concrete to support your assertion, other than a
Seriously? What should I provide?
Not sure if you even understand what 'statistics has no data -> not valid' means.

Quote
NUH UH!!!
Sure your son (and not you) is the retarded one in your family?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on April 27, 2017, 10:13:16 AM
Quote from: User324 on April 27, 2017, 09:51:45 AM
Seriously? What should I provide?
Not sure if you even understand what 'statistics has no data -> not valid' means.
Anything other than a NUH UH...

Right now, all you are using is obfuscation, trying to hide behind semantics.

Go ahead and state what it is wrong about the pilot's statements.

I will paraphrase the pilot, in an effort to simplify it for you:

"Given the data (experience of pilots/airspeeds reported/air frame capability), the OS is a bunch of shit."

Now, go ahead and post a counter statement.
Quote from: User324 on April 27, 2017, 09:51:45 AM
Sure your son (and not you) is the retarded one in your family?
Oh my...

Now my feelings are hurt.

I'm gonna tell my father!

You'll see!

You are in BIG TROUBLE NOW!
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on April 27, 2017, 10:16:08 AM
Quote
Go ahead and state what it is wrong about the pilot's statements.
10th time: No data. Just opinion. No statistic.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on April 27, 2017, 10:21:56 AM
Quote from: User324 on April 27, 2017, 10:16:08 AM
Quote
Go ahead and state what it is wrong about the pilot's statements.
10th time: No data. Just opinion. No statistic.
Okay.

I think the troll is now quite evident.

My work here is finished for now.

Rayzor is shown to be posting lies and User324 is just...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on April 27, 2017, 10:28:44 AM
Just as a reminder:

Factual evidence = reported air speed of AA77 = 530 MPH
Factual evidence = type/amount of flight training provided to terrorists/abilities to pilot commercial jets using VFR only
Factual evidence = Flight capabilities of a 757

Analysis of a pilot:

"I just posted this message to 911Blogger thread on this topic:

Levels of Improbability,

To keep it simple, let’s say there were just two components to the question -- could the official story be true, with respect to UA175? (1) Could the airplane fly at 510 knots at that low altitude? (2) Could an inexperienced pilot hit the target unaided?

Assume such things as, a vanilla 767-200 series aircraft did impact the tower, the radar data were correct, and NTSB did the math correctly.

One component in the probability is whether the aircraft flew at the airspeed reported, call that P(A).

The other component in the probability is whether an inexperienced pilot successfully flew it into the tower, call that P(B). [This also could be called, probability that A is true, given B is true, or P(A|B), but I’m not going to use that notation]

The joint probability would be the product of these two, or P(A,B) = P(A) * P(B)

I would assign a probability to P(A) of something like 30%, or 0.3. That would be an airspeed improbability.

I would assign a probability to P(B) of something like 10%, or 0.1.

Both these would have a descriptor “improbable,” even though one is quite a bit more improbable than the other.

The joint probability would be .3 * .1 = .03 (3%). I would call that an aeronautical improbability.

Even 3% has the descriptor “improbable,” even though it probably should be called “very improbable.” I'm reserving the "impossible" word for 0% probability.

Dwain"
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=20178&st=120&p=10787558&#entry10787558 (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=20178&st=120&p=10787558&#entry10787558)

Now, this was the opinion of the ability of untrained/inexperienced pilots striking the towers...

That level of certainty for striking the Pentagon is certainly much less...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on April 27, 2017, 12:03:27 PM
It is still only an opinion with no statistical data, just guesses.
If you do not see that I feel sorry for you.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on April 27, 2017, 01:00:03 PM
Quote from: User324 on April 27, 2017, 12:03:27 PM
It is still only an opinion with no statistical data, just guesses.
If you do not see that I feel sorry for you.
Thanks for your opinion.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on April 27, 2017, 01:26:13 PM
Quote from: totallackey on April 27, 2017, 01:00:03 PM
Quote from: User324 on April 27, 2017, 12:03:27 PM
It is still only an opinion with no statistical data, just guesses.
If you do not see that I feel sorry for you.
Thanks for your opinion.
You do it again, confuse opinion and fact. I'll give you a helping hand:

Statistic needs to be based on actual data (you know...numbers and stuff) = fact
Pilot's "statistic" is not based on data = fact
Pilot's statistic is actually his opinon = fact

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on April 27, 2017, 01:35:46 PM
Quote from: User324 on April 27, 2017, 01:26:13 PM
Quote from: totallackey on April 27, 2017, 01:00:03 PM
Quote from: User324 on April 27, 2017, 12:03:27 PM
It is still only an opinion with no statistical data, just guesses.
If you do not see that I feel sorry for you.
Thanks for your opinion.
You do it again, confuse opinion and fact. I'll give you a helping hand:

Statistic needs to be based on actual data (you know...numbers and stuff) = fact
Pilot's "statistic" is not based on data = fact
Pilot's statistic is actually his opinon = fact
Learn how to draw accurate boxes, type, and spell.

Thanks for your opinion.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 27, 2017, 02:52:32 PM
This is cringy.

Quote from: User324 on April 27, 2017, 01:26:13 PM
Nuh-uh

Quote from: Rayzor on April 27, 2017, 08:59:51 AM
Nuh-uh

Looks like you guys win again.

I can't argue against Nuh-uh.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 27, 2017, 03:02:24 PM


"We're watching the T.V.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 27, 2017, 03:33:44 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 27, 2017, 08:37:19 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 27, 2017, 08:27:22 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 27, 2017, 08:14:56 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 27, 2017, 07:11:00 AM
My post also addresses your "falling apart" nonsense I have never said ::)

Liar

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 26, 2017, 09:12:12 AM
why the planes could not hold together at that speed and altitude, not to mention the Maneuvers pulled at that speed and altitude. Simulations have been shown, typically the plane will lose a wing and spiral, or sometimes just cut. Or such as the Pentagon, the plane engines would have only been an inch or two off the grass doing going a speed it could not handle, after a maneuver it could not do...

You just keep changing your story,  that's why I don't really believe anything you have to say.

Yes...I explained exactly what I meant in my posts above...Don't twist or play semantics rayzor..

Also, you wouldn't believe me about anything unless I agree with the opinion you must maintain ::)

So what did you mean when you said  "the planes could not hold together at that speed"

Seems pretty straight forward to me,  so semantic analysis required.   How do you think I twisted your words?

Anybody see where Babybullshit  went?    He vanishes in a cloud of dust whenever he is proven wrong,  he just did it again.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 27, 2017, 03:44:32 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 27, 2017, 03:33:44 PM
Anybody see where Babybullshit  went?    He vanishes in a cloud of dust whenever he is proven wrong,  he just did it again.

Maybe doing something more intellectually stimulating than ((debating)) with you, possibly hitting his head against a brick wall.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on April 27, 2017, 04:22:58 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 27, 2017, 03:33:44 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 27, 2017, 08:37:19 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 27, 2017, 08:27:22 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 27, 2017, 08:14:56 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 27, 2017, 07:11:00 AM
My post also addresses your "falling apart" nonsense I have never said ::)

Liar

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 26, 2017, 09:12:12 AM
why the planes could not hold together at that speed and altitude, not to mention the Maneuvers pulled at that speed and altitude. Simulations have been shown, typically the plane will lose a wing and spiral, or sometimes just cut. Or such as the Pentagon, the plane engines would have only been an inch or two off the grass doing going a speed it could not handle, after a maneuver it could not do...

You just keep changing your story,  that's why I don't really believe anything you have to say.

Yes...I explained exactly what I meant in my posts above...Don't twist or play semantics rayzor..

Also, you wouldn't believe me about anything unless I agree with the opinion you must maintain ::)

So what did you mean when you said  "the planes could not hold together at that speed"

Seems pretty straight forward to me,  so semantic analysis required.   How do you think I twisted your words?

Anybody see where Babybullshit  went?    He vanishes in a cloud of dust whenever he is proven wrong,  he just did it again.

Or maybe...Just maybe... I have a company to run during the day and I might not have infinite time to make replies to your nonsensical rhetoric.

Also, I am still here aren't I? Haven't vanished yet...So by your logic I haven't been wrong yet?? ::)

Such a cuck, blows my mind....You must be something.

Finally, getting to your "holding together" semantics. I already explained what happens to over clocked planes during straight flight and maneuvering to clear up any issues.

If I want to use short hand to save time, then that is what I will do. I am not going to write 20,000 character blocks just to remove any ambiguity from every phrase or word I use.

If people have questions, they will ask and i will answer....

Caring only about semantics and nothing about content has always been a tale tale sign of someone that knows very little.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 27, 2017, 05:02:41 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 27, 2017, 04:22:58 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 27, 2017, 03:33:44 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 27, 2017, 08:37:19 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 27, 2017, 08:27:22 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 27, 2017, 08:14:56 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 27, 2017, 07:11:00 AM
My post also addresses your "falling apart" nonsense I have never said ::)

Liar

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 26, 2017, 09:12:12 AM
why the planes could not hold together at that speed and altitude, not to mention the Maneuvers pulled at that speed and altitude. Simulations have been shown, typically the plane will lose a wing and spiral, or sometimes just cut. Or such as the Pentagon, the plane engines would have only been an inch or two off the grass doing going a speed it could not handle, after a maneuver it could not do...

You just keep changing your story,  that's why I don't really believe anything you have to say.

Yes...I explained exactly what I meant in my posts above...Don't twist or play semantics rayzor..

Also, you wouldn't believe me about anything unless I agree with the opinion you must maintain ::)

So what did you mean when you said  "the planes could not hold together at that speed"

Seems pretty straight forward to me,  so semantic analysis required.   How do you think I twisted your words?

Anybody see where Babybullshit  went?    He vanishes in a cloud of dust whenever he is proven wrong,  he just did it again.

Or maybe...Just maybe... I have a company to run during the day and I might not have infinite time to make replies to your nonsensical rhetoric.

Also, I am still here aren't I? Haven't vanished yet...So by your logic I haven't been wrong yet?? ::)

Such a cuck, blows my mind....You must be something.

Finally, getting to your "holding together" semantics. I already explained what happens to over clocked planes during straight flight and maneuvering to clear up any issues.

If I want to use short hand to save time, then that is what I will do. I am not going to write 20,000 character blocks just to remove any ambiguity from every phrase or word I use.

If people have questions, they will ask and i will answer....

Caring only about semantics and nothing about content has always been a tale tale sign of someone that knows very little.

There's no semantics involved here at all,  you were claiming that the planes couldn't be flown at those speeds without falling apart.

Why not just admit you were wrong?   

You never answered my question about MMO for a 767 either.  Yet another example of you ducking and hiding.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Josef Stalin on April 27, 2017, 05:05:13 PM
This is extremely insensitive, think of all of the fathers, mothers, sons and daughters that were lost in that building. Even questioning is like denying them their existence.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 27, 2017, 05:07:38 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 27, 2017, 04:22:58 PM
[Or maybe...Just maybe... I have a company to run during the day and I might not have infinite time to make replies to your nonsensical rhetoric.

But you have enough time to post bullshit unsupported opinions?

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 27, 2017, 04:22:58 PM

Such a cuck, blows my mind....You must be something.

Alt-right insults?    You ex-wife said something similar about you I'm sure.


Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 27, 2017, 04:22:58 PM
Finally, getting to your "holding together" semantics. I already explained what happens to over clocked planes during straight flight and maneuvering to clear up any issues.

If I want to use short hand to save time, then that is what I will do. I am not going to write 20,000 character blocks just to remove any ambiguity from every phrase or word I use.

If people have questions, they will ask and i will answer....

Caring only about semantics and nothing about content has always been a tale tale sign of someone that knows very little.

Posting patently false information,  then trying to squirm out of it  is an even stronger sign of someone who knows nothing.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 27, 2017, 05:08:52 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 27, 2017, 04:22:58 PM
Or maybe...Just maybe... I have a company to run during the day and I might not have infinite time to make replies to your nonsensical rhetoric.

Told you.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 27, 2017, 04:22:58 PM
If people have questions, they will ask and i will answer....

Bhs you mentioned electrical and mechanical safeties built into the planes, what safety measures would have the hijackers had to bypass to be able to fly the planes as we saw?

In your professional opinion, was the hijackers stanley blades an adequate tool to bypass the inbuilt factory settings. Furthermore do you think they would have the skill and experience to bypass these safeties? Even with the right tools?

For example, my lift atm has a max speed of 1.6m/s, I can increase it but I basically have to wipe all the factory settings and parameters, this would take me around four hours to fully set up the new drive unit to ignore the elecrical and mechanical safeties. Not to mention I would have to physically disconnect at least two mechanical safeties to push the speed faster than 1.6m/s and I would need specialised tools and equipment, a stanley blade and a gasmask wouldn't quite cut it. Actually I couldn't do anything with just a stanley blade except break the lift, I definely couldn't increase its speed and this is from a guy with plenty of experience and skill.

Edit.

(https://s13.postimg.org/f9u7t0753/20170428_080455.jpg)

Please understand an aeroplane has a slightly more complicated electrical set-up than a lift.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 27, 2017, 05:12:32 PM
Quote from: Josef Stalin on April 27, 2017, 05:05:13 PM
This is extremely insensitive, think of all of the fathers, mothers, sons and daughters that were lost in that building. Even questioning is like denying them their existence.

http://historyofrussia.org/stalin-killed-how-many-people/

Kek.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 27, 2017, 05:12:44 PM
Quote from: Josef Stalin on April 27, 2017, 05:05:13 PM
This is extremely insensitive, think of all of the fathers, mothers, sons and daughters that were lost in that building. Even questioning is like denying them their existence.

Which is precisely why this sort of corrosive and false conspiracy theories need to be tacked head on and refuted. 

I especially detest the people like Richard Gage and others who see the 911 truth movement as a money making enterprise. 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 27, 2017, 05:14:12 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 27, 2017, 05:12:44 PM
Quote from: Josef Stalin on April 27, 2017, 05:05:13 PM
This is extremely insensitive, think of all of the fathers, mothers, sons and daughters that were lost in that building. Even questioning is like denying them their existence.

Which is precisely why this sort of corrosive and false conspiracy theories need to be tacked head on and refuted. 

I especially detest the people like Richard Gage and others who see the 911 truth movement as a money making enterprise.

>people died so don't ask questions.

You know the 9/11 truth movement started with the victims families? Right?

Rayzor you are pathetic.

Stalin you are a hypocrite.

http://historyofrussia.org/stalin-killed-how-many-people/
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 27, 2017, 05:16:46 PM
Quote from: disputeone on April 27, 2017, 05:08:52 PM
(https://s13.postimg.org/f9u7t0753/20170428_080455.jpg)

Geez,  who did the install on that one?  Haven't they heard of cable duct?     I'd sack the sparky who did that.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 27, 2017, 05:17:57 PM
It's temp mate.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 27, 2017, 05:20:52 PM
Quote from: disputeone on April 27, 2017, 05:17:57 PM
It's temp mate.

Ok
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 27, 2017, 05:22:39 PM
I have to relcocate it once the shopfitters are ready, I just need it wired temporarily to bump test the motor and drive before I rope it.

If you are genuinely interested.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on April 27, 2017, 05:38:51 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 27, 2017, 05:07:38 PM
You ex-wife said something similar about you I'm sure.

You lost me here just like user lost me bringing in totallackey's son into this.

Fucking pathetic piss ants... Everytime I think you can't get any lower.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 27, 2017, 07:29:02 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 27, 2017, 05:38:51 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 27, 2017, 05:07:38 PM
You ex-wife said something similar about you I'm sure.

You lost me here just like user lost me bringing in totallackey's son into this.

Fucking pathetic piss ants... Everytime I think you can't get any lower.

I warned you about using that word.   If I recall, I suggested you might not like to be reminded.  But you went ahead anyway,  just like dispute did with his insults.

Does the phrase "Respond in kind"  ring any bells with you?   You can dish it out,  but seems you can't take it when it's returned.




Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 27, 2017, 07:34:22 PM
You don't like being called a cuck?

Oh dear, I guess you shouldn't call him that then Bhs.

Lol.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 27, 2017, 07:36:05 PM
Quote from: disputeone on April 27, 2017, 07:34:22 PM
You don't like being called a cuck?

Oh dear, I guess you shouldn't call him that then Bhs.

Lol.

LOL,   It's BHS that doesn't like it.   Numskull.   Just like you don't like being called a crazy conspiracy theorist.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 27, 2017, 07:37:37 PM
Coolio. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuckold)

Got anything O/T tho?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 27, 2017, 07:39:36 PM
Quote from: disputeone on April 27, 2017, 07:37:37 PM
Coolio.

Got anything O/T tho?

Yes,  what is the mmo for a 767?    Babybullshit has ducked the question several times already,  so it's your turn to answer.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 27, 2017, 07:41:37 PM
Quote
For your info for the B767:

FAA VMO 360 MMO 0.86
CAA VMO 360 MMO 0.84

The FAA requires that a margin of no less than .05 mach exist between Mc and Md. Md for the 767 is 0.91 so 0.91-0.05 = Mmo 0.86

The UK CAA requires that the margin between Mc and Md be sufficient for an encounter with a head-on gust. For the 767, a head-on gust would have a velocity of 45 feet per second EAS at Vmo/Mmo. This equates to a 0.07 Mach margin between Mc and Md therefore 0.91-0.07 = Mmo 0.84. This gust value is determined at an altitude of 25,000', the lowest altitude at which Mmo could be achieved. At higher cruising altitudes the max gust value would be lower.

In addition to the above the FAA and CAA have differing ways in specifying buffet limited altitudes. As the FAA have no specific requirement for manoeuvre margin to buffet Boeing have adopted 0.3g as the min manoeuvre margin. The calculation assumes a cg value of 25% MAC a typical airline in service CG. If the actual CG is fwd of 25% the margin will be slightly lower than 0.3g. The CAA require 0.3g but based on the more conservative CG of 7% MAC which thus results at average in service CGs, in a reduction of up to 1,000' in cruise altitude capability.

Here at RBA we operate both the B757 & B767, the former are under FAA regulations and the latter under CAA. There are a number of other small differences between the FAA and CAA but I hope you find the above of interest.

http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/9961-b767-vmo-mmo-uk.html
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 27, 2017, 07:43:35 PM
Quote from: disputeone on April 27, 2017, 07:41:37 PM
Quote
For your info for the B767:

FAA VMO 360 MMO 0.86
CAA VMO 360 MMO 0.84

The FAA requires that a margin of no less than .05 mach exist between Mc and Md. Md for the 767 is 0.91 so 0.91-0.05 = Mmo 0.86

The UK CAA requires that the margin between Mc and Md be sufficient for an encounter with a head-on gust. For the 767, a head-on gust would have a velocity of 45 feet per second EAS at Vmo/Mmo. This equates to a 0.07 Mach margin between Mc and Md therefore 0.91-0.07 = Mmo 0.84. This gust value is determined at an altitude of 25,000', the lowest altitude at which Mmo could be achieved. At higher cruising altitudes the max gust value would be lower.

In addition to the above the FAA and CAA have differing ways in specifying buffet limited altitudes. As the FAA have no specific requirement for manoeuvre margin to buffet Boeing have adopted 0.3g as the min manoeuvre margin. The calculation assumes a cg value of 25% MAC a typical airline in service CG. If the actual CG is fwd of 25% the margin will be slightly lower than 0.3g. The CAA require 0.3g but based on the more conservative CG of 7% MAC which thus results at average in service CGs, in a reduction of up to 1,000' in cruise altitude capability.

Here at RBA we operate both the B757 & B767, the former are under FAA regulations and the latter under CAA. There are a number of other small differences between the FAA and CAA but I hope you find the above of interest.

http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/9961-b767-vmo-mmo-uk.html

So what is that in mph at sea level?   
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 27, 2017, 07:54:23 PM
Quote
The speed of sound is not a constant, but depends on altitude (or actually the temperature at that altitude). A plane flying Mach 1.0 at sea level is flying about 1225 km/h (661 Knots, 761 mph), a plane flying Mach 1.0 at 30000 ft is flying 1091 km/h (589 knots, 678 mph) etc.

Quote
Heat, like sound, is a form of kinetic energy. Molecules at higher temperatures have more energy, thus they can vibrate faster. Since the molecules vibrate faster, sound waves can travel more quickly. The speed of sound in room temperature air is 346 meters per second.

Quote from: Rayzor on April 27, 2017, 07:43:35 PM
So what is that in mph at sea level?

Edit. Gigo.
938.26 kph or 583.2 mph

Quote
We see that the "speed limit" is much lower at sea level than at 30k. 403 mph at sea level, and 581 mph at 30000 ft. But now the rubber to the road question is, how much beyond the "speed limit" can a Boeing 757 or 767 airplane be taken? To exceed Vmo/Mmo is not catastrophic.

Now, don't push your strawman on me, my point is, how did the planes so easily and so consistently exceed their design specifications, furthermore how did the alleged hijackers bypass the electrical and mechanical safeties.

(https://s10.postimg.org/joyo0fwwp/images.png)

(https://s14.postimg.org/6bsol46ap/hqdefault.jpg)

It's not as simple as you are trying to say.

Edit. Image embedding.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 27, 2017, 08:09:43 PM
Quote from: disputeone on April 27, 2017, 07:54:23 PM
Quote
The speed of sound is not a constant, but depends on altitude (or actually the temperature at that altitude). A plane flying Mach 1.0 at sea level is flying about 1225 km/h (661 Knots, 761 mph), a plane flying Mach 1.0 at 30000 ft is flying 1091 km/h (589 knots, 678 mph) etc.

Quote
Heat, like sound, is a form of kinetic energy. Molecules at higher temperatures have more energy, thus they can vibrate faster. Since the molecules vibrate faster, sound waves can travel more quickly. The speed of sound in room temperature air is 346 meters per second.

Quote from: Rayzor on April 27, 2017, 07:43:35 PM
So what is that in mph at sea level?
1053.5 kph or 654.7mph.

Quote
We see that the "speed limit" is much lower at sea level than at 30k. 403 mph at sea level, and 581 mph at 30000 ft. But now the rubber to the road question is, how much beyond the "speed limit" can a Boeing 757 or 767 airplane be taken? To exceed Vmo/Mmo is not catastrophic.

Now, don't push your strawman on me, my point is, how did the planes so easily and so consistently exceed their design specifications, furthermore how did the alleged hijackers bypass the electrical and mechanical safeties.

(https://s10.postimg.org/joyo0fwwp/images.png[img]

[img]https://s2.postimg.org/k7oc3fi15/images-3.jpg)

It's not as simple as you are trying to say.

I never said it was simple,   just that at the MIT measured velocities,  none of the aircraft exceeded the limits which would cause the airframe to break up. 

(https://s13.postimg.org/m8f0apjuv/Impact_Speeds.jpg)

The AA77 velocity figure  is from the FDR,  I think around 300 knots at about 30 seconds out from impact.  The FDR shows hard acceleration for the last seconds of the flight,  so impact velocities for AA77 are often quoted as higher.   

The one of interest is UA175,  and all the evidence is that it was diving under full power,  so  500 mph is not impossible.   Despite what the 911 truthers would have you believe.

Certainly,  none of the planes would have broken up at those speeds.   


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 27, 2017, 08:15:57 PM
I plugged the wrong numbers in, not paying attention. My bad.

583.2 mph. Edited my post above.

Quote from: Rayzor on April 27, 2017, 08:09:43 PM
Certainly,  none of the planes would have broken up at those speeds.   

Quote from: disputeone on April 27, 2017, 07:54:23 PM
Now, don't push your strawman on me, my point is, how did the planes so easily and so consistently exceed their design specifications, furthermore how did the alleged hijackers bypass the electrical and mechanical safeties.

Would you agree it's pretty unlikely?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 27, 2017, 08:23:39 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 27, 2017, 08:09:43 PM
The AA77 velocity figure  is from the FDR,  I think around 300 knots at about 30 seconds out from impact.  The FDR shows hard acceleration for the last seconds of the flight,  so impact velocities for AA77 are often quoted as higher.   

Citation please, show the data used and the source of the data.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 27, 2017, 08:40:56 PM
Quote from: disputeone on April 27, 2017, 08:15:57 PM
I plugged the wrong numbers in, not paying attention. My bad.

583.2 mph. Edited my post above.

Quote from: Rayzor on April 27, 2017, 08:09:43 PM
Certainly,  none of the planes would have broken up at those speeds.   

Quote from: disputeone on April 27, 2017, 07:54:23 PM
Now, don't push your strawman on me, my point is, how did the planes so easily and so consistently exceed their design specifications, furthermore how did the alleged hijackers bypass the electrical and mechanical safeties.

Would you agree it's pretty unlikely?

What safety systems do you think would need to be bypassed?    AA11 and AA77 never exceeded their  design limits,  well except for AA77 accelerating in the last seconds before impacting the pentagon.   

That only leaves UA175,   so,  let's stick with that one.  So,  again, what systems do you think were bypassed?

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 27, 2017, 08:46:44 PM
Quote from: disputeone on April 27, 2017, 08:23:39 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 27, 2017, 08:09:43 PM
The AA77 velocity figure  is from the FDR,  I think around 300 knots at about 30 seconds out from impact.  The FDR shows hard acceleration for the last seconds of the flight,  so impact velocities for AA77 are often quoted as higher.   

Citation please, show the data used and the source of the data.

Warren Stutt,  got the AA77 FDR data from NTSB under an FOI request, and that has been widely analysed,  you could go to the original paper I linked to earlier in this thread.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 27, 2017, 08:47:34 PM
I am not a pilot of engineer but I believe that there are safeguards to stop planes maneuvering at a speed which is considered unsafe.

Because I am not a pilot or engineer I have to consider what pilots and engineers say.

www.pilotsfor911truth.org

www.ae911truth.org

www.ff911truthandunity.org/

www.wtc7evaluation.org/

It's up to you if you want to disregard evidence that doesn't fit your hypothesis, idrctbqh.

Quote
Would you agree it's pretty unlikely?

Quote from: Rayzor on April 27, 2017, 08:46:44 PM
Quote from: disputeone on April 27, 2017, 08:23:39 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 27, 2017, 08:09:43 PM
The AA77 velocity figure  is from the FDR,  I think around 300 knots at about 30 seconds out from impact.  The FDR shows hard acceleration for the last seconds of the flight,  so impact velocities for AA77 are often quoted as higher.   

Citation please, show the data used and the source of the data.

Warren Stutt,  got the AA77 FDR data from NTSB under an FOI request, and that has been widely analysed,  you could go to the original paper I linked to earlier in this thread.

Please cite the data they used to measure the speed of flight 77.

It's not classified, is it?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on April 27, 2017, 09:49:41 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 27, 2017, 07:29:02 PM
I warned you about using that word.   If I recall, I suggested you might not like to be reminded.  But you went ahead anyway,  just like dispute did with his insults.

Does the phrase "Respond in kind"  ring any bells with you?   You can dish it out,  but seems you can't take it when it's returned.

There is tact even when insulting people...You have already proven you possess none of this, so I am not surprised..User a little surprised though.

In kind? No...I have never brought family or anything like that up EVER with anyone here period...So again, lies lies lies...Even when you brought up your children, I say "must be nice to have a family" "I am happy for you, some people don't have the luxury of that"...Never ever said a word after that.

As for your dumb questions...I know your game, it's distraction..When you can't figure out where to go you deflect.

Such as proving anything about yourself you deflect with dumb shit because there is nothing to prove.

Same as with an actual argument for the official story, you can only carry it so far until you have to deflect...

Most recent example, the contest with judges you agreed to but deflected in an extraordinary fashion until you weaseled out..You knew you didn't want to have impartial judges decide, you knew you could prove you could pay any prize, etc etc...

It is actually an impressive skill to be honest...You are good at it. That and insults....You must be proud.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 27, 2017, 10:32:58 PM
Quote from: disputeone on April 27, 2017, 08:47:34 PM
Please cite the data they used to measure the speed of flight 77.

It's not classified, is it?

You appear to be unable to read.

http://www.warrenstutt.com/ 

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 27, 2017, 10:35:35 PM
That's not what I asked but thanks.

www.google.com

From your ((source))

Quote from: Warren Shill
I do not have any specific credentials to investigate FDRs or aircraft accidents.

Wow, really?

Here, these guys do have specific credentials.

www.pilotsfor911truth.com

They got the data from ((flight 77's))((black box)) interesting.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 27, 2017, 10:39:48 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 27, 2017, 09:49:41 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 27, 2017, 07:29:02 PM
I warned you about using that word.   If I recall, I suggested you might not like to be reminded.  But you went ahead anyway,  just like dispute did with his insults.

Does the phrase "Respond in kind"  ring any bells with you?   You can dish it out,  but seems you can't take it when it's returned.

There is tact even when insulting people...You have already proven you possess none of this, so I am not surprised..User a little surprised though.

In kind? No...I have never brought family or anything like that up EVER with anyone here period...So again, lies lies lies...Even when you brought up your children, I say "must be nice to have a family" "I am happy for you, some people don't have the luxury of that"...Never ever said a word after that.

As for your dumb questions...I know your game, it's distraction..When you can't figure out where to go you deflect.

Such as proving anything about yourself you deflect with dumb shit because there is nothing to prove.

Same as with an actual argument for the official story, you can only carry it so far until you have to deflect...

Most recent example, the contest with judges you agreed to but deflected in an extraordinary fashion until you weaseled out..You knew you didn't want to have impartial judges decide, you knew you could prove you could pay any prize, etc etc...

It is actually an impressive skill to be honest...You are good at it. That and insults....You must be proud.

if you want to compare insults I'd be happy to compare what you've dished out,  with my responses.   I think I know where the balance lies.

Just for the record,  I didn't "weasel out"  of your contest as you put it,  I merely called you bluff, and you were the one to cut and run.

For future reference,  I'll refrain from the insults if you do likewise.   But start up again,  and I'll respond in kind.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 27, 2017, 10:40:32 PM
Sure sure.

Please keep it O/T.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 27, 2017, 10:45:39 PM
Quote from: disputeone on April 27, 2017, 10:40:32 PM
Sure sure.

Please keep it O/T.

I wasn't talking to you,  but since you keep butting in,  I'll extend the "no insults"  offer to you as well.   

Warren Stutt's analysis of AA77's FDR about the best one around, certainly better than the NTSB's and you seem unaware that it's highly regarded in ae911truth circles,  for you to dismiss it out of hand is a bit petulant.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 27, 2017, 10:47:25 PM
Anyone who believes flight 77 hit the pentagon isn't a truther.

I haven't dismissed it out of hand.

Since you feel it's fine to insult others, are you delusional, or just a liar?

I can't see a third option.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 27, 2017, 10:51:31 PM
What plane?





Seriously, what plane?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on April 27, 2017, 10:53:31 PM
Quote from: disputeone on April 27, 2017, 10:47:25 PM
I can't see a third option.

I can.
You're nuts.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 27, 2017, 10:55:31 PM
Quote from: User324 on April 27, 2017, 10:53:31 PM
Quote from: disputeone on April 27, 2017, 10:47:25 PM
I can't see a third option.

I can.
You're nuts.

Looks like you win again user. Don't insult me cause I scare you.

Rayzor I told you the data was classified.

(https://s12.postimg.org/krr1mecod/NTSBLetter5-10-11.jpg)

Dismissed out of hand indeed.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 27, 2017, 11:06:45 PM
Quote from: disputeone on April 27, 2017, 10:55:31 PM
Quote from: User324 on April 27, 2017, 10:53:31 PM
Quote from: disputeone on April 27, 2017, 10:47:25 PM
I can't see a third option.

I can.
You're nuts.

Looks like you win again user. Don't insult me cause I scare you.

Rayzor I told you the data was classified.

Dismissed out of hand indeed.

Huh? can't you read.  They gave him the original data files on CD and what's more no charge?    What do you mean classified?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 27, 2017, 11:10:10 PM
"To the extent that I have denied your FOIA request you may appeal my descision"

Edit.

Memba how you tried to deny that the collapse models were classified?

I memba.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 27, 2017, 11:17:51 PM
Oh and I am still waiting for an email back for the models inputs used in your video trying to explain how the planes pentrated the buildings, it's been weeks now and two emails.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 27, 2017, 11:21:34 PM
Quote from: disputeone on April 27, 2017, 11:10:10 PM
"To the extent that I have denied your FOIA request you may appeal my descision"

Edit.

Memba how you tried to deny that the collapse models were classified?

I memba.

FFS,  please learn to read,  maybe if you did, you wouldn't keep saying stupid things.

Did you notice the following sentence?

"Enclosed is the information you requested on CD-ROM"

also

"the NTSB will not charge a fee for th processing of your request" 

Anyway that FDR was for United 93,  not AA77,  but the point still stands,  you can't read and comprehend simple english.

Just so you are up to date,  the "real" ae911truthers  think that the "no planers"  give the movement a bad name.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 27, 2017, 11:22:51 PM
I think you are the one struggling with comprehension.

"To the extent that I have denied your FOIA request you may appeal my descision"

www.dictionary.com

His request was denied to an extent.

Edit.

Bolding.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 27, 2017, 11:30:25 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 27, 2017, 11:21:34 PM
Just so you are up to date,  the "real" ae911truthers  think that the "no planers"  give the movement a bad name.

I'm not a "no planer", there is no evidence to support a plane hitting the pentagon. That's all.

Unless you count the news on the MSM as "evidence" then there is plenty...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 28, 2017, 12:02:34 AM
Quote from: disputeone on April 27, 2017, 11:22:51 PM
I think you are the one struggling with comprehension.

"To the extent that I have denied your FOIA request you may appeal my descision"

www.dictionary.com

His request was denied to an extent.

Edit.

Bolding.

Sigh,   you have never dealt with FOI or government much I can tell,   he wasn't denied the data he requested.  They gave him everything he asked for.

http://www.warrenstutt.com/NTSBFOIARequest28-7-11/index.html

They just put that bit at the end,  so that if in the event that you aren't happy with what data they have provided you can appeal to the NTSB director. 

Please learn to read and comprehend.   Having to explain basic simple stuff to you is tiring and frustrating,  I feel I'm talking to a kindergarten kid.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 28, 2017, 12:07:02 AM
Is that so?

If that is actually the case then I would have said "in the event your request was denied." Instead of "to the extent."

Quote
To the extent.
used to indicate the degree to which something exists, happens, or is true. ◊ If you say that something is true to an extent, to some extent, or to a certain extent, you mean that it is partly but not completely true.

Quote
in the event that

If; should it happen that.
‘he planned to start a business, in the event that he lost his job

Sure reads like his request was denied to an extent.

Should I just take your word for it? Is that what you are saying?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 28, 2017, 12:14:14 AM
Quote from: disputeone on April 28, 2017, 12:07:02 AM
Is that so?

If that is actually the case then I would have said "in the event your request was denied." Instead of "to the extent."

Quote
To the extent.
used to indicate the degree to which something exists, happens, or is true. ◊ If you say that something is true to an extent, to some extent, or to a certain extent, you mean that it is partly but not completely true.

Quote
in the event that

If; should it happen that.
‘he planned to start a business, in the event that he lost his job

Sure reads like his request was denied to an extent.

Should I just take your word for it? Is that what you are saying?

Don't take my word for it,  you can read his request letter here, together with the NTSB reponse and a list of files the NTSB sent to him.

http://www.warrenstutt.com/NTSBFOIARequest28-7-11/index.html

The sentence "To the extent that I have denied your FOIA request you may appeal my descision"  can be translated as, 

"If you aren't happy with what we have sent you, you can appeal in writing to the Director of the NTSB." 



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 28, 2017, 12:15:30 AM
So I should take your meaning of "to the extent" rather than the dictionaries?

No thx.

It's in English I don't see the need for your "translation."

Edit. Here you go.

Quote
translation
transˈleɪʃ(ə)n,trɑːnsˈleɪʃ(ə)n,tranzˈleɪʃ(ə)n,trɑːnzˈleɪʃ(ə)n/
noun
1.
the process of translating words or text from one language into another.
"the translation of the Bible into English"
2.
the conversion of something from one form or medium into another.
"the translation of research findings into clinical practice"
synonyms:   change, conversion, transformation, alteration, adaptation, turning, metamorphosis, transmutation, transfiguration, rendering; humoroustransmogrification
"the translation of these policies into practice will vary according to local circumstances"

English to English shouldn't need a translator, thanks for trying to translate English into English for me.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Twerp on April 28, 2017, 12:22:49 AM
17. What action can I take if I am dissatisfied with a FOIA determination?

When a request for records has been denied completely or partially, the requester may appeal to the Legal Counsel or designee within 30 calendar days of receipt of the District Director or Assistant Legal Counsel FOIA Programs' determination letter.

https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/foia/qanda_foiarequest.cfm
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 28, 2017, 12:24:09 AM
Thanks Boots.

I've actually sent plenty of emails in regards to 9/11 and the FOIA.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on April 28, 2017, 03:08:24 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 27, 2017, 05:07:38 PM
Posting patently false information,  then trying to squirm out of it is an even stronger sign of someone who knows nothing.
Speaking of which...

Who is lying?

The NTSB or MIT?

Furthermore:

1) you post a video of a trained pilot performing aerial maneuvers with a plane not comparable in specs to that of a civilian model;
B) The speeds you want us to ignore are the TOP speeds, which EXCEED those attained by the TRAINED pilot;
III) You claim "all the terrorists needed to do was CRASH";

As pointed out earlier, these arguments are disingenuous/specious/or outright LIES!

A trained pilot =/= an untrained pilot.

The hijackers needed to maintain control over the plane, exceeding speeds no trained pilot would achieve at the altitudes observed without in-flight incident or failure, all while flying VFR, and striking their targets.

You will not address this issue because you have no intellectually honest reply.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on April 28, 2017, 03:44:38 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 27, 2017, 08:46:44 PM
Warren Stutt,  got the AA77 FDR data from NTSB under an FOI request, and that has been widely analysed,  you could go to the original paper I linked to earlier in this thread.
Quote from: Rayzor on April 27, 2017, 10:45:39 PM
Warren Stutt's analysis of AA77's FDR about the best one around, certainly better than the NTSB's and you seem unaware that it's highly regarded in ae911truth circles,  for you to dismiss it out of hand is a bit petulant.
How is Stutt's analysis better than the NTSB?

"Flight 77, flying at 530 mph (853 km/h, 237 m/s, or 460 knots) over the Navy Annex Building adjacent to Arlington National Cemetery,[40] crashed into the western side of the Pentagon in Arlington County, Virginia, just south of Washington, D.C., at 09:37:46." - source - NTSB

Anyone can look at the NTSB report and clearly see that air speed was well above 500 MPH at the time of reported impact according to the FDR.

http://www.webcitation.org/5RfC3xUsq?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ntsb.gov%2Finfo%2FAAL77_fdr.pdf (http://www.webcitation.org/5RfC3xUsq?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ntsb.gov%2Finfo%2FAAL77_fdr.pdf)

Green line, first graph, in Attachment II.

Airspeed (in knots) for the last five minutes presented, clearly exceeds 500!

Stutt is a fucking liar.

Why do you sign on to this BS?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on April 28, 2017, 03:55:10 AM
Quote from: disputeone
Don't insult me
Oh, the irony :)

Anyway, totallackey reminds me of a disc with a bad scratch on it... repeating the same few lines over and over.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on April 28, 2017, 04:12:28 AM
Quote from: User324 on April 28, 2017, 03:55:10 AM
Quote from: disputeone
Don't insult me
Oh, the irony :)

Anyway, totallackey reminds me of a disc with a bad scratch on it... repeating the same few lines over and over.
Waiting on some legitimate content from you.

I have brought my shaving kit and 365 days worth of MRE's.

Filed a POA for eventual rescue operations with the moderation staff here on site.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on April 28, 2017, 04:16:32 AM
Quote from: totallackey on April 28, 2017, 04:12:28 AM
Waiting on some legitimate content from you.
Talking to a mirror? :D


Anyway, your pilot's statistic is still not based on any actual data :)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on April 28, 2017, 04:30:26 AM
Quote from: User324 on April 28, 2017, 04:16:32 AM
I believe that getting the last word in is WINNING!
(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQAqwN-UkhB5JV25_yiQnV5_ROXWHezTnpfrFdFs11RdvLr8hfj)
FTFY.

No need to thank me.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on April 28, 2017, 04:34:15 AM
Quote from: totallackey on April 28, 2017, 04:30:26 AM
Quote from: User324 on April 28, 2017, 04:16:32 AM
I believe that getting the last word in is WINNING!
(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQAqwN-UkhB5JV25_yiQnV5_ROXWHezTnpfrFdFs11RdvLr8hfj)
FTFY.

No need to thank me.

No wonder you believe in conspiracy theories, when you're neither able to quote properly nor able to understand basic statistics.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on April 28, 2017, 04:36:29 AM
Quote from: User324 on April 28, 2017, 04:34:15 AM
Posting this pic is so me!
(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQAqwN-UkhB5JV25_yiQnV5_ROXWHezTnpfrFdFs11RdvLr8hfj)
Hey, quit spamming the board with Charlie already...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on April 28, 2017, 04:37:50 AM
Anyway, repeating AND refuting the latest BS from Rayzor:

Quote from: totallackey on April 28, 2017, 03:44:38 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 27, 2017, 08:46:44 PM
Warren Stutt,  got the AA77 FDR data from NTSB under an FOI request, and that has been widely analysed,  you could go to the original paper I linked to earlier in this thread.
Quote from: Rayzor on April 27, 2017, 10:45:39 PM
Warren Stutt's analysis of AA77's FDR about the best one around, certainly better than the NTSB's and you seem unaware that it's highly regarded in ae911truth circles,  for you to dismiss it out of hand is a bit petulant.
How is Stutt's analysis better than the NTSB?

"Flight 77, flying at 530 mph (853 km/h, 237 m/s, or 460 knots) over the Navy Annex Building adjacent to Arlington National Cemetery,[40] crashed into the western side of the Pentagon in Arlington County, Virginia, just south of Washington, D.C., at 09:37:46." - source - NTSB

Anyone can look at the NTSB report and clearly see that air speed was well above 500 MPH at the time of reported impact according to the FDR.

http://www.webcitation.org/5RfC3xUsq?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ntsb.gov%2Finfo%2FAAL77_fdr.pdf (http://www.webcitation.org/5RfC3xUsq?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ntsb.gov%2Finfo%2FAAL77_fdr.pdf)

Green line, first graph, in Attachment II.

Airspeed (in knots) for the last five minutes presented, clearly exceeds 500!

Stutt is a fucking liar.

Why do you sign on to this BS?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on April 28, 2017, 05:05:51 AM
Quote
I believe that getting the last word in is WINNING!
Actually, you reply to every of my posts, too, don't you? Irony is strong with this one :)


P.s. basic psychology gives me the hope that due to this post you'd actually shut up...but wait, by writing this "p.s." I'll probably make you not-shut-up because you want to refute me...damn
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on April 28, 2017, 05:12:22 AM
Warren Stutt is busted.

Rayzor is busted.

Quote from: totallackey on April 28, 2017, 03:44:38 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 27, 2017, 08:46:44 PM
Warren Stutt,  got the AA77 FDR data from NTSB under an FOI request, and that has been widely analysed,  you could go to the original paper I linked to earlier in this thread.
Quote from: Rayzor on April 27, 2017, 10:45:39 PM
Warren Stutt's analysis of AA77's FDR about the best one around, certainly better than the NTSB's and you seem unaware that it's highly regarded in ae911truth circles,  for you to dismiss it out of hand is a bit petulant.
How is Stutt's analysis better than the NTSB?

"Flight 77, flying at 530 mph (853 km/h, 237 m/s, or 460 knots) over the Navy Annex Building adjacent to Arlington National Cemetery,[40] crashed into the western side of the Pentagon in Arlington County, Virginia, just south of Washington, D.C., at 09:37:46." - source - NTSB

Anyone can look at the NTSB report and clearly see that air speed was well above 500 MPH at the time of reported impact according to the FDR.

http://www.webcitation.org/5RfC3xUsq?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ntsb.gov%2Finfo%2FAAL77_fdr.pdf (http://www.webcitation.org/5RfC3xUsq?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ntsb.gov%2Finfo%2FAAL77_fdr.pdf)

Green line, first graph, in Attachment II.

Airspeed (in knots) for the last five minutes presented, clearly exceeds 500!

Stutt is a fucking liar.

Why do you sign on to this BS?

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 28, 2017, 05:24:57 AM
Please keep it O/T user.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on April 28, 2017, 05:29:12 AM
Quote
Anyway, totallackey reminds me of a disc with a bad scratch on it... repeating the same few lines over and over.


@Dispute:
I'm trying :)
Well, every argument has been discussed already so it's just for the fun  ;)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on April 28, 2017, 05:32:49 AM
Quote from: User324 on April 28, 2017, 05:05:51 AM
Quote
I believe that getting the last word in is WINNING!
Actually, you reply to every of my posts, too, don't you? Irony is strong with this one :)


P.s. basic psychology gives me the hope that due to this post you'd actually shut up...but wait, by writing this "p.s." I'll probably make you not-shut-up because you want to refute me...damn

Maybe you should try insulting his child again, that always helps ::) ::) ::) ridiculous.


As for the letter in question, it seems rather ambiguous to be honest. Did they deny the request, did they not? What did they actually send if anything?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on April 28, 2017, 05:35:31 AM
Quote
Maybe you should try insulting his child again, that always helps ::) ::) ::) ridiculous.
Show me the passage where I insulted his child.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on April 28, 2017, 05:37:24 AM
Quote from: User324 on April 28, 2017, 05:35:31 AM
Show me the passage where I insulted his child.

Quote from: User324 on April 27, 2017, 09:51:45 AM
Sure your son (and not you) is the retarded one in your family?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on April 28, 2017, 05:38:24 AM
Warren Stutt is busted.

Rayzor is busted.
Quote from: totallackey on April 28, 2017, 03:44:38 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 27, 2017, 08:46:44 PM
Warren Stutt,  got the AA77 FDR data from NTSB under an FOI request, and that has been widely analysed,  you could go to the original paper I linked to earlier in this thread.
Quote from: Rayzor on April 27, 2017, 10:45:39 PM
Warren Stutt's analysis of AA77's FDR about the best one around, certainly better than the NTSB's and you seem unaware that it's highly regarded in ae911truth circles,  for you to dismiss it out of hand is a bit petulant.
How is Stutt's analysis better than the NTSB?

"Flight 77, flying at 530 mph (853 km/h, 237 m/s, or 460 knots) over the Navy Annex Building adjacent to Arlington National Cemetery,[40] crashed into the western side of the Pentagon in Arlington County, Virginia, just south of Washington, D.C., at 09:37:46." - source - NTSB

Anyone can look at the NTSB report and clearly see that air speed was well above 500 MPH at the time of reported impact according to the FDR.

http://www.webcitation.org/5RfC3xUsq?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ntsb.gov%2Finfo%2FAAL77_fdr.pdf (http://www.webcitation.org/5RfC3xUsq?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ntsb.gov%2Finfo%2FAAL77_fdr.pdf)

Green line, first graph, in Attachment II.

Airspeed (in knots) for the last five minutes presented, clearly exceeds 500!

Stutt is a fucking liar.

Why do you sign on to this BS?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on April 28, 2017, 05:41:16 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 28, 2017, 05:37:24 AM
Quote from: User324 on April 28, 2017, 05:35:31 AM
Show me the passage where I insulted his child.

Quote from: User324 on April 27, 2017, 09:51:45 AM
Sure your son (and not you) is the retarded one in your family?

Reading comprehension...
That was not an insult against his son, but against him.

But yeah, it admittedly was pretty mean, I feel a bit bad about it now.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 28, 2017, 05:52:39 AM
Quote from: User324 on April 28, 2017, 05:29:12 AM
Quote
Anyway, totallackey reminds me of a disc with a bad scratch on it... repeating the same few lines over and over.


@Dispute:
I'm trying :)
Well, every argument has been discussed already so it's just for the fun  ;)

You might have discussed wtc 7s free-fall but you haven't explained it in regards to the official story.

I respect that you believe the official story even if you can't justify it but please don't fill this thread with low content posts.

Furthermore I don't think you have covered the pentagon plane and why there is no evidence of a plane hitting the building.

It's fine to disagree, I'm not calling you an idiot for what you believe, I'd appreciate it if you either tried to debunk an argument or keep your off topic posts elsewhere.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on April 28, 2017, 05:55:27 AM
Quote from: disputeone on April 28, 2017, 05:52:39 AM
Quote from: User324 on April 28, 2017, 05:29:12 AM
Quote
Anyway, totallackey reminds me of a disc with a bad scratch on it... repeating the same few lines over and over.


@Dispute:
I'm trying :)
Well, every argument has been discussed already so it's just for the fun  ;)

You might have discussed wtc 7s free-fall but you haven't explained it in regards to the official story.

I respect that you believe the official story even if you can't justify it but please don't fill this thread with low content posts.

Furthermore I don't think you have covered the pentagon plane and why there is no evidence of a plane hitting the building.

It's fine to disagree, I'm not calling you an idiot for what you believe, I'd appreciate it if you either tried to debunk an argument or keep your off topic posts elsewhere.

I haven't said I have discussed everything.

Low content posts is pretty much what this thread is made of, and you're definitely part of that, too.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 28, 2017, 05:57:07 AM
Do you really think Rayzor has debunked my arguments on wtc 7?

He's the only one who has claimed to.

Answer honestly if you like, there's no shame in it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on April 28, 2017, 06:13:05 AM
Quote from: disputeone on April 28, 2017, 05:57:07 AM
Do you really think Rayzor has debunked my arguments on wtc 7?

He's the only one who has claimed to.

Answer honestly if you like, there's no shame in it.

Discussed =/= debunked
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 28, 2017, 06:13:30 AM
Thanks for your honesty.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on April 28, 2017, 06:15:01 AM
You're welcome.
But I haven't said he has not debunked them either.
Just saying ;)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 28, 2017, 06:18:52 AM
That's awfully ambiguous, I think you were quite clear when you tried to be honest.

Please keep it on topic, please don't add more nonsense, as you have said there is enough low content O/T posts, if you want to discuss anything honestly I will, this is my second offer for this.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on April 28, 2017, 06:33:23 AM
Quote from: disputeone on April 28, 2017, 06:18:52 AM
Please keep it on topic, please don't add more nonsense, as you have said there is enough low content O/T posts, if you want to discuss anything honestly I will, this is my second offer for this.

Quote
Anyway, what are actually your theories?
--> Were there planes flying into the buildings?
--> Who flew them? Where passenger inside the planes?
--> What made the towers collapse? Who would have planned that, who executed it etc.?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 28, 2017, 06:36:21 AM
My "theory" is that the official story was a lie and the collapses we saw couldn't have been caused by the plane impacts and fires. Especially wtc 7.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on April 28, 2017, 06:44:50 AM
Quote from: disputeone on April 28, 2017, 06:36:21 AM
My "theory" is that the official story was a lie and the collapses we saw couldn't have been caused by the plane impacts and fires. Especially wtc 7.

soo....
--> Were there planes flying into the buildings?
--> Who flew them? Were passenger inside the planes?
--> What made the towers collapse? Who would have planned that, who executed it etc.?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 28, 2017, 06:49:08 AM
Would you like me to speculate so you can dismiss it as speculation?

I will, if you like.

Why not try to debunk one of my arguments based in facts.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on April 28, 2017, 06:52:04 AM
That
Quote from: disputeone on April 28, 2017, 06:36:21 AM
My "theory" is that the official story was a lie and the collapses we saw couldn't have been caused by the plane impacts and fires. Especially wtc 7.

is speculation aswell, so it won't matter.

I just personally think there is no "bigger puzzle" where parts fit together when you go for the "inside job" thing.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 28, 2017, 06:54:37 AM
You want me to speculate and I would rather talk about facts.

Here is my argument for wtc 7 if anyone wants to have a go, I'm not really bothered of no one wants to take it on.

Quote from: disputeone on April 24, 2017, 09:26:58 PM
It proves the building had (for all intents and purposes) zero structural resistance as it fell, add the symmetry and collapse through the path of greatest resistance and we have strong evidence in and of itself.

Furthermore;


Quote from: disputeone on March 29, 2017, 11:33:22 PM
Well, I think we can start to address how a single column failure can lead to a symmetrical collapse at freefall.

The thermal expansion model NIST used has been shown to be dubius at best. No one has been able to get their results with NIST's numbers which, imo, screams dishonesty.

I will allow the thermal expansion to cause a failure in column 79, How did the failure of a single column lead to the symmetrical free-fall collapse of an asymmetrical building subject to asymmetrical damage.

My position is that the core was destroyed by explosives before pulling the rest of the building down with smaller charges.

Video evidence supports this, we see the core collapse while the building holds steady then with a great deal of the interior left the building falls symmetrically very close to 9.81m/s2.

I am arguing that the remaining supports would cause an asymmetrical collapse or even a slow progressive collapse much slower than the acceleration of gravity. However I would predict both an asymmetrical collapse and a fall acceleration much slower than 9.81m/s2.

Quote from: disputeone on March 31, 2017, 01:16:08 AM
Lets use NIST buckling model for example, they claim the outer and inner structure at the bottom pretty well "ceased to exist" which allowed a 2.25 second free-fall.

(http://ae911truth.info/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Floors-7-14-Buckling.png)

Now we have a very stiff cross braced outer structure which has apparently completely vaporized on the lower floors, (7-14) which allowed the tower to fall with no / negligible structural resistance. I understand the outer structure isn't vertically load bearing and wouldn't hold the entire weight of the building without the core, 100% paid.

I'll pay up to the fires causing the collapse of the core. (Dubious) How did we have such symmetry after the external structure was severed / buckled. According to the NIST model, and due to the varying stiffness we should not have seen such symmetry during free-fall.



I agree that the symmetry isn't a smoking gun nor is the free-fall. It's the combination of the two which I believe are impossible.

A progressive, reasonably symmetrical collapse with such a strong outer frame (leaving out how fires completely destroyed the core) after the core was removed isn't that unlikely, however at free-fall?

We still have the problem of a crossbraced outer structure collapsing into itself very close to 9.8m/s2 even if for the sake of simplicity we assume the entire inner structure was destroyed. (In video evidence we can see the tower start it's free-fall with a lot of the west side of the interior still reasonably intact.)

I understand lift shafts arent load bearing in and of themselves always but we have say (estimating) 250mm thick concrete shafts reinforced with reebar and braced to the support structures, we then have two T 150mm by 16mm rails and two T 100mm by 8mm counterweight rails, these are pinned into the concrete every 1500mm with an average of six 12mm high tensile trubolts, the shaft is absolutely over designed for the lifts, nearly all of the static load is taken through the rails into the concrete slab, dynamic loads are taken through the shaft by the rails and rail brackets.

My point is this is a very stiff, very strong structure that has actually gained stiffness and strength from the high tensile metal.

I can't understand how the whole building fell into itself at free-fall after a single column failure.

Partial collapse slower than free-fall?
Absolutely would have bought it.

Quote from: disputeone on April 05, 2017, 02:32:34 AM
If your claim is the fires were hot enough to cause the failure of column 79 then fine, I already said I would work from there.

My prediction purely based on the Building design and logic is that after column 79 failed the load would be shared between the adjacent columns, most likely causing local failures and isolated collapses. These columns are rated at least at twice their working load overall, easily. This isn't factoring in unbalanced loads from local failures, but this is why we build to such a high safety margin.

(https://s18.postimg.org/a3ah8g8x5/WTC7-floor-plan-collapse-initial-failure-_NIST-co.gif)

We can clearly see the asymmetry of the building design and the asymmetry of the alleged damage. A failure in column 79 might cause the partial collapse of another few columns, I'd pay a partial building collapse. It is clearly not a critical column, as the collapse progressed to 76, 77 and 78 it would encounter massive structural resistance from the core. I think the total destruction of wtc 7 is impossible without CD.

We have to remember that wtc 7 had a very strong core, and a very stiff and strong outer structure.

Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on March 31, 2017, 12:14:38 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/Y1HDPtV.png)


This is what the external skin looks like. These are not minor steel beams they where using to keep it together either. Godzilla would not have gotten through that.

The cores job in nearly any building is to hold the building up against the mass of the building and gravity, the core is not designed to be laterally load bearing, that is why we see buildings swept away by floods intact as you have shown earlier in the thread.

Wtc 7s outer structure was primarily to keep the building from falling over, it was cross-braced and very strong, more than capable of providing structural resistance in the event of the collapse of the outer frame we saw.

More than that the failure of column 79 led to the failure of the entire core, any architect or engineer knows that this shouldn't happen. Buildings are designed to share load throughout their structure otherwise we end with massive stress on individual connections and the connection shearing. I think the symmetry, free-fall and near total destruction of wtc 7 are impossible without controlled demolition.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on April 28, 2017, 06:55:57 AM
You have posted that multiple times already :)

I'd rather disucss those questions
--> Were there planes flying into the buildings?
--> Who flew them? Were passenger inside the planes?
--> What made the towers collapse? Who would have planned that, who executed it etc.?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 28, 2017, 06:59:43 AM
You have failed to address it multiple times.

This is purely my speculation and I don't claim it as evidence.

1. Yes, probably not boeng 767s

2. Drone / computer piloted.

3. Wtc 1 and 2 top down controlled demolition. Wtc 7 standard C.D.
CIA and Mossad.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on April 28, 2017, 07:00:15 AM
You are up late dispute...

You know the "debunkers" only want speculation, as they have no luck with debunking the hard facts.

This conversation is like deja Vu over and over again...Kinda like that movie ground hog day
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 28, 2017, 07:11:19 AM
Only 10pm here, yeah, it's familiar :).

Actually what's funny is that user hadn't read the NIST reports when he first came here to "debunk" he denied the free-fall of wtc 7 until it became clear he couldn't deny it then stated that it was no big deal anyway.

Sounds like NIST.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: observer on April 28, 2017, 07:15:14 AM
Just gone through a few pages and what's clear is that disputeone is wiping the floor with 9/11 OS blind following shills.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on April 28, 2017, 07:20:54 AM
Quote from: disputeone on April 28, 2017, 07:11:19 AM
Actually what's funny is that user hadn't read the NIST reports when he first came here to "debunk" he denied the free-fall of wtc 7 until it became clear he couldn't deny it then stated that it was no big deal anyway.

Wow to all of that, with extra emphasis on the bolded section.

No big deal...Lol...Just wow
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 28, 2017, 07:44:06 AM
Quote from: totallackey on April 28, 2017, 03:44:38 AM

How is Stutt's analysis better than the NTSB?


You still never read what I posted?   If you had you would have known that Stutt managed to decode part of the FDR data that the NTSB program didn't.

He wrote his own analysis program and left off the checksum verification,  then discovered his program was dumping more of the FDR data that the NTSB

When he investigated further he found that the NTSB program was stopping when it hit bad frames,   He reconstructed those frames and managed to get the full FDR records

All this was described  in those links I posted.  Maybe next time you will try reading before making those weird replies with red bold text.

What I'm learning about conspiracy theorists is that they lack the ability to contextualize data,  they seize on isolated bits and take them to a different context to reach conclusions that bear no relation to the facts or reality.   

A good example of this syndrome is  dispute's inability to read that FOI  letter and understand what was being said.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 28, 2017, 07:50:21 AM
I thought you gave up on that after this?

Quote from: Boots on April 28, 2017, 12:22:49 AM
17. What action can I take if I am dissatisfied with a FOIA determination?

When a request for records has been denied completely or partially, the requester may appeal to the Legal Counsel or designee within 30 calendar days of receipt of the District Director or Assistant Legal Counsel FOIA Programs' determination letter.

https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/foia/qanda_foiarequest.cfm

And this

Quote from: disputeone on April 28, 2017, 12:07:02 AM
Is that so?

If that is actually the case then I would have said "in the event your request was denied." Instead of "to the extent."

Quote
To the extent.
used to indicate the degree to which something exists, happens, or is true. ◊ If you say that something is true to an extent, to some extent, or to a certain extent, you mean that it is partly but not completely true.

Quote
in the event that

If; should it happen that.
‘he planned to start a business, in the event that he lost his job

Sure reads like his request was denied to an extent.

Should I just take your word for it? Is that what you are saying?

Memba?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 28, 2017, 07:53:01 AM
Quote from: disputeone on April 28, 2017, 07:50:21 AM
I thought you gave up on that after this?

I gave up on trying to explain it to you.    That's a repetitive theme in this whole thread if you look back.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 28, 2017, 07:54:59 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 28, 2017, 07:44:06 AM
A good example of this syndrome.

And lets just jump back to reality and stop larping please, you are not a clinical psychologist and you are unable to make a psychological evaluation or assign symptoms to people.

There are forums for adult larpers.

Quote from: Rayzor on April 28, 2017, 07:53:01 AM
Quote from: disputeone on April 28, 2017, 07:50:21 AM
I thought you gave up on that after this?

I gave up on trying to explain it to you.    That's a repetitive theme in this whole thread if you look back.

I'm certainly glad you gave up on telling me words in the dictionary had the incorrect meanings when talking about 9/11, that's for sure.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 28, 2017, 08:04:02 AM
Quote from: disputeone on April 28, 2017, 07:54:59 AM
I'm certainly glad you gave up on telling me words in the dictionary had the incorrect meanings when talking about 9/11, that's for sure.

LOL Like when you posted a definition of "translate"    That's about when I gave you away as a lost cause.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on April 28, 2017, 08:12:45 AM
Quote from: disputeone on April 28, 2017, 07:11:19 AM
Actually what's funny is that user hadn't read the NIST reports when he first came here to "debunk" he denied the free-fall of wtc 7 until it became clear he couldn't deny it then stated that it was no big deal anyway
Who said I have read them now?

Anyway, I don't think I ever said there was free fall and it was no big deal. Can you quote me on that (incl. post number)?
Or do you, as a conspiracy theorist, prefer just throwing words around?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 28, 2017, 08:14:15 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 28, 2017, 08:04:02 AM
Quote from: disputeone on April 28, 2017, 07:54:59 AM
I'm certainly glad you gave up on telling me words in the dictionary had the incorrect meanings when talking about 9/11, that's for sure.

LOL Like when you posted a definition of "translate"    That's about when I gave you away as a lost cause.


When you tried to translate english to english so the new phrase had a different meaning than the original?

Was that when you figured I was a "lost cause?"

Thanks again for translating english into english for us, otherwise we would have thought the statement meant what it said.

Phew.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 28, 2017, 08:18:03 AM
Quote from: User324 on April 28, 2017, 08:12:45 AM
Quote from: disputeone on April 28, 2017, 07:11:19 AM
Actually what's funny is that user hadn't read the NIST reports when he first came here to "debunk" he denied the free-fall of wtc 7 until it became clear he couldn't deny it then stated that it was no big deal anyway
Who said I have read them now?

Anyway, I don't think I ever said there was free fall and it was no big deal. Can you quote me on that (incl. post number)?
Or do you, as a conspiracy theorist, prefer just throwing words around?

Are you admitting you have still done no research?

Here.

Quote from: User324 on April 26, 2017, 01:14:55 AM
It makes perfectly sense that there was an acceleration observed that was more or less, within the error rate matching gravitational acceleration.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on April 28, 2017, 08:24:16 AM
Quote from: disputeone on April 28, 2017, 08:18:03 AM
Quote from: User324 on April 28, 2017, 08:12:45 AM
Quote from: disputeone on April 28, 2017, 07:11:19 AM
Actually what's funny is that user hadn't read the NIST reports when he first came here to "debunk" he denied the free-fall of wtc 7 until it became clear he couldn't deny it then stated that it was no big deal anyway
Who said I have read them now?

Anyway, I don't think I ever said there was free fall and it was no big deal. Can you quote me on that (incl. post number)?
Or do you, as a conspiracy theorist, prefer just throwing words around?

Are you admitting you have still done no research?

Here.

Quote from: User324 on April 26, 2017, 01:14:55 AM
It makes perfectly sense that there was an acceleration observed that was more or less, within the error rate matching gravitational acceleration.

That's not "denied the free-fall of wtc 7 until it became clear he couldn't deny it then stated that it was no big deal anyway".
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 28, 2017, 08:27:39 AM
Oh I'll have to go way further back for that (you denying it)  but I can find it if you like.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on April 28, 2017, 08:28:56 AM
Quote from: User324 on April 28, 2017, 06:55:57 AM
You have posted that multiple times already :)

I'd rather disucss those questions
--> Were there planes flying into the buildings?
--> Who flew them? Were passenger inside the planes?
--> What made the towers collapse? Who would have planned that, who executed it etc.?

1) Claims not to be aware of what the initials "OS" represent when it comes to the topic of 9/11; and,
B) Obfuscates, engages in mental reservation and equivocation, tries to muddy unambiguous written English;
III) Does not wish to engage in any discussion concerning factual information or an examination of OS evidence presented; and,
d) Wants to steer the conversation towards pure speculation, so he can occupy the high ground, demand evidence for such speculation, and so on and so forth...(oh, and almost forgot)...
5) CANNOT DRAW WORTH A FUCKING SHIT!

TYPICAL PAID SHILL TACTICS!
 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on April 28, 2017, 08:32:57 AM
Totallackey, you're ignored for your thread "This just in..."

Quote from: totallackey
According to reliable eyewitness testimony, User324 and Rayzor were reportedly engaging in bestiality of some sort, performing an act of fellatio on a dead goat belonging to Intikam.

Being the honest, forthright defender of truth, allow me to correct this false news report right here and now.

There is no question the goat was later seen that very day, alive and kicking.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on April 28, 2017, 08:37:10 AM
Quote from: User324 on April 26, 2017, 01:14:55 AM
It makes perfectly sense that there was an acceleration observed that was more or less, within the error rate matching gravitational acceleration.

100 percent incorrect..The design of the building and physics dictate this...

As for the letter razyor is going on about..
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 28, 2017, 05:32:49 AM
As for the letter in question, it seems rather ambiguous to be honest. Did they deny the request, did they not? What did they actually send if anything?

And

Quote from: User324 on April 28, 2017, 08:12:45 AM
you, as a conspiracy theorist, prefer just throwing words around?

To say this while throwing words around yourself lol...Funny.

How can someone who has not put in the time towards research of the matter, nor has any qualifications to make an educated assessment of the subject call another a conspiracy theorist?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 28, 2017, 08:38:26 AM
Quote from: disputeone on April 28, 2017, 08:27:39 AM
Oh I'll have to go way further back for that (you denying it)  but I can find it if you like.

Here.

Quote from: User324 on March 12, 2017, 03:41:15 AM
That is, again, nothing but bullshit. There was no “constant acceleration at or near free fall”

>Tfw 2.25 seconds of constant acceleration at g.

Quote from: User324 on April 26, 2017, 01:14:55 AM
It makes perfectly sense that there was an acceleration observed that was more or less, within the error rate matching gravitational acceleration.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 28, 2017, 08:39:09 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 28, 2017, 08:37:10 AM
As for the letter razyor is going on about..
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 28, 2017, 05:32:49 AM
As for the letter in question, it seems rather ambiguous to be honest. Did they deny the request, did they not? What did they actually send if anything?

Read it again,  they send him everything he asked for on CD and at no charge.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 28, 2017, 08:40:07 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 28, 2017, 08:39:09 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 28, 2017, 08:37:10 AM
As for the letter razyor is going on about..
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 28, 2017, 05:32:49 AM
As for the letter in question, it seems rather ambiguous to be honest. Did they deny the request, did they not? What did they actually send if anything?

Read it again,  they send him everything he asked for on CD and at no charge.

So you say.

Edit. User don't post from AR or CN in the main fora.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 28, 2017, 08:43:32 AM
Quote from: User324 on April 28, 2017, 08:32:57 AM
Totallackey, you're ignored for your thread "This just in..."

Don't be too hard on him,  he's just an angry little creep  who can't help himself.   His inability to reason logically might be a genetic condition.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 28, 2017, 08:48:24 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 28, 2017, 08:43:32 AM
Quote from: User324 on April 28, 2017, 08:32:57 AM
Totallackey, you're ignored for your thread "This just in..."

Don't be too hard on him,  he's just an angry little creep  who can't help himself.   His inability to reason logically might be a genetic condition.

I thought you were just dishonest but I guess this could explain it also.

If you want to call him names why not join him in AR? It would be a tactful approach.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on April 28, 2017, 08:49:50 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 28, 2017, 08:43:32 AM
His inability to reason logically might be a genetic condition.

He has already mentioned an issue with his son...Yet you still go there..

You really are one grade A piece of shit....

A sack of oranges and a hose...If only..
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on April 28, 2017, 08:54:33 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 28, 2017, 07:44:06 AM
Quote from: totallackey on April 28, 2017, 03:44:38 AM

How is Stutt's analysis better than the NTSB?


You still never read what I posted?   If you had you would have known that Stutt managed to decode part of the FDR data that the NTSB program didn't.
Do you mean this?

http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20III%20Aircraft%20speed.pdf (http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20III%20Aircraft%20speed.pdf)

Yeah, I read it.

IS Stutt's name in there somewhere?

But from what you also posted (http://www.warrenstutt.com/AAL77FDRPartialDecoder/index.html) (http://www.warrenstutt.com/AAL77FDRPartialDecoder/index.html))Tell everyone how this: "The method which the program uses to recognise uncompressed data is not fool proof so it attempts to decode some of the compressed data as if it were uncompressed. This shows up as lines with unusual values."

Is better.

Quote from: Rayzor on April 28, 2017, 07:44:06 AM
He wrote his own analysis program and left off the checksum verification,  then discovered his program was dumping more of the FDR data that the NTSB

When he investigated further he found that the NTSB program was stopping when it hit bad frames,   He reconstructed those frames and managed to get the full FDR records

All this was described  in those links I posted.  Maybe next time you will try reading before making those weird replies with red bold text.

Maybe you can explain why I should trust a a guy named Stutt over the NTSB. Especially when the program he writes "dumps" data and "The method which the program uses to recognise uncompressed data is not fool proof so it attempts to decode some of the compressed data as if it were uncompressed. This shows up as lines with unusual values."

Quote from: Rayzor on April 28, 2017, 07:44:06 AM
What I'm learning about conspiracy theorists myself is that they Ilack the ability to post factual data,  they Iseizes on isolated bits and takes them to a different context to reach conclusions that agree with the OS.   

A good example of this syndrome is my inability to read my very own sources and understand what was being said.
FTFY.

No need to thank me.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 28, 2017, 08:56:01 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 28, 2017, 08:49:50 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 28, 2017, 08:43:32 AM
His inability to reason logically might be a genetic condition.

He has already mentioned an issue with his son...Yet you still go there..


I haven't even started on him?   Why are you so antsy about the creepy little retard.

If you look back,  I've always been polite and answered his questions.    Don't complain when I start responding to him in kind. 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on April 28, 2017, 08:56:34 AM
Quote from: User324 on April 28, 2017, 08:32:57 AM
Totallackey, you're ignored for your thread "This just in..."
Fine by me.

Quitter.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 28, 2017, 08:57:52 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 28, 2017, 08:56:01 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 28, 2017, 08:49:50 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 28, 2017, 08:43:32 AM
His inability to reason logically might be a genetic condition.

He has already mentioned an issue with his son...Yet you still go there..


I haven't even started on him?   Why are you so antsy about the creepy little retard.

If you look back,  I've always been polite and answered his questions.    Don't complain when I start responding to him in kind.

Please cite where he insulted your family. If you can't I'd like you to retract this "respond in kind" BS you keep claiming.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on April 28, 2017, 08:59:02 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 28, 2017, 08:43:32 AM
Quote from: User324 on April 28, 2017, 08:32:57 AM
Totallackey, you're ignored for your thread "This just in..."

Don't be too hard on him,  he's just an angry little creep  who can't help himself.   His inability to reason logically might be a genetic condition.
You are getting crushed on everything you post here Rayzor and you know it and everyone who is philosophically and intellectually honest knows it.

Those types of persons are rare on the Internet and generally absent on this site.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 28, 2017, 09:01:23 AM
Quote from: totallackey on April 28, 2017, 08:54:33 AM

Maybe you can explain why I should trust a a guy named Stutt over the NTSB. Especially when the program he writes


http://www.warrenstutt.com/AAL77CheckHammingCodesAndPageParities/index.html

The data wasn't exactly corrupt, it just didn't get to the end of the frame.   You can download everything including the raw data if you want to verify it yourself.  That's a good enough reason to trust his analysis.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 28, 2017, 09:03:27 AM
Quote from: totallackey on April 28, 2017, 08:59:02 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 28, 2017, 08:43:32 AM
Quote from: User324 on April 28, 2017, 08:32:57 AM
Totallackey, you're ignored for your thread "This just in..."

Don't be too hard on him,  he's just an angry little creep  who can't help himself.   His inability to reason logically might be a genetic condition.
You are getting crushed on everything you post here Rayzor and you know it and everyone who is philosophically and intellectually honest knows it.

Those types of persons are rare on the Internet and generally absent on this site.

I can't help it if you don't have the ability or inclination to look past conspiracy and see the truth. 


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on April 28, 2017, 09:07:26 AM
Quote from: disputeone on April 28, 2017, 08:57:52 AM
Please cite where he insulted your family. If you can't I'd like you to retract this "respond in kind" BS you keep claiming.
He will never recant nor retract and I am not going to let it get this far anymore.

He is left to post BS, specious sources, pure speculation about who or what I am or what others may believe.

I just blew up his MIT report and whoever this other idiot Stutt is...

He can post whatever he likes to about me or my family.

He can also feel free to spend the
(https://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/mlp/images/0/04/Dr_-Evil-One-Million-Dollars.png/revision/latest?cb=20130727183557)
He claims to have and come say anything he wants directly to my face, in front of any police station he cares to.

Of course, this will all take place immediately after his latest visit to CERN.

He is needed there, you know...

CHOP CHOP!!!
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on April 28, 2017, 09:10:43 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 28, 2017, 09:01:23 AM
Quote from: totallackey on April 28, 2017, 08:54:33 AM

Maybe you can explain why I should trust a a guy named Stutt over the NTSB. Especially when the program he writes


http://www.warrenstutt.com/AAL77CheckHammingCodesAndPageParities/index.html

The data wasn't exactly corrupt, it just didn't get to the end of the frame.   You can download everything including the raw data if you want to verify it yourself.  That's a good enough reason to trust his analysis.
This is full of shit.

The full graph of the FDR regarding AIRSPEED is depicted in the NTSB report, past the point of reported impact.

The graph line does nothing but rise over the course of the last five minutes, to speeds well above 500 knots.

Stutts is SHOT!!!

Try again, pretty please, for all of us...

Get dancing, funny boy.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 28, 2017, 09:12:47 AM
Quote from: totallackey on April 28, 2017, 08:54:33 AM
Maybe you can explain why I should trust a a guy named Stutt over the NTSB. Especially when the program he writes "dumps" data

LOL,  it seems that  you think that dumping data is throwing it away?    FFS how ignorant and retarded do you have to be to think that?   

Maybe you should stick to your goat fantasies. 

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on April 28, 2017, 09:13:25 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 28, 2017, 09:03:27 AM
I can't help it if you don't have the ability or inclination to look past conspiracy and see the truth.
You start offering some...

We are all anxiously awaiting...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 28, 2017, 09:14:41 AM
Quote from: totallackey on April 28, 2017, 09:10:43 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 28, 2017, 09:01:23 AM
Quote from: totallackey on April 28, 2017, 08:54:33 AM

Maybe you can explain why I should trust a a guy named Stutt over the NTSB. Especially when the program he writes


http://www.warrenstutt.com/AAL77CheckHammingCodesAndPageParities/index.html

The data wasn't exactly corrupt, it just didn't get to the end of the frame.   You can download everything including the raw data if you want to verify it yourself.  That's a good enough reason to trust his analysis.
This is full of shit.

The full graph of the FDR regarding AIRSPEED is depicted in the NTSB report, past the point of reported impact.

The graph line does nothing but rise over the course of the last five minutes, to speeds well above 500 knots.

Stutts is SHOT!!!

Try again, pretty please, for all of us...

Get dancing, funny boy.

You do know that Warren Stutts is a 911 truther?  Maybe you don't.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 28, 2017, 09:17:02 AM
Quote from: totallackey on April 28, 2017, 09:13:25 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 28, 2017, 09:03:27 AM
I can't help it if you don't have the ability or inclination to look past conspiracy and see the truth.
You start offering some...

We are all anxiously awaiting...

I did,  you just didn't understand it,   it's your problem not mine.    AA77 flight envelope didn't exceed the capacity of the airframe.  Neither did any of the other flights.   Except maybe UA93?

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on April 28, 2017, 09:18:16 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 28, 2017, 09:12:47 AM
Quote from: totallackey on April 28, 2017, 08:54:33 AM
Maybe you can explain why I should trust a a guy named Stutt over the NTSB. Especially when the program he writes "dumps" data

LOL,  it seems that  you think that dumping data is throwing it away?    FFS how ignorant and retarded do you have to be to think that?   

Maybe you should stick to your goat fantasies.
And maybe you should understand what he means by "dumps," in the context he presents it.

The FDR "dumps," data when he plugs it in.

His program "dumps," data when:

A) It prints out a report;
2) It cannot resolve the issue due to compression of the file.

TRY AGAIN!!!

BY ALL MEANS!!!
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on April 28, 2017, 09:20:44 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 28, 2017, 09:14:41 AM
You do know that Warren Stutts is a 911 truther?  Maybe you don't.
If he formulated a program that cannot be trusted to do proper analysis of evidence, then he is not a "truther."
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 28, 2017, 09:21:40 AM
Quote from: totallackey on April 28, 2017, 09:18:16 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 28, 2017, 09:12:47 AM
Quote from: totallackey on April 28, 2017, 08:54:33 AM
Maybe you can explain why I should trust a a guy named Stutt over the NTSB. Especially when the program he writes "dumps" data

LOL,  it seems that  you think that dumping data is throwing it away?    FFS how ignorant and retarded do you have to be to think that?   

Maybe you should stick to your goat fantasies.
And maybe you should understand what he means by "dumps," in the context he presents it.

The FDR "dumps," data when he plugs it in.

His program "dumps," data when:

A) It prints out a report;
2) It cannot resolve the issue due to compression of the file.

TRY AGAIN!!!

BY ALL MEANS!!!

Nope that's not  the end of the story,  keep reading.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 28, 2017, 09:24:08 AM
Quote from: totallackey on April 28, 2017, 09:20:44 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 28, 2017, 09:14:41 AM
You do know that Warren Stutts is a 911 truther?  Maybe you don't.
If he formulated a program that cannot be trusted to do proper analysis of evidence, then he is not a "truther."

Why don't you send him an email and demand he do a "proper" analysis.   

For what it's worth, and to save you looking like a fool, I can't see anything wrong with what he did, in fact it's a better job than the NTSB did.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on April 28, 2017, 09:24:40 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 28, 2017, 09:17:02 AM
I did,  you just didn't understand it,   it's your problem not mine.
I understand you make the claim you have.   
Quote from: Rayzor on April 28, 2017, 09:17:02 AM
AA77 flight envelope didn't exceed the capacity of the airframe.  Neither did any of the other flights.   Except maybe UA93?
An airframe under the guidance of an experienced pilot?

Maybe, repeat...Maybe not...

Under the guidance of inexperienced, untrained pilots flying by VFR?

Definitely exceeded the capabilities of the plane/pilot combination to maintain accurate/intended flight.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 28, 2017, 09:27:25 AM
Quote from: totallackey on April 28, 2017, 09:20:44 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 28, 2017, 09:14:41 AM
You do know that Warren Stutts is a 911 truther?  Maybe you don't.
If he formulated a program that cannot be trusted to do proper analysis of evidence, then he is not a "truther."

You are the only one who has ever made that claim,  I think your inability to understand the processes involved are distorting your conclusions.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Twerp on April 28, 2017, 09:28:26 AM
Quote from: totallackey on April 28, 2017, 08:59:02 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 28, 2017, 08:43:32 AM
Quote from: User324 on April 28, 2017, 08:32:57 AM
Totallackey, you're ignored for your thread "This just in..."

Don't be too hard on him,  he's just an angry little creep  who can't help himself.   His inability to reason logically might be a genetic condition.
You are getting crushed on everything you post here Rayzor and you know it and everyone who is philosophically and intellectually honest knows it.

Those types of persons are rare on the Internet and generally absent on this site.

No true scotsman...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 28, 2017, 09:33:19 AM
Quote from: totallackey on April 28, 2017, 09:24:40 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 28, 2017, 09:17:02 AM
I did,  you just didn't understand it,   it's your problem not mine.
I understand you make the claim you have.   
Quote from: Rayzor on April 28, 2017, 09:17:02 AM
AA77 flight envelope didn't exceed the capacity of the airframe.  Neither did any of the other flights.   Except maybe UA93?
An airframe under the guidance of an experienced pilot?

Maybe, repeat...Maybe not...

Under the guidance of inexperienced, untrained pilots flying by VFR?

Definitely exceeded the capabilities of the plane/pilot combination to maintain accurate/intended flight.

Not true,  where is your evidence?   

The couple of 767 jockeys I have talked to about this exact question claim that the 767 fly-by-wire makes it one of the easiest planes to fly,  easier than a cessna in fact.   I don't know any 757 pilots,  but it also a fly-by-wire aircraft.   I trust their opinion more than the arm chair wannabe's on pilots4911.

Don't forget that crashing is still regarded as the easiest of all flight manouvres    All they had to do was aim.

   
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on April 28, 2017, 09:35:35 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 28, 2017, 09:24:08 AM
Quote from: totallackey on April 28, 2017, 09:20:44 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 28, 2017, 09:14:41 AM
You do know that Warren Stutts is a 911 truther?  Maybe you don't.
If he formulated a program that cannot be trusted to do proper analysis of evidence, then he is not a "truther."

Why don't you send him an email and demand he do a "proper" analysis.   

For what it's worth, and to save you looking like a fool, I can't see anything wrong with what he did, in fact it's a better job than the NTSB did.
I will work with the data the NTSB provided.

The NTSB states the plane was traveling over 500 knots at impact.

Show us where Stutt specifically arrives at a different conclusion.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 28, 2017, 09:42:58 AM
Quote from: totallackey on April 28, 2017, 09:35:35 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 28, 2017, 09:24:08 AM
Quote from: totallackey on April 28, 2017, 09:20:44 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 28, 2017, 09:14:41 AM
You do know that Warren Stutts is a 911 truther?  Maybe you don't.
If he formulated a program that cannot be trusted to do proper analysis of evidence, then he is not a "truther."

Why don't you send him an email and demand he do a "proper" analysis.   

For what it's worth, and to save you looking like a fool, I can't see anything wrong with what he did, in fact it's a better job than the NTSB did.
I will work with the data the NTSB provided.

The NTSB states the plane was traveling over 500 knots at impact.

Show us where Stutt specifically arrives at a different conclusion.

I never said he did,  in fact I said the plane accelerated hard over the last 20-30 seconds from 300 or so knots to hit at around 500 mph,   You have to start paying attention if you want to stay in the discussion.     The video flyby I posted was a 757 at 350 knots ( 400 mph) which is faster than the AA77 was flying seconds before impact.

Nothing fell off the plane,  the wings stayed on,  but some of the FDR data did show high  accelerations like you might get with wingtip flutter.  The eyewitness reports all confirm the plane was accelerating when it hit.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on April 28, 2017, 09:44:56 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 28, 2017, 09:33:19 AM
Not true,  where is your evidence?   

The couple of 767 jockeys I have talked to about this exact question claim that the 767 fly-by-wire makes it one of the easiest planes to fly,  easier than a cessna in fact.   I don't know any 757 pilots,  but it also a fly-by-wire aircraft.   I trust their opinion more than the arm chair wannabe's on pilots4911.
My uncle was a Captain in the US Navy, a pilot, commencing with F-4 and finishing his career in an F-18.

I spent many summers in Lexington Park, MD, at PAX River.

I have talked to pilots of KC-135's at Grissom.

My uncle and the pilots I have talked to?

All state, without equivocation: NO FUCKING WAY!

Quote from: Rayzor on April 28, 2017, 09:33:19 AM
Don't forget that crashing is still regarded as the easiest of all flight manouvres    All they had to do was aim.
Yeah, I could crash an airliner trying to maintain that speed and altitude, no fucking doubt.

Better yet, I WOULD crash the airliner, without a fucking doubt.

But they did not just have to "aim."

They had to maintain the flight speed, altitude, attitude, and course corrections, all by VFR only.

Steering a plane to a purposeful crash is not like steering a car to a purposeful crash.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on April 28, 2017, 09:52:19 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 28, 2017, 09:42:58 AM
Quote from: totallackey on April 28, 2017, 09:35:35 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 28, 2017, 09:24:08 AM
Quote from: totallackey on April 28, 2017, 09:20:44 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 28, 2017, 09:14:41 AM
You do know that Warren Stutts is a 911 truther?  Maybe you don't.
If he formulated a program that cannot be trusted to do proper analysis of evidence, then he is not a "truther."

Why don't you send him an email and demand he do a "proper" analysis.   

For what it's worth, and to save you looking like a fool, I can't see anything wrong with what he did, in fact it's a better job than the NTSB did.
I will work with the data the NTSB provided.

The NTSB states the plane was traveling over 500 knots at impact.

Show us where Stutt specifically arrives at a different conclusion.
I never said he did,  in fact I said the plane accelerated hard over the last 20-30 seconds from 300 or so knots to hit at around 500 mph,   You have to start paying attention if you want to stay in the discussion.     The video flyby I posted was a 757 at 350 knots ( 400 mph) which is faster than the AA77 was flying seconds before impact.
You are now a confirmed liar.

You posted this chart.

You stated these speeds were IMPACT SPEEDS.
Quote from: Rayzor on April 27, 2017, 08:46:39 AM
(https://s13.postimg.org/m8f0apjuv/Impact_Speeds.jpg)

You are so busted.

The NTSB report, 2nd chart, Attachment II, clearly shows the flight was traveling at over 500 knots for the last five minutes of time depicted in the chart.

Faster than the plane shown in your video.

Liar.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 28, 2017, 09:55:46 AM
Quote from: totallackey on April 28, 2017, 09:52:19 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 28, 2017, 09:42:58 AM
Quote from: totallackey on April 28, 2017, 09:35:35 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 28, 2017, 09:24:08 AM
Quote from: totallackey on April 28, 2017, 09:20:44 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 28, 2017, 09:14:41 AM
You do know that Warren Stutts is a 911 truther?  Maybe you don't.
If he formulated a program that cannot be trusted to do proper analysis of evidence, then he is not a "truther."

Why don't you send him an email and demand he do a "proper" analysis.   

For what it's worth, and to save you looking like a fool, I can't see anything wrong with what he did, in fact it's a better job than the NTSB did.
I will work with the data the NTSB provided.

The NTSB states the plane was traveling over 500 knots at impact.

Show us where Stutt specifically arrives at a different conclusion.
I never said he did,  in fact I said the plane accelerated hard over the last 20-30 seconds from 300 or so knots to hit at around 500 mph,   You have to start paying attention if you want to stay in the discussion.     The video flyby I posted was a 757 at 350 knots ( 400 mph) which is faster than the AA77 was flying seconds before impact.
You are now a confirmed liar.

You posted this chart.

You stated these speeds were IMPACT SPEEDS.
Quote from: Rayzor on April 27, 2017, 08:46:39 AM
(https://s13.postimg.org/m8f0apjuv/Impact_Speeds.jpg)

You are so busted.

The NTSB report, 2nd chart, Attachment II, clearly shows the flight was traveling at over 500 knots for the last five minutes of time depicted in the chart.

Faster than the plane shown in your video.

Liar.

Nope,  you are wrong yet again,    here is the radar data.

(http://www.globalresearch.ca/articlePictures/fig2_radar%20data.jpg)

Now let's see if you can find 400 mph on the radar plot, and how long that was before impact?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on April 28, 2017, 10:03:11 AM
Quote from: disputeone on April 28, 2017, 08:38:26 AM
Quote from: disputeone on April 28, 2017, 08:27:39 AM
Oh I'll have to go way further back for that (you denying it)  but I can find it if you like.

Here.

Quote from: User324 on March 12, 2017, 03:41:15 AM
That is, again, nothing but bullshit. There was no “constant acceleration at or near free fall”

>Tfw 2.25 seconds of constant acceleration at g.

Quote from: User324 on April 26, 2017, 01:14:55 AM
It makes perfectly sense that there was an acceleration observed that was more or less, within the error rate matching gravitational acceleration.
I'd still say both these statements are true. Maybe the "near" in the first statement is a bit overkill, let me correct myself:
There was no constant acceleration at or near free fall

Anyway, as I have mentioned multiple times it is 1) impossible to precisely calculate the speed of the buildings falling and b) impossible to calculate how fast they would be falling at gravitational acceleration with only air resistance, but not structural resistance.


soooo...
(http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/755/448/b6c.png)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on April 28, 2017, 10:11:34 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 28, 2017, 09:55:46 AM
Nope,  you are wrong yet again,    here is the radar data.

(http://www.globalresearch.ca/articlePictures/fig2_radar%20data.jpg)
Now let's see if you can find 400 mph on the radar plot, and how long that was before impact?
When did they lose tracking on radar?

Aside from that:

1) Radar is known to be faulty as far as checking speed is concerned. I have seen radar report speeds of 20 mph for surrounding trees; and,
2) No frame of reference for the times listed on the x-axis relative to crash, and,
3) This chart clearly disagrees with your prior chart's reported impact speed.

Here:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cc/Knots_Larousse.jpg)
Please point to the item that represents your story best.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on April 28, 2017, 10:17:04 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 28, 2017, 09:33:19 AM
Quote from: totallackey on April 28, 2017, 09:24:40 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 28, 2017, 09:17:02 AM
I did,  you just didn't understand it,   it's your problem not mine.
I understand you make the claim you have.   
Quote from: Rayzor on April 28, 2017, 09:17:02 AM
AA77 flight envelope didn't exceed the capacity of the airframe.  Neither did any of the other flights.   Except maybe UA93?
An airframe under the guidance of an experienced pilot?

Maybe, repeat...Maybe not...

Under the guidance of inexperienced, untrained pilots flying by VFR?

Definitely exceeded the capabilities of the plane/pilot combination to maintain accurate/intended flight.

Not true,  where is your evidence?   

The couple of 767 jockeys I have talked to about this exact question claim that the 767 fly-by-wire makes it one of the easiest planes to fly,  easier than a cessna in fact.   I don't know any 757 pilots,  but it also a fly-by-wire aircraft.   I trust their opinion more than the arm chair wannabe's on pilots4911.

Don't forget that crashing is still regarded as the easiest of all flight manouvres    All they had to do was aim.

 

Lol...Then your "Jockeys" must not be much of a jockey lol.

In 2001 the 757/767 did not have full FBW what so ever...Just a few control surfaces was electronically actuated.

What else did your "Jockeys " say lol??
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 28, 2017, 10:27:38 AM
Quote from: totallackey on April 28, 2017, 10:11:34 AM

When did they lose tracking on radar?


Do you actually have a point,  or are you just going to keep misunderstanding and misreading the evidence?

I've shown that AA77 would not have fallen apart at the measured speeds,  and that pilots I trust don't think it would have been all that hard to fly into the Pentagon.

If you have a evidence otherwise,  then now's your chance.   Put up or shut up.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on April 28, 2017, 10:31:04 AM
Oh...And just a little tid bit more...The reason a 757/767 is "easy to fly" (which they aren't​, but they are easier than some) is from all the electronic nannies and fail safes..

Issue with this...These electronic nannies would not let any of the maneuvers happen involved in 9/11. So somehow (which I still don't know how this was supposedly​ done) the nannies would have to be deactivated...If this somehow was accomplished, then suddenly the 757/767 is not the fun flying tank..These "terrorist" would be flying ala carte naked...

I don't know who these "jockeys" are...They are either voices in your head or have literally no idea what they are talking about...Either way, their credibility is nill
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on April 28, 2017, 10:35:04 AM
I think it wouldn't be that hard to go (nearly) full throttle and fly the plane into a building. Actually it sounds super easy to me, no idea why that would be hard at all, just fly towards the building until you hit it  :o
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on April 28, 2017, 10:46:09 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 28, 2017, 10:27:38 AM
Do you actually have a point,  or are you just going to keep misunderstanding and misreading the evidence?
Yep.

Immediate point = They did not maintain radar tracking until impact, correct?

Primary point = you are posting BULLSHIT and calling it evidence.

Even funnier, you do not want to address it, so you do not even try.

You just hope no one notices.

Quote from: Rayzor on April 28, 2017, 10:27:38 AM
I've shown that AA77 would not have fallen apart at the measured speeds
No you have not. 
Quote from: Rayzor on April 28, 2017, 10:27:38 AM
...and that pilots I trust don't think it would have been all that hard to fly into the Pentagon.
Cannot help it you familiarize with and associate with stupid pilots...
Quote from: Rayzor on April 28, 2017, 10:27:38 AM
If you have a evidence otherwise,  then now's your chance.   Put up or shut up.
I am quite content with reposting your bullshit evidence, pointing out the glaring holes in it, the conflicting results, etc...and an anecdote here and there.

After all, it is all part of your supposed nice and tidy OS that you cherish and adore so much.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on April 28, 2017, 10:48:18 AM
Quote from: User324 on April 28, 2017, 10:35:04 AM
I think it wouldn't be that hard to go (nearly) full throttle and fly the plane into a building. Actually it sounds super easy to me, no idea why that would be hard at all, just fly towards the building until you hit it  :o
Go ahead, get yourself a flight simulator and try to target any building by VFR only and simulate crashing into your target.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on April 28, 2017, 10:55:24 AM
Quote from: totallackey on April 28, 2017, 10:48:18 AM
Quote from: User324 on April 28, 2017, 10:35:04 AM
I think it wouldn't be that hard to go (nearly) full throttle and fly the plane into a building. Actually it sounds super easy to me, no idea why that would be hard at all, just fly towards the building until you hit it  :o
Go ahead, get yourself a flight simulator and try to target any building by VFR only and simulate crashing into your target.
I was in a professional flight sim once, but they didnt allow me crashing into a building  :o

Seriously, there is a lot of skill required to operate it, but just steering it isn't hard at all.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on April 28, 2017, 10:55:55 AM
Quote from: User324 on April 28, 2017, 10:35:04 AM
I think it wouldn't be that hard to go (nearly) full throttle and fly the plane into a building. Actually it sounds super easy to me, no idea why that would be hard at all, just fly towards the building until you hit it  :o

 >:(
Holy fuck you have got to be trolling...I am taking you less serious by the second...Closing in on nill.

There is a reason actual pilots have had zilch for success doing this in simulations.

Tell you what....Some how deactivate all the fail safes and nannies so you could even do this. Perform complex maneuvers at over clocked speeds, then attempt to guide this flying tank going 500 miles per hour to hit a 200 foot target. All through a couple tiny windows.

My bet, you would never be able to find the towers in the first place to hit them.

This isn't a video game
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on April 28, 2017, 11:01:41 AM
Quote from: User324 on April 28, 2017, 10:55:24 AM
Quote from: totallackey on April 28, 2017, 10:48:18 AM
Quote from: User324 on April 28, 2017, 10:35:04 AM
I think it wouldn't be that hard to go (nearly) full throttle and fly the plane into a building. Actually it sounds super easy to me, no idea why that would be hard at all, just fly towards the building until you hit it  :o
Go ahead, get yourself a flight simulator and try to target any building by VFR only and simulate crashing into your target.
I was in a professional flight sim once, but they didnt allow me crashing into a building  :o

Seriously, there is a lot of skill required to operate it, but just steering it isn't hard at all.
Again, just try to TARGET a building for impact, get up to the speeds indicated in the OS reports, and see if you are able to:

1) Maintain control of the plane at altitude without any sort of craft/equipment failure; and,
2) Hit your target; and,
3) Without disabling any fail safes in regard to air frame operation.

All by VFR.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on April 28, 2017, 11:13:23 AM
Buy me the sim and I'll do it.
Deal?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on April 28, 2017, 11:15:16 AM
Quote from: User324 on April 28, 2017, 11:13:23 AM
Buy me the sim and I'll do it.
Deal?
Just find one for free temp use, download it, use it for the trial period, and do it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on April 28, 2017, 11:16:37 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 28, 2017, 10:55:55 AM
Quote from: User324 on April 28, 2017, 10:35:04 AM
I think it wouldn't be that hard to go (nearly) full throttle and fly the plane into a building. Actually it sounds super easy to me, no idea why that would be hard at all, just fly towards the building until you hit it  :o
Holy fuck you have got to be trolling...

This isn't a video game
Applies to both parts
(http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/facebook/000/210/119/9b3.png)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on April 28, 2017, 11:32:09 AM
So you say you are trolling then? Nice to know.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on April 28, 2017, 12:46:00 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 28, 2017, 11:32:09 AM
So you say you are trolling then? Nice to know.
Are you a fortune teller or something? Nice to know.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on April 28, 2017, 12:57:30 PM
Back on topic:

Rayzor posted an outright lie:

Quote from: Rayzor on April 28, 2017, 09:42:58 AM
...in fact I said the plane accelerated hard over the last 20-30 seconds from 300 or so knots to hit at around 500 mph,   You have to start paying attention if you want to stay in the discussion.     The video flyby I posted was a 757 at 350 knots ( 400 mph) which is faster than the AA77 was flying seconds before impact.

Here he states: "...in fact I said the plane accelerated hard over the last 20-30 seconds from 300 or so knots to hit at around 500 mph..." 

So, the chart he posted:
Quote from: Rayzor on April 27, 2017, 08:46:39 AM
(https://s13.postimg.org/m8f0apjuv/Impact_Speeds.jpg)
states the impact speed was 345 miles an hour...

Then he posts this chart:
Quote from: Rayzor on April 28, 2017, 09:55:46 AM
(http://www.globalresearch.ca/articlePictures/fig2_radar%20data.jpg)
Thinking this is accurate.

BUSTED!
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 28, 2017, 03:28:35 PM
Quote from: User324 on April 28, 2017, 12:46:00 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 28, 2017, 11:32:09 AM
So you say you are trolling then? Nice to know.
Are you a fortune teller or something? Nice to know.


You haven't read the OS, this is like me trying to debunk Principia without reading it and just calling Newton an idiot.

I don't think that doing no research and calling people idiots counts as debunking but good on you for trying.

(https://s1.postimg.org/e1r71ijwv/newton.gif)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 28, 2017, 03:36:18 PM
Now lets consider Newtons laws in the context of 9/11.

1. Every building collapses in a straight line in uniform motion regardless of the forces acting on it.

2. Force = Mass × The 911effectTM

3. Every action has the reaction our TV tells us it has, it makes sense in regards that 10% of wtc 2 crushed 90% of wtc 2

Seems like we have to change Newtons laws, at least for 09/11/2001. That's cool. The OS has to be right (right?) so Newton has to be wrong.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 28, 2017, 03:51:54 PM
Quote from: disputeone on April 28, 2017, 08:57:52 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 28, 2017, 08:56:01 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 28, 2017, 08:49:50 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 28, 2017, 08:43:32 AM
His inability to reason logically might be a genetic condition.

He has already mentioned an issue with his son...Yet you still go there..


I haven't even started on him?   Why are you so antsy about the creepy little retard.

If you look back,  I've always been polite and answered his questions.    Don't complain when I start responding to him in kind.

Please cite where he insulted your family. If you can't I'd like you to retract this "respond in kind" BS you keep claiming.

Rayzor please address this.

I am building quite a large list of your lies and dishonesty.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 28, 2017, 04:08:19 PM
Quote from: User324 on April 28, 2017, 10:03:11 AM
let me correct myself:
There was no constant acceleration at or near free fall

Oh I didnt see you were still denying the NIST report.

Quote
The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages

Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)

https://www.nist.gov/el/faqs-nist-wtc-7-investigation

Quote
In physics, gravitational acceleration is the acceleration on an object caused by the force of gravitation. Neglecting friction such as air resistance, all small bodies accelerate in a gravitational field at the same rate relative to the center of mass.[1] This equality is true regardless of the masses or compositions of the bodies.

At different points on Earth, objects fall with an acceleration between 9.764 m/s2 and 9.834 m/s2[2] depending on altitude and latitude, with a conventional standard value of exactly 9.80665 m/s2 (approximately 32.174 ft/s2). This does not take into account other effects, such as buoyancy or drag.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_acceleration

If you want to argue for the O/S it would probably be better if you at least agreed with the NIST report.

Or is this just a case where something said about 9/11 doesn't actually mean what it says?

It's cool if you wanna say you know better than NIST and the architects and engineers for truth, I won't laugh at you.

2.25 seconds of constant acceleration at g. That's certainly what NIST says happened. It's fine you disagree without evidence.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on April 28, 2017, 04:11:37 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 28, 2017, 10:55:55 AM
Quote from: User324 on April 28, 2017, 10:35:04 AM
I think it wouldn't be that hard to go (nearly) full throttle and fly the plane into a building. Actually it sounds super easy to me, no idea why that would be hard at all, just fly towards the building until you hit it  :o

 >:(
Holy fuck you have got to be trolling...I am taking you less serious by the second...Closing in on nill.

There is a reason actual pilots have had zilch for success doing this in simulations.

Tell you what....Some how deactivate all the fail safes and nannies so you could even do this. Perform complex maneuvers at over clocked speeds, then attempt to guide this flying tank going 500 miles per hour to hit a 200 foot target. All through a couple tiny windows.

My bet, you would never be able to find the towers in the first place to hit them.

This isn't a video game

I just tried this in the X-Plane 11 demo. After a few rounds of practice with the controls, I could sight a small residential house in the distance and hit it about 2/3rds of the time. I imagine a skyscraper would be quite a bit easier. Most of my mistakes were due to not being used to the inverted y-axis.

I used a 737 since they didn't have many options in the demo. I usually hit around 450+ knots (I assume it was in knots, it was unlabelled) at a 20-30 degree AoA.

Dumb argument.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 28, 2017, 04:12:19 PM
Thanks for your opinion as always Totes.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 28, 2017, 04:21:26 PM
I, personally, used this, professional flight simulator to prove how the hijackers flew the planes.



Irrefutable.

[/sarcasm]
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 28, 2017, 07:10:32 PM
Quote from: disputeone on April 28, 2017, 03:51:54 PM
Quote from: disputeone on April 28, 2017, 08:57:52 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 28, 2017, 08:56:01 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 28, 2017, 08:49:50 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 28, 2017, 08:43:32 AM
His inability to reason logically might be a genetic condition.

He has already mentioned an issue with his son...Yet you still go there..


I haven't even started on him?   Why are you so antsy about the creepy little retard.

If you look back,  I've always been polite and answered his questions.    Don't complain when I start responding to him in kind.

Please cite where he insulted your family. If you can't I'd like you to retract this "respond in kind" BS you keep claiming.

Rayzor please address this.

I am building quite a large list of your lies and dishonesty.

That doesn't seem like the behaviour of a rational adult....    oh wait.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 28, 2017, 07:16:33 PM
Quote from: totallackey on April 28, 2017, 12:57:30 PM
Back on topic:

Rayzor posted an outright lie:

Quote from: Rayzor on April 28, 2017, 09:42:58 AM
...in fact I said the plane accelerated hard over the last 20-30 seconds from 300 or so knots to hit at around 500 mph,   You have to start paying attention if you want to stay in the discussion.     The video flyby I posted was a 757 at 350 knots ( 400 mph) which is faster than the AA77 was flying seconds before impact.

Here he states: "...in fact I said the plane accelerated hard over the last 20-30 seconds from 300 or so knots to hit at around 500 mph..." 

So, the chart he posted:
Quote from: Rayzor on April 27, 2017, 08:46:39 AM
(https://s13.postimg.org/m8f0apjuv/Impact_Speeds.jpg)
states the impact speed was 345 miles an hour...

Then he posts this chart:
Quote from: Rayzor on April 28, 2017, 09:55:46 AM
(http://www.globalresearch.ca/articlePictures/fig2_radar%20data.jpg)
Thinking this is accurate.

BUSTED!

So all we have proved that you don't understand much of anything.   All you've got is persistent yapping and fantasies about goats.

Do you still think that a program that dumps data, somehow throws it away?   
Do you still not understand that Warren Stutt did a better job with the AA77 FDR than the NTSB?

Actually,  don't bother answering.   I already know what you are going to say,  so unless you have evidence to cite, you can just STFU.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 28, 2017, 07:18:05 PM
I didn't mean literally, just times I remember you being dishonest.

Quote from: disputeone on April 28, 2017, 08:57:52 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 28, 2017, 08:56:01 AM
If you look back,  I've always been polite and answered his questions.    Don't complain when I start responding to him in kind.

Please cite where he insulted your family. If you can't I'd like you to retract this "respond in kind" BS you keep claiming.

Rayzor please address this.


Can you cite an example or were you being dishonest again?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 28, 2017, 07:23:22 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 28, 2017, 07:44:06 AM

What I'm learning about conspiracy theorists is that they lack the ability to contextualize data,  they seize on isolated bits and take them to a different context to reach conclusions that bear no relation to the facts or reality.   

A good example of this syndrome is  dispute's inability to read that FOI  letter and understand what was being said.

Another example would be totallackey's  inability to reconcile seemingly different data from separate sources without realizing that planes can accelerate.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 28, 2017, 07:25:13 PM
Quote from: disputeone on April 28, 2017, 07:18:05 PM
I didn't mean literally, just times I remember you being dishonest.

Quote from: disputeone on April 28, 2017, 08:57:52 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 28, 2017, 08:56:01 AM
If you look back,  I've always been polite and answered his questions.    Don't complain when I start responding to him in kind.

Please cite where he insulted your family. If you can't I'd like you to retract this "respond in kind" BS you keep claiming.

Rayzor please address this.


Can you cite an example or were you being dishonest again?

You'll have to be specific,  you aren't making sense.   What did you want me to cite an example of?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 28, 2017, 07:31:31 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 28, 2017, 07:25:13 PM
you aren't making sense.   What did you want me to cite an example of?

Quote from: disputeone on April 28, 2017, 07:18:05 PM
Please cite where he insulted your family.

Don't play dumb because I caught you out being dishonest

Quote from: Rayzor on April 28, 2017, 07:23:22 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 28, 2017, 07:44:06 AM

What I'm learning about conspiracy theorists is that they lack the ability to contextualize data,  they seize on isolated bits and take them to a different context to reach conclusions that bear no relation to the facts or reality.   

A good example of this syndrome is  dispute's inability to read that FOI  letter and understand what was being said.

Another example would be totallackey's  inability to reconcile seemingly different data from separate sources without realizing that planes can accelerate.

Quote from: disputeone on April 28, 2017, 08:14:15 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 28, 2017, 08:04:02 AM
Quote from: disputeone on April 28, 2017, 07:54:59 AM
I'm certainly glad you gave up on telling me words in the dictionary had the incorrect meanings when talking about 9/11, that's for sure.

LOL Like when you posted a definition of "translate"    That's about when I gave you away as a lost cause.


When you tried to translate english to english so the new phrase had a different meaning than the original?

Was that when you figured I was a "lost cause?"

Thanks again for translating english into english for us, otherwise we would have thought the statement meant what it said.

Phew.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 28, 2017, 07:36:34 PM
Quote from: disputeone on April 28, 2017, 07:31:31 PM

Don't play dumb because I caught you out being dishonest


What are you talking about?  please show me where you think I've been dishonest.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 28, 2017, 07:49:53 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 28, 2017, 07:36:34 PM
What are you talking about?  please show me where you think I've been dishonest.

Sure ok.

Quote from: Rayzor on April 28, 2017, 07:25:13 PM
you aren't making sense.   What did you want me to cite an example of?

Quote from: disputeone on April 28, 2017, 07:18:05 PM
Please cite where he insulted your family.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 28, 2017, 07:58:14 PM
Quote from: disputeone on April 28, 2017, 07:49:53 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 28, 2017, 07:36:34 PM
What are you talking about?  please show me where you think I've been dishonest.

Sure ok.

Quote from: Rayzor on April 28, 2017, 07:25:13 PM
you aren't making sense.   What did you want me to cite an example of?

Quote from: disputeone on April 28, 2017, 07:18:05 PM
Please cite where he insulted your family.

I see what you are getting at,   you are defending that little creep totallackey,  I was responding to the insulting thread he started in AR.

First,  it's nothing to do with you,  if he wants to entertain himself with fantasies about goats,  that's his business not yours.   If he insults me in the process I'll respond in kind.

Do you understand that I will counter insult with insult?    I'll leave you to guess who would win that exchange.    My advice is don't go there.



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 28, 2017, 08:04:36 PM
It certainly seems to me that this is a similar situation to where I admitted I have Bipolar and you spent the rest of the thread calling me crazy and trying to dismiss my arguments on the basis of my mental illness / mood disorder.

Now I am not aware of the circumstances but believe it or not I am quite perceptive, it certainly seems like totallackey has shared some personal information about his family and now you are using that to try and discredit him when it has nothing to to with any argument and is completely disgusting, much more so than anything totallackey has posted imo.

You also did this to Bhs who has shared personal stories about his life and his family, you then tried to use this to discredit and insult him instead of attacking his arguments or even just attacking him directly. This is also disgusting.

I call BS on your "respond in kind" assertion and you can't show evidence to refute it, this has been a common theme.

To the posters that wish to believe Rayzor is the "good guy" please consider what sort of a person does these things.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 28, 2017, 08:20:02 PM
Quote from: disputeone on April 28, 2017, 08:04:36 PM
It certainly seems to me that this is a similar situation to where I admitted I have Bipolar and you spent the rest of the thread calling me crazy and trying to dismiss my arguments on the basis of my mental illness / mood disorder.

Now I am not aware of the circumstances but believe it or not I am quite perceptive, it certainly seems like totallackey has shared some personal information about his family and now you are using that to try and discredit him when it has nothing to to with any argument and is completely disgusting, much more so than anything totallackey has posted imo.

You also did this to Bhs who has shared personal stories about his life and his family, you then tried to use this to discredit and insult him instead of attacking his arguments or even just attacking him directly. This is also disgusting.

I call BS on your "respond in kind" assertion and you can't show evidence to refute it, this has been a common theme.

To the posters that wish to believe Rayzor is the "good guy" please consider what sort of a person does these things.

Here's a simple solution for you to consider,  don't resort to insults or starting "I hate rayzor" threads  just because you are losing the debate. 

In reality,  both you and BHS have been dishing out insults continuously,  as soon as it comes back at you,  you go into meltdown.  You can dish it out but you can't take it.

Nearly 100% of totallackey's posts are insulting.   But that's the way only he has to argue,  he's got nothing else.  So I mostly ignore it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 28, 2017, 08:31:34 PM
I don't think for a second I am losing the debate. I would guess that not many others would think that either regardless of their position on the events of 9/11.

I have at the very least shown that the collapse models and hypothesis for collapse initiation and progression don't stand up to scrutiny compared to reality.

I stand by the insults I've thrown at you,
I challenge you to cite an insult 1/4 as low as the ones I can cite you throwing around.

Make no mistakes, if a friend of mine had a special needs child and someone came up to them and stated calling their kid a retard I would punch him in the face. Please harbour absolutely no illusions about this reality.

This is absolutely the same for a friend with a mental illness being called crazy or someone having gone through a tough divorce or childhood having it rubbed in their face.

I would however give several polite warnings before it came down to punching them, as has been demonstrated on this thread.

I don't claim for an instant that totallackey or Bhs have been innocent however there is a line that can be crossed from human decency to disgusting.

I've made my point clear I feel, if / when you get around to actually tackling one of my arguments let me know.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 28, 2017, 08:39:29 PM
Quote from: disputeone on April 28, 2017, 08:31:34 PM
I challenge you to cite an insult 1/4 as low as the ones I can cite you throwing around.

How about totallackey's signature for a start.  Or I can pick about a dozen from BHS,  or what about your "I hate rayzor" thread.  Or totallackey's goat fantasy thread in AR
Do you want more examples?


Here's the most concise refutation of your free-fall argument for WTC7    Debate the logic if you wish.

Free fall collapse ==/== Controlled Demolition

Therefore.

Free fall collapse ==/== Conspiracy.


I kept meaning to post a link to Frank Legge's paper on the Pentagon,  but the debate with totallackey never got past square one. 

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2009/WhatHitPentagonDrLeggeAug.pdf

Even though he is a hardcore "truther"  his paper is well researched.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 28, 2017, 08:47:50 PM
That's a generic insult, not personal at all.

It's an insult sure, nowhere near even 1/4 as low as some of your best work.

Quote from: Rayzor on April 28, 2017, 08:39:29 PM
Here's the most concise refutation of your free-fall argument for WTC7    Debate the logic if you wish.

I'll let one of my personal heros take on your strawman argument if you don't mind, I am rather tired of your debate strategy.

I believe the free-fall and more specifically the symmetry during free-fall (not after the free-fall user) compared with the building design and highschool level physics prove beyond reasonable doubt that wtc 7s collapse was not caused by ordinary office fires causing an unrepeatable amount of thermal expansion causing a beam to slide off a girder on floor 13 causing column 79 to fail leading to a total failure of the core and a symmetrical collapse at free-fall through the path of greatest resistance for 2.25 seconds.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 28, 2017, 09:08:09 PM
The way I see it we have to look at it this way, something other and / or in addition to the fires brought down wtc 7, trying to guess who or how is speculation.

If you would like to claim that Al-Qaeda had explosives or anything that shouldn't be in a building planted there to assist the collapse. In light of the evidence we have presented that is just fine by me.

I wouldn't call you an idiot for questioning the official report and having a conclusion different than NIST.

For all we know it could be a coverup for how easily and completely Al-Qaeda breached US security measures.

Edit. Of course I have a different opinion based on motive and circumstance as to who and why however it is still speculation and circumstantial.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 28, 2017, 10:22:41 PM
Quote from: disputeone on April 28, 2017, 09:08:09 PM
The way I see it we have to look at it this way, something other and / or in addition to the fires brought down wtc 7, trying to guess who or how is speculation.

If you would like to claim that Al-Qaeda had explosives or anything that shouldn't be in a building planted there to assist the collapse. In light of the evidence we have presented that is just fine by me.

I wouldn't call you an idiot for questioning the official report and having a conclusion different than NIST.

For all we know it could be a coverup for how easily and completely Al-Qaeda breached US security measures.

Edit. Of course I have a different opinion based on motive and circumstance as to who and why however it is still speculation and circumstantial.

The critical questions that destroy your argument about WTC7 are simple.   

1.  Why do a controlled demolition on a building that was teetering on collapse?   
2.  Why wait 7 hours anyway?
3.  Finally, why bother to demolish it at all?   

The only explanation that makes any sense is that WTC7 was damaged by debris from WTC1 collapse and the subsequent damage and fires caused the collapse of the interior prior to the outer shell ( now totally unsupported ) collapsing. 

There is no version of the "inside job" controlled demolition theory that makes sense.



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 28, 2017, 10:43:38 PM
Speculation and incredulity doesn't trump physics.

Just because you don't understand how it was done that does not make wtc 7s collapse a natural collapse against all real evidence.

I think we're at an impasse Rayzor.

I choose to put put my faith in physics and engineering and you choose the news reports.

That's fine I'm ok with it. Seems like there isn't much more to be said.

Those questions are speculatory and I would hardly call them critical.

Plus wtc 7 was not teetering on the verge of collapse you have no evidence to back up that statement we've been through it already.

It's fine to just believe the news reports if that's what you want to do.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 28, 2017, 10:57:06 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 28, 2017, 10:22:41 PM
The only explanation that makes any sense is that WTC7 was damaged by debris from WTC1 collapse and the subsequent damage and fires caused the collapse of the interior prior to the outer shell ( now totally unsupported ) collapsing. 

Oh and here is where your logic is flawed.

>Damage to outer structure equals damage to core.

>Core completely collapsed without deformation of the outer structure.

Pick one.

NIST only cites office fires as the cause of wtc 7s collapse.

Quote from: NIST
How did the fires cause WTC 7 to collapse?
The heat from the uncontrolled fires caused steel floor beams and girders to thermally expand, leading to a chain of events that caused a key structural column to fail. The failure of this structural column then initiated a fire-induced progressive collapse of the entire building.
According to the report's probable collapse sequence, heat from the uncontrolled fires caused thermal expansion of the steel beams on the lower floors of the east side of WTC 7, damaging the floor framing on multiple floors.
Eventually, a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical column, Column 79, that provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building (see Diagram 1). The displaced girder and other local fire-induced damage caused Floor 13 to collapse, beginning a cascade of floor failures down to the 5th floor. Many of these floors had already been at least partially weakened by the fires in the vicinity of Column 79. This collapse of floors left Column 79 insufficiently supported in the east-west direction over nine stories.
The unsupported Column 79 then buckled and triggered an upward progression of floor system failures that reached the building's east penthouse. What followed in rapid succession was a series of structural failures. Failure first occurred all the way to the roof line-involving all three interior columns on the easternmost side of the building (79, 80, 81). Then, progressing from east to west across WTC 7, all of the columns failed in the core of the building (58 through 78). Finally, the entire façade collapsed

Do you disagree with the NIST report? It's fine if you do, maybe you can explain how debris damage to the outer structure led to a total collapse of the core. Other than initially igniting the fires.

This is good you don't have to parrot the O/S don't be afraid to think for yourself.

Please note the bolded part of the NIST quote is their idea of addressing the free-fall.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 28, 2017, 11:25:44 PM
Oh and User, here is NIST absolutely smashing your assertion that the collapse wasn't symmetrical.

Quote from: NIST
Some people have said that a failure at one column should not have produced a symmetrical fall like this one. What's your answer to those assertions?

WTC 7's collapse, viewed from the exterior (most videos were taken from the north), did appear to fall almost uniformly as a single unit. This occurred because the interior failures that took place did not cause the exterior framing to fail until the final stages of the building collapse.

t. Symmetry.

Here is them smashing your "no constant acceleration at free-fall" assertion.

Quote from: NIST
The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:
Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity

This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above.

(https://s28.postimg.org/6zau8xd3h/images-4.jpg)

Wait, what?



Quote from: NIST
In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.

t. 2.25 seconds of fall acceleration indistinguishable from free-fall.
This collapse model also describes a controlled demolition collapse type.

When I can debunk your main arguments with the O/S directly then you know you are failing.

Quote from: NIST
Several existing, emerging, or even anticipated capabilities could have helped prevent the collapse of WTC 7. The degree to which these capabilities improve performance remains to be evaluated. Possible options for developing cost-effective fixes include:

More robust connections and framing systems to better resist effects of thermal expansion on the structural system.

NIST failed to include a lot of connections and framing in their report, this comment is rich imo.

Quote from: NIST
Structural systems expressly designed to prevent progressive collapse. Current model building codes do not require that buildings be designed to resist progressive collapse.

Like steel supports surrounded and reinforced by concrete.

Quote from: NIST
Better thermal insulation (i.e., reduced conductivity and/or increased thickness) to limit heating of structural steel and minimize both thermal expansion and weakening effects. Insulation has been used to protect steel strength, but it could be used to maintain a lower temperature in the steel framing to limit thermal expansion.

NIST failed to model the concrete around the steel beams on wtc 7 this concrete was primarily for fireproofing and would limit thermal expansion as has been shown in every honest investigation. NIST's numbers for thermal expansion are at best wrong and at worst a lie.

www.wtc7investigation.org

This is just too easy.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on April 29, 2017, 01:24:33 AM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on April 28, 2017, 04:11:37 PM
I just tried this in the X-Plane 11 demo. After a few rounds of practice with the controls, I could sight a small residential house in the distance and hit it about 2/3rds of the time. I imagine a skyscraper would be quite a bit easier. Most of my mistakes were due to not being used to the inverted y-axis.

I used a 737 since they didn't have many options in the demo. I usually hit around 450+ knots (I assume it was in knots, it was unlabelled) at a 20-30 degree AoA.

Dumb argument.
Actually totes, you are only solidifying the argument.

You were unsuccessful on multiple attempts...

Thank you for confirming the statistical improbability of inexperienced pilots being able to perform the events of 9/11 on their very first and only attempt...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on April 29, 2017, 01:32:18 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 28, 2017, 07:16:33 PM
So all we have proved that you don't understand much of anything.   All you've got is persistent yapping and fantasies about goats.
Not hardly.

edited...

Quote from: Rayzor on April 28, 2017, 07:16:33 PM
Do you still think that a program that dumps data, somehow throws it away?
Not necessarily and I already addressed that.   
Quote from: Rayzor on April 28, 2017, 07:16:33 PM
Do you still not understand that Warren Stutt did a better job with the AA77 FDR than the NTSB?
Your opinion.
Quote from: Rayzor on April 28, 2017, 07:16:33 PM
Actually,  don't bother answering.   I already know what you are going to say,  so unless you have evidence to cite, you can just STFU.
Everyone here can read the evidence you have posted.

I am quite content to repost it and point out the fact your sources and your language seem to be contradictory.

Explain.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on April 29, 2017, 01:35:39 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 28, 2017, 07:23:22 PM
Another example would be totallackey's  inability to reconcile seemingly different data from separate sources without realizing that planes can accelerate.
Why don't you tell everyone how AA77 continued to accelerate after impacting the Pentagon at 345 MPH according to your first source chart from MIT...

We will wait...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on April 29, 2017, 02:13:25 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 28, 2017, 08:20:02 PM
Here's a simple solution for you to consider,  don't resort to insults or starting "I hate rayzor" threads  just because you are losing the debate.

In reality,  both you and BHS have been dishing out insults continuously,  as soon as it comes back at you,  you go into meltdown.  You can dish it out but you can't take it.

Nearly 100% of totallackey's posts are insulting.   But that's the way only he has to argue,  he's got nothing else.  So I mostly ignore it.
Rayzor, I believe you find my posts insulting mostly because I am clearly and concisely (except in the instance of the floor space)  destroying your evidence here.

Rather than admit your sources are contradictory and your initial post in regard to air frame capability was wrong, you chose to post a vid of a professional pilot performing an air show maneuver at speeds you claim exceeded the impact speed at the Pentagon. You posted a MIT source for that impact speed at 345 MPH.

When I posted the reported impact speed was over 500 MPH, you backtracked.

So, here is my overall take.

Your overall style of argumentation is more insulting than anything I have ever written about you or anyone else here or any other forum in existence.

You post sources, somebody questions inconsistencies in the sources, and immediately, rather than explain the issue, you, invariably, leap to the, "I can't help it you don't understand..." line...

Nothing pisses me off more than this.

A quality person, supposedly here to help correct misinformation and champion the cause of reason, does not engage in this style of debate.

I have been wrong multiple times in my life...Surprise, right?

Even engaged in the same behavior I am calling you out for in this post.

That makes me a pretty terrible person, subject to self-loathing; however...

Generally, when I make a claim, I have something in my back pocket to support my claim. If I pull out multiple claim supporting items,and someone questions them, I patiently explain and answer the questions.

If I wish to be taken seriously during my day-to-day life.

Which is most of the time.

So, you can continue to call me a retart, moran, asshole, goat fucker, etc...

I don't care as I know what counts in life.

I am going to take down my latest rant and stop insulting you and anyone else in this thread.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 29, 2017, 03:28:18 AM
Quote from: totallackey on April 29, 2017, 02:13:25 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 28, 2017, 08:20:02 PM
Here's a simple solution for you to consider,  don't resort to insults or starting "I hate rayzor" threads  just because you are losing the debate.

In reality,  both you and BHS have been dishing out insults continuously,  as soon as it comes back at you,  you go into meltdown.  You can dish it out but you can't take it.

Nearly 100% of totallackey's posts are insulting.   But that's the way only he has to argue,  he's got nothing else.  So I mostly ignore it.
Rayzor, I believe you find my posts insulting mostly because I am clearly and concisely (except in the instance of the floor space)  destroying your evidence here.

Rather than admit your sources are contradictory and your initial post in regard to air frame capability was wrong, you chose to post a vid of a professional pilot performing an air show maneuver at speeds you claim exceeded the impact speed at the Pentagon. You posted a MIT source for that impact speed at 345 MPH.

When I posted the reported impact speed was over 500 MPH, you backtracked.

So, here is my overall take.

Your overall style of argumentation is more insulting than anything I have ever written about you or anyone else here or any other forum in existence.

You post sources, somebody questions inconsistencies in the sources, and immediately, rather than explain the issue, you, invariably, leap to the, "I can't help it you don't understand..." line...

Nothing pisses me off more than this.

A quality person, supposedly here to help correct misinformation and champion the cause of reason, does not engage in this style of debate.

I have been wrong multiple times in my life...Surprise, right?

Even engaged in the same behavior I am calling you out for in this post.

That makes me a pretty terrible person, subject to self-loathing; however...

Generally, when I make a claim, I have something in my back pocket to support my claim. If I pull out multiple claim supporting items,and someone questions them, I patiently explain and answer the questions.

If I wish to be taken seriously during my day-to-day life.

Which is most of the time.

So, you can continue to call me a retart, moran, asshole, goat fucker, etc...

I don't care as I know what counts in life.

I am going to take down my latest rant and stop insulting you and anyone else in this thread.

You seem confused by the facts,   first.   all the evidence supports the fact that the speed of AA77 was well within it's flight specifications  specifically it was flying at  about 300 or so knots  about 20 or 30 seconds prior to impact.  this is reported by MIT, by the FDR and by radar tracking from the radar at Reagan.    The speed of 300 knots is not  impossible,  in spite of the claims by the armchair experts over at pilots4911truth,  as the NZAF flyby video I posted of a 757 flyby at low altitude at 350 knots ( 400 mph) clearly  proves.

Second,  the FDR data show the plane accelerating up to close to 500 mph over the last few seconds prior to impact,   it also shows some high frequency vertical accelerations consistent with  fluttering in the last few seconds. 

You claim that the NTSB FDR analysis shows the plane flying at 500 mph  minutes before impact.  I don't believe that's the case,  so please provide your evidence,  because it contradicts  all the other available evidence,  either that or you are lying   

Finally,   stop knocking Warren Stutts,  he uncovered a serious flaw in the NTSB analysis of the FDR.   


PS.  Thanks for taking down that insulting signature. 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on April 29, 2017, 04:05:51 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 29, 2017, 03:28:18 AM
You seem confused by the facts,   first.
I am not confused by facts.

I love facts.

I embrace facts.

Quote from: Rayzor on April 29, 2017, 03:28:18 AM
all the evidence supports the fact that the speed of AA77 was well within it's flight specifications  specifically it was flying at  about 300 or so knots  about 20 or 30 seconds prior to impact.
NTSB provides in their report the flight, according to the FDR, was traveling at over 500 MPH for the last few minutes, let alone few seconds (Graph 2, Attachment II):
"Flight 77, flying at 530 mph (853 km/h, 237 m/s, or 460 knots) over the Navy Annex Building adjacent to Arlington National Cemetery,[40] crashed into the western side of the Pentagon in Arlington County, Virginia, just south of Washington, D.C., at 09:37:46."http://www.webcitation.org/5RfC3xUsq?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ntsb.gov%2Finfo%2FAAL77_fdr.pdf (http://www.webcitation.org/5RfC3xUsq?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ntsb.gov%2Finfo%2FAAL77_fdr.pdf)
Your own words and posts are contradictory :
Quote from: Rayzor on April 27, 2017, 08:46:39 AM
And here is a flyby of a 757, at 400 mph  50 mph FASTER than the AA77,  the 757 that hit the Pentagon...
Quote from: Rayzor on April 29, 2017, 03:28:18 AM
Second,  the FDR data show the plane accelerating up to close to 500 mph over the last few seconds prior to impact...

Your defense of Stutts and depending on him as a source:
Quote from: Rayzor on April 28, 2017, 09:27:25 AM
Quote from: totallackey on April 28, 2017, 09:20:44 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 28, 2017, 09:14:41 AM
You do know that Warren Stutts is a 911 truther?  Maybe you don't.
If he formulated a program that cannot be trusted to do proper analysis of evidence, then he is not a "truther."

You are the only one who has ever made that claim,  I think your inability to understand the processes involved are distorting your conclusions.
Let us read what Warren Stutts has written on the matter, shall we?
""Some people have queried my credentials for investigating Flight Data Recorder (FDR commonly called "black box") data and any relevant affiliations I may have.

I do not have any specific credentials to investigate FDRs or aircraft accidents....

I am not affiliated with nor have I ever worked with or for neither the US National Transport Safety Board (NTSB) nor any other aircraft accident investigator.

I am neither a pilot nor an aircraft engineer and have never flown an aircraft. I am not affiliated with nor have I ever worked with or for any airline, any pilots’ organisation, any aircraft engineering organisation or any FDR manufacturer.

My investigation in to the events of September 11th 2001 is unofficial, independent and completely voluntary.

I was born in New Zealand and I have joint New Zealand and Irish citizenship. I lived in New Zealand up until June 2008 and since then have lived in Brisbane, Australia." - Warren Stutt"http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21131&st=40&p=10799563&#entry10799563 (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21131&st=40&p=10799563&#entry10799563)

I will continue in another reply.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on April 29, 2017, 04:14:56 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 29, 2017, 03:28:18 AM
Second,  the FDR data show the plane accelerating up to close to 500 mph over the last few seconds prior to impact,   it also shows some high frequency vertical accelerations consistent with  fluttering in the last few seconds.
Graph 2, Attachment II in this paper:
http://www.webcitation.org/5RfC3xUsq?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ntsb.gov%2Finfo%2FAAL77_fdr.pdf (http://www.webcitation.org/5RfC3xUsq?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ntsb.gov%2Finfo%2FAAL77_fdr.pdf)
 
Quote from: Rayzor on April 29, 2017, 03:28:18 AM
You claim that the NTSB FDR analysis shows the plane flying at 500 mph  minutes before impact.  I don't believe that's the case,  so please provide your evidence,  because it contradicts  all the other available evidence,  either that or you are lying
Graph 2, Attachment II in this paper:
http://www.webcitation.org/5RfC3xUsq?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ntsb.gov%2Finfo%2FAAL77_fdr.pdf (http://www.webcitation.org/5RfC3xUsq?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ntsb.gov%2Finfo%2FAAL77_fdr.pdf) 

Quote from: Rayzor on April 29, 2017, 03:28:18 AM
Finally,   stop knocking Warren Stutts,  he uncovered a serious flaw in the NTSB analysis of the FDR.
No, he did not.

He claims he did, but admits here:
""Some people have queried my credentials for investigating Flight Data Recorder (FDR commonly called "black box") data and any relevant affiliations I may have.

I do not have any specific credentials to investigate FDRs or aircraft accidents....

I am not affiliated with nor have I ever worked with or for neither the US National Transport Safety Board (NTSB) nor any other aircraft accident investigator.

I am neither a pilot nor an aircraft engineer and have never flown an aircraft. I am not affiliated with nor have I ever worked with or for any airline, any pilots’ organisation, any aircraft engineering organisation or any FDR manufacturer.

My investigation in to the events of September 11th 2001 is unofficial, independent and completely voluntary.

I was born in New Zealand and I have joint New Zealand and Irish citizenship. I lived in New Zealand up until June 2008 and since then have lived in Brisbane, Australia." - Warren Stutt
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21131&st=40&p=10799563&#entry10799563 (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21131&st=40&p=10799563&#entry10799563)
   
Quote from: Rayzor on April 29, 2017, 03:28:18 AM
PS.  Thanks for taking down that insulting signature.
You are welcome.

Now, please, without ambiguity, address these last two posts, and without engaging in equivocation or mental reservation.

Thank you.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 29, 2017, 04:36:06 AM
Quote from: totallackey on April 29, 2017, 04:05:51 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 29, 2017, 03:28:18 AM
You seem confused by the facts,   first.
I am not confused by facts.

I love facts.

I embrace facts.

Quote from: Rayzor on April 29, 2017, 03:28:18 AM
all the evidence supports the fact that the speed of AA77 was well within it's flight specifications  specifically it was flying at  about 300 or so knots  about 20 or 30 seconds prior to impact.
NTSB provides in their report the flight, according to the FDR, was traveling at over 500 MPH for the last few minutes, let alone few seconds (Graph 2, Attachment II):
"Flight 77, flying at 530 mph (853 km/h, 237 m/s, or 460 knots) over the Navy Annex Building adjacent to Arlington National Cemetery,[40] crashed into the western side of the Pentagon in Arlington County, Virginia, just south of Washington, D.C., at 09:37:46."http://www.webcitation.org/5RfC3xUsq?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ntsb.gov%2Finfo%2FAAL77_fdr.pdf (http://www.webcitation.org/5RfC3xUsq?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ntsb.gov%2Finfo%2FAAL77_fdr.pdf)
Your own words and posts are contradictory :

I pleased to hear you love facts,  the simple fact is that the NTSB FDR doesn't show AA77 flying at anything like 500 mph until the last few seconds. I suspect you are misunderstanding the FDR data.   If you could point out exactly what you are looking at to reach that conclusion.



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 29, 2017, 04:59:30 AM
Rayzor why do you think there is no video evidence of a plane hitting the pentagon?

In your opinion.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 29, 2017, 05:03:11 AM
Quote from: disputeone on April 29, 2017, 04:59:30 AM
Rayzor why do you think there is no video evidence of a plane hitting the pentagon?

In your opinion.

There is.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 29, 2017, 05:11:14 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 29, 2017, 05:03:11 AM
Quote from: disputeone on April 29, 2017, 04:59:30 AM
Rayzor why do you think there is no video evidence of a plane hitting the pentagon?

In your opinion.

There is.

Fantastic, I've never seen video evidence of a plane hitting the pentagon, could you please link to the video.

Thanks.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 29, 2017, 05:27:54 AM
Quote from: disputeone on April 29, 2017, 05:11:14 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 29, 2017, 05:03:11 AM
Quote from: disputeone on April 29, 2017, 04:59:30 AM
Rayzor why do you think there is no video evidence of a plane hitting the pentagon?

In your opinion.

There is.

Fantastic, I've never seen video evidence of a plane hitting the pentagon, could you please link to the video.

Thanks.

Start here with John Wyndham's article.

https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/10/07/bringing-closure-to-the-911-pentagon-debate/

http://911review.com/articles/stjarna/eximpactdamage.html





Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 29, 2017, 05:31:12 AM
Oh, when you said there was video evidence for a plane hitting the pentagon I thought you had a video with evidence of a plane hitting the pentagon.

Must have been one of those translation issues again hey?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 29, 2017, 05:47:24 AM
Quote from: disputeone on April 29, 2017, 05:31:12 AM
Oh, when you said there was video evidence for a plane hitting the pentagon I thought you had a video with evidence of a plane hitting the pentagon.

Must have been one of those translation issues again hey?

Did you read the associated papers?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 29, 2017, 05:54:11 AM
Yes I have read those papers.

Its just when you said there was video evidence for a plane hitting the pentagon I thought you had a video with evidence of a plane hitting the pentagon.

Was it a translation issue? Or did you lie?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 29, 2017, 06:20:33 AM
Quote from: disputeone on April 29, 2017, 05:54:11 AM
Yes I have read those papers.

Its just when you said there was video evidence for a plane hitting the pentagon I thought you had a video with evidence of a plane hitting the pentagon.

Was it a translation issue? Or did you lie?

That was what you asked for.   Stop playing dumb.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 29, 2017, 06:26:28 AM
Where is the plane in those videos?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 29, 2017, 06:31:26 AM
Quote from: disputeone on April 29, 2017, 06:26:28 AM
Where is the plane in those videos?



Skip to 1:48 for the security camera angle.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 29, 2017, 06:40:24 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 29, 2017, 06:31:26 AM
Quote from: disputeone on April 29, 2017, 06:26:28 AM
Where is the plane in those videos?



Skip to 1:48 for the security camera angle.

Just to be explicitly clear, are you trying to claim 1:48 as video evidence for a plane hitting the pentagon?

@1:48
(https://s15.postimg.org/c57bz7hkb/Screenshot_20170429-213705.png)

The footage looked a little animated to me. Is this what you are claiming as video evidence of a plane hitting the pentagon?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 29, 2017, 06:44:14 AM
Quote from: disputeone on April 29, 2017, 06:40:24 AM

Just to be explicitly clear, are you trying to claim 1:48 as video evidence for a plane hitting the pentagon?


Start watching from 1:48,   do you want me to hold your hand while you watch?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 29, 2017, 06:46:12 AM
Quote from: disputeone on April 29, 2017, 04:59:30 AM
Rayzor why do you think there is no video evidence of a plane hitting the pentagon?

In your opinion.

If there is video evidence just present it like I did in a screenshot.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 29, 2017, 06:52:34 AM
Quote from: disputeone on April 29, 2017, 06:46:12 AM
Quote from: disputeone on April 29, 2017, 04:59:30 AM
Rayzor why do you think there is no video evidence of a plane hitting the pentagon?

In your opinion.

If there is video evidence just present it like I did in a screenshot.

Sorry,  I'm not going to hold your hand,  you have been very good, and have eaten all your vegetables,  so now you can get to watch a video all by yourself.   Just like a grown-up.

Don't stay up too late.   



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 29, 2017, 06:57:49 AM
So you can't present video evidence that a plane hit the pentagon. You are being very dishonest indeed, this is becoming a very common theme. In that case.

Quote from: disputeone on April 29, 2017, 04:59:30 AM
Rayzor why do you think there is no video evidence of a plane hitting the pentagon?

In your opinion.

Please just give me your opinion on why there is no video evidence of a plane hitting the pentagon.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 29, 2017, 07:01:37 AM
(https://s21.postimg.org/ql6spgcqf/158.jpg)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 29, 2017, 07:33:30 AM
Quote from: disputeone on April 29, 2017, 06:57:49 AM
Please just give me your opinion on why there is no video evidence of a plane hitting the pentagon.

Now who's being dishonest,  you saw the plane in the video I posted,  I even told you where to start looking.   

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 29, 2017, 07:36:04 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 29, 2017, 07:33:30 AM
Quote from: disputeone on April 29, 2017, 06:57:49 AM
Please just give me your opinion on why there is no video evidence of a plane hitting the pentagon.

Now who's being dishonest,  you saw the plane in the video I posted,  I even told you where to start looking.

This plane?

@1:48
(https://s15.postimg.org/c57bz7hkb/Screenshot_20170429-213705.png)

I don't consider an animated picture as video evidence.

I posted all five frames of video we have could you please point out where the plane is in those frames?

(https://s21.postimg.org/ql6spgcqf/158.jpg)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 29, 2017, 07:48:10 AM
Your dishonesty, since page one, has been very difficult to deal with.

I've pointed it out before but if the O/S said the sky was red you better believe that Rayzor would be telling us the sky is red.

There is no video evidence of a plane hitting the pentagon, the idea that I haven't seen all the footage available and didn't already know is laughable. Why did we have to go through this big song and dance just to prove you are incapable of an honest discussion.

An honest poster, could've said a page ago, something like; "The plane was going too fast to be caught on camera and surprisingly the pentagon had pretty low tech cameras and not many of them. Which was unfortunate because we couldn't capture flight 77 on security cameras."

What's wrong with that?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on April 29, 2017, 08:02:17 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 29, 2017, 07:33:30 AM
Now who's being dishonest,  you saw the plane in the video I posted,  I even told you where to start looking.   

Ok... Looking...

Quote from: disputeone on April 29, 2017, 07:36:04 AM
(https://s21.postimg.org/ql6spgcqf/158.jpg)

Lol..

This reminds me of if I am holding a tree branch. ..Yet there is someone constantly telling me I am holding a cat.. over and over again telling me I am holding a cat. Some people may cave, others may stick to the truth.

In rayzor's world, if it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, feels like a duck, smells like a duck, walks like a duck it is an attack helicopter. ::)

As legba loves to ask, "why are you so mental?"

It honestly makes more sense that you are a paid shill after these last few posts. Wow
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on April 29, 2017, 08:58:22 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 29, 2017, 04:36:06 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 29, 2017, 04:36:06 AM
I pleased to hear you love facts,  the simple fact is that the NTSB FDR doesn't show AA77 flying at anything like 500 mph until the last few seconds. I suspect you are misunderstanding the FDR data.   If you could point out exactly what you are looking at to reach that conclusion.
In a previous response to one of your posts (and multiple times):
Quote from: Rayzor on April 29, 2017, 03:28:18 AM
all the evidence supports the fact that the speed of AA77 was well within it's flight specifications  specifically it was flying at  about 300 or so knots  about 20 or 30 seconds prior to impact.
Quote from: totallackey on April 29, 2017, 04:05:51 AM
NTSB provides in their report the flight, according to the FDR, was traveling at over 500 MPH for the last few minutes, let alone few seconds (Graph 2, Attachment II):
"Flight 77, flying at 530 mph (853 km/h, 237 m/s, or 460 knots) over the Navy Annex Building adjacent to Arlington National Cemetery,[40] crashed into the western side of the Pentagon in Arlington County, Virginia, just south of Washington, D.C., at 09:37:46."http://www.webcitation.org/5RfC3xUsq?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ntsb.gov%2Finfo%2FAAL77_fdr.pdf (http://www.webcitation.org/5RfC3xUsq?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ntsb.gov%2Finfo%2FAAL77_fdr.pdf)
Your own words and posts are contradictory :

Have you looked at the graph?

From 9:34 to 9:39?

The plane traveled from the Navy Annex to the Pentagon.

That is more than a few seconds.

Plus please address this:
Quote from: totallackey on April 29, 2017, 04:14:56 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 29, 2017, 03:28:18 AM
Finally,   stop knocking Warren Stutts,  he uncovered a serious flaw in the NTSB analysis of the FDR.
No, he did not.

He claims he did, but admits here:
""Some people have queried my credentials for investigating Flight Data Recorder (FDR commonly called "black box") data and any relevant affiliations I may have.

I do not have any specific credentials to investigate FDRs or aircraft accidents....

I am not affiliated with nor have I ever worked with or for neither the US National Transport Safety Board (NTSB) nor any other aircraft accident investigator.

I am neither a pilot nor an aircraft engineer and have never flown an aircraft. I am not affiliated with nor have I ever worked with or for any airline, any pilots’ organisation, any aircraft engineering organisation or any FDR manufacturer.

My investigation in to the events of September 11th 2001 is unofficial, independent and completely voluntary.

I was born in New Zealand and I have joint New Zealand and Irish citizenship. I lived in New Zealand up until June 2008 and since then have lived in Brisbane, Australia." - Warren Stutt
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21131&st=40&p=10799563&#entry10799563 (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21131&st=40&p=10799563&#entry10799563)

Now, please, without ambiguity, address these last two posts, and without engaging in equivocation or mental reservation.

Thank you.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on April 29, 2017, 09:15:18 AM
Quote from: disputeone on April 29, 2017, 07:48:10 AM
An honest poster, could've said a page ago, something like; "The plane was going too fast to be caught on camera and surprisingly the pentagon had pretty low tech cameras and not many of them. Which was unfortunate because we couldn't capture flight 77 on security cameras."

What's wrong with that?
Actually an honest poster could not make that claim.

The Pentagon has always had plenty of outside security cameras for a very long time (since the 1980's) taking pictures from every angle, especially in the area where the plane struck.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: observer on April 29, 2017, 10:27:03 AM
Quote from: totallackey on April 29, 2017, 09:15:18 AM
Quote from: disputeone on April 29, 2017, 07:48:10 AM
An honest poster, could've said a page ago, something like; "The plane was going too fast to be caught on camera and surprisingly the pentagon had pretty low tech cameras and not many of them. Which was unfortunate because we couldn't capture flight 77 on security cameras."

What's wrong with that?
Actually an honest poster could not make that claim.

The Pentagon has always had plenty of outside security cameras for a very long time (since the 1980's) taking pictures from every angle, especially in the area where the plane struck.

What you on about? Here's their security footage professionally analysed by an impartial graphics expert

Actual frame zoomed in
(http://www.9-11tv.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Plane-behind-post.jpg)

Quote
A computer graphic simulation by Mike Wilson,5 illustrating a 757-sized plane impact approaching and impacting the Pentagon, incorporates the one crucial frame of the 5-frame sequence and clearly illustrates how a 757 would be almost completely obscured by the post, except for the tail.
(http://www.9-11tv.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/plane-behind-post-CG.jpg)



(http://teamdrea.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/gj5f4.jpg)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on April 29, 2017, 10:40:03 AM


Don't worry, he is confused as well.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: observer on April 29, 2017, 11:35:22 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 29, 2017, 10:40:03 AM


Don't worry, he is confused as well.
Why are you saying he is confused ironically? He really was confused that's why he messed up his script.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on April 29, 2017, 12:15:24 PM
I wasn't saying it ironically, it was in sarcasm.

It is obvious he is reading a script, just a quick Freudian slip...Least his subconscious wants to tell the truth.

I bet he was literally beat with a hose after this.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 29, 2017, 06:22:52 PM
Nice video, C grade actor. I forgot about that one ;D

Quote from: totallackey on April 29, 2017, 09:15:18 AM
Quote from: disputeone on April 29, 2017, 07:48:10 AM
An honest poster, could've said a page ago, something like; "The plane was going too fast to be caught on camera and surprisingly the pentagon had pretty low tech cameras and not many of them. Which was unfortunate because we couldn't capture flight 77 on security cameras."

What's wrong with that?
Actually an honest poster could not make that claim.

The Pentagon has always had plenty of outside security cameras for a very long time (since the 1980's) taking pictures from every angle, especially in the area where the plane struck.

Fair point, I am well aware of this. Maybe I should have said, "a poster trying to appear as honest."

I agree it's a real stretch to say but I would've taken it better than Rayzor saying he had video evidence of a plane, lol.

Honestly the last two pages have just been me trying to show how dishonest Rayzor is, I think it went quite well tbh.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 29, 2017, 06:43:44 PM
Quote from: totallackey on April 29, 2017, 08:58:22 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 29, 2017, 04:36:06 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 29, 2017, 04:36:06 AM
I pleased to hear you love facts,  the simple fact is that the NTSB FDR doesn't show AA77 flying at anything like 500 mph until the last few seconds. I suspect you are misunderstanding the FDR data.   If you could point out exactly what you are looking at to reach that conclusion.
In a previous response to one of your posts (and multiple times):
Quote from: Rayzor on April 29, 2017, 03:28:18 AM
all the evidence supports the fact that the speed of AA77 was well within it's flight specifications  specifically it was flying at  about 300 or so knots  about 20 or 30 seconds prior to impact.
Quote from: totallackey on April 29, 2017, 04:05:51 AM
NTSB provides in their report the flight, according to the FDR, was traveling at over 500 MPH for the last few minutes, let alone few seconds (Graph 2, Attachment II):
"Flight 77, flying at 530 mph (853 km/h, 237 m/s, or 460 knots) over the Navy Annex Building adjacent to Arlington National Cemetery,[40] crashed into the western side of the Pentagon in Arlington County, Virginia, just south of Washington, D.C., at 09:37:46."http://www.webcitation.org/5RfC3xUsq?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ntsb.gov%2Finfo%2FAAL77_fdr.pdf (http://www.webcitation.org/5RfC3xUsq?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ntsb.gov%2Finfo%2FAAL77_fdr.pdf)
Your own words and posts are contradictory :

Have you looked at the graph?

From 9:34 to 9:39?

The plane traveled from the Navy Annex to the Pentagon.

That is more than a few seconds.

Plus please address this:
Quote from: totallackey on April 29, 2017, 04:14:56 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 29, 2017, 03:28:18 AM
Finally,   stop knocking Warren Stutts,  he uncovered a serious flaw in the NTSB analysis of the FDR.
No, he did not.

He claims he did, but admits here:
""Some people have queried my credentials for investigating Flight Data Recorder (FDR commonly called "black box") data and any relevant affiliations I may have.

I do not have any specific credentials to investigate FDRs or aircraft accidents....

I am not affiliated with nor have I ever worked with or for neither the US National Transport Safety Board (NTSB) nor any other aircraft accident investigator.

I am neither a pilot nor an aircraft engineer and have never flown an aircraft. I am not affiliated with nor have I ever worked with or for any airline, any pilots’ organisation, any aircraft engineering organisation or any FDR manufacturer.

My investigation in to the events of September 11th 2001 is unofficial, independent and completely voluntary.

I was born in New Zealand and I have joint New Zealand and Irish citizenship. I lived in New Zealand up until June 2008 and since then have lived in Brisbane, Australia." - Warren Stutt
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21131&st=40&p=10799563&#entry10799563 (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21131&st=40&p=10799563&#entry10799563)

Now, please, without ambiguity, address these last two posts, and without engaging in equivocation or mental reservation.

Thank you.

The bug in the was in the ROSE software,  Warren Stuff is a computer science graduate, he is more than well qualified to uncover such errors. 

The FDR data doesn't show what you claim,  can you post exactly what you are looking at to claim speeds of 500 mph minutes before impact. 
I suspect you are misunderstanding the data.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 29, 2017, 06:44:41 PM
Where's the video evidence for a plane hitting the pentagon Rayzor?

Would you like to retract that particular claim?

Quote from: Rayzor on April 29, 2017, 05:03:11 AM
Quote from: disputeone on April 29, 2017, 04:59:30 AM
Rayzor why do you think there is no video evidence of a plane hitting the pentagon?

In your opinion.

There is.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 29, 2017, 06:46:43 PM
Quote from: disputeone on April 29, 2017, 07:48:10 AM
Your dishonesty, since page one, has been very difficult to deal with.

I've pointed it out before but if the O/S said the sky was red you better believe that Rayzor would be telling us the sky is red.

There is no video evidence of a plane hitting the pentagon, the idea that I haven't seen all the footage available and didn't already know is laughable. Why did we have to go through this big song and dance just to prove you are incapable of an honest discussion.

An honest poster, could've said a page ago, something like; "The plane was going too fast to be caught on camera and surprisingly the pentagon had pretty low tech cameras and not many of them. Which was unfortunate because we couldn't capture flight 77 on security cameras."

What's wrong with that?

Ok just to be 100% clear, are you actually saying you don't see the plane in this video.   Not the animated one,  the real one.



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 29, 2017, 06:55:45 PM
Is this the frame you are referring to?

Actual frame zoomed in
(http://www.9-11tv.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Plane-behind-post.jpg)

Well, Rayzor why do you think there is no video evidence of a plane hitting the pentagon?

In your opinion.

Looks like a pretty popular question, why don't you just show us the frame of the video where you can apparently see the plane. We would all appreciate it.

(https://s3.postimg.org/3u63kmi4j/20170430_095103.png)

Thanks, I surely can't wait for you to show us video evidence of a 757 hitting the pentagon.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 29, 2017, 06:56:13 PM
Quote from: disputeone on April 29, 2017, 06:49:18 PM
Is this the frame you are referring to?

Actual frame zoomed in
(http://www.9-11tv.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Plane-behind-post.jpg)

Well, Rayzor why do you think there is no video evidence of a plane hitting the pentagon?

In your opinion.

There is.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 29, 2017, 06:57:13 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 29, 2017, 06:56:13 PM
Quote from: disputeone on April 29, 2017, 06:49:18 PM
Is this the frame you are referring to?

Actual frame zoomed in
(http://www.9-11tv.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Plane-behind-post.jpg)

Well, Rayzor why do you think there is no video evidence of a plane hitting the pentagon?

In your opinion.

There is.

Could you please show us the video evidence of a plane hitting the pentagon then?

Edit.

Here he is, silly me.

(https://s14.postimg.org/zd77zezyp/1493478394451.png)

There's Wally.

He would've gotten away with it too.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on April 29, 2017, 07:04:02 PM
Disputeone, instead of spamming the same question over and over, why don't you tell us what YOU think that it is.

There is clearly something there in the first image that isn't there in the other images. It has a large vertical structure on the back. That fits perfectly with an airplane. What else do you think it could be?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 29, 2017, 07:07:55 PM
I am happy to answer your questions as soon as you answer mine Totes.

Totes why do you think there is no video evidence of a plane hitting the pentagon?

In your opinion.

I see you want to dismiss speculation as speculation to gain a "point" I am happy to speculate once you answer my question in bold.

Actual frame zoomed in
(http://www.9-11tv.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Plane-behind-post.jpg)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on April 29, 2017, 07:15:12 PM
Quote from: disputeone on April 29, 2017, 07:07:55 PM
I am happy to answer your questions as soon as you answer mine Totes.

Totes why do you think there is no video evidence of a plane hitting the pentagon?

In your opinion.

That's a poorly worded question, because I don't think that. It is unfortunate that the video isn't high enough frame rate to capture a clear, unobstructed view of the plane, but I don't see what else that object in the video could be.

Your turn.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 29, 2017, 07:16:02 PM
That's all I wanted Rayzor.

Thanks Totes good answer.

I think it's a missile.



(http://www.9-11tv.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Plane-behind-post.jpg)

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on April 29, 2017, 07:17:33 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 29, 2017, 06:43:44 PM
The bug in the was in the ROSE software,  Warren Stuff is a computer science graduate, he is more than well qualified to uncover such errors. 
Amazing.

The guy admits he has no experience or credentials in dissembling or analyzing FDR.

Okay, you accept his analysis over the NTSB.

You introduced his analysis, in support of a 345 MPH impact speed, correct?

Then you clearly wrote the impact speed was over 500 mph.

Posted radar data (you never did source this) showing speeds over the last THIRTY seconds of available tracking of over 500 MPH.

And finally, please point to his home page and point out for everyone where the errors are, and where the impact speed of the plane was demonstrated to be 345 MPH?

Quote from: Rayzor on April 29, 2017, 06:43:44 PM
The FDR data doesn't show what you claim,  can you post exactly what you are looking at to claim speeds of 500 mph minutes before impact. 
I suspect you are misunderstanding the data.
I have, so many times.

Everyone can look at it.

Graph 2, Attachment II.

9:34 to 9:39

Green Line labeled AIRSPEED.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on April 29, 2017, 07:20:58 PM
Quote from: disputeone on April 29, 2017, 07:16:02 PM
I think it's a missile.

2 reasons why it probably isn't a missile:

1. Large vertical tail.
2. The smoke trail extends farther to the left than the vertical tail. This is consistent with it coming from a plane engine beneath the wing.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 29, 2017, 07:23:12 PM
Quote from: totallackey on April 29, 2017, 07:17:33 PM

Quote from: Rayzor on April 29, 2017, 06:43:44 PM
The FDR data doesn't show what you claim,  can you post exactly what you are looking at to claim speeds of 500 mph minutes before impact. 
I suspect you are misunderstanding the data.
I have, so many times.

Everyone can look at it.

Graph 2, Attachment II.

9:34 to 9:39

Green Line labeled AIRSPEED.

(https://s22.postimg.org/6dobtl7ep/AA77_FDR.jpg)

Show me where you think the airspeed is over 500 mph,  the only time that occurs that I can see is just a few seconds prior to impact.

Most of the time it's around the 300 knots or so.   Maybe you are misreading  the axis markings mistaking 300 for 500?   The scale legend goes in 100 knot steps
and I can see the 300 knot label is a bit hard to read. 

Is that what you are misreading?

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 29, 2017, 07:25:32 PM
Let me make your logic clear Totes.

1. News said a 757 hit the pentagon.

2. The video kind of shows something more blurry than an average UFO video in one single frame.

3. News said a 757 hit the pentagon.

4. Therefore a 757 hit the pentagon.

I respect your opinion and understand I can't debate against this logic.

Thanks for your opinion Totes, saying it looks like a plane is great, I respect why you think it might be a plane.

Actual frame zoomed in
(http://www.9-11tv.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Plane-behind-post.jpg)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on April 29, 2017, 07:28:18 PM
Quote from: disputeone on April 29, 2017, 07:25:32 PM
Let me make your logic clear Totes.

1. News said a 757 hit the pentagon.

2. The video kind of shows something more blurry than an average UFO video in one single frame.

3. News said a 757 hit the pentagon.

4. Therefore a 757 hit the pentagon.

I respect your opinion and understand I can't debate against this logic.

That's not my logic. That's your dumbass strawman logic. Read my previous post carefully.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 29, 2017, 07:29:15 PM
I did, I can't see any of the features in the frame that you claim to see.

Actual frame zoomed in
(http://www.9-11tv.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Plane-behind-post.jpg)

Except the exhaust, I'll pay that.

Edit. Typo.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 29, 2017, 07:30:10 PM
Quote from: disputeone on April 29, 2017, 07:25:32 PM
Let me make your logic clear Totes.

1. News said a 757 hit the pentagon.

2. The video kind of shows something more blurry than an average UFO video in one single frame.

3. News said a 757 hit the pentagon.

4. Therefore a 757 hit the pentagon.

I respect your opinion and understand I can't debate against this logic.

Thanks for your opinion Totes, saying it looks like a plane is great, I respect why you think it might be a plane.

Actual frame zoomed in
(http://www.9-11tv.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Plane-behind-post.jpg)

The vast majority of truthers are now saying it's beyond question that it was a 757,   those who claim it was a missile are only the fringe elements.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 29, 2017, 07:31:03 PM
Thanks for telling me what Truthers think Rayzor.

Edit.

Quote from: Rayzor on April 29, 2017, 07:30:10 PM
The vast majority of truthers are now saying it's beyond question that it was a 757,   those who claim it was a missile are only the fringe elements.

Imo, we only need wtc 7, I have smashed everyone on this thread on wtc 7s collapse. I understand why people don't push for other elements of the 9/11 official coverup, our smoking gun has always been our smoking gun.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 29, 2017, 07:36:57 PM
Quote from: disputeone on April 29, 2017, 07:31:03 PM
Thanks for telling me what Truthers think Rayzor.

You should read more,  I suspect you haven't actually read the papers by  John Wyndham,  Frank Legge,  David Chandler,  Warren Stutt  and others.

Start here,  the missile theory is pretty much dead these days.

https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/10/07/bringing-closure-to-the-911-pentagon-debate/

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 29, 2017, 07:41:25 PM
Reminder you are still dodging my question. Rayzor.

Totes tried to answer honestly even if he immediately tried to recant his honesty.

Quote from: TotesReptilian on April 29, 2017, 07:15:12 PM
Quote from: disputeone on April 29, 2017, 07:07:55 PM
I am happy to answer your questions as soon as you answer mine Totes.

Totes why do you think there is no video evidence of a plane hitting the pentagon?

In your opinion.

it is unfortunate that the video isn't high enough frame rate to capture a clear, unobstructed view of the plane.

I understand, you think you are right so in your mind it's alright to argue dishonestly because you think you are right, therefore facts and honesty don't really matter.

If you can't argue your position honestly I would implore posters to consider their position carefully.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on April 29, 2017, 07:43:31 PM
Quote from: disputeone on April 29, 2017, 07:31:03 PM
I have smashed everyone on this thread on wtc 7s collapse.

(http://i.imgur.com/iWKad22.jpg)

Quote from: disputeone on April 29, 2017, 07:41:25 PM
Totes tried to answer honestly even if he immediately tried to recant his honesty.

Quote from: TotesReptilian on April 29, 2017, 07:15:12 PM
Quote from: disputeone on April 29, 2017, 07:07:55 PM
I am happy to answer your questions as soon as you answer mine Totes.

Totes why do you think there is no video evidence of a plane hitting the pentagon?

In your opinion.

it is unfortunate that the video isn't high enough frame rate to capture a clear, unobstructed view of the plane.

I understand, you think you are right so in your mind it's alright to argue dishonestly because you think you are right, therefore facts and honesty don't really matter.

If you can't argue your position honestly I would implore posters to consider their position carefully.

What on earth are you talking about? This makes absolutely zero sense at all.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 29, 2017, 07:44:46 PM
Quote from: disputeone on April 29, 2017, 07:41:25 PM
Reminder you are still dodging my question. Rayzor.

What question do you think I'm dodging?   

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 29, 2017, 07:45:26 PM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on April 29, 2017, 07:43:31 PM
Nu-Uh

Yeah huh.

Quote from: Rayzor on April 29, 2017, 07:36:57 PM
https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/10/07/bringing-closure-to-the-911-pentagon-debate/

Welp, if it says so on the news, I better not question my TV. Isn't that right Totes?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 29, 2017, 07:46:02 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 29, 2017, 07:44:46 PM
Quote from: disputeone on April 29, 2017, 07:41:25 PM
Reminder you are still dodging my question. Rayzor.

What question do you think I'm dodging?   

Quote from: disputeone on April 29, 2017, 05:11:14 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 29, 2017, 05:03:11 AM
Quote from: disputeone on April 29, 2017, 04:59:30 AM
Rayzor why do you think there is no video evidence of a plane hitting the pentagon?

In your opinion.

There is.

Fantastic, I've never seen video evidence of a plane hitting the pentagon, could you please link to the video.

Thanks.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 29, 2017, 07:48:19 PM
Quote from: disputeone on April 29, 2017, 07:46:02 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 29, 2017, 07:44:46 PM
Quote from: disputeone on April 29, 2017, 07:41:25 PM
Reminder you are still dodging my question. Rayzor.

What question do you think I'm dodging?   

Quote from: disputeone on April 29, 2017, 05:11:14 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 29, 2017, 05:03:11 AM
Quote from: disputeone on April 29, 2017, 04:59:30 AM
Rayzor why do you think there is no video evidence of a plane hitting the pentagon?

In your opinion.

There is.

Fantastic, I've never seen video evidence of a plane hitting the pentagon, could you please link to the video.

Thanks.

I already did,   the fact that you can't see it is not my problem,  I think you are now just being deliberately dishonest and lying,  either that or you are deranged and delusional,
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 29, 2017, 07:48:49 PM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on April 29, 2017, 07:43:31 PM
What on earth are you talking about? This makes absolutely zero sense at all.

I'm talking about you claiming to see a plane here.

Actual frame zoomed in
(http://www.9-11tv.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Plane-behind-post.jpg)

That's dishonest which ever way you look at it.

But at least you haven't sunk this low.

Quote from: Rayzor on April 29, 2017, 07:48:19 PM
You are deranged and delusional,

Great answer. Just screenshot the plane and post it then.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on April 29, 2017, 07:49:32 PM
Quote from: disputeone on April 29, 2017, 07:45:26 PM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on April 29, 2017, 07:43:31 PM
Nu-Uh

Yeah huh.

Quote from: Rayzor on April 29, 2017, 07:36:57 PM
https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/10/07/bringing-closure-to-the-911-pentagon-debate/

Welp, if it says so on the news, I better not question my TV. Isn't that right Totes?

Alright, if you are just going to go back to trolling, I'm out. Have fun.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 29, 2017, 07:50:43 PM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on April 29, 2017, 07:49:32 PM
Quote from: disputeone on April 29, 2017, 07:45:26 PM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on April 29, 2017, 07:43:31 PM
Nu-Uh

Yeah huh.

Quote from: Rayzor on April 29, 2017, 07:36:57 PM
https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/10/07/bringing-closure-to-the-911-pentagon-debate/

Welp, if it says so on the news, I better not question my TV. Isn't that right Totes?

Alright, if you are just going to go back to trolling, I'm out. Have fun.

Bye Totes, I'm sorry there is no video evidence of a plane hitting the pentagon.

Take care.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 29, 2017, 07:51:37 PM
Quote from: disputeone on April 29, 2017, 07:45:26 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 29, 2017, 07:36:57 PM
https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/10/07/bringing-closure-to-the-911-pentagon-debate/

Welp, if it says so on the news, I better not question my TV. Isn't that right Totes?

Where does TV news come into it?   This is scientists for 911 truth,  I doubt they would ever get on the TV news.

I think you didn't read it, otherwise you wouldn't have responded like that.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on April 29, 2017, 07:52:56 PM
I am sorry...I am still laughing about Waldo..

Actually a little more amusing than rayzor saying there is video evidence of a plane hitting the Pentagon.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 29, 2017, 08:02:17 AM
This reminds me of if I am holding a tree branch. ..Yet there is someone constantly telling me I am holding a cat.. over and over again telling me I am holding a cat. Some people may cave, others may stick to the truth.

In rayzor's world, if it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, feels like a duck, smells like a duck, walks like a duck it is an attack helicopter. ::)

As legba loves to ask, "why are you so mental?"
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 29, 2017, 07:53:59 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 29, 2017, 07:51:37 PM

Please post the screenshot showing a frame where we can see a 757 hitting the pentagon.

If you can't then don't call me delusional.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 29, 2017, 07:52:56 PM
I am sorry...I am still laughing about Waldo..

Pretty proud of that one just quietly. ;D
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 29, 2017, 07:56:07 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 29, 2017, 07:52:56 PM
Actually a little more amusing than rayzor saying there is video evidence of a plane hitting the Pentagon.

So are you saying that it was a missile that hit the pentagon?   Please be 100% clear in your answer.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 29, 2017, 07:58:31 PM
No, he is saying that "there is no video evidence of a plane hitting the Pentagon."

That's what he is saying.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 29, 2017, 08:00:09 PM
Quote from: disputeone on April 29, 2017, 07:58:31 PM
No, he is saying that "there is no video evidence of a plane hitting the Pentagon."

That's what he is saying.

I wasn't talking to you,  I was asking BHS,  you are already on record as saying it was a missile.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on April 29, 2017, 08:02:22 PM
I only know what didn't, and that's a 757.

I have no idea what you are trying to say with a white smidge on whatever screen shot that is. This is a fan jet engine at 77 feet above sea level and a clear low humidity day.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 29, 2017, 08:04:08 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 29, 2017, 08:00:09 PM
Quote from: disputeone on April 29, 2017, 07:58:31 PM
No, he is saying that "there is no video evidence of a plane hitting the Pentagon."

That's what he is saying.

I wasn't talking to you,  I was asking BHS,  you are already on record as saying it was a missile.
Saying I think it was a missile.

I wouldn't be so dishonest as to say it's definitely a missile.

That would be as dishonest as saying it was definitely a 757.

I am not that dishonest.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 29, 2017, 08:23:16 PM
Quote from: disputeone on April 29, 2017, 08:04:08 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 29, 2017, 08:00:09 PM
Quote from: disputeone on April 29, 2017, 07:58:31 PM
No, he is saying that "there is no video evidence of a plane hitting the Pentagon."

That's what he is saying.

I wasn't talking to you,  I was asking BHS,  you are already on record as saying it was a missile.
Saying I think it was a missile.

I wouldn't be so dishonest as to say it's definitely a missile.

That would be as dishonest as saying it was definitely a 757.

I am not that dishonest.

So you  "thiink" it was a missile but won't commit to a point of view.   

BHS  doesn't think it was hit by a plane,  but won't commit to a point of view.

All the evidence,  and there is a vast amount of consistent evidence that it was AA77 an  American Airlines 757 that hit the Pentagon.

But the reason you dismiss all this evidence is not made clear,   and you refuse to commit to a point of view that might easily be proven wrong.

The reality is that both you and BHS would cling to your outlandish theories in spite of all the evidence.   

This is precisely the attitude that the 911 truthers say is discrediting the 911 truth movement.   I have other words for it. 

Here are some reading for you.

http://www.scientificmethod911.org/docs/What_Hit_Pentagon_Ver10g.pdf
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2010/Calibration%20of%20altimeter_92.pdf
http://www.scientificmethod911.org/docs/Eyewitnesses_DebrisFlow_FandE_Mar4_2016.pdf




Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on April 29, 2017, 08:27:56 PM
Is the "vast" amount of evidence just as strong as your video of the "plane" hitting the Pentagon?

Or your "million dollars"...Or your proof of who you are...Or....


Just saying...I see your idea of proof and evidence, can't say it is impressive
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 29, 2017, 08:32:22 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 29, 2017, 08:23:16 PM
Quote from: disputeone on April 29, 2017, 08:04:08 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 29, 2017, 08:00:09 PM
Quote from: disputeone on April 29, 2017, 07:58:31 PM
No, he is saying that "there is no video evidence of a plane hitting the Pentagon."

That's what he is saying.

I wasn't talking to you,  I was asking BHS,  you are already on record as saying it was a missile.
Saying I think it was a missile.

I wouldn't be so dishonest as to say it's definitely a missile.

That would be as dishonest as saying it was definitely a 757.

I am not that dishonest.

So you  "think" it was a missile but won't commit to a point of view.   

I think it is a missile, that is my point of view. I don't claim it as fact.

It is a fact wtc7s design would not allow a symmetrical free-fall given an initial single column failure and progressive collapse.

My statement, from the start of this point, is there is no video evidence of a plane hitting the pentagon.

Something hits it and explodes no doubt. For me personally, saying more than that is just speculation.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 29, 2017, 08:37:53 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 29, 2017, 08:27:56 PM
Is the "vast" amount of evidence just as strong as your video of the "plane" hitting the Pentagon?

Or your "million dollars"...Or your proof of who you are...Or....


Just saying...I see your idea of proof and evidence, can't say it is impressive



The evidence is strong enough to say that only a fringe element of the 9/11 truth movement still thinks it was a missile or a bomb.  Are you part of that fringe element?



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 29, 2017, 08:46:41 PM
Please desist your shameful attempt at peer pressure and group think.

There is no real evidence to support a plane hitting the pentagon, it's up to the individual to make an opinion based on the evidence available.

I admit because of the lack of video evidence I am swayed to believe we were lied to as with wtc 7s collapse in mind.

My only point has been that there is no video evidence of a plane hitting the pentagon.

As for the video I have watched it multiple times, please, use your own words. Or at least summarise the points for us.

Posting a video and claiming it proves something without using your words is weak, I have seen you call out other posters for exactly this.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 29, 2017, 08:54:06 PM
Quote from: disputeone on April 29, 2017, 08:46:41 PM
There is no real evidence to support a plane hitting the pentagon, it's up to the individual to make an opinion based on the evidence available.

That's just not true,  the evidence is overwhelming that AA77 hit the pentagon.   As David Chandler says it's beyond doubt and speculation.

Your inability to admit you are wrong is an interesting facet of this whole discsussion,  as is BHS's  unwillingness to commit to a point of view.   


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 29, 2017, 09:01:05 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 29, 2017, 08:54:06 PM
the evidence is overwhelming that AA77 hit the pentagon.

Can you please cite some evidence then?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 29, 2017, 09:02:05 PM
Quote from: disputeone on April 29, 2017, 09:01:05 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 29, 2017, 08:54:06 PM
the evidence is overwhelming that AA77 hit the pentagon.

Can you please cite some evidence then?

You mean apart from the many papers and videos I've already posted? 

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 29, 2017, 09:25:08 PM
Just cite what you believe to be evidence. Specific paragraphs and photos would be good if you are capable.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 29, 2017, 09:40:22 PM
Quote from: disputeone on April 29, 2017, 09:25:08 PM
Just cite what you believe to be evidence. Specific paragraphs and photos would be good if you are capable.

Now you are just trolling,  watch the David Chandler video  I posted.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 29, 2017, 09:44:18 PM
Quote from: disputeone on April 29, 2017, 08:46:41 PM
As for the video I have watched it multiple times, please, use your own words. Or at least summarise the points for us.

Posting a video and claiming it proves something without using your words is weak, I have seen you call out other posters for exactly this.

Here's a video (http://) that proves we are controlled by santa and his evil elf army, just don't ask me to use my own words to explain its points.

Just trust me, it's proof.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on April 29, 2017, 10:38:52 PM
You guys are insane.
How could anyone keep up with that spaming and have an overview about what's going on...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 29, 2017, 10:40:35 PM
Quote from: User324 on April 29, 2017, 10:38:52 PM
You guys are insane.

Great argument user.

Why do you think there is no video evidence of a plane hitting the pentagon?

Do you believe asking for a citation is spamming?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 29, 2017, 11:03:27 PM
Are you still standing by your "no symmetry" and "no period of free-fall" for wtc 7, even though these claims are directly contradicted by the NIST report?

Quote from: disputeone on April 28, 2017, 11:25:44 PM
Oh and User, here is NIST absolutely smashing your assertion that the collapse wasn't symmetrical.

Quote from: NIST
Some people have said that a failure at one column should not have produced a symmetrical fall like this one. What's your answer to those assertions?

WTC 7's collapse, viewed from the exterior (most videos were taken from the north), did appear to fall almost uniformly as a single unit. This occurred because the interior failures that took place did not cause the exterior framing to fail until the final stages of the building collapse.

t. Symmetry.

Here is them smashing your "no constant acceleration at free-fall" assertion.

Quote from: NIST
The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:
Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity

This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above.

(https://s22.postimg.org/4wmqs2bf5/video.jpg)

Wait, what?



Quote from: NIST
In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.

t. 2.25 seconds of fall acceleration indistinguishable from free-fall.
This collapse model also describes a controlled demolition collapse type.

When I can debunk your main arguments with the O/S directly then you know you are failing.

Quote from: NIST
Several existing, emerging, or even anticipated capabilities could have helped prevent the collapse of WTC 7. The degree to which these capabilities improve performance remains to be evaluated. Possible options for developing cost-effective fixes include:

More robust connections and framing systems to better resist effects of thermal expansion on the structural system.

NIST failed to include a lot of connections and framing in their report, this comment is rich imo.

Quote from: NIST
Structural systems expressly designed to prevent progressive collapse. Current model building codes do not require that buildings be designed to resist progressive collapse.

Like steel supports surrounded and reinforced by concrete.

Quote from: NIST
Better thermal insulation (i.e., reduced conductivity and/or increased thickness) to limit heating of structural steel and minimize both thermal expansion and weakening effects. Insulation has been used to protect steel strength, but it could be used to maintain a lower temperature in the steel framing to limit thermal expansion.

NIST failed to model the concrete around the steel beams on wtc 7 this concrete was primarily for fireproofing and would limit thermal expansion as has been shown in every honest investigation. NIST's numbers for thermal expansion are at best wrong and at worst a lie.

www.wtc7investigation.org

This is just too easy.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on April 30, 2017, 07:39:53 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 29, 2017, 07:23:12 PM
Show me where you think the airspeed is over 500 mph,  the only time that occurs that I can see is just a few seconds prior to impact.
Why do you think it is only over the few seconds prior to impact?

Why do you think Stutts claims 345 MPH?

Why does your radar graph show speeds over 500 MPH prior to impact?

Why did you post a chart claiming impact speed of only 345 MPH?

Quote from: Rayzor on April 29, 2017, 07:23:12 PM
Most of the time it's around the 300 knots or so.   Maybe you are misreading  the axis markings mistaking 300 for 500?   The scale legend goes in 100 knot steps
and I can see the 300 knot label is a bit hard to read. 

Is that what you are misreading?
Did not misread a thing.

Please answer the posted questions.

Thank you.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on April 30, 2017, 07:55:29 AM
I believe it was a cruise missile that struck the Pentagon.

Armed with a bunker buster warhead.

Consistent with the explosion and also consistent with resulting, concentrated damage.

There are models (one in particular had a taller tail structure), but here is one closest to the type used:
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/09/23/1411463792767_wps_3_Agm_158_JASSM_JASSM_by_Lo.jpg)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on April 30, 2017, 09:38:37 AM
And noone would have noticed that this huge cruise missile was missing after 9/11?
The relatives of the people that were in the actual plane, they're all just talking bullshit? NOONE would feel so bad that he'd go out and yell the truth? None of the people working at the airfield at which suddenly a cruise missile was missing after 9/11? Are they all in the conspiracy?

What about the engineers - they would just build a cruise missile similair to what a passenger airplane looks without asking questions, not even after 9/11?

The cruise missile operators, they'd just steer it into the pentagon without asking questions?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on April 30, 2017, 09:48:40 AM
^Another weak argument....

If trillions upon trillions can be "missing"...What the hell is a couple missles lol?

As for who would do it? Uh someone without a conscience, cares only about money and power..Someone who is brainwashed into thinking it's for the "greater good".. Brainwashed into thinking it will save America/blind patriotism...I could keep going...There are countless people who would. Hell, just the bolded part is 95 percent of people running our country lol.

If this is where your argument sits, then I wouldn't bother the attempt
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on April 30, 2017, 12:31:53 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 30, 2017, 09:48:40 AM
^Another weak argument....
It was rather a train of thoughts than an argument. I appreciate your positivity.


Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 30, 2017, 09:48:40 AM
If trillions upon trillions can be "missing"...What the hell is a couple missles lol?
Missiles are not digital like money.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 30, 2017, 09:48:40 AM
As for who would do it? Uh someone without a conscience, cares only about money and power
Uh, someone would definitely not be enough to do something like this, as I have pointed out.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 30, 2017, 09:48:40 AM
Brainwashed into thinking it will save America/blind patriotism...I could keep going...There are countless people who would. Hell, just the bolded part is 95 percent of people running our country lol.
Oh, I thought you were the one knowing stuff about psychology. Well, as I can see now - you don't :)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on April 30, 2017, 01:34:20 PM
^^^^LOL

Another response that can be summed up as "NU UH!"

You are right, it takes more than just someone...Good thing there are a plethora of someone's matching this description out there.

Again...Lol, you act like the government is owned by the public. It is owned by the government, and they spend a lot of money per capita to remove critical thinking skills, as well as to follow orders from superiors blindly.

Which isn't inherently bad, as during a panic situation in war, keeps people from running around like a chicken with their heads cut off, just once voice and direction. However, this trait can also be abused when used for Sinister motivations.

So...If someone high up says do this, and it is top secret or above...Well it is quite easy for anything within the military to "disappear".

Finally, I never claimed have any specialty in psychology...Are you pulling things out of the air again?

I do know human nature... also have been afforded a unique view in life from situations I have been placed in through my profession..people I have met/completed projects for etc etc because of this. As well as third party information from acquaintances and even some friends who dwarf me in the aspect of being "high up" or "informed"...

Though you don't need to take my word for it, just look at the available evidence of actions from these people...If you think they want to come hold you and rock you to sleep at night, then that is your own stupidity. (I am speaking of American leadership)

Don't worry, you are young and dumb right now, still in the safety net of college and their cocoon...I don't expect you to comprehend it yet...Maybe within time and experience
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 30, 2017, 03:27:07 PM
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/09/23/1411463792767_wps_3_Agm_158_JASSM_JASSM_by_Lo.jpg)

(http://www.9-11tv.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Plane-behind-post.jpg)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 30, 2017, 06:58:42 PM
Quote from: totallackey on April 30, 2017, 07:39:53 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 29, 2017, 07:23:12 PM
Show me where you think the airspeed is over 500 mph,  the only time that occurs that I can see is just a few seconds prior to impact.
Why do you think it is only over the few seconds prior to impact?

Why do you think Stutts claims 345 MPH?

Why does your radar graph show speeds over 500 MPH prior to impact?

Why did you post a chart claiming impact speed of only 345 MPH?

Quote from: Rayzor on April 29, 2017, 07:23:12 PM
Most of the time it's around the 300 knots or so.   Maybe you are misreading  the axis markings mistaking 300 for 500?   The scale legend goes in 100 knot steps
and I can see the 300 knot label is a bit hard to read. 

Is that what you are misreading?
Did not misread a thing.

Please answer the posted questions.

Thank you.

Please stop stalling and post a link to  FDR graph that you think shows 500 mph minutes before impact,  I can't find any such evidence. 

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 30, 2017, 07:07:45 PM
Am I too much of a challenge?

That's cool I take it as a compliment.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: observer on April 30, 2017, 08:16:59 PM
So has he provided a single frame of a video as proof of a plane hitting the pentagon yet?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 30, 2017, 08:29:44 PM
Quote from: observer on April 30, 2017, 08:16:59 PM
So has he provided a single frame of a video as proof of a plane hitting the pentagon yet?

Apparently, half the forum (wants to) believe it's irrefutable evidence a 757 hit the pentagon.

Check in FE general.

Looks like a blur to me.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 30, 2017, 11:01:36 PM
Quote from: totallackey on April 30, 2017, 07:55:29 AM
I believe it was a cruise missile that struck the Pentagon.

Armed with a bunker buster warhead.


Ummm,,   whose cruise missile was it?   Are you saying that someone in the USA other than the Pentagon has access to cruise missiles and the facilities to program and launch cruise missiles?  I think the Generals might be a bit pissed off about that,  if it were true.

Also if that were actually true how do you explain the Aircraft wreckage found at the crash site,  and the fact that a large number of the AA77 passengers remains were identified by DNA. Not to mention the FDR as well as many other identifiable parts.

No,  sorry the missile theory was/is a dumb theory proposed initially by that French guy,  the one who posted a picture on the cover of his book of he C ring punch out hole with visible aircraft wreckage in the cover picture,  and claimed it was a missile.   He was a psychopathic nutter of the first order. 

The CIT crowd are now so heavily emotionally invested in the no-plane theory they are as far gone as you can get.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 30, 2017, 11:14:52 PM
Argument from incredulity and gaslighting in the same post.

Looks like you are pushing yourself to achieve more.

Good on you.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on April 30, 2017, 11:18:29 PM
Good Lord rayzor....
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 30, 2017, 11:32:07 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 30, 2017, 11:01:36 PM
how do you explain the Aircraft wreckage found at the crash site,  and the fact that a large number of the AA77 passengers remains were identified by DNA. Not to mention the FDR as well as many other identifiable parts.

I'm not sure how the supposed parts got there, that is some circumstantial evidence, I'll pay it.

In the same tone, how did the US government have the DNA evidence in the first place to identify the alleged hijackers?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 30, 2017, 11:33:33 PM
Quote from: disputeone on April 30, 2017, 11:14:52 PM
Argument from incredulity and gaslighting in the same post.

Looks like you are pushing yourself to achieve more.

Good on you.

Simple question,  if it was in fact a cruise missile as you claim,  whose cruise missile was it?     

In any event,  what did you see as "gaslighting"  in that post?


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on April 30, 2017, 11:40:27 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 30, 2017, 01:34:20 PM
Another response that can be summed up as "NU UH!"
The "nu uh" thing seems to be a contagious disease.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 30, 2017, 01:34:20 PM
Again...Lol, you act like the government is owned by the public. It is owned by the government, and they spend a lot of money per capita to remove critical thinking skills, as well as to follow orders from superiors blindly.
That's why people dislike you and you did receive a lot of hate - you think you're superior and the only one to see the truth while others can't even think critically. It makes you, in short terms, a moron.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 30, 2017, 01:34:20 PM
So...If someone high up says do this, and it is top secret or above...Well it is quite easy for anything within the military to "disappear".
Yeah sure.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 30, 2017, 01:34:20 PM
Finally, I never claimed have any specialty in psychology...Are you pulling things out of the air again?
Yes, and I did never say you have claimed to have any speciality in psychology.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 30, 2017, 01:34:20 PM
If you think they want to come hold you and rock you to sleep at night, then that is your own stupidity. (I am speaking of American leadership)
Fortunately I'm not from 'murica.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 30, 2017, 01:34:20 PM
Don't worry, you are young and dumb right now, still in the safety net of college and their cocoon...I don't expect you to comprehend it yet...Maybe within time and experience
I have to repeat myself: That's why people dislike you and you did receive a lot of hate - you think you're superior and the only one to see the truth while others can't even think critically. It makes you, in short terms, a moron.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 30, 2017, 11:41:21 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 30, 2017, 11:33:33 PM
Quote from: disputeone on April 30, 2017, 11:14:52 PM
Argument from incredulity and gaslighting in the same post.

Looks like you are pushing yourself to achieve more.

Good on you.

Simple question,  if it was in fact a cruise missile as you claim,  whose cruise missile was it? 

Do you want me to guess? I don't know whose cruise missle it was. I'd say US or Israeli black ops, that's just a pure guess.

Quote from: Rayzor on April 30, 2017, 11:33:33 PM
In any event,  what did you see as "gaslighting"  in that post?

I'll show you.

Quote from: Rayzor on April 30, 2017, 11:01:36 PM
He was a psychopathic nutter of the first order.

The CIT crowd are now so heavily emotionally invested in the no-plane theory they are as far gone as you can get.

You're really bad at knowing what words mean or using them correctly man.

Here.
Quote
Gaslighting is a form of manipulation that seeks to sow seeds of doubt in a targeted individual or members of a group, hoping to make targets question their own memory, perception, and sanity.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 30, 2017, 11:44:03 PM
Quote from: disputeone on April 30, 2017, 11:32:07 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 30, 2017, 11:01:36 PM
how do you explain the Aircraft wreckage found at the crash site,  and the fact that a large number of the AA77 passengers remains were identified by DNA. Not to mention the FDR as well as many other identifiable parts.

I'm not sure how the supposed parts got there, that is some circumstantial evidence, I'll pay it.

In the same tone, how did the US government have the DNA evidence in the first place to identify the alleged hijackers?

Please address my question after I answered yours honestly.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on April 30, 2017, 11:46:35 PM
@Disputeone
Learn to put your text in one single post, stop spamming.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 30, 2017, 11:48:04 PM
Quote from: User324 on April 30, 2017, 11:46:35 PM
@Disputeone
Learn to put your text in one single post, stop spamming.

@User
Please don't post if you have nothing to add, stop spamming.

Edit. How bout you try to answer honestly?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 30, 2017, 11:52:02 PM
Quote from: disputeone on April 30, 2017, 11:32:07 PM
In the same tone, how did the US government have the DNA evidence in the first place to identify the alleged hijackers?

I'm not sure they did.   What's your source for that claim?

"Nuclear DNA testing (along with dental records and fingerprints) of the remains from the victims aboard American Airline (AA) Flight 77 and within the Pentagon was useful for identifying 178 of the 183 victims. Five missing individuals (four within the Pentagon and one aboard the airplane) could not be identified due to lack of biological material from the crash. Five remaining nuclear STR profiles were obtained from the crash site that did not match any references for the victims. These profiles were thought to represent the terrorists aboard the flight. The 40 victims aboard the United Airline (UA) Flight 93 that crashed near Shanksville, PA, were also identified by nuclear DNA testing, dental records, and fingerprinting. Four nonmatching nuclear DNA profiles were also obtained from the crash site and again tentatively ascribed to the terrorists."

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on April 30, 2017, 11:57:07 PM
Quote from: disputeone on April 30, 2017, 11:41:21 PM

Quote from: Rayzor on April 30, 2017, 11:33:33 PM
In any event,  what did you see as "gaslighting"  in that post?

I'll show you.

Quote from: Rayzor on April 30, 2017, 11:01:36 PM
He was a psychopathic nutter of the first order.

The CIT crowd are now so heavily emotionally invested in the no-plane theory they are as far gone as you can get.

You're really bad at knowing what words mean or using them correctly man.

Here.
Quote
Gaslighting is a form of manipulation that seeks to sow seeds of doubt in a targeted individual or members of a group, hoping to make targets question their own memory, perception, and sanity.

That's not gaslighting,   Gaslighting is when I call you a psychopathic nutter,   not when I call someone else that,  in any case Thierry really is a psycho. 

You seem to be overly sensitive to this criticism,  If you are going to hang about on flat earth forums,  you have to harden the fuck up, and stop with the cry-baby bullshit.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 01, 2017, 12:02:15 AM
You should read the description again. You are incorrect. You can't make up your own meanings for words.

Only scepti.

Quote from: Rayzor on April 30, 2017, 11:57:07 PM
you have to harden the fuck up, and stop with the cry-baby bullshit.

Great, I'll take a week off and come visit you.

Or are you still scared of me?

Here's your citation for the US using DNA evidence used to identify hijackers.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2808599.stm
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 01, 2017, 12:05:45 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 01, 2017, 12:02:15 AM
Here's your citation for the US using DNA evidence used to identify hijackers.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2808599.stm
What's the issue with that
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 01, 2017, 12:08:04 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 01, 2017, 12:05:45 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 01, 2017, 12:02:15 AM
Here's your citation for the US using DNA evidence used to identify hijackers.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2808599.stm
What's the issue with that

They already "knew" who did it before the dna testing.

It strikes me as strange.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 01, 2017, 12:10:54 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 01, 2017, 12:02:15 AM
You should read the description again. You are incorrect. You can't make up your own meanings for words.

Only scepti.

Quote from: Rayzor on April 30, 2017, 11:57:07 PM
you have to harden the fuck up, and stop with the cry-baby bullshit.

Great, I'll take a week off and come visit you.

Or are you still scared of me?

Here's your citation for the US using DNA evidence used to identify hijackers.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2808599.stm

So they managed to identify 2 out of the 10  New York Hijackers,   where does it say anything about AA77,  or U93 for that matter?

In other words you lied.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 01, 2017, 12:16:15 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 01, 2017, 12:08:04 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 01, 2017, 12:05:45 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 01, 2017, 12:02:15 AM
Here's your citation for the US using DNA evidence used to identify hijackers.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2808599.stm
What's the issue with that

They already "knew" who did it before the dna testing.

It strikes me as strange.

Huh?   why would they need to know before the testing?    That's not how dna testing works.  You do the testing then try to find a match,  the question you should have asked is how did they locate matching dna. 

The answer is actually in the article you cited.   Perhaps you didn't actually  read  and understand it.   ( so what else is new?)

"The FBI had collected the DNA from tiny traces of skin on the steering wheels of vehicles hired by the hijackers and from hair samples recovered from their hotel rooms."



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 01, 2017, 12:17:48 AM
I didn't lie, check my post again.

Your really bad at words man.

How did they know who the hijackers where to confirm it with dna?

Quote from: Rayzor on May 01, 2017, 12:16:15 AM
"The FBI had collected the DNA from tiny traces of skin on the steering wheels of vehicles hired by the hijackers and from hair samples recovered from their hotel rooms."


Did they have dna beforehand? If they didn't, how did they know who was flying the planes shortly after it happened?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 01, 2017, 12:29:45 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 01, 2017, 12:17:48 AM
I didn't lie, check my post again.

Your really bad at words man.

How did they know who the hijackers where to confirm it with dna?

Quote from: Rayzor on May 01, 2017, 12:16:15 AM
"The FBI had collected the DNA from tiny traces of skin on the steering wheels of vehicles hired by the hijackers and from hair samples recovered from their hotel rooms."


Did they have dna beforehand? If they didn't, how did they know who was flying the planes shortly after it happened?

I doubt that they had anything much by way of evidence beforehand,  There is strong possibility that the CIA and NSA might have had information but no one connected the dots.

Anyway to answer your question,  the DNA would have been collected during the course of the FBI investigation.   

Why do you think they would need to know beforehand?


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 01, 2017, 12:37:17 AM
They had to know before dna testing was done because they knew where to get the dna to compare it to from.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 01, 2017, 12:37:52 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 01, 2017, 12:17:48 AM
Did they have dna beforehand? If they didn't, how did they know who was flying the planes shortly after it happened?
Might even be the terrorists were monitored already, but the CIA/NSA had no evidence (not enough) to actually arrest them.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 01, 2017, 12:39:20 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 01, 2017, 12:37:17 AM
They had to know before dna testing was done because they knew where to get the dna to compare it to from.

Yeah right, they had soooo many ways to get in that plane and sure nobody actually saw them or could tell which vehicle etc. they might have used. Genius.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 01, 2017, 12:39:31 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 01, 2017, 12:37:17 AM
They had to know before dna testing was done because they knew where to get the dna to compare it to from.

As far as I know the DNA testing is still going on today,  I'm not sure what your point is,  perhaps you could spell it out a bit more clearly.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 01, 2017, 12:41:34 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 01, 2017, 12:37:52 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 01, 2017, 12:17:48 AM
Did they have dna beforehand? If they didn't, how did they know who was flying the planes shortly after it happened?
Might even be the terrorists were monitored already, but the CIA/NSA had no evidence (not enough) to actually arrest them.

Great answer. That's what I'm looking for, thanks.

Quote from: Rayzor on May 01, 2017, 12:39:31 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 01, 2017, 12:37:17 AM
They had to know before dna testing was done because they knew where to get the dna to compare it to from.

As far as I know the DNA testing is still going on today.

Alright cool.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 01, 2017, 12:44:32 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 01, 2017, 12:39:20 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 01, 2017, 12:37:17 AM
They had to know before dna testing was done because they knew where to get the dna to compare it to from.

Yeah right, they had soooo many ways to get in that plane and sure nobody actually saw them or could tell which vehicle etc. they might have used. Genius.

LOL,  not to mention the passenger manifest.   How long would it take the FBI to investigate a plane load of people, and identify possible hijackers?

Don't answer,  it was a rhetorical question,  the answer is, they probably had a pretty good idea who the hijackers were before the day was out.   
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 01, 2017, 12:49:29 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 01, 2017, 12:44:32 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 01, 2017, 12:39:20 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 01, 2017, 12:37:17 AM
They had to know before dna testing was done because they knew where to get the dna to compare it to from.

Yeah right, they had soooo many ways to get in that plane and sure nobody actually saw them or could tell which vehicle etc. they might have used. Genius.

LOL,  not to mention the passenger manifest.   How long would it take the FBI to investigate a plane load of people, and identify possible hijackers?

Don't answer,  it was a rhetorical question,  the answer is, they probably had a pretty good idea who the hijackers were before the day was out.
Please stop it, not so much logical thinking! Our "nu uh" screamers can't handle that!
Oh wait, they are actually the only ones that can do logical thinking  ::)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 01, 2017, 12:50:40 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 01, 2017, 12:44:32 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 01, 2017, 12:39:20 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 01, 2017, 12:37:17 AM
They had to know before dna testing was done because they knew where to get the dna to compare it to from.

Yeah right, they had soooo many ways to get in that plane and sure nobody actually saw them or could tell which vehicle etc. they might have used. Genius.

LOL,  not to mention the passenger manifest. How long would it take the FBI to investigate a plane load of people, and identify possible hijackers?

Don't answer,  it was a rhetorical question,  the answer is, they probably had a pretty good idea who the hijackers were before the day was out.

What about their fake ID's?

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2003/02/04/nyregion/threats-responses-document-fraud-guilty-plea-expected-seller-fake-id-s-9-11.html

How did they get their names from the passenger manifest if they used fake ID's?

@user, if these people were watched and considered dangerous, why were they let into the US? Why were they let on a plane in the US?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 01, 2017, 12:57:17 AM
Quote from: disput "ICantRead" one
@user, if these people were watched and considered dangerous, why were they let into the US? Why were they let on a plane in the US?


Quote from: user324
Might even be the terrorists were monitored already, but the CIA/NSA had no evidence (not enough) to actually arrest them.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 01, 2017, 01:00:41 AM
But if they were considered dangerous enough to be instant suspects, why were they let into the US?

They don't need evidence to deny someone they consider dangerous in the country.

It's just strange again.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 01, 2017, 01:03:02 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 01, 2017, 01:00:41 AM
But if they were considered dangerous enough to be instant suspects, why were they let into the US?

They don't need evidence to deny someone they consider dangerous in the country.

It's just strange again.
That's not how a constitutional state works.
Well, can you even consider the usa a constitutional state...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 01, 2017, 01:07:29 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 01, 2017, 01:03:02 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 01, 2017, 01:00:41 AM
But if they were considered dangerous enough to be instant suspects, why were they let into the US?

They don't need evidence to deny someone they consider dangerous in the country.

It's just strange again.
That's not how a constitutional state works.
Well, can you even consider the usa a constitutional state...

I don't really.

And it's not, if you are on a watchlist you aren't allowed in the US. They don't have to let anyone in if they don't want to.

This is just interesting speculation, I don't claim it as evidence.

Edit. Typo.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 01, 2017, 01:31:30 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 01, 2017, 01:07:29 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 01, 2017, 01:03:02 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 01, 2017, 01:00:41 AM
But if they were considered dangerous enough to be instant suspects, why were they let into the US?

They don't need evidence to deny someone they consider dangerous in the country.

It's just strange again.
That's not how a constitutional state works.
Well, can you even consider the usa a constitutional state...

I don't really.

And it's not, if you are on a watchlist you aren't allowed in the US. They don't have to let anyone in if they don't want to.

This is just interesting speculation, I don't claim it as evidence.

Edit. Typo.

The TSA didn't even exist before 9/11,   neither did the DHS,   or in fact ICE,   I  flew to the USA probably 20 or 30 times during the 80's and 90's no security screening like it is these days.

A lot of the time flying inside the US was like hopping on a bus, you rolled up,  bought a ticket and got on board. 

I'm sure they had no-fly lists,  but didn't have computerized infra-structure doing facial recognition etc.

Asking why they let these hijackers on the planes in the first place is to misunderstand what air travel was really like before 9/11.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 01, 2017, 01:53:05 AM
Thanks for your speculation.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 01, 2017, 02:27:40 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 01, 2017, 01:53:05 AM
Thanks for your speculation.

Still more truth in it then everything you ever written in this thread.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 01, 2017, 02:38:28 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 01, 2017, 02:27:40 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 01, 2017, 01:53:05 AM
Thanks for your speculation.

Still more truth in it then everything you ever written in this thread.

I very much disagree.

Why are you posting here?

If you have nothing to contribute you can cheer from the stands.

Honestly I think I scare you a bit, you can't handle me in debate so you just throw unsupported shit.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 01, 2017, 02:40:34 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 01, 2017, 02:38:28 AM
If you have nothing to contribute you can cheer from the stands.

Still more than you  ;)

Quote
Why are you posting here?
I don't even know why I waste my time here. I guess it's just funny and helps to relax when learning :o
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 01, 2017, 02:44:12 AM
Here is where we left our debate user.

I believe your points were.

1. The collapse was not symmetrical or uniform.

2. There was no period of free-fall.

Quote from: disputeone on April 28, 2017, 11:25:44 PM
Oh and User, here is NIST absolutely smashing your assertion that the collapse wasn't symmetrical.

Quote from: NIST
Some people have said that a failure at one column should not have produced a symmetrical fall like this one. What's your answer to those assertions?

WTC 7's collapse, viewed from the exterior (most videos were taken from the north), did appear to fall almost uniformly as a single unit. This occurred because the interior failures that took place did not cause the exterior framing to fail until the final stages of the building collapse.

t. Symmetry.

Here is them smashing your "no constant acceleration at free-fall" assertion.

Quote from: NIST
The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:
Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity

This analysis showed that the 40 percent longer descent time—compared to the 3.9 second free fall time—was due primarily to Stage 1, which corresponded to the buckling of the exterior columns in the lower stories of the north face. During Stage 2, the north face descended essentially in free fall, indicating negligible support from the structure below. This is consistent with the structural analysis model which showed the exterior columns buckling and losing their capacity to support the loads from the structure above.

(https://s4.postimg.org/e8f0mfs4t/images-6.jpg)

Wait, what?



Quote from: NIST
In Stage 3, the acceleration decreased as the upper portion of the north face encountered increased resistance from the collapsed structure and the debris pile below.

t. 2.25 seconds of fall acceleration indistinguishable from free-fall.
This collapse model also describes a controlled demolition collapse type.

When I can debunk your main arguments with the O/S directly then you know you are failing.

Quote from: NIST
Several existing, emerging, or even anticipated capabilities could have helped prevent the collapse of WTC 7. The degree to which these capabilities improve performance remains to be evaluated. Possible options for developing cost-effective fixes include:

More robust connections and framing systems to better resist effects of thermal expansion on the structural system.

NIST failed to include a lot of connections and framing in their report, this comment is rich imo.

Quote from: NIST
Structural systems expressly designed to prevent progressive collapse. Current model building codes do not require that buildings be designed to resist progressive collapse.

Like steel supports surrounded and reinforced by concrete.

Quote from: NIST
Better thermal insulation (i.e., reduced conductivity and/or increased thickness) to limit heating of structural steel and minimize both thermal expansion and weakening effects. Insulation has been used to protect steel strength, but it could be used to maintain a lower temperature in the steel framing to limit thermal expansion.

NIST failed to model the concrete around the steel beams on wtc 7 this concrete was primarily for fireproofing and would limit thermal expansion as has been shown in every honest investigation. NIST's numbers for thermal expansion are at best wrong and at worst a lie.

www.wtc7investigation.org

This is just too easy.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 01, 2017, 02:49:44 AM
Quote
1. The collapse was not symmetrical or uniform.
Right, it wasn't.

Quote
2. There was no period of free-fall.
Read again what I wrote about that.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 01, 2017, 02:52:52 AM
So you won't use the official story to defend the official story? I can't work with that man, sorry.

Well, it wasn't the worst debate I've had. Take care man, I don't have a problem with you for having a different opinion, even if you have a problem with me for having a different opinion.

Quote from: NIST
WTC 7's collapse, viewed from the exterior (most videos were taken from the north), did appear to fall almost uniformly as a single unit.

Quote from: NIST
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 01, 2017, 02:57:25 AM
Tell me tho, before we part ways.

Why do you feel justified in calling me stupid for having a view backed up by real PhDs and real science?

Like it or not the 9/11 truth movement has some qualified people in it.

Far more qualified than you or I anyway.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 01, 2017, 03:40:29 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 30, 2017, 06:58:42 PM
Quote from: totallackey on April 30, 2017, 07:39:53 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 29, 2017, 07:23:12 PM
Show me where you think the airspeed is over 500 mph,  the only time that occurs that I can see is just a few seconds prior to impact.
Why do you think it is only over the few seconds prior to impact?

Why do you think Stutts claims 345 MPH?

Why does your radar graph show speeds over 500 MPH prior to impact?

Why did you post a chart claiming impact speed of only 345 MPH?

Quote from: Rayzor on April 29, 2017, 07:23:12 PM
Most of the time it's around the 300 knots or so.   Maybe you are misreading  the axis markings mistaking 300 for 500?   The scale legend goes in 100 knot steps
and I can see the 300 knot label is a bit hard to read. 

Is that what you are misreading?
Did not misread a thing.

Please answer the posted questions.

Thank you.

Please stop stalling and post a link to  FDR graph that you think shows 500 mph minutes before impact,  I can't find any such evidence.
Not stalling.

You posted that very graph.

9:34 to 9:39.

At about 9:35 speed at over 500 MPH.

Even if I am reading it wrong, fine.

Now, please answer these questions:

Why do you think 500 MPH is only over the few seconds prior to impact?

Why do you think Stutts claims 345 MPH?

Why does your radar graph show speeds over 500 MPH prior to impact?

Why did you post a chart claiming impact speed of only 345 MPH?

Thanks.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 01, 2017, 03:46:23 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 30, 2017, 11:01:36 PM
Quote from: totallackey on April 30, 2017, 07:55:29 AM
I believe it was a cruise missile that struck the Pentagon.

Armed with a bunker buster warhead.


Ummm,,   whose cruise missile was it?   Are you saying that someone in the USA other than the Pentagon has access to cruise missiles and the facilities to program and launch cruise missiles?  I think the Generals might be a bit pissed off about that,  if it were true.

Also if that were actually true how do you explain the Aircraft wreckage found at the crash site,  and the fact that a large number of the AA77 passengers remains were identified by DNA. Not to mention the FDR as well as many other identifiable parts.

No,  sorry the missile theory was/is a dumb theory proposed initially by that French guy,  the one who posted a picture on the cover of his book of he C ring punch out hole with visible aircraft wreckage in the cover picture,  and claimed it was a missile.   He was a psychopathic nutter of the first order. 

The CIT crowd are now so heavily emotionally invested in the no-plane theory they are as far gone as you can get.
I believe the entire events of 9/11 was an inside job.

I believe the Bush family was heavily involved.

Criminals run the government.

That is my point of view, will always remain my point of view, and if the fact I maintain this point of view somehow lends a sense of superiority or accomplishment to your life, so be it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 01, 2017, 03:57:57 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 01, 2017, 03:46:23 AM
I believe the entire events of 9/11 was an inside job.

I believe the Bush family was heavily involved.

Criminals run the government.

That is my point of view, will always remain my point of view, and if the fact I maintain this point of view somehow lends a sense of superiority or accomplishment to your life, so be it.

Hear hear.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 01, 2017, 04:01:44 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 01, 2017, 03:40:29 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 30, 2017, 06:58:42 PM
Quote from: totallackey on April 30, 2017, 07:39:53 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 29, 2017, 07:23:12 PM
Show me where you think the airspeed is over 500 mph,  the only time that occurs that I can see is just a few seconds prior to impact.
Why do you think it is only over the few seconds prior to impact?

Why do you think Stutts claims 345 MPH?

Why does your radar graph show speeds over 500 MPH prior to impact?

Why did you post a chart claiming impact speed of only 345 MPH?

Quote from: Rayzor on April 29, 2017, 07:23:12 PM
Most of the time it's around the 300 knots or so.   Maybe you are misreading  the axis markings mistaking 300 for 500?   The scale legend goes in 100 knot steps
and I can see the 300 knot label is a bit hard to read. 

Is that what you are misreading?
Did not misread a thing.

Please answer the posted questions.

Thank you.

Please stop stalling and post a link to  FDR graph that you think shows 500 mph minutes before impact,  I can't find any such evidence.
Not stalling.

You posted that very graph.

9:34 to 9:39.

At about 9:35 speed at over 500 MPH.

Even if I am reading it wrong, fine.

Now, please answer these questions:

Why do you think 500 MPH is only over the few seconds prior to impact?

Why do you think Stutts claims 345 MPH?

Why does your radar graph show speeds over 500 MPH prior to impact?

Why did you post a chart claiming impact speed of only 345 MPH?

Thanks.

You keep saying that,  and I keep ignoring you,  Warren Stutts never said it hit at 345 mph,  It was the MIT paper said 345 mph,  and I cited that to prove that the plane was well within it' specifications.  It was in fact doing 300 or so knots 30 seconds prior to impact,  and accelerated to 500 mph over the last 30 seconds,  that's confirmed by the FDR analysis.

What graph did I post showing a speed of 500 mph at 9:34?  please repost it.   You must be misreading it.
Where did I post a graph showing an impact at 345 mph,  you are not making sense.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 01, 2017, 04:03:05 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 01, 2017, 03:46:23 AM
[Criminals run the government.

And the current ones live in Moscow.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 01, 2017, 04:18:08 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 01, 2017, 04:01:44 AM
You keep saying that,  and I keep ignoring you...
Yes, I notice that.

Please do not ignore me and kindly answer direct questions without mental reservation or equivocation.

Quote from: Rayzor on May 01, 2017, 04:01:44 AM
Warren Stutts never said it hit at 345 mph
Why did you introduce Stutts into the debate?

Was it simply to discredit the NTSB reports?

How does he discredit the NTSB reports?

Specifically where in the documents you provided for Stutts does he discredit the NTSB?

What impact speed did Stutts claim then?
Quote from: Rayzor on May 01, 2017, 04:01:44 AM
It was the MIT paper said 345 mph,
Ok.

MIT states it hit at 345.

How did they arrive at that conclusion?

Why did you post the MIT table, if the plane did not hit at 345?

Quote from: Rayzor on May 01, 2017, 04:01:44 AM
and I cited that to prove that the plane was well within it' specifications.  It was in fact doing 300 or so knots 30 seconds prior to impact,  and accelerated to 500 mph over the last 30 seconds,  that's confirmed by the FDR analysis.
So you believe it is possible for a 757 to accelerate from 320 MPH to over 500 MPH in just thirty seconds?

Quote from: Rayzor on May 01, 2017, 04:01:44 AM
What graph did I post showing a speed of 500 mph at 9:34?  please repost it.   You must be misreading it.
The NTSB graph you posted shows a time frame of 9:34 to 9:39.

Just after 9:34 the flight speed leaps to over 500 MPH.

Let me know how I am misreading the graph.
Quote from: Rayzor on May 01, 2017, 04:01:44 AM
Where did I post a graph showing an impact at 345 mph,  you are not making sense.
Sorry, I meant to write table:
Quote from: Rayzor on April 27, 2017, 08:46:39 AM
http://web.mit.edu/civenv/wtc/PDFfiles/Chapter%20III%20Aircraft%20speed.pdf
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 01, 2017, 04:20:41 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 01, 2017, 04:03:05 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 01, 2017, 03:46:23 AM
[Criminals run the government.

And the current ones live in Moscow.
Please.

There is much criminality in government, including the military.

All of history shouts governments' willingness to murder and kill their own people.

9/11 was just another day at the office for them.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 01, 2017, 04:30:24 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 01, 2017, 04:18:08 AM
Just after 9:34 the flight speed leaps to over 500 MPH.

(https://s22.postimg.org/6dobtl7ep/AA77_FDR.jpg)

Actually is slows down a little after 9:34, the only accelerates right at the very end.

I think you just misread it.   ( which is what I've been saying all along )

Quote from: totallackey on May 01, 2017, 04:18:08 AM
Why did you introduce Stutts into the debate?

Was it simply to discredit the NTSB reports?

How does he discredit the NTSB reports?

Specifically where in the documents you provided for Stutts does he discredit the NTSB?

Warren Stutts  analysis is important because he managed to decode the last frames of the FDR data, which the NTSB failed to do.  I've described this about a dozen times so far.   

Where did I say Warren Stutts discredited the NTSB,  he didn't,  he just added a bit extra that they missed,  I'm not sure why you fail to understand this?

The MIT data is just too early by 20 seconds or so,  but  the main work in their paper was about the twin towers not AA77.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 01, 2017, 04:35:22 AM
Rayzor you used the lightpoles being hit by the planes wings as evidence earlier.

What do you think about that in regards to Galilean relativity. I am sure you know but it states that we could compare an impact of two objects using only the force of the impact, that is, we don't need to consider which part is moving and which part is stationary.

Surely you agree that a steel lightpost going 350-500mph would tear an aircraft wing to bits right?

Also would you agree that the sudden acceleration is impossible for a 757? That's why you use the amateur analysis instead of the official analysis right?

You know that particular velocity observation would match a missile strike perfectly right?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 01, 2017, 04:40:00 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 01, 2017, 04:30:24 AM
Warren Stutts  analysis is important because he managed to decode the last frames of the FDR data, which the NTSB failed to do.  I've described this about a dozen times so far. 
So, the NTSB could not have published their report on AA77 without Stutts?

Quote from: Rayzor on May 01, 2017, 04:30:24 AM
Where did I say Warren Stutts discredited the NTSB,  he didn't,  he just added a bit extra that they missed,  I'm not sure why you fail to understand this?
Please point out specifically what he added.

The differences between the NTSB final report and (because of what Stutts added) what it should look like?

Quote from: Rayzor on May 01, 2017, 04:30:24 AM
The MIT data is just too early by 20 seconds or so,  but  the main work in their paper was about the twin towers not AA77.
So the MIT paper is incorrect in the reported impact speed?

Why did you post the MIT table, if the plane did not hit at 345?

So you believe it is possible for a 757 to accelerate from 320 MPH to over 500 MPH in just thirty seconds?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 01, 2017, 04:41:14 AM
No he's claiming it accelerated from 320 MPH to over 500 MPH much faster than in thirty seconds by the FDR report.

Quote from: Rayzor on May 01, 2017, 04:30:24 AM
the only accelerates right at the very end

But he knows that's impossible for a 757 so he uses the amateur report instead of the FDR report or even the MIT report.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 01, 2017, 04:43:35 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 01, 2017, 04:35:22 AM
Rayzor you used the lightpoles being hit by the planes wings as evidence earlier.

What do you think about that in regards to Galilean relativity. I am sure you know but it states that we could compare an impact of two objects using only the force of the impact, that is, we don't need to consider which part is moving and which part is stationary.

Surely you agree that a steel lightpost going 350-500mph would tear an aircraft wing to bits right?

Also would you agree that the sudden acceleration is impossible for a 757? That's why you use the amateur analysis instead of the official analysis right?

You know that particular velocity observation would match a missile strike perfectly right?

They are aluminum light poles, but I am sure that does not matter.

I just want to know how any pilot (regardless of level of experience) could accelerate a 757 from just over 300 knots to over 500 knots in just a little over thirty seconds.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 01, 2017, 04:45:47 AM
Aluminum?? You Americans suck lol. Just joking. Ours are usually steel or wood.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 01, 2017, 04:49:15 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 01, 2017, 04:45:47 AM
Aluminum?? You Americans suck lol. Just joking. Ours are usually steel or wood.
Hey, I know we suck.

But we suck the best!

USA! USA! USA!

Besides, that is pretty freaking thick aluminum.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 01, 2017, 04:53:13 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 01, 2017, 04:43:35 AM
I just want to know how any pilot (regardless of level of experience) could accelerate a 757 from just over 300 knots to over 500 knots in just a little over thirty seconds.

Diving at full throttle. 

Got any more questions,  or do I have to keep repeating everything a dozen times.

Those type of  light poles are aluminium in Australia as well,   and they have a snap off base,  so that they break off easily instead of killing people in crashes.

The pictures I've seen of the American ones look similar.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 01, 2017, 04:54:13 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 01, 2017, 02:57:25 AM
Tell me tho, before we part ways.
Are you leaving?

Quote from: disputeone on May 01, 2017, 02:57:25 AM
Why do you feel justified in calling me stupid for having a view backed up by real PhDs and real science?
Nazi regime was backed up by some PhD's, too.

Quote from: disputeone on May 01, 2017, 02:57:25 AM
Far more qualified than you or I anyway.
Same goes for the opposition.

Quote from: disputeone on May 01, 2017, 02:52:52 AM
Quote from: NIST
WTC 7's collapse, viewed from the exterior (most videos were taken from the north), did appear to fall almost uniformly as a single unit.

Quote from: NIST
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
It was, considering all error factors (which there are obviously a ton), within what you could call gravitational acceleration for a certain amount of time, yes.

Edit:
Quote
You Americans suck lol
Where are you from?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 01, 2017, 04:56:13 AM
I hit a steel lightpost before, it was steel, it didn't snap.

Alright I was wrong about the material used in this case. I admit it.

@user you just compared so many people I respect to Nazi's bye mate.

Edit. If something "appears" to do something, like a building falling down. It usually is doing it.

Saying it appeared symmetrical does not mean it wasn't symmetrical, it means it looked symmetrical, like a car looks like a car or a bus looks like a bus.

Toodle-pip.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 01, 2017, 04:58:44 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 01, 2017, 04:56:13 AM
@user you just compared so many people I respect to Nazi's bye mate.
Nope, I did just show your argument was invalid.
Deal with it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 01, 2017, 05:01:58 AM
The Nazi PhD's weren't wrong tho, fuckwit, their military and especially rocket technology was much more advanced than ours.

Hitler doing evil things does not make his scientists wrong. You utter dumbshoe.

You are just a scared little boy and I will not acknowledge you again.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 01, 2017, 05:05:17 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 01, 2017, 05:01:58 AM
The Nazi PhD's weren't wrong tho, fuckwit, their military and especially rocket technology was much more advanced than ours.

Hitler doing evil things does not make his scientists wrong. You utter dumbshoe.

You are just a scared little boy and I will not acknowledge you again.
So, the Nazi-docs did everything right?...

One example
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctors%27_trial
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 01, 2017, 05:05:59 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 01, 2017, 04:53:13 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 01, 2017, 04:43:35 AM
I just want to know how any pilot (regardless of level of experience) could accelerate a 757 from just over 300 knots to over 500 knots in just a little over thirty seconds.

Diving at full throttle. 

Got any more questions,  or do I have to keep repeating everything a dozen times.

Just two more questions, both yes or no:

From 9:34 to 9:39 the pilot is diving at full throttle from an altitude of 9000 feet with no change in speed but is able to gain over 160 MPH in a dive from 600 feet and level the plane out out to take out the light poles and crash into the Pentagon.

Is that an accurate summation of what you believe?

Furthermore, from approx 9:23 to 9:29, the pilot is able to descend over 16000 feet from 25,000 feet to 9000 feet with no change in airspeed.

Is that possible?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 01, 2017, 05:29:55 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 01, 2017, 05:05:59 AM
Just two more questions, both yes or no:

From 9:34 to 9:39 the pilot is diving at full throttle from an altitude of 9000 feet with no change in speed but is able to gain over 160 MPH in a dive from 600 feet and level the plane out out to take out the light poles and crash into the Pentagon.
Is that an accurate summation of what you believe?

No that's incorrect,  at 50 seconds out from impact he was not much above  2500 ft  Where are you getting all these bullshit numbers from?

(https://s27.postimg.org/hqd2kv4cz/AA77_Altitude.jpg)


Quote from: totallackey on May 01, 2017, 05:05:59 AM
Furthermore, from approx 9:23 to 9:29, the pilot is able to descend over 16000 feet from 25,000 feet to 9000 feet with no change in airspeed.

Is that possible?

No,  once again you are being misled  at 9:34 AA77 was at about 8000 ft  and 4 miles southwest of the pentagon

(https://s21.postimg.org/we25i34dj/AA7_Flight_Path.jpg)

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 01, 2017, 05:36:40 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 01, 2017, 05:29:55 AM

No that's incorrect,  at 50 seconds out from impact he was not much above  2500 ft  Where are you getting all these bullshit numbers from?

(https://s27.postimg.org/hqd2kv4cz/AA77_Altitude.jpg)

I got my numbers from the same chart you posted from the NTSB report.

Black line labeled LABELED ALTITUDE.

But okay, lets take your numbers.

The pilot was able to accelerate from just over 300 MPH to over 500 MPH in a controlled dive from 2500 feet?

Do you believe that?

Quote from: Rayzor on May 01, 2017, 05:29:55 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 01, 2017, 05:05:59 AM
Furthermore, from approx 9:23 to 9:29, the pilot is able to descend over 16000 feet from 25,000 feet to 9000 feet with no change in airspeed.

Is that possible?
No,  once again you are being misled  at 9:34 AA77 was at about 2000 ft  and 4 miles southwest of the pentagon

Again, I used the chart from the NTSB report.

Please look at the period of time from 9:24 to 9:29.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 01, 2017, 05:52:52 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 01, 2017, 05:36:40 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 01, 2017, 05:29:55 AM

No that's incorrect,  at 50 seconds out from impact he was not much above  2500 ft  Where are you getting all these bullshit numbers from?

(https://s27.postimg.org/hqd2kv4cz/AA77_Altitude.jpg)

I got my numbers from the same chart you posted from the NTSB report.

Black line labeled LABELED ALTITUDE.

But okay, lets take your numbers.

The pilot was able to accelerate from just over 300 MPH to over 500 MPH in a controlled dive from 2500 feet?

Do you believe that?

Quote from: Rayzor on May 01, 2017, 05:29:55 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 01, 2017, 05:05:59 AM
Furthermore, from approx 9:23 to 9:29, the pilot is able to descend over 16000 feet from 25,000 feet to 9000 feet with no change in airspeed.

Is that possible?
No,  once again you are being misled  at 9:34 AA77 was at about 8000 ft  and 4 miles southwest of the pentagon

Again, I used the chart from the NTSB report.

Please look at the period of time from 9:24 to 9:29.

From 9:22 to 9:29 AA77 descended from 25,000 ft to about 7000 ft  under autopilot,   What problem do you see with that?

Please note the correction in red.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 01, 2017, 06:06:13 AM
I've got a problem with a really inexperienced pilot nailing a 330° high speed low altitude turn then hitting the pentagon at a speed previously thought to be impossible for a 757 at sea level.

It just seems really unlikely to me.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 01, 2017, 06:18:53 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 01, 2017, 06:06:13 AM
I've got a problem with a really inexperienced pilot nailing a 330° high speed low altitude turn then hitting the pentagon at a speed previously thought to be impossible for a 757 at sea level.

It just seems really unlikely to me.

At the end of that road, all you get is an argument from incredulity.   

And it's false to claim that a 757 couldn't do those speeds,  they can and did.   


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 01, 2017, 06:22:13 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 01, 2017, 05:36:40 AM
Please look at the period of time from 9:24 to 9:29.

Descent rates of 3000 fpm are not unusual for commercial flights.    from 25,000 ft at 9:22 to 7000 ft at 9:29 is 18,000 ft in 7 minutes an average descent rate of 2571 fpm under autopilot

I can't see the issue you are driving at?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 01, 2017, 06:45:51 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 01, 2017, 06:18:53 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 01, 2017, 06:06:13 AM
I've got a problem with a really inexperienced pilot nailing a 330° high speed low altitude turn then hitting the pentagon at a speed previously thought to be impossible for a 757 at sea level.

It just seems really unlikely to me.

At the end of that road, all you get is an argument from incredulity.   

And it's false to claim that a 757 couldn't do those speeds,  they can and did.

We just thought those speeds were impossible before.

I'm not claiming it as evidence. Wtc 7 is the smoking gun of 9/11.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 01, 2017, 08:19:00 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 01, 2017, 05:52:52 AM

From 9:22 to 9:29 AA77 descended from 25,000 ft to about 7000 ft  under autopilot,   What problem do you see with that?


How do you descend over 18000 feet without a change in airspeed?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 01, 2017, 08:20:39 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 01, 2017, 08:19:00 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 01, 2017, 05:52:52 AM

From 9:22 to 9:29 AA77 descended from 25,000 ft to about 7000 ft  under autopilot,   What problem do you see with that?


How do you descend over 18000 feet without a change in airspeed?

It's called a throttle,   the autopilot VNAV system controls it.

VNAV == vertical navigation
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 01, 2017, 08:28:12 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 01, 2017, 08:20:39 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 01, 2017, 08:19:00 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 01, 2017, 05:52:52 AM

From 9:22 to 9:29 AA77 descended from 25,000 ft to about 7000 ft  under autopilot,   What problem do you see with that?


How do you descend over 18000 feet without a change in airspeed?

It's called a throttle,   the autopilot VNAV system controls it.

VNAV == vertical navigation
So, are you saying flat descent?

The terrorists were trained to fly a 757 and could program this manuever into the autopilot?

Do you have a source for the rate of descent being common?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_three_(aeronautics) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_three_(aeronautics))

"The industry standard descent profile is 3 degrees,for pax comfort and manageable descent rates, this is close to 300 feet per nautical mile. This means from 30,000 feet the descent would begin 100 miles from the destination plus 10 to 20 miles to slow to approach speed. The mathematics gives us a descent rate equal to half the ground speed times ten to stay on this profile.

Ground speed is going to be around 600 kts. at 30,000 feet plus or minus the wind. So the initial descent rate will be around 3000 feet per minute decreasing as altitude decreases.

The FMS and autopilot do all the work these days but it comes up with these same numbers. No more mental gymnastics for the pilots
Source(s):
ancient aviator"

Please make note of the highlighted speed in the answer I found.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 01, 2017, 08:51:39 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 01, 2017, 08:28:12 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 01, 2017, 08:20:39 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 01, 2017, 08:19:00 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 01, 2017, 05:52:52 AM

From 9:22 to 9:29 AA77 descended from 25,000 ft to about 7000 ft  under autopilot,   What problem do you see with that?


How do you descend over 18000 feet without a change in airspeed?

It's called a throttle,   the autopilot VNAV system controls it.

VNAV == vertical navigation
So, are you saying flat descent?

The terrorists were trained to fly a 757 and could program this manuever into the autopilot?

What do you mean by "flat descent"? 


Yes,  it's not that hard,   The hijacker who they think was flying was  Hani Hanjour who did actually have an FAA commercial pilots licence,  and a private pilots licence but by all accounts he was hopelessly incompetent as a pilot,   but even so, he would have had no trouble with flipping switches on the 757 autopilot.   Also, he had time on 737 simulators, and over 600 hours flying in his log book.   
 
There's a lot of lies and misinformation about the skill level required.   Mostly spread or initiated by the retired armchair brigade at pilots4911truth.    The 757 is an easy plane to fly, and what he had to do wasn't as hard as some have made it sound.   

Quote:
"In my opinion the official version of the fact is absolutely plausible, does not require exceptional circumstances, bending of any law of physics or superhuman capabilities. Like other (real pilots) have said, the manoeuvres required of the hijackers were within their (very limited) capabilities, they were performed without any degree of finesse and resulted in damage to the targets only after desperate overmanoeuvring of the planes. The hijackers took advantage of anything that might make their job easier, and decided not to rely on their low piloting skills. It is misleading to make people believe that the hijackers HAD to possess superior pilot skills to do what they did."



 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 01, 2017, 08:52:16 AM
Basically. Pilotsfor911truth calls AA77 impossible:

"Flight Data Recorder Analysis - Last Second of Data - 09:37:44

We have determined based on the Flight Data Recorder information that has been analyzed thus far provided by the NTSB, that it is impossible for this aircraft to have struck down the light poles.

We have an animation of the entire flight provided by the NTSB. The animation covers the whole flight from taxi out at Dulles... to the impact at the Pentagon in real time.

   
The screenshot shows the very last frame of the recorded data. It stops at 9:37:44 AM EDT (Official Impact Time is 09:37:45). You will notice in the right margin the altitude of the aircraft on the middle instrument. It shows 180 feet.
This altitude has been determined to reflect Pressure altitude as set by 29.92 inHg on the Altimeter. The actual local pressure for DCA at impact time was 30.22 inHg. The error for this discrepancy is 300 feet. Meaning, the actual aircraft altitude was 300 feet higher than indicated at that moment in time. Which means aircraft altitude was 480 feet above sea level (MSL, 75 foot margin for error according to Federal Aviation Regulations). You can clearly see the highway in the below screenshot directly under the aircraft. The elevation for that highway is ~40 feet above sea level according to the US Geological Survey. The light poles would have had to been 440 feet tall (+/- 75 feet) for this aircraft to bring them down. Which you can clearly see in the below picture, the aircraft is too high, even for the official released video of the 5 frames where you see something cross the Pentagon Lawn at level attitude. The 5 frames of video captured by the parking gate cam is in direct conflict with the Aircraft Flight Data Recorder information released by the NTSB. More information will be forthcoming as we come to our conclusions on each issue. We have contacted the NTSB regarding the conflict between the official story and the FDR. They refuse to comment. For further details, please see our Technical Paper here and Press Release here outlining our findings. "
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 01, 2017, 08:56:12 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 01, 2017, 08:28:12 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 01, 2017, 08:20:39 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 01, 2017, 08:19:00 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 01, 2017, 05:52:52 AM

From 9:22 to 9:29 AA77 descended from 25,000 ft to about 7000 ft  under autopilot,   What problem do you see with that?


How do you descend over 18000 feet without a change in airspeed?

It's called a throttle,   the autopilot VNAV system controls it.

VNAV == vertical navigation
So, are you saying flat descent?

The terrorists were trained to fly a 757 and could program this manuever into the autopilot?

Do you have a source for the rate of descent being common?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_three_(aeronautics) (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_three_(aeronautics))

"The industry standard descent profile is 3 degrees,for pax comfort and manageable descent rates, this is close to 300 feet per nautical mile. This means from 30,000 feet the descent would begin 100 miles from the destination plus 10 to 20 miles to slow to approach speed. The mathematics gives us a descent rate equal to half the ground speed times ten to stay on this profile.

Ground speed is going to be around 600 kts. at 30,000 feet plus or minus the wind. So the initial descent rate will be around 3000 feet per minute decreasing as altitude decreases.

The FMS and autopilot do all the work these days but it comes up with these same numbers. No more mental gymnastics for the pilots
Source(s):
ancient aviator"

Please make note of the highlighted speed in the answer I found.

So what was your question?    I see that you've confirmed 3000 fpm as a normal descent rate. 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 01, 2017, 08:59:02 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 01, 2017, 08:51:39 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 01, 2017, 08:28:12 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 01, 2017, 08:20:39 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 01, 2017, 08:19:00 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 01, 2017, 05:52:52 AM

From 9:22 to 9:29 AA77 descended from 25,000 ft to about 7000 ft  under autopilot,   What problem do you see with that?


How do you descend over 18000 feet without a change in airspeed?

It's called a throttle,   the autopilot VNAV system controls it.

VNAV == vertical navigation
So, are you saying flat descent?

The terrorists were trained to fly a 757 and could program this manuever into the autopilot?

What do you mean by "flat descent"? 
Not a "nose down descent."


Quote from: Rayzor on May 01, 2017, 08:51:39 AM
Yes,  it's not that hard,   The hijacker who they think was flying was  Hani Hanjour who did actually have an FAA commercial pilots licence,  and a private pilots licence but by all accounts he was hopelessly incompetent as a pilot,   but even so, he would have had no trouble with flipping switches on the 757 autopilot.
Is this your opinion? 
Quote from: Rayzor on May 01, 2017, 08:51:39 AM
Also, he had time on 737 simulators, and over 600 hours flying in his log book.
Is this also your opinion? 
 
Quote from: Rayzor on May 01, 2017, 08:51:39 AM
There's a lot of lies and misinformation about the skill level required.   Mostly spread or initiated by the retired armchair brigade at pilots4911truth.    The 757 is an easy plane to fly, and what he had to do wasn't as hard as some have made it sound.   

Quote:
"In my opinion the official version of the fact is absolutely plausible, does not require exceptional circumstances, bending of any law of physics or superhuman capabilities. Like other (real pilots) have said, the manoeuvres required of the hijackers were within their (very limited) capabilities, they were performed without any degree of finesse and resulted in damage to the targets only after desperate overmanoeuvring of the planes. The hijackers took advantage of anything that might make their job easier, and decided not to rely on their low piloting skills. It is misleading to make people believe that the hijackers HAD to possess superior pilot skills to do what they did."

Do you have a source for your quote?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 01, 2017, 09:01:20 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 01, 2017, 08:52:16 AM
Basically. Pilotsfor911truth calls AA77 impossible:

"Flight Data Recorder Analysis - Last Second of Data - 09:37:44

We have determined based on the Flight Data Recorder information that has been analyzed thus far provided by the NTSB, that it is impossible for this aircraft to have struck down the light poles.

We have an animation of the entire flight provided by the NTSB. The animation covers the whole flight from taxi out at Dulles... to the impact at the Pentagon in real time.

   
The screenshot shows the very last frame of the recorded data. It stops at 9:37:44 AM EDT (Official Impact Time is 09:37:45). You will notice in the right margin the altitude of the aircraft on the middle instrument. It shows 180 feet.
This altitude has been determined to reflect Pressure altitude as set by 29.92 inHg on the Altimeter. The actual local pressure for DCA at impact time was 30.22 inHg. The error for this discrepancy is 300 feet. Meaning, the actual aircraft altitude was 300 feet higher than indicated at that moment in time. Which means aircraft altitude was 480 feet above sea level (MSL, 75 foot margin for error according to Federal Aviation Regulations). You can clearly see the highway in the below screenshot directly under the aircraft. The elevation for that highway is ~40 feet above sea level according to the US Geological Survey. The light poles would have had to been 440 feet tall (+/- 75 feet) for this aircraft to bring them down. Which you can clearly see in the below picture, the aircraft is too high, even for the official released video of the 5 frames where you see something cross the Pentagon Lawn at level attitude. The 5 frames of video captured by the parking gate cam is in direct conflict with the Aircraft Flight Data Recorder information released by the NTSB. More information will be forthcoming as we come to our conclusions on each issue. We have contacted the NTSB regarding the conflict between the official story and the FDR. They refuse to comment. For further details, please see our Technical Paper here and Press Release here outlining our findings. "

The analysis you quote above is completely wrong,  they didn't correct for instrument drift.   The actual flight path in the FDR matches the radar tracking from 4 separate radar stations.
You should have watched the video I posted, and you wouldn't be asking this level of questions about 9/11 conspiracy theories.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 01, 2017, 09:01:42 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 01, 2017, 08:56:12 AM
So what was your question?    I see that you've confirmed 3000 fpm as a normal descent rate.
Did you see the quoted speed?

3000 fpm at 600knots.

AA77 was not traveling at 600 knots during this time frame.

Did you miss that?

Speed needs to be up at this rate if you do not want to stall.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 01, 2017, 09:03:56 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 01, 2017, 09:01:20 AM
The analysis you quote above is completely wrong,  they didn't correct for instrument drift....
Who says?

Correct for instrument drift?

How do you correct for instrument drift when you load a flight sim with the FDR data and have the sim run the data out?

Are you ok?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 01, 2017, 09:05:19 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 01, 2017, 09:01:42 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 01, 2017, 08:56:12 AM
So what was your question?    I see that you've confirmed 3000 fpm as a normal descent rate.
Did you see the quoted speed?

3000 fpm at 600knots.

AA77 was not traveling at 600 knots during this time frame.

Did you miss that?

Speed needs to be up at this rate if you do not want to stall.

That's not correct,  but I'll leave it to you to figure out yourself  I'm tired of holding your hand.

Here you go,  time for you to get up-to date on 9/11 theories,   He's a 9/11 truther,  but he get most of the actual facts right.



Skip to 26:39 for the David Chandler presentation.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on May 01, 2017, 09:09:03 AM
Quote from: User324 on April 30, 2017, 11:40:27 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 30, 2017, 01:34:20 PM
Another response that can be summed up as "NU UH!"
The "nu uh" thing seems to be a contagious disease.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 30, 2017, 01:34:20 PM
Again...Lol, you act like the government is owned by the public. It is owned by the government, and they spend a lot of money per capita to remove critical thinking skills, as well as to follow orders from superiors blindly.
That's why people dislike you and you did receive a lot of hate - you think you're superior and the only one to see the truth while others can't even think critically. It makes you, in short terms, a moron.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 30, 2017, 01:34:20 PM
So...If someone high up says do this, and it is top secret or above...Well it is quite easy for anything within the military to "disappear".
Yeah sure.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 30, 2017, 01:34:20 PM
Finally, I never claimed have any specialty in psychology...Are you pulling things out of the air again?
Yes, and I did never say you have claimed to have any speciality in psychology.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 30, 2017, 01:34:20 PM
If you think they want to come hold you and rock you to sleep at night, then that is your own stupidity. (I am speaking of American leadership)
Fortunately I'm not from 'murica.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on April 30, 2017, 01:34:20 PM
Don't worry, you are young and dumb right now, still in the safety net of college and their cocoon...I don't expect you to comprehend it yet...Maybe within time and experience
I have to repeat myself: That's why people dislike you and you did receive a lot of hate - you think you're superior and the only one to see the truth while others can't even think critically. It makes you, in short terms, a moron.

Lol....Well that just breaks my heart...I am stupid and no one likes me :( I am telling Mom.

Funny though, the first time you said that is after I state a simple fact the military teaches you to follow orders blindly. This is a simple fact, the part you cut out of course states that is necessarily not a bad thing, only when used for malicious motivations.

You get that mad over a simple fact?? I have seen you do it countless times. This is just another "nu uh" response...You say I am wrong calling your answers that, yet in that very answer you prove it correct lol...A self fulfilling prophecy!

As for my statement at the end, I think you are proving that correct with your answers unfortunately. I hope you grow out of it, some do, some don't
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on May 01, 2017, 09:11:40 AM
You do realize rayzor even the tower controllers thought it was a military vessel from it's movement? Think their judgement matters, I can look up their quotes if you like
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 01, 2017, 09:19:32 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 01, 2017, 09:05:19 AM

That's not correct,  but I'll leave it to you to figure out yourself  I'm tired of holding your hand.

That is correct.

"The mathematics gives us a descent rate equal to half the ground speed times ten to stay on this profile."

Okay, you claim a descent rate for AA77 = 2571.5.

1/2 speed for AA77 would be, at this time,  according to the reported data = approximately 170.

Times ten = 1700.

How did they maintain flight profile without stalling?

I will leave it you to figure it for yourself.
Quote from: Rayzor on May 01, 2017, 09:05:19 AM

Here you go,  time for you to get up-to date on 9/11 theories,   He's a 9/11 truther,  but he get most of the actual facts right.


I do not give a fuck about David Chandler.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 01, 2017, 09:53:20 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on May 01, 2017, 09:09:03 AM
Funny though, the first time you said that is after I state a simple fact the military teaches you to follow orders blindly. This is a simple fact
Oh no, you confuse fact and opinion - again!
And no, you were not talking about military - you might need to re-read what you wrote :)

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on May 01, 2017, 09:09:03 AM
You get that mad over a simple fact??
What makes you think I'd get mad over a flatearthsociety post? You overestimate your power  ;)

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on May 01, 2017, 09:09:03 AM
nu uh
Oh no, it's not only contagious, it's chronically aswell :(

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on May 01, 2017, 09:09:03 AM
As for my statement at the end, I think you are proving that correct with your answers unfortunately. I hope you grow out of it, some do, some don't
I also think my statement about you feeling superior is pretty accurate, which you proof with your answers unfortunately.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 01, 2017, 10:23:35 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 01, 2017, 06:18:53 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 01, 2017, 06:06:13 AM
I've got a problem with a really inexperienced pilot nailing a 330° high speed low altitude turn then hitting the pentagon at a speed previously thought to be impossible for a 757 at sea level.

It just seems really unlikely to me.

At the end of that road, all you get is an argument from incredulity.   

And it's false to claim that a 757 couldn't do those speeds,  they can and did.
We are still waiting for you to show a 757 can do those speeds at sea level.

Show us a pilot achieving a speed of 500 knots or better in a 757 on a low altitude pass.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on May 01, 2017, 10:25:20 AM
USER

It is part of basic training dude... Are you really that uninformed? Or are you just saying things for conversation from lack of anything else to say?

I am leaning around 50/50 between lack of knowledge or just being a troll.

I don't feel Superior at all, I know my strong points/weak points and am honest with myself about it, as I think everyone should be with themselves.

I also believe proof is in the pudding, if someone tells me something I am gonna ask who you are to tell me. Someone calls me dumb, I am going to ask them to show they are more intelligent than I. If they are less intelligent than I, then they can fuck off, they are just deflecting..If they are more intelligent than I, then I will listen to what they say and take it into consideration.

I use this everywhere..Not going to let someone not successful call me unsuccessful, not going to let a broke guy call me broke, let an immoral person call me immoral etc etc etc.. you get the point I hope. (This philosophy also runs along the subject of 9/11 as well)

So no...Never cocky, I just know what I am and am not...I expect the same from others.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 01, 2017, 11:28:36 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on May 01, 2017, 10:25:20 AM
It is part of basic training dude... Are you really that uninformed?
In military, yes, of course, otherwise no, it's not.
If you think I'm wrong/uninformed, feel free to inform me. Might be I'm wrong, but anyway, you do not know where I'm from, don't know what I study etc so I do not think you'd be in a position to judge whether or not and how I'd get indoctrinated.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on May 01, 2017, 10:25:20 AM
I am leaning around 50/50 between lack of knowledge or just being a troll.
I'm obviously not 100% serious all the time, but I think I mostly make it rather clear when I'm serious and when I'm not (right now I am).

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on May 01, 2017, 10:25:20 AM
I don't feel Superior at all, I know my strong points/weak points and am honest with myself about it, as I think everyone should be with themselves.
In your opinion you're one of the very few critical/out of the box thinkers. Right?

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on May 01, 2017, 10:25:20 AM
Someone calls me dumb, I am going to ask them to show they are more intelligent than I.
I'd say, on a rational point of view I'm more intelligent then a lot of people, but I do not think that would justify me calling them dumb. So I do not think it matters whether you're more/less intelligent than someone else if you call them dumb. It's generally just rude and not necessary (except maybe on the FlatEarthSociety it's adequate sometimes).
Anyway, intelligence (in terms of Iq) is just a (rather small) part of who a person is.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on May 01, 2017, 10:25:20 AM
If they are more intelligent than I, then I will listen to what they say and take it into consideration.
I do not think that is a good idea. In my expirence, people with lower IQ (often lower working class) still come up with interesting ideas and concepts, also they often have made interesting experiences - it sure is worth listening to them. (I know that you probably were making your point only on people that call you dumb/not successful/poor etc. beforehand, still, I felt like I had to write that).
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on May 01, 2017, 12:22:34 PM
I don't know because you won't say for what ever​ strange reason. Indoctrination has nothing to do with what subject you are studying...Just being in the camp of college is enough.

I never said I was one of the only critical thinkers out there. There are plenty of those. I have said that I have removed the most common names called to critical thinkers/alternative thinking or whatever you want to call such people.

It is usually uneducated, unsuccessful, basement dwelling brain dead loser. I am an educated (by worldly standards), successful (by worldly standards), penthouse dwelling /certainly not brain dead nor a loser.

This is why I piss people off, I don't fall in this predetermined category, and when I am called whatever names, I simply ask for proof they can even point such a judgemental finger.

I was talking more than just intelligence quotient (though the man who has scored the highest score recorded believes in a creator  :D but that is another thread)...But certainly IQ is a factor, but not an end all be all. (Especially when you factor the people who are overdeveloped in one are, but under developed in others..You put those people in their wheel house, you better look out)


The main point I was making at the end, you need to use discernment when receiving information.

Would it be wise to take financial advice from a broke person?relationship advice from some married 5 times? Moral advice from someone with none? Take advice from someone who has taught something for 30 years with no experience, or someone who has worked in the field for 30 years? I would 99.9 percent listen to the latter over the former, even if he had no professional training.


Oh, and I Absolutely 100 percent appreciate the "normal worker"..You would know that if you read my rant towards rayzor when he called dispute just a dumb fitter. I 100 percent know how skilled they can be, and have seen fantastic ideas come from such people. Have also had my own personal designs improved before by such people..A "why didn't I think of that " moment.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 01, 2017, 07:59:06 PM
Quote from: totallackey on May 01, 2017, 10:23:35 AM
We are still waiting for you to show a 757 can do those speeds at sea level.

Show us a pilot achieving a speed of 500 knots or better in a 757 on a low altitude pass.

The only time I'm aware of that happening the plane crashed.

But I have friends who have flown high speed passes in commercial aircraft.

He told he the following.

"I had a 737-200 (on a sanctioned, approved beat-up of Dublin's RWY 28) going 340 at what I thought was 50ft but in the photos you cannot see much if any daylight below the engine pods. it was easy. Perhaps too easy."


I doubt anything I could say will ever change your mind, you seem to have this strange ability to misread facts,  draw false conclusions, then claim conspiracy when your errors are pointed out.

David Chandler is wrong about a lot of things, but he is right about the no-planers making the 9/11 truth movement a laughing stock.



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 01, 2017, 08:01:12 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on May 01, 2017, 09:11:40 AM
You do realize rayzor even the tower controllers thought it was a military vessel from it's movement? Think their judgement matters, I can look up their quotes if you like

Not surprising,  commercial aircraft don't usually crash into buildings at 500 mph.

Actually link to original audio files woudl be good.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 01, 2017, 08:13:24 PM
This video is interesting.



Edit. Quote.

Quote
"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," says O'Brien. "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe."

To be fair the response by debunkers is "they were terrorists." Which I can understand, however it's just interesting that a guy who couldn't fly a cessna pulls this manoeuvre off, however it is just speculatory.

But we have to look at whats more likely based purely on physics, then we can consider what the TV said.

For example in an alternate timeline where 9/11 never happened, can you imagine showing people wtc 7s collapse and telling them it was caused by fire? They would laugh at you and say it's obviously a controlled demolition.

It's too easy to cave to peer pressure and support what the TV says cause the TV says it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 01, 2017, 08:31:24 PM
We all had to change our views on natural building collapses in order to rectify what happened to wtc 7 all previous engineering says it should be impossible for a building to collapse like it did from fire.

Of course our views on physics had to change in order to accept wtc 7s collapse as a progressive collapse caused by fire.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 01, 2017, 08:41:11 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 01, 2017, 08:13:24 PM
Quote
"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," says O'Brien. "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe."

That quote is from Danielle O'Brian,  who wrote this letter in response to her quote being mis-interpreted.

"Mr. Meyssan's book "9/11: The big Lie" states that on September 11, 2001 I and my fellow air traffic controllers at Dulles airport had "no possible doubt" that the plane we saw approaching Washington, DC, which subsequently crashed into the Pentagon, "could not be a commercial airliner, but only a military aircraft" because of its speed and maneuverability.
In the manner Mr. Meyssen took my statements from context and arranged them to support his theory, his conclusions are a blatant disregard for the truth.
Upon initial impression, I considered the target, later confirmed to have been American Airlines flight 77, to possibly have been a military aircraft. In an interview with ABC's 20/20, I stated, "The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane. You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe." Since that tragic day, I've realised that it was never the intent of the hijacker to safely land American flight 77 anywhere. The usual preparations for a safe landing without our National Airspace System were not a consideration. Further, my colleagues at Reagan National Air Traffic Control Tower observed, from the windows of the Tower, and American Airlines Boeing 757 disappear below the skyline just prior to the smoke beginning at the Pentagon. Where is this B757 now? There was no situation when a standard airliner would traverse the skies around Washington, D.C. without strict approval by FAA Air Traffic Control.
Where are the crew and passengers from American 77? They have never been accounted for by Mr. Meyssen.
Another valid point against the argument by Meyssen is the path the aircraft flew. Meyssen suggests it was a military missile used to impact the Pentagon. Why would a missile make a 360 degree manuever like this to reduce its altitude. A missile would be on course, at its appropriate altitude, when it approached the target.
The suggestion of the use of a military plane or missile, knowing all available facts, is simply beyond consideration.
If Mr. Meyssen had been interested in the full truth, many sources were available. There would have been no better witnesses than the aviation-trained, eye witnesses of Air Traffic Control. In that he never requested interviews of any of us who were there, his interest obviously lies not in revealing any truth, but in his personal financial gain.
Respectfully,
Danielle (O'Brien) Howell"

So that quote is yet another example of 9/11 truthers deliberately distorting the facts and leaping to false conclusions on the basis of incomplete or misleading data.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 01, 2017, 09:11:52 PM
I didn't distort facts. I simply posted a quote. I am sorry you feel the particular quote hurts your position.

It's not my fault.

Quote from: disputeone on May 01, 2017, 08:13:24 PM
But we have to look at whats more likely based purely on physics, then we can consider what the TV said.

They thought it was a military plane originally then recanted on it once the official story was set out.

I am fine with this.

This reporter also recanted his statements in light of the official story.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 01, 2017, 09:59:37 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 01, 2017, 09:11:52 PM
I didn't distort facts. I simply posted a quote. I am sorry you feel the particular quote hurts your position.

It's not my fault.

That's not actually the truth,  the quote was DELIBERATELY misinterpreted,  not by you, but by those  who are making money out of peddling these conspiracy theories.

You and those who are fooled by this dishonest behaviour are just unwitting dupes,  all too eager eager to believe the lies and conspiracy bullshit.

It is your fault for not being sceptical and critical in seeking the truth.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 01, 2017, 10:07:58 PM
I'm not being fooled.

Originally, based on speed and maneuvers they thought it was (most likely) a military jet.

Quote
"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," says O'Brien. "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe."

They then retracted this statement and said they were wrong and it was a 757.

This is the objective truth twisting the facts from this is being dishonest.

I considered their original statements and I considered their statements recanting their original statements.

This is what being a skeptic is about, considering all evidence.

Just because we came to different conclusions doesn't mean one of us is stupid.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 01, 2017, 10:16:52 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 01, 2017, 10:07:58 PM
I'm not being fooled.

Originally, based on speed and maneuvers they thought it was (most likely) a military jet.

Quote
"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," says O'Brien. "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe."

They then retracted this statement and said they were wrong and it was a 757.

This is the objective truth twisting the facts from this is being dishonest.

I considered their original statements and I considered their statements recanting their original statements.

This is what being a skeptic is about, considering all evidence.

Just because we came to different conclusions doesn't mean one of us is stupid.

No the statement was never retracted,  It was deliberately misinterpreted and taken out of context,  Danielle O'Brian's letter says

"Mr. Meyssen took my statements from context and arranged them to support his theory, his conclusions are a blatant disregard for the truth."



Do you seriously not know that you've been hoodwinked by a lie.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 01, 2017, 10:21:15 PM
Quote
"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," says O'Brien. "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe."

This cannot be misinterpreted or taken out of context.

They originally thought it was a military plane, they then realised the hijacker had no intention of "flying the plane safely" which he still wanted to get to his target so anything overly risky seems unlikely to me. He wouldn't get 40 virgins if he just crashed into the dirt.

So, we could interpret this as the pilot was really pushing the planes limits, much more than an actual pilot would.

Which isn't a bad explanation for the speed and maneuvers he pulled off, I do doubt his ability to pull off those maneuvers however it is speculatory.

The fact is, this statement was made.

Edit.

In the same vein.

Do you seriously not know that you've been hoodwinked by NIST?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 01, 2017, 10:40:38 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 01, 2017, 10:21:15 PM
Do you seriously not know that you've been hoodwinked by NIST?

That's a deflection tactic,  designed to distract from your own mistakes.  But whatever floats your boat.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 01, 2017, 10:41:53 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 01, 2017, 10:40:38 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 01, 2017, 10:21:15 PM
Do you seriously not know that you've been hoodwinked by NIST?

That's a deflection tactic,  designed to distract from your own mistakes.  But whatever floats your boat.

What was it when you did it?

Quote from: Rayzor on May 01, 2017, 10:16:52 PM
Do you seriously not know that you've been hoodwinked by a lie.

After all, I did just copy and paste from your reply and change one word.

What was it when you did it?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 01, 2017, 10:45:29 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 01, 2017, 10:41:53 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 01, 2017, 10:40:38 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 01, 2017, 10:21:15 PM
Do you seriously not know that you've been hoodwinked by NIST?

That's a deflection tactic,  designed to distract from your own mistakes.  But whatever floats your boat.

What was it when you did it?

Quote from: Rayzor on May 01, 2017, 10:16:52 PM
Do you seriously not know that you've been hoodwinked by a lie.

After all, I did just copy and paste from your reply and change one word.

What was it when you did it?

No because we were discussing how you got hoodwinked by that deliberately out of context quote.  we weren't discussing NIST.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 01, 2017, 10:59:03 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 01, 2017, 10:41:53 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 01, 2017, 10:40:38 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 01, 2017, 10:21:15 PM
Do you seriously not know that you've been hoodwinked by NIST?

That's a deflection tactic,  designed to distract from your own mistakes.  But whatever floats your boat.

What was it when you did it?

Quote from: Rayzor on May 01, 2017, 10:16:52 PM
Do you seriously not know that you've been hoodwinked by a lie.

After all, I did just copy and paste from your reply and change one word.

What was it when you did it?

What was it when you did it?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 01, 2017, 11:13:05 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 01, 2017, 10:59:03 PM
What was it when you did it?

No, see reply above.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 01, 2017, 11:23:34 PM
Certainly seems like you don't like the taste of your own medicine.

P.S it isn't a yes or no question.

Alright, moving on.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 01, 2017, 11:35:44 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 01, 2017, 11:23:34 PM
Certainly seems like you don't like the taste of your own medicine.

P.S it isn't a yes or no question.

Alright, moving on.

LOL

"Mr. Meyssen took my statements from context and arranged them to support his theory, his conclusions are a blatant disregard for the truth."


He certainly made a shit load of money out of that lie.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 01, 2017, 11:38:35 PM
You seem desperate.

I'm a little busy atm I'll continue this later.

This is not taken out of context.

It is just a quote.

Quote
"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," says O'Brien. "You don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe."

This was what was said, it's not a lie to quote something you don't like.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 02, 2017, 02:50:15 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 01, 2017, 06:22:13 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 01, 2017, 05:36:40 AM
Please look at the period of time from 9:24 to 9:29.

Descent rates of 3000 fpm are not unusual for commercial flights.    from 25,000 ft at 9:22 to 7000 ft at 9:29 is 18,000 ft in 7 minutes an average descent rate of 2571 fpm under autopilot

I can't see the issue you are driving at?
"The mathematics gives us a descent rate equal to half the ground speed times ten to stay on this profile. "
AA77 speed during descent from 25,000 ft to 7,000 ft = approximately 340 mph

340/2 = 170

170 * 10 = 1700

How were they able to maintain the profile?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 02, 2017, 02:54:41 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 02, 2017, 02:50:15 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 01, 2017, 06:22:13 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 01, 2017, 05:36:40 AM
Please look at the period of time from 9:24 to 9:29.

Descent rates of 3000 fpm are not unusual for commercial flights.    from 25,000 ft at 9:22 to 7000 ft at 9:29 is 18,000 ft in 7 minutes an average descent rate of 2571 fpm under autopilot

I can't see the issue you are driving at?
"The mathematics gives us a descent rate equal to half the ground speed times ten to stay on this profile. "
AA77 speed during descent from 25,000 ft to 7,000 ft = approximately 340 mph

340/2 = 170

170 * 10 = 1700

How were they able to maintain the profile?

VNAV
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 02, 2017, 02:59:42 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 02, 2017, 02:54:41 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 02, 2017, 02:50:15 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 01, 2017, 06:22:13 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 01, 2017, 05:36:40 AM
Please look at the period of time from 9:24 to 9:29.

Descent rates of 3000 fpm are not unusual for commercial flights.    from 25,000 ft at 9:22 to 7000 ft at 9:29 is 18,000 ft in 7 minutes an average descent rate of 2571 fpm under autopilot

I can't see the issue you are driving at?
"The mathematics gives us a descent rate equal to half the ground speed times ten to stay on this profile. "
AA77 speed during descent from 25,000 ft to 7,000 ft = approximately 340 mph

340/2 = 170

170 * 10 = 1700

How were they able to maintain the profile?

VNAV
Sorry, VNAV will use the formula:

"The mathematics gives us a descent rate equal to half the ground speed times ten to stay on this profile. "

Does not compute.

Try again.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 02, 2017, 03:35:13 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 02, 2017, 02:59:42 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 02, 2017, 02:54:41 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 02, 2017, 02:50:15 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 01, 2017, 06:22:13 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 01, 2017, 05:36:40 AM
Please look at the period of time from 9:24 to 9:29.

Descent rates of 3000 fpm are not unusual for commercial flights.    from 25,000 ft at 9:22 to 7000 ft at 9:29 is 18,000 ft in 7 minutes an average descent rate of 2571 fpm under autopilot

I can't see the issue you are driving at?
"The mathematics gives us a descent rate equal to half the ground speed times ten to stay on this profile. "
AA77 speed during descent from 25,000 ft to 7,000 ft = approximately 340 mph

340/2 = 170

170 * 10 = 1700

How were they able to maintain the profile?

VNAV
Sorry, VNAV will use the formula:

"The mathematics gives us a descent rate equal to half the ground speed times ten to stay on this profile. "

Does not compute.

Try again.

Can you cite a reference proving that?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 02, 2017, 04:58:07 AM
Quote from: Jetpilot500

Another formula for determining when to start a decent, for say a crossing restriction:

when to start decent = 3 x altitude to lose
rate of descent = 1/2 Groundspeed

Lets say you are told, Cross XYZ VOR at 10,000'. You are at FL350 and your groundspeed is 400 knots.

25,000' to lose, multiply 25 x 3 and you get 75. Start your descent 75 miles away from XYZ VOR.

400 Knots groundspeed divide by 2 and get 200. Put a zero at the end and get 2000, and decend at a rate of 2000 FPM.

This formula will work perfectly everytime, but I usually add 5 miles to the distance so you can do thing smoothly for the passengers.

http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=730859

Around 300 knots should be 1500 FPM descent rate by his logic.

Autopilot probably wouldn't have done it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 02, 2017, 05:07:58 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 02, 2017, 04:58:07 AM
Quote from: Jetpilot500

Another formula for determining when to start a decent, for say a crossing restriction:

when to start decent = 3 x altitude to lose
rate of descent = 1/2 Groundspeed

Lets say you are told, Cross XYZ VOR at 10,000'. You are at FL350 and your groundspeed is 400 knots.

25,000' to lose, multiply 25 x 3 and you get 75. Start your descent 75 miles away from XYZ VOR.

400 Knots groundspeed divide by 2 and get 200. Put a zero at the end and get 2000, and decend at a rate of 2000 FPM.

This formula will work perfectly everytime, but I usually add 5 miles to the distance so you can do thing smoothly for the passengers.

http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=730859

Around 300 knots should be 1500 FPM descent rate by his logic.

Autopilot probably wouldn't have done it.

Show me a reference saying the 757 VNAV autopilot couldn't  do a  2500 fpm descent,   I bet you can't
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 02, 2017, 05:14:47 AM
I have absolutely no doubt there isn't an official source refuting the official story after 9/11.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 02, 2017, 05:16:32 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 02, 2017, 05:14:47 AM
I have absolutely no doubt there isn't an official source refuting the official story after 9/11.

Are you saying all 757's were scrapped after 9/11 or their specifications suddenly changed?    Seems unlikely even for you.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 02, 2017, 05:17:13 AM
Not at all.

I just showed you a professional pilots method for calculating descent.

What more do you want?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 02, 2017, 05:19:49 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 02, 2017, 05:17:13 AM
Not at all.

I just showed you a professional pilots method for calculating descent.

What more do you want?

You showed me a rule of thumb for determining a manual descent profile.   How do you think that relates to what the autopilot could do?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 02, 2017, 05:31:45 AM
Whats the difference if a human does it or a machine? Wouldn't the rule of thumb be applicable to both?

If I play chess against a computer, the computer doesn't get two moves every turn.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 02, 2017, 05:39:29 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 02, 2017, 03:35:13 AM
Can you cite a reference proving that?
The reference is any certified pilot.

Ask him if the formula for rate of descent is as I posted.

Please cite a reference stating that VNAV will utilize a different formula(s) in order to descend at a different speed other than:

"The mathematics gives us a descent rate equal to half the ground speed times ten to stay on this profile. "
Quote from: Rayzor on May 02, 2017, 05:07:58 AM
Show me a reference saying the 757 VNAV autopilot couldn't  do a  2500 fpm descent,   I bet you can't
It will perform a 2500 fpm descent.

In order to do so, it needs to have a speed of 500 knots.

"The mathematics gives us a descent rate equal to half the ground speed times ten to stay on this profile. "

500/2 = 250

250*10 = 2500 fpm descent rate

AA77 = speed during the period of descent from 25000 to 7000 was approximately 340 mph

340/2 = 170

170 *10 = 1700 fpm descent rate

Please explain how they maintained their flight profile without stalling or dropping like a rock out of the sky.

Please provide a reference stating that VNAV utilizes a different formula for rates of descent.

Thanks.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 02, 2017, 05:42:04 AM
http://craigmiddleton.co.uk/757/Biggles/www.crjresets.ca/z-Mcon/Hard2Find/B757/757_rr/flight_management_navigation/vnav.html

Quote
The FMC calculates a descent path based on airspeed and altitude constraints and the end of descent (E/D) point. An E/D is created when an altitude constraint is added to a waypoint in the descent phase. The altitude constraint can be entered manually or may be part of a selected VFR or instrument approach procedure. The E/D can be created at one of these positions:
The Final Approach Fix
The outer marker (for some ILS approaches)
The runway threshold for a VFR approach
The runway threshold for a non-precision approach with a runway waypoint on the RTE LEGS page.
The missed approach point for a non-precision approach not showing a runway waypoint on the RTE LEGS page.
Entering an arrival procedure provides an E/D point.
The FMC calculates the top of descent (T/D) point after the E/D is entered. T/D is the point where the cruise phase changes to the descent phase. The T/D is displayed on the HSI as a green circle with the label T/D. The descent path starts at the T/D and includes waypoint altitude constraints. The path to the first constraint is based on:
idle thrust
speedbrakes retracted
applicable target speed
descent wind speed decreasing with decreasing altitude
With the MCP altitude set below the current airplane altitude and at the T/D point, the FMC commands idle thrust for the level deceleration segment and pitch to track the descent path. Usually, the descent speed is economy above 10,000 feet and 240 knots below 10,000 feet. Final deceleration is commanded to arrive at the final approach fix or the outer marker at 170 knots.
If the airplane passes the T/D and the altitude window has not been set lower or if the airplane reaches the MCP altitude in descent, the pitch mode changes to altitude hold. The MCP must be reset and VNAV re-engaged to continue the descent.
Target speeds are changed by entries on the LEGS or DESCENT pages. Forecast descent winds and TAI/ON ALT for approach idle thrust may be entered on the DESCENT FORECAST page.
If an unexpected (not entered on the DESCENT FORECAST page) head wind results in a significant reduction in airspeed to maintain path, thrust increases. The CDU message THRUST REQUIRED displays if the A/T is disconnected and thrust is required to maintain path. The CDU message DRAG REQUIRED displays if an unexpected tail wind results in a significant increase in airspeed. If the airspeed deviation to maintain path is excessive and the limit speed may be exceeded, the FMC directs the airplane to depart the path.

I think it would just be a matter of "computer says no" regardless if the airplane could possibly do it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 02, 2017, 05:48:27 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 02, 2017, 05:39:29 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 02, 2017, 03:35:13 AM
Can you cite a reference proving that?
The reference is any certified pilot.

Ask him if the formula for rate of descent is as I posted.
Quote from: Rayzor on May 02, 2017, 05:07:58 AM
Show me a reference saying the 757 VNAV autopilot couldn't  do a  2500 fpm descent,   I bet you can't
It will perform a 2500 fpm descent.

In order to do so, it needs to have a speed of 500 knots.

"The mathematics gives us a descent rate equal to half the ground speed times ten to stay on this profile. "

500/2 = 250

250*10 = 2500 fpm descent rate

AA77 = speed during the period of descent from 25000 to 7000 was approximately 340 mph

340/2 = 170

170 *10 = 1700 fpm descent rate

Please explain how they maintained their flight profile without stalling or dropping like a rock out of the sky.

Thanks.

So you couldn't find a reference,  that doesn't surprise me.  2500 fpm descent rates are not unusual for commercial aircraft.



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 02, 2017, 05:54:40 AM
At 500 knots 2500 fpm is very standard.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 02, 2017, 06:05:04 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 02, 2017, 05:54:40 AM
At 500 knots 2500 fpm is very standard.

According to the FDR the ground speed was 500 knots at the start of the descent.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 02, 2017, 06:12:06 AM
Can we get a citation with that please?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 02, 2017, 06:18:21 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 01, 2017, 10:21:15 PM
He wouldn't get 40 virgins if he just crashed into the dirt.
Source? How you know what they have been told?
I'm pretty sure killing all the people on that plane (+maybe a few in a random crash) is enough to be a martyr.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 02, 2017, 06:27:07 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 02, 2017, 06:12:06 AM
Can we get a citation with that please?

The graph on page 24 of the FDR data has ground speed.

Don't you have the NTSB  pdf?  I'm guessing not, since you asked for the source.   https://www.ntsb.gov/about/Documents/AAL77_fdr.pdf


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 02, 2017, 06:39:39 AM
Some of us don't do this for a living.

Edit.

(https://s14.postimg.org/ith7drf1d/20170502_215402.png)

There you go that wasn't hard. I didn't think the report would have internal inconsistencies at least.

A 200mph tailwind is pretty gnarly to be fair.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 02, 2017, 07:10:38 AM
That's what it's claiming right? There's no way around it. 200mph difference in ground and air speed = 200mph winds.

Quote
The simpliest way to say it is that groundspeed is true airspeed corrected for wind. Say you're flying along at 150kts into a 10kt headwind. You'll be moving through the air at 150kts, but only moving along the ground at 140kts. True airspeed (TAS): Airspeed at which the aircraft is moving through the air.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 02, 2017, 07:39:26 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 02, 2017, 07:10:38 AM
That's what it's claiming right? There's no way around it. 200mph difference in ground and air speed = 200mph winds.

Quote
The simpliest way to say it is that groundspeed is true airspeed corrected for wind. Say you're flying along at 150kts into a 10kt headwind. You'll be moving through the air at 150kts, but only moving along the ground at 140kts. True airspeed (TAS): Airspeed at which the aircraft is moving through the air.

You are forgetting that's at 25,000 feet.   

But looking at the altitude graph and airspeed,  the rate of descent under VNAV autopilot  is nice and constant  and the airspeed is flat around 300 knots or so.

When he switches off the autopilot,  he's all over the place for a while.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 02, 2017, 08:14:15 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 02, 2017, 05:48:27 AM
So you couldn't find a reference...
Incorrect.

I posted the reference.

The reference is any certified pilot.

You ignored it.
Quote from: Rayzor on May 02, 2017, 05:48:27 AM
2500 fpm descent rates are not unusual for commercial aircraft.
This statement is likely correct.

Now, please cite a reference that VNAV will utilize different math than this:

"The mathematics gives us a descent rate equal to half the ground speed times ten to stay on this profile. "
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 02, 2017, 08:25:58 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 02, 2017, 08:14:15 AM
I posted the reference.

The reference is any certified pilot.

You ignored it.
I'll happily ask any of my profs if they'll accept any bachelor/master thesis with references "any certified scientist".

Do you really not realize what bullshit you're talking?!
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 02, 2017, 08:31:44 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 02, 2017, 07:39:26 AM
You are forgetting that's at 25,000 feet.   

But looking at the altitude graph and airspeed,  the rate of descent under VNAV autopilot  is nice and constant  and the airspeed is flat around 300 knots or so.

When he switches off the autopilot,  he's all over the place for a while.
Incorrect.

Groundspeed is below 500 @ 9:22 and continues to drop steadily during descent.

Please cite a valid reference that wind speeds achieved at least 160 knots E at 25000 feet.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 02, 2017, 08:33:18 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 02, 2017, 08:25:58 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 02, 2017, 08:14:15 AM
I posted the reference.

The reference is any certified pilot.

You ignored it.
I'll happily ask any of my profs if they'll accept any bachelor/master thesis with references "any certified scientist".

Do you really not realize what bullshit you're talking?!
This is not a college class.

I am not writing to a college professor.

I am not writing a college paper.

I am not talking, I am writing.

Please stop posting spam.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 02, 2017, 08:36:02 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 02, 2017, 08:33:18 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 02, 2017, 08:25:58 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 02, 2017, 08:14:15 AM
I posted the reference.

The reference is any certified pilot.

You ignored it.
I'll happily ask any of my profs if they'll accept any bachelor/master thesis with references "any certified scientist".

Do you really not realize what bullshit you're talking?!
I am not writing to a college professor.

I am not writing a college paper.
Exactely, you're writing bullshit, and I'm pointing it out. Deal with it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 02, 2017, 08:40:20 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 02, 2017, 08:36:02 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 02, 2017, 08:33:18 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 02, 2017, 08:25:58 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 02, 2017, 08:14:15 AM
I posted the reference.

The reference is any certified pilot.

You ignored it.
I'll happily ask any of my profs if they'll accept any bachelor/master thesis with references "any certified scientist".

Do you really not realize what bullshit you're talking?!
I am not writing to a college professor.

I am not writing a college paper.
Exactely, you're writing bullshit, and I'm pointing it out. Deal with it.
Okay.

Any certified pilot would be a valid reference in an informal discussion on the topic of rates of descent and VNAV.

Dealt with.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 02, 2017, 08:47:44 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 02, 2017, 08:40:20 AM
Any certified pilot would be a valid reference in an informal discussion on the topic of rates of descent and VNAV.
And thus rayzor saying you have no reference would be true because your "reference" is hypothetical/imaginary only (=no reference).

I'm happy we agree on one point :)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on May 02, 2017, 08:49:56 AM
He is too lazy, doesn't care, or is trolling..So he wont research himself lackey.

So even if stating a no brainer fact, something that every person would know in the field, or is easily found in even the most basic books..he will still reply the same. You are wasting your time on him.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 02, 2017, 08:53:02 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 02, 2017, 08:47:44 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 02, 2017, 08:40:20 AM
Any certified pilot would be a valid reference in an informal discussion on the topic of rates of descent and VNAV.
And thus rayzor saying you have no reference would be true because your "reference" is hypothetical/imaginary only (=no reference).

I'm happy we agree on one point :)
My references are not hypothetical/imaginary.

Do you deny the existence of certified pilots?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 02, 2017, 08:55:17 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on May 02, 2017, 08:49:56 AM
He is too lazy, doesn't care, or is trolling..So he wont research himself lackey.

So even if stating a no brainer fact, something that every person would know in the field, or is easily found in even the most basic books..he will still reply the same. You are wasting your time on him.
I understand his purpose here.

Thanks.

I do not mind wasting time on occasion.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 02, 2017, 08:56:52 AM
@Rayzor
Quote from: totallackey on May 02, 2017, 08:31:44 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 02, 2017, 07:39:26 AM
You are forgetting that's at 25,000 feet.   

But looking at the altitude graph and airspeed,  the rate of descent under VNAV autopilot  is nice and constant  and the airspeed is flat around 300 knots or so.

When he switches off the autopilot,  he's all over the place for a while.
Incorrect.

Groundspeed is below 500 @ 9:22 and continues to drop steadily during descent.

Please cite a valid reference that wind speeds achieved at least 160 knots E at 25000 feet.
In addition, how did they start 2500 fpm descent without 500 knots?

How did they maintain 2500 fpm without 500 knots?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 02, 2017, 08:59:31 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 02, 2017, 08:53:02 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 02, 2017, 08:47:44 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 02, 2017, 08:40:20 AM
Any certified pilot would be a valid reference in an informal discussion on the topic of rates of descent and VNAV.
And thus rayzor saying you have no reference would be true because your "reference" is hypothetical/imaginary only (=no reference).

I'm happy we agree on one point :)
My references are not hypothetical/imaginary.

Do you deny the existence of certified pilots?

Do you deny the existence of certified scientists?

Quote
...thesis with references "any certified scientist".
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 02, 2017, 09:04:36 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 02, 2017, 08:59:31 AM

Do you deny the existence of certified scientists?

Quote
...thesis with references "any certified scientist".
Are these certified scientists of which you write relevant to this particular topic at this particular time?

Am I currently engaged in writing a college - level thesis?

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on May 02, 2017, 09:10:30 AM
Don't fall into his rhetoric, he is like a mini rayzor....
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 02, 2017, 09:17:28 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on May 02, 2017, 09:10:30 AM
Don't fall into his rhetoric, he is like a mini rayzor....
He is not even CLOSE to Rayzor...

You are joking, right?

He has no rhetoric.

Can't even pull off the obfuscation, mental reservation, or equivocation at a HS level...

I give Rayzor credit for that.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 02, 2017, 09:24:01 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 02, 2017, 09:04:36 AM
Am I currently engaged in writing a college - level thesis?
I don't know, you tell me. But where is the link to what I wrote?

Seriously, if you have no citation and references, just admit it - it is not generally a bad thing. If you think something is common knowledge and thus does not need citation, say so. If someone else (e.g. rayzor or me) does not think it is common knowledge or does not know any "certified pilot" himself, you'd have to provide a source though.

Edit
Quote
He has no rhetoric.
True, but still more than you ;)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on May 02, 2017, 09:30:43 AM
That is why I said mini...He is trying razyor's tactics, just not implementing well. Rayzor is a pro at it.

He even got me a few times with his brief nice guy bit.

Quote
still more than you

Lol....Good one ::)

Just fyi, I wasn't giving you a compliment referring to your rhetoric lol
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 02, 2017, 09:39:10 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 02, 2017, 09:24:01 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 02, 2017, 09:04:36 AM
Am I currently engaged in writing a college - level thesis?
I don't know, you tell me.
I need to tell you if any informal written discussion here = a college level thesis?

Quote from: User324 on May 02, 2017, 09:24:01 AM
I failed to read the thread and did not notice that Rayzor was the first one to bring into evidence his discussions with his pilot friends.
FTFY.

No need to thank me.

Quote from: User324 on May 02, 2017, 09:24:01 AM
Quote
He has no rhetoric.
True, but still more than you ;)
Not hardly.

You were first made to quit here:
Quote from: User324 on April 28, 2017, 08:32:57 AM
Totallackey, you're ignored for your thread "This just in..."

Quote from: totallackey on April 28, 2017, 08:56:34 AM
Quote from: User324 on April 28, 2017, 08:32:57 AM
Totallackey, you're ignored for your thread "This just in..."
Fine by me.

Quitter.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 02, 2017, 10:11:20 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 02, 2017, 09:39:10 AM
You were first made to quit here:
Ignore =/= quit
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 02, 2017, 10:22:08 AM
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/_vtttZLINbA/maxresdefault.jpg)

Radiosonde data (at 7620m) for the area on 9/11/01:

"Observations at 12Z 10 Sep 2001"
PRES    HGHT   TEMP   DWPT   RELH   MIXR   DRCT   SKNT   THTA   THTE   THTV
   hPa      m          C          C           %        g/kg    deg      knot      K         K        K
398.4   7620    -19.3     -33.4       28      0.57    220      11      330.2  332.4  330.3
"Observations at 00Z 11 Sep 2001"
PRES    HGHT   TEMP   DWPT   RELH   MIXR   DRCT   SKNT   THTA   THTE   THTV
   hPa      m          C          C           %        g/kg    deg      knot      K         K        K
396.8   7620     -21.1     -34.6      29       0.52    290     29      328.3  330.3  328.4
"Observations at 00Z 12 Sep 2001"
PRES    HGHT   TEMP   DWPT   RELH   MIXR   DRCT   SKNT   THTA   THTE   THTV
   hPa      m          C          C           %        g/kg    deg      knot      K         K        K
396.1   7620      -22.7     -45.1     11       0.17    295      22    326.3  327.0  326.3
"Observations at 12Z 12 Sep 2001"
PRES    HGHT   TEMP   DWPT   RELH   MIXR   DRCT   SKNT   THTA   THTE   THTV
   hPa      m          C          C           %        g/kg    deg      knot      K         K        K 
395.0   7620      -22.1     -47.6      8        0.13    285      17     327.4  327.9  327.4
Source = http://weather.uwyo.edu/upperair/sounding.html (http://weather.uwyo.edu/upperair/sounding.html)

The wind speed at 25000 feet was always under 30 knots.

One thing the sharp eyed reader will notice...

The data for 12:00 pm on 9/11 is MISSING!

Not there...

But the weather for 9/10/01, 9/11/01, and 9/12/01 in DC was pretty much the same all three days.

No drastic changes I noticed and no reason to believe the wind speed at 25000 ft in that area was EVER at 160 knots.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 02, 2017, 10:27:16 AM
(https://i.ytimg.com/vi/f3Phy3w8_hY/maxresdefault.jpg)
Quote from: User324 on May 02, 2017, 10:11:20 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 02, 2017, 09:39:10 AM
You were first made to quit here:
Ignore =/= quit
Does too...does too...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 02, 2017, 02:36:21 PM
I'd like to see the supposed 180 knot winds addressed.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 02, 2017, 07:49:43 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 02, 2017, 02:36:21 PM
I'd like to see the supposed 180 knot winds addressed.

That's interesting question,  I wouldn't have assumed it was all to do with wind,  as I posted yesterday it's mostly to do with altitude.

It's just the conversion of Calibrated Air Speed to True Air Speed, which is a function of altitude,  Ground Speed is True Airspeed +- Wind,  if we assume not much wind,  then just looks at the calculation of True Air Speed from Calibrated Air Speed,  you'll see how it varies with air density, and therfore altitude.

(http://www.experimentalaircraft.info/images/tas.png)

There might be an on-line calculator to do check for 25000 ft and V1=300 knots,   but I think it will come out to around 500 knots,  I haven't checked.

PS, Ok I checked,  Air density at sea level 1.225, air density at 25000 ft 0.4008,  so  for V=300 knots  TAS = 524 knots  +- Wind
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 02, 2017, 08:20:47 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on May 02, 2017, 09:30:43 AM
That is why I said mini...He is trying razyor's tactics, just not implementing well. Rayzor is a pro at it.

He even got me a few times with his brief nice guy bit.


I was almost always being polite.   But,  then you were the one who turned nasty after I pointed out a few of your more blatant mistakes,  (not knowing what point load was, is still a classic)  then there was that whole series of insults from you about me calling dispute crazy.  I've moved on, time you did too.

I prefer to argue the evidence.  which reminds me I've still not seen anything of substance from that 10 years of 9/11 research you claim to have done.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 02, 2017, 08:27:20 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 02, 2017, 08:20:47 PM
I was almost always being polite.   

Your very first post implies Bhs is telling "fairy tales." If that's polite to you then you are an asshole.

Quote from: Rayzor on May 02, 2017, 07:49:43 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 02, 2017, 02:36:21 PM
I'd like to see the supposed 180 knot winds addressed.

That's interesting question,  I wouldn't have assumed it was all to do with wind,  as I posted yesterday it's mostly to do with altitude.

It's just the conversion of Calibrated Air Speed to True Air Speed, which is a function of altitude,  Ground Speed is True Airspeed +- Wind,  if we assume not much wind,  then just looks at the calculation of True Air Speed from Calibrated Air Speed,  you'll see how it varies with air density, and therfore altitude.

(http://www.experimentalaircraft.info/images/tas.png)

There might be an on-line calculator to do check for 25000 ft and V1=300 knots,   but I think it will come out to around 500 knots,  I haven't checked.

PS, Ok I checked,  Air density at sea level 1.225, air density at 25000 ft 0.4008,  so  for V=300 knots  TAS = 524 knots  +- Wind


Cool ok.

Seems like they could just pick and change the numbers so that they worked. Theres so many different numbers from different studies and instruments.

Makes sense, that was a decent post btw, you're much more willing to discuss the planes on 9/11 than wtc 7's collapse. That is also very understandable.

I'm learning some aircraft jargon so cool.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 02, 2017, 08:52:22 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 02, 2017, 08:27:20 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 02, 2017, 08:20:47 PM
I was almost always being polite.   

Your very first post implies Bhs is telling "fairy tales." If that's polite to you then you are an asshole.

He still is,  and trust me,  that's being polite,   I'll give you a pass on the "asshole" insult,  but if you keep it up and I'll start firing back,
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 02, 2017, 08:59:46 PM
It's just true Rayzor.

If you feel calling someones opinions fairy tales is polite then you are an asshole. Don't blame the messenger.

Plus it isn't a fairy-tale.



At least according to professionals in their field.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 02, 2017, 09:05:36 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 02, 2017, 08:59:46 PM
It's just true Rayzor.

If you feel calling someones opinions fairy tales is polite then you are an asshole. Don't blame the messenger.


Whatever floats your boat.   But I do recall something you said,  let me remind you.

Quote
You are going to end this a jibbering mess of failed insults and logic.

LOL

Back to the debate.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that WTC7  didn't collapse,   do you think they would have demolished it anyway because of the structural damage?


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 02, 2017, 09:58:23 PM
Yet here we are.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on May 03, 2017, 01:26:38 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 02, 2017, 08:20:47 PM
I was almost always being polite.   But,  then you were the one who turned nasty after I pointed out a few of your more blatant mistakes,  (not knowing what point load was, is still a classic)  then there was that whole series of insults from you about me calling dispute crazy.  I've moved on, time you did too.

I prefer to argue the evidence.  which reminds me I've still not seen anything of substance from that 10 years of 9/11 research you claim to have done.

Quote from: Rayzor on May 02, 2017, 08:52:22 PM
He still is,  and trust me,  that's being polite,   I'll give you a pass on the "asshole" insult,  but if you keep it up and I'll start firing back,

I can't help it you balked at the judges and contest.

Nor can I help the fact you lacked the prerequisites to understand the reality of point loads.

Pretty sure there is a thread that ended the point load discussion in my favor cupcake.

Would you like to up the auntie since you are so sure??
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 03, 2017, 01:43:26 AM
I think the thread with the picture of the blur shows that my wish of honest judges. Purely judging the debate and not voting for the side they already support is impossible.

I was foolish I think. I'm fine with this. Maybe when Hulseys model and report is peer reviewed people might come around, personally, after all this. I think that most people won't believe it until it's on mainstream media news, which I have doubts will happen in our lifetime.

It's very telling that the most intelligent posters on this site haven't tried to defend the O/S. I respect their honesty in not arguing from an untenable position. We either need to accept that Newtons laws were broken on 9/11, multiple times and be ok with it.

(https://s4.postimg.org/4d0oftoal/19060057dc47764109b3c1f88477cde1.jpg)

Or we need to look at other methods of assisted collapse for the three towers on the day. It's up to the individual to make a decision into how deep they look and how honest they are with themselves with the evidence and circumstances.

P.S. You're up late/early man.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 03, 2017, 02:46:16 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 02, 2017, 07:49:43 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 02, 2017, 02:36:21 PM
I'd like to see the supposed 180 knot winds addressed.

That's interesting question,  I wouldn't have assumed it was all to do with wind,  as I posted yesterday it's mostly to do with altitude.

It's just the conversion of Calibrated Air Speed to True Air Speed, which is a function of altitude,  Ground Speed is True Airspeed +- Wind,  if we assume not much wind,  then just looks at the calculation of True Air Speed from Calibrated Air Speed,  you'll see how it varies with air density, and therfore altitude.

(http://www.experimentalaircraft.info/images/tas.png)

There might be an on-line calculator to do check for 25000 ft and V1=300 knots,   but I think it will come out to around 500 knots,  I haven't checked.

PS, Ok I checked,  Air density at sea level 1.225, air density at 25000 ft 0.4008,  so  for V=300 knots  TAS = 524 knots  +- Wind
I would ask where you garnered the numbers for the air density on 9/11/01 for altitude at 25000 ft?

I would also ask how those numbers support a ground speed of 500 knots for the 2500 fpm descent?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 03, 2017, 03:27:53 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 03, 2017, 02:46:16 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 02, 2017, 07:49:43 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 02, 2017, 02:36:21 PM
I'd like to see the supposed 180 knot winds addressed.

That's interesting question,  I wouldn't have assumed it was all to do with wind,  as I posted yesterday it's mostly to do with altitude.

It's just the conversion of Calibrated Air Speed to True Air Speed, which is a function of altitude,  Ground Speed is True Airspeed +- Wind,  if we assume not much wind,  then just looks at the calculation of True Air Speed from Calibrated Air Speed,  you'll see how it varies with air density, and therfore altitude.

(http://www.experimentalaircraft.info/images/tas.png)

There might be an on-line calculator to do check for 25000 ft and V1=300 knots,   but I think it will come out to around 500 knots,  I haven't checked.

PS, Ok I checked,  Air density at sea level 1.225, air density at 25000 ft 0.4008,  so  for V=300 knots  TAS = 524 knots  +- Wind
I would ask where you garnered the numbers for the air density on 9/11/01 for altitude at 25000 ft?

I would also ask how those numbers support a ground speed of 500 knots for the 2500 fpm descent?

Or I could ask you to get off your fat arse and look it up yourself,  and do the calculation.   But that would involve you actually doing something to educate yourself.
   
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 03, 2017, 03:28:50 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on May 03, 2017, 01:26:38 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 02, 2017, 08:20:47 PM
I was almost always being polite.   But,  then you were the one who turned nasty after I pointed out a few of your more blatant mistakes,  (not knowing what point load was, is still a classic)  then there was that whole series of insults from you about me calling dispute crazy.  I've moved on, time you did too.

I prefer to argue the evidence.  which reminds me I've still not seen anything of substance from that 10 years of 9/11 research you claim to have done.

Quote from: Rayzor on May 02, 2017, 08:52:22 PM
He still is,  and trust me,  that's being polite,   I'll give you a pass on the "asshole" insult,  but if you keep it up and I'll start firing back,

I can't help it you balked at the judges and contest.

Nor can I help the fact you lacked the prerequisites to understand the reality of point loads.

Pretty sure there is a thread that ended the point load discussion in my favor cupcake.

Would you like to up the auntie since you are so sure??

Hey leave my Auntie out of this,  she's a nice lady.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 03, 2017, 04:03:57 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 03, 2017, 04:00:59 AM
Rayzor can we leave it and agree to disagree? Everyone is getting angry with us because you keep starting threads and shitposting when my first reply is still waiting to be debunked.

Let's agree to disagree, you have your interpretation of the day, and we have our interpretation of the day.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 03, 2017, 04:07:24 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 03, 2017, 04:03:57 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 03, 2017, 04:00:59 AM
Rayzor can we leave it and agree to disagree? Everyone is getting angry with us because you keep starting threads and shitposting when my first reply is still waiting to be debunked.

Let's agree to disagree, you have your interpretation of the day, and we have our interpretation of the day.

I think you are the only one "getting angry" as you put it.   I know why that is,  but you can guess.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 03, 2017, 04:17:35 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 03, 2017, 04:00:59 AM
Rayzor can we leave it and agree to disagree? Everyone is getting angry with us because you keep starting threads and shitposting when my first reply is still waiting to be debunked.

Let's agree to disagree, you have your interpretation of the day, and we have our interpretation of the day.

We also have our own interpretation of the "debate."
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 03, 2017, 06:31:54 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 03, 2017, 03:27:53 AM
Or I could ask you to get off your fat arse and look it up yourself,  and do the calculation.   But that would involve you actually doing something to educate yourself.
Do you have a source for the air density numbers or not?

According to my source, standard atmosphere = 10.66 at altitude 25000 ft.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 03, 2017, 06:45:03 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 03, 2017, 06:31:54 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 03, 2017, 03:27:53 AM
Or I could ask you to get off your fat arse and look it up yourself,  and do the calculation.   But that would involve you actually doing something to educate yourself.
Do you have a source for the air density numbers or not?

I didn't think you were serious,  you just look up a standard air density chart.    http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/standard-atmosphere-d_604.html

Then you get out your calculator and  divide the density at sea level by the density at whatever altitude you want,  take the square root of that and multiply by the airspeed.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 03, 2017, 06:47:56 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 03, 2017, 04:07:24 AM
I think you are the only one "getting angry" as you put it.   I know why that is,  but you can guess.
Quote from: Rayzor on May 03, 2017, 03:27:53 AM
Or I could ask you to get off your fat arse and look it up yourself,  and do the calculation.   But that would involve you actually doing something to educate yourself.
Hmmmm...

Who is angry?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 03, 2017, 06:50:26 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 03, 2017, 06:45:03 AM
I didn't think you were serious,  you just look up a standard air density chart.    http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/standard-atmosphere-d_604.html

Then you get out your calculator and  divide the density at sea level by the density at whatever altitude you want,  take the square root of that and multiply by the airspeed.

Air density at 25000 ft = 10.66 IU

Okay. .4008 SI

AND

At Sea Level????

12.25 SI

So, time to shit can your formula.

BUSTED!!!
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 03, 2017, 06:57:32 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 03, 2017, 06:47:56 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 03, 2017, 04:07:24 AM
I think you are the only one "getting angry" as you put it.   I know why that is,  but you can guess.
Quote from: Rayzor on May 03, 2017, 03:27:53 AM
Or I could ask you to get off your fat arse and look it up yourself,  and do the calculation.   But that would involve you actually doing something to educate yourself.
Hmmmm...

Who is angry?

Actually I just double checked and I must have misread the chart,  the ratio air density at sea level to 25,000 ft is 2.22 so  square root of that is 1.49,  and 1.49 times 300 is 447 knots  TAS
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 03, 2017, 06:58:23 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 03, 2017, 06:50:26 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 03, 2017, 06:45:03 AM
I didn't think you were serious,  you just look up a standard air density chart.    http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/standard-atmosphere-d_604.html

Then you get out your calculator and  divide the density at sea level by the density at whatever altitude you want,  take the square root of that and multiply by the airspeed.

Air density at 25000 ft = 10.66 IU

Okay. .4008 SI

AND

At Sea Level????

12.25 SI

So, time to shit can your formula.

BUSTED!!!

That chart is for meters above sea level not feet.  The one above it is in feet.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 03, 2017, 08:09:38 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 03, 2017, 06:57:32 AM
Actually I just double checked and I must have misread the chart,  the ratio air density at sea level to 25,000 ft is 2.22 so  square root of that is 1.49,  and 1.49 times 300 is 447 knots  TAS
Quote from: Rayzor on May 03, 2017, 06:58:23 AM
That chart is for meters above sea level not feet.  The one above it is in feet.
Here is the chart (please take note the chart is in FEET not METERS/Imperial (BG) Units):

- h -       - t -           - g -      - p -         -den  -    - μ -
(ft)   
  0           59        32.174   14.696    23.77   3.737
25000  -30.05    32.097   5.461      10.66    3.217

(please take note the chart is in METERS not FEET/SI Units)

- h -                   - t -        - g -      - p -       -den  -    - μ -
(m)   
0                    15.00    9.807    10.13       12.25    1.789
7000            -30.45     9.785   4.111        5.900   1.561   
Do your calculations again.

Then inform as to why this calculation has anything to do with ground speed.

TAS is ground speed +/- wind at altitude.

It was already established the calculation to maintain FLIGHT profile is :

""The mathematics gives us a descent rate equal to half the ground speed times ten to stay on this profile. "
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 03, 2017, 08:35:19 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 03, 2017, 08:09:38 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 03, 2017, 06:57:32 AM
Actually I just double checked and I must have misread the chart,  the ratio air density at sea level to 25,000 ft is 2.22 so  square root of that is 1.49,  and 1.49 times 300 is 447 knots  TAS
Quote from: Rayzor on May 03, 2017, 06:58:23 AM
That chart is for meters above sea level not feet.  The one above it is in feet.
Here is the chart (please take note the chart is in FEET not METERS/Imperial (BG) Units):

- h -       - t -           - g -      - p -         -den  -    - μ -
(ft)   
  0           59        32.174   14.696    23.77   3.737
25000  -30.05    32.097   5.461      10.66    3.217

(please take note the chart is in METERS not FEET/SI Units)

- h -                   - t -        - g -      - p -       -den  -    - μ -
(m)   
0                    15.00    9.807    10.13       12.25    1.789
7000            -30.45     9.785   4.111        5.900   1.561   
Do your calculations again.

Then inform as to why this calculation has anything to do with ground speed.

Ok,  let's go through step by step.

IAS  is indicated air speed.
CAS is calibrated air speed
TAS is true airspeed  after correcting CAS for altitude

Ground speed is TAS +- wind

You have to calculate TAS to get ground speed.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 03, 2017, 08:47:17 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 03, 2017, 01:43:26 AM
I think the thread with the picture of the blur shows that my wish of honest judges. Purely judging the debate and not voting for the side they already support is impossible.

I was foolish I think. I'm fine with this. Maybe when Hulseys model and report is peer reviewed people might come around, personally, after all this. I think that most people won't believe it until it's on mainstream media news, which I have doubts will happen in our lifetime.

It's very telling that the most intelligent posters on this site haven't tried to defend the O/S. I respect their honesty in not arguing from an untenable position. We either need to accept that Newtons laws were broken on 9/11, multiple times and be ok with it.

(https://s4.postimg.org/4d0oftoal/19060057dc47764109b3c1f88477cde1.jpg)

Or we need to look at other methods of assisted collapse for the three towers on the day. It's up to the individual to make a decision into how deep they look and how honest they are with themselves with the evidence and circumstances.

P.S. You're up late/early man.

I don't understand, please explain how newton's laws have been broken, thank you.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 03, 2017, 09:23:38 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 03, 2017, 08:35:19 AM
Ok,  let's go through step by step.
Okay.
Quote from: Rayzor on May 03, 2017, 08:35:19 AM
IAS  is indicated air speed.
Correct.
Quote from: Rayzor on May 03, 2017, 08:35:19 AM
CAS is calibrated air speed.
Correct.
Quote from: Rayzor on May 03, 2017, 08:35:19 AM
TAS is true airspeed  after correcting CAS for altitude.
Correct.
Quote from: Rayzor on May 03, 2017, 08:35:19 AM
Ground speed is TAS +- wind
Incorrect.

GS= f (αo&AS, βo&WS)

where:
AS = Air Speed
αo = flight direction (desired azimuth)
WS = Wind Speed
βo = wind direction (azimuth)
Quote from: Rayzor on May 03, 2017, 08:35:19 AM
You have to calculate TAS to get ground speed.
Incorrect.

Please try again.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 03, 2017, 09:44:47 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 03, 2017, 09:23:38 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 03, 2017, 08:35:19 AM
Ok,  let's go through step by step.
Okay.
Quote from: Rayzor on May 03, 2017, 08:35:19 AM
IAS  is indicated air speed.
Correct.
Quote from: Rayzor on May 03, 2017, 08:35:19 AM
CAS is calibrated air speed.
Correct.
Quote from: Rayzor on May 03, 2017, 08:35:19 AM
TAS is true airspeed  after correcting CAS for altitude.
Correct.
Quote from: Rayzor on May 03, 2017, 08:35:19 AM
Ground speed is TAS +- wind
Incorrect.

GS= f (αo&AS, βo&WS)

where:
AS = Air Speed
αo = flight direction (desired azimuth)
WS = Wind Speed
βo = wind direction (azimuth)
Quote from: Rayzor on May 03, 2017, 08:35:19 AM
You have to calculate TAS to get ground speed.
Incorrect.

Please try again.

LOL,  you just repeated what I said.   
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 03, 2017, 09:49:19 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 03, 2017, 09:44:47 AM
LOL,  you just repeated what I said.
EDIT: Conflicting sources are stating different information.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 03, 2017, 10:02:23 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 03, 2017, 06:57:32 AM
Actually I just double checked and I must have misread the chart,  the ratio air density at sea level to 25,000 ft is 2.22 so  square root of that is 1.49,  and 1.49 times 300 is 447 knots  TAS
So, how do they maintain flight profile?

"The mathematics gives us a descent rate equal to half the ground speed times ten to stay on this profile."

447/2 = 223.5

223.5 * 10 = 2235 fpm descent rate.

Actual descent rate for AA77 according to you = 2500 fpm.

Please explain.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: hoppy on May 03, 2017, 12:35:23 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 29, 2017, 07:30:10 PM
Quote from: disputeone on April 29, 2017, 07:25:32 PM
Let me make your logic clear Totes.

1. News said a 757 hit the pentagon.

2. The video kind of shows something more blurry than an average UFO video in one single frame

3. News said a 757 hit the pentagon.

4. Therefore a 757 hit the pentagon.

I respect your opinion and understand I can't debate against this logic.

Thanks for your opinion Totes, saying it looks like a plane is great, I respect why you think it might be a plane.

Actual frame zoomed in
(http://www.9-11tv.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Plane-behind-post.jpg)

The vast majority of truthers are now saying it's beyond question that it was a 757,   those who claim it was a missile are only the fringe elements.
Oh good, now Rayzor is a truther spokesman ::)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 03, 2017, 12:38:49 PM
Quote from: hoppy on May 03, 2017, 12:35:23 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on April 29, 2017, 07:30:10 PM
Quote from: disputeone on April 29, 2017, 07:25:32 PM
Let me make your logic clear Totes.

1. News said a 757 hit the pentagon.

2. The video kind of shows something more blurry than an average UFO video in one single frame

3. News said a 757 hit the pentagon.

4. Therefore a 757 hit the pentagon.

I respect your opinion and understand I can't debate against this logic.

Thanks for your opinion Totes, saying it looks like a plane is great, I respect why you think it might be a plane.

Actual frame zoomed in
(http://www.9-11tv.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Plane-behind-post.jpg)

The vast majority of truthers are now saying it's beyond question that it was a 757,   those who claim it was a missile are only the fringe elements.
Oh good, now Rayzor is a truther spokesman ::)

Actually, that picture really shows nothing and is no evidence/low level evidence only.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on May 03, 2017, 05:14:18 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 03, 2017, 07:42:03 AM
The reality is I think dispute and BHS are still butthurt bigly because they failed to produce any evidence in the 9/11 conspiracy thread. 

Man I wish you would meet up with dispute....You could use it princess..

You either have a psychological issue where you are completely out of touch with reality or cannot tell fact from fiction.. really just that dumb....Or an actual shill.

Now, as everyone has seen, you have balked at every chance to provide any sort of proof about yourself or any evidence towards your argument... You are very good at insults and diversion tactics, that you are a pro at, much props there.

You also balked at the challenge of a judge panel and 5,000 dollar prize (after you agreed to it, just another example of your weakness)

So...Let's sweeten the pot for the contest...I was gonna let it go until this comment here showing the size of your vagina and the extent of your complete lack of moral compass.

Number one, the loser of the contest cannot say another word about 9/11...

Number two, I will sweeten the pot, and go Vegas style and give you 4 to 1 odds...That's right...4 to 1...

So all you will have to put up is 5k for a chance to win 20 (it should be easy right?)..So please take my money cupcake, let the judge panel speak.

So...Man up...No more empty words....Either that or GTFO wuss. (You can even form a team if you would like)

Oh.. and as I always provide proof of what I say (something completely unheard-of for you) here is your prize fund cup cake..

(http://i64.tinypic.com/178k69.jpg)

Now grow some balls or again....GTFO


Quote from: disputeone on May 03, 2017, 01:43:26 AM
P.S. You're up late/early man.

Lol...Yeah, got home from wining and dining a few clients, got a little out of hand. Was happy and drunk till I saw more of rayzor's fuckery. I fell asleep with my phone in my hand typing a reply lol. Also ruined some good food in the oven  >:(
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 03, 2017, 05:29:32 PM
20k!!!

(http://i64.tinypic.com/178k69.jpg)

Dude f*uck this challenge let's party ;D :P.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on May 03, 2017, 05:42:55 PM
Get your ass to Texas then!!!!

In reality, trying to sweeten the pot to try and get rayzor to quit being a coward..Or maybe someone else will take the challenge. I will probably increase the fund one more time before I just resort to calling rayzor continuous names and scrapping the challenge.

That doesn't change the fact for you to get to Tejas. There are a few other members I wouldn't mind coming either... The first FES in person meet?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 03, 2017, 05:56:55 PM
I agree it has to happen.

Alright, I'll start planning for a trip, yeah man FES meetup sounds really good. I'll make a plan.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on May 03, 2017, 06:35:46 PM
How did you get inside footage  >:(

In reality though...It will be worth everyone's time who is involved.

However, I think a separate thread should be made, this is the last thing rayzor needs is another deflection.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 03, 2017, 07:20:09 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on May 03, 2017, 05:42:55 PM
before I just resort to calling rayzor continuous names and scrapping the challenge.

You already sunk so low, it hard to imaging you getting lower,  not one single thing to show for 10 years of research into 9/11.  Must be soul destroying.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 03, 2017, 07:25:14 PM
hypocrisy
hɪˈpɒkrɪsi/
noun

the practice of claiming to have higher standards or more noble beliefs than is the case.
"his target was the hypocrisy of suburban life"

synonyms:   sanctimoniousness, sanctimony, pietism, piousness, affected piety, affected superiority, false virtue, cant, humbug, pretence, posturing, speciousness, empty talk; More
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on May 03, 2017, 07:44:38 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 03, 2017, 07:20:09 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on May 03, 2017, 05:42:55 PM
before I just resort to calling rayzor continuous names and scrapping the challenge.

You already sunk so low, it hard to imaging you getting lower,  not one single thing to show for 10 years of research into 9/11.  Must be soul destroying.



Sorry princess... That was not an option...

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on May 03, 2017, 05:14:18 PM
You either have a psychological issue where you are completely out of touch with reality or cannot tell fact from fiction.. really just that dumb....Or an actual shill.

Now, as everyone has seen, you have balked at every chance to provide any sort of proof about yourself or any evidence towards your argument... You are very good at insults and diversion tactics, that you are a pro at, much props there.

You also balked at the challenge of a judge panel and 5,000 dollar prize (after you agreed to it, just another example of your weakness)

So...Let's sweeten the pot for the contest...I was gonna let it go until this comment here showing the size of your vagina and the extent of your complete lack of moral compass.

Number one, the loser of the contest cannot say another word about 9/11...

Number two, I will sweeten the pot, and go Vegas style and give you 4 to 1 odds...That's right...4 to 1...

So all you will have to put up is 5k for a chance to win 20 (it should be easy right?)..So please take my money cupcake, let the judge panel speak.

So...Man up...No more empty words....Either that or GTFO wuss. (You can even form a team if you would like)

Oh.. and as I always provide proof of what I say (something completely unheard-of for you) here is your prize fund cup cake..

(http://i64.tinypic.com/178k69.jpg)

Now grow some balls or again....GTFO

So either be a man and keep your word of when you accepted the contest terms....Or admit you have nothing and silence yourself.

Sorry, empty rhetoric of a blow hard nobody was not an option...

Do I need to increase the odds? 8 to 1? What will it take? It's all easy money right??

Now stop being a wuss...Which option do you choose? (Fyi to started the name calling, you are just butt hurt because I ended it...Not to mention I back my shit up, it's not just hot air. I would be mad if I were you as well...And let's not kid ourselves, you took it to a point of making it personal, I don't let that fly)

Ball is in your court cupcake
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 03, 2017, 07:59:12 PM
Quote from: totallackey on May 03, 2017, 10:02:23 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 03, 2017, 06:57:32 AM
Actually I just double checked and I must have misread the chart,  the ratio air density at sea level to 25,000 ft is 2.22 so  square root of that is 1.49,  and 1.49 times 300 is 447 knots  TAS
So, how do they maintain flight profile?

"The mathematics gives us a descent rate equal to half the ground speed times ten to stay on this profile."

447/2 = 223.5

223.5 * 10 = 2235 fpm descent rate.

Actual descent rate for AA77 according to you = 2500 fpm.

Please explain.

What is it you don't understand?

I suspect you are taking that rule of thumb for calculating the descent profile a bit too far.  It's just meant to be a rough guide.  The hijacker would have just programmed the autopilot to descend to 7000ft  and left it at that.   

The FDR shows a constant descent rate and pretty constant CAS during the descent.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 03, 2017, 08:01:17 PM
Quote from: hoppy on May 03, 2017, 12:35:23 PM
Oh good, now Rayzor is a truther spokesman ::)

LOL,  and they didn't have to pay me either. 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 03, 2017, 08:20:34 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 03, 2017, 08:01:17 PM
Quote from: hoppy on May 03, 2017, 12:35:23 PM
Oh good, now Rayzor is a truther spokesman ::)

LOL,  and they didn't have to pay me either.

The truth community isn't paying you, no doubt about that.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on May 03, 2017, 08:24:46 PM
Doubt anyone pays him...More than likely a burden of the state.

Either that or he is a paid shill, it's a 60/40 chance...Either way, you are paying his salary dispute.

Shitty...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 03, 2017, 08:38:51 PM
My weekly tax paid is much more than his weekly centrelink payments, I can deal.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 03, 2017, 10:14:10 PM
You guys get so mean when you don't have any rational argument  :(
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 03, 2017, 10:21:52 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 03, 2017, 08:38:51 PM
My weekly tax paid is much more than his weekly centrelink payments, I can deal.

You are probably correct about that,  since I've never even been inside a Centerlink office.   Even If you only  paid  one cent in tax, it would be infinitely more than I've ever got from those lying cheating money grubbing politicians in Canberra.   

Sorry,  got a little carried away there. 

For our culturally bound 'merican' friends,  translation is as follows.  Canberra == Washinton,   Centerlink == Welfare Office   
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 03, 2017, 10:37:32 PM
You spent the last 130 pages assuring us that our goverments would never lie to us.

Now this post?

Seems like you are trying to regain some lost ground.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 03, 2017, 10:52:39 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 03, 2017, 10:37:32 PM
You spent the last 130 pages assuring us that our goverments would never lie to us.

Now this post?

Seems like you are trying to regain some lost ground.

That just indicates that you just haven't understood what I've been saying.   Governments lie ( or more accurately apply political spin )  all the time about all kinds of things.   That doesn't mean they lie about everything. 

I think you need to brush up on your critical thinking,  to help sort fact from fiction.   


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 03, 2017, 11:21:44 PM
Keep backpedaling.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 03, 2017, 11:25:49 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 03, 2017, 10:52:39 PM
I think you need to brush up on your critical thinking,  to help sort fact from fiction.   

T.V = True.

Isn't my idea of critical thinking, I respect our difference of opinion in this issue.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 03, 2017, 11:29:51 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 03, 2017, 11:21:44 PM
Keep backpedaling.

Ok,  pedalling away we go,

1. Governments lie all the time about everything.
2. Governments lie but only when it suits them.
3. Governments like to be re-elected, so they spin everything to make themselves look better.
4. Politicians like to be re-elected so they lie about everything.
5. Politicians like to be re-elected so they spin everything to make themselves look better.

Which of the above statements do you think is most accurate?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 03, 2017, 11:48:12 PM
#2. Imo.

Spin is natural, it takes great self knowlege not to fall victim to putting your spin on something.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 04, 2017, 12:02:58 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 03, 2017, 11:48:12 PM
#2. Imo.

Spin is natural, it takes great self knowlege not to fall victim to putting your spin on something.

Ok, so you think that they tell the truth sometimes,  how do you determine when they are lying?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 04, 2017, 01:06:42 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 04, 2017, 12:02:58 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 03, 2017, 11:48:12 PM
#2. Imo.

Spin is natural, it takes great self knowlege not to fall victim to putting your spin on something.

Ok, so you think that they tell the truth sometimes,  how do you determine when they are lying?

By the facts and evidence available.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 04, 2017, 02:22:38 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 04, 2017, 01:06:42 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 04, 2017, 12:02:58 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 03, 2017, 11:48:12 PM
#2. Imo.

Spin is natural, it takes great self knowlege not to fall victim to putting your spin on something.

Ok, so you think that they tell the truth sometimes,  how do you determine when they are lying?

By the facts and evidence available.

Which is exactly what I've been doing since the first post.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 04, 2017, 02:29:07 AM
I laughed so hard. ;D ;D ;D

You've been pushing a narrative by any means necessary even dishonesty, like your life depends on it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 04, 2017, 02:42:42 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 04, 2017, 02:29:07 AM
I laughed so hard. ;D ;D ;D

You've been pushing a narrative by any means necessary even dishonesty, like your life depends on it.

I've noticed you saying that,  now is the time for you to prove it,  give an example where you think I've been dishonest.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 04, 2017, 02:51:20 AM
Where you admitted you were being dishonest? Can't cite one.

Otherwise there's some absolute pearlers in this thread. Also that thread of a blur that you claimed any reasonable person could tell you it's a boeing 757. With just that photo and no context.

That was lulzy.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 04, 2017, 03:06:23 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 03, 2017, 07:59:12 PM
What is it you don't understand?
How a proven mathematical formula for proper angle of descent to maintain correct flight profile suddenly goes out the window.
Quote from: Rayzor on May 03, 2017, 07:59:12 PM
I suspect you are taking that rule of thumb for calculating the descent profile a bit too far.  It's just meant to be a rough guide.
Do you have a source stating the math given is just a rough guide?
Quote from: Rayzor on May 03, 2017, 07:59:12 PM
The hijacker would have just programmed the autopilot to descend to 7000ft  and left it at that.

(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSg7moy7Y_2ssVA-gJtUjwpCSdr180Od5ry5qDyxYazXFALageO)
Quote from: Rayzor on May 03, 2017, 07:59:12 PM
The FDR shows a constant descent rate and pretty constant CAS during the descent.
That data does not match the math.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 04, 2017, 06:20:38 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on May 03, 2017, 05:42:55 PM
Texas
Explains a lot ;)

@Dispute, where are you from?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Pezevenk on May 04, 2017, 07:28:10 AM
HOW did this thread get so long, in just a few months? What is this?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 04, 2017, 07:31:20 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 04, 2017, 03:06:23 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 03, 2017, 07:59:12 PM
What is it you don't understand?
How a proven mathematical formula for proper angle of descent to maintain correct flight profile suddenly goes out the window.
Quote from: Rayzor on May 03, 2017, 07:59:12 PM
I suspect you are taking that rule of thumb for calculating the descent profile a bit too far.  It's just meant to be a rough guide.
Do you have a source stating the math given is just a rough guide?
Quote from: Rayzor on May 03, 2017, 07:59:12 PM
The hijacker would have just programmed the autopilot to descend to 7000ft  and left it at that.

(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSg7moy7Y_2ssVA-gJtUjwpCSdr180Od5ry5qDyxYazXFALageO)
Quote from: Rayzor on May 03, 2017, 07:59:12 PM
The FDR shows a constant descent rate and pretty constant CAS during the descent.
That data does not match the math.

The formula you keep quoting is call a rule of thumb, it's just a handy reference for pilots to calculate how far out to start descent so they don't upset the passengers

You can descend at different rates.   Not quite sure why you are not getting this.

Here is the AA77 descent profile  from page 24 of the NTSB link posted earlier.

(https://s22.postimg.org/dxbyqajyp/AA77_Descent_Profile.jpg)

The descent is at a fairly constant rate,  while the autopilot is on and VNAV is in control,  the CAS stays pretty constant at around 320 knots.

Your claim the data doesn't match the math is based on you not understanding either the data or the math.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on May 04, 2017, 07:33:25 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 04, 2017, 06:20:38 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on May 03, 2017, 05:42:55 PM
Texas
Explains a lot ;)

@Dispute, where are you from?

Oh look, another nobody blow hard with shit insults...Very nice. Just remember you drew first blood..

You should probably just skip the nonsense and put me on ignore like big boy rayzor did. It excites me to expose blow hard nobodies fuckery.

I would move along user
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 04, 2017, 07:37:03 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on May 04, 2017, 07:33:25 AM
Oh look, another nobody blow hard with shit insults...Very nice. Just remember you drew first blood..
It was a joke, noob. Take a look at the smiley ";)"
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on May 04, 2017, 07:42:16 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 04, 2017, 07:37:03 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on May 04, 2017, 07:33:25 AM
Oh look, another nobody blow hard with shit insults...Very nice. Just remember you drew first blood..
It was a joke, noob. Take a look at the smiley ";)"

Wise
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 04, 2017, 07:51:15 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 04, 2017, 02:51:20 AM
Where you admitted you were being dishonest? Can't cite one.

Otherwise there's some absolute pearlers in this thread. Also that thread of a blur that you claimed any reasonable person could tell you it's a boeing 757. With just that photo and no context.

That was lulzy.

You added the word "admitted"?    Not sure why you did that,  but, ok,  so give me an example of a "pearler".

LOL,  You just lied about the question I asked,  I never asked if it was a 757,  I just asked who could see a plane.   It's you who is being dishonest by changing the question.
Asking what other people think is hardly being dishonest.   
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 04, 2017, 08:11:54 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on May 04, 2017, 07:42:16 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 04, 2017, 07:37:03 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on May 04, 2017, 07:33:25 AM
Oh look, another nobody blow hard with shit insults...Very nice. Just remember you drew first blood..
It was a joke, noob. Take a look at the smiley ";)"

Wise

Well, I wouldn't be THAT scared of a redneck anyway  ;D
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 04, 2017, 08:17:41 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 04, 2017, 07:31:20 AM

The formula you keep quoting is call a rule of thumb.
Found it.
Quote from: Rayzor on May 04, 2017, 07:31:20 AM
You can descend at different rates.   Not quite sure why you are not getting this.
I know you can descend at different rates.

But to maintain FLIGHT and not simply drop like a rock out of the sky, your descent speed needs to match your descent rate at specific descent angles in order to keep airflow over the wings to avoid stall.

Quote from: Rayzor on May 04, 2017, 07:31:20 AM
The descent is at a fairly constant rate,  while the autopilot is on and VNAV is in control,  the CAS stays pretty constant at around 320 knots.

Your claim the data doesn't match the math is based on you not understanding either the data or the math.
We all see the pretty chart.

We all saw your math come up with different speeds.

We see you continually shifting the use of terms between TAS/CAS/GS/IAS, just to muddy and cloud the issue.

We see you refusing to answer questions.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 04, 2017, 08:38:39 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 04, 2017, 08:17:41 AM

We all see the pretty chart.

We all saw your math come up with different speeds.

We see you continually shifting the use of terms between TAS/CAS/GS/IAS, just to muddy and cloud the issue.

We see you refusing to answer questions.

What question am I refusing to answer?

It was you who didn't understand  the difference between TAS and CAS  that's not muddying the issue,  that's just the facts. 



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on May 04, 2017, 09:18:03 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 04, 2017, 08:11:54 AM

Well, I wouldn't be THAT scared of a redneck anyway  ;D

Sorry princess, I live in the clouds, not in a trailer park. Though I was raised in a trailer home, I just had something else in mind as I grew older.

However, don't underestimate a good redneck party, I still frequent my old area much.

Also, do not underestimate a redneck...Though not educated in a "traditional" sense, they are intelligent in their own way, in whatever is needed in their life style.

Not to mention, quick to fight, dislikes yuppies and punks, also they have alot of land if something "goes wrong" lol.

Also don't under estimate Texas, number 2 economy in the states, aiming for number one from Cali..Also has been the number one transfer location for businesses and people looking for work 5 years running now. Not to bad for a bunch of rednecks..

As always, solid argument
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 04, 2017, 09:22:20 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on May 04, 2017, 09:18:03 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 04, 2017, 08:11:54 AM

Well, I wouldn't be THAT scared of a redneck anyway  ;D

Sorry princess, [...]
Also, do not underestimate a redneck...Though not educated in a "traditional" sense, they are intelligent in their own way, in whatever is needed in their life style.

Not to mention, quick to fight, dislikes yuppies and punks, also they have alot of land if something "goes wrong" lol.

Also don't under estimate Texas, number 2 economy in the states, aiming for number one from Cali..Also has been the number one transfer location for businesses and people looking for work 5 years running now. Not to bad for a bunch of rednecks..

As always, solid argument

Chill, I'm just "poking you with a stick"; I have learned that from dispute!
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on May 04, 2017, 11:04:49 AM
You would know about poking people with a stick....

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 04, 2017, 11:38:33 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on May 04, 2017, 11:04:49 AM
You would know about poking people with a stick....

I dont understand  ???
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 04, 2017, 01:41:04 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 04, 2017, 08:38:39 AM
What question am I refusing to answer?
A couple of times you have been asked to answer for these postings:
Quote from: Rayzor on April 27, 2017, 08:46:39 AM
And here is a flyby of a 757, at 400 mph  50 mph FASTER than the AA77,  the 757 that hit the Pentagon
Quote from: Rayzor on April 27, 2017, 08:45:21 AM
The 757 AA77 that hit the Pentagon was flying about 50 mph SLOWER than that youtube NZAF 757 flyby.
You originally claimed impact speed was 345 MPH. Why?
Quote from: Rayzor on April 27, 2017, 10:45:39 PM
Warren Stutt's analysis of AA77's FDR about the best one around, certainly better than the NTSB's...
Did Stutt even post flight speeds or impact data?

Tell everyone how this: "The method which the program uses to recognise uncompressed data is not fool proof so it attempts to decode some of the compressed data as if it were uncompressed. This shows up as lines with unusual values."

Is better.
Quote from: Rayzor on April 28, 2017, 09:33:19 AM
Don't forget that crashing is still regarded as the easiest of all flight manouvres    All they had to do was aim.
Why did  you never acknowledge the need to maintain control, fly by VFR, and all the other stuff necesssary, as you were asked to do?

Why did you post a video of a highly trained pilot performing a maneuver and want the readers to compare that to a relatively untrained pilot?

Why did you deny being caught lying about impact speeds?

Why did you post the MIT table, if the plane did not hit at 345?

Can you prove a 757 can accelerate from 340 MPH to over 500 MPH in just 30 seconds?

Many, many more instances of evasiveness and equivocation.

Quote from: Rayzor on May 04, 2017, 08:38:39 AM
It was you who didn't understand  the difference between TAS and CAS  that's not muddying the issue,  that's just the facts.

TAS and CAS have no use when calculating descent fpm.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 04, 2017, 02:14:34 PM
Quote from: totallackey on May 04, 2017, 01:41:04 PM
Why did  you never acknowledge the need to maintain control, fly by VFR, and all the other stuff necesssary, as you were asked to do?
 
Where does VFR come into it?  your question makes no sense.

Quote from: totallackey on May 04, 2017, 01:41:04 PM
Why did you post a video of a highly trained pilot performing a maneuver and want the readers to compare that to a relatively untrained pilot?
Because people claimed falsely that a 757 could not fly at those speeds at low altitudes without "falling apart"
That video proves they don't know what they are talking about.

Quote from: totallackey on May 04, 2017, 01:41:04 PM
Why did you deny being caught lying about impact speeds?
Show me where I lied about impact speeds,  you were wrong about the AA77 doing 500 mph,  I corrected you and  said it was doing 300 knots or so and only accelerated to 500 mph over the last 30 seconds. 

Quote from: totallackey on May 04, 2017, 01:41:04 PM
Why did you post the MIT table, if the plane did not hit at 345?
Because people claimed the speeds were in excess of the planes capability of being controlled,  the table proves that AA11 was within it's limits and that UA175
didn't exceed mmo limits. For AA77 I said the data came from the FDR, and it was actually doing 300 knots 30 seconds prior to impact.

Quote from: totallackey on May 04, 2017, 01:41:04 PM
Can you prove a 757 can accelerate from 340 MPH to over 500 MPH in just 30 seconds?
Yes.  Go back a few pages and re-read.

Quote from: totallackey on May 04, 2017, 01:41:04 PM
Many, many more instances of evasiveness and equivocation.
You seem to think I have some sort of obligation to teach you, I think you need to wake up.

Quote from: totallackey on May 04, 2017, 01:41:04 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 04, 2017, 08:38:39 AM
It was you who didn't understand  the difference between TAS and CAS  that's not muddying the issue,  that's just the facts.

TAS and CAS have no use when calculating descent fpm.

LOL,  so you weren't actually paying attention.  Tell me how that rule of thumb for descent calculations works again?


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 04, 2017, 03:20:13 PM
Quote from: Definitely Not Official on May 04, 2017, 07:28:10 AM
HOW did this thread get so long, in just a few months? What is this?

It's nearly like someone has a vested interest in not letting this be said without attacking the poster who says it and burying it in shitposts.

Personally I think Rayzor and User helped our case however.

Thanks guys.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on May 04, 2017, 03:38:28 PM
They certainly didn't help "their" case
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 04, 2017, 09:33:48 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 04, 2017, 03:20:13 PM
Rayzor and User helped

Thanks guys.
You're welcome!


Edit: redneck said I did it wrong
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on May 04, 2017, 10:05:40 PM
Quote from: User324 on May 04, 2017, 09:33:48 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 04, 2017, 03:20:13 PM
Rayzor and User helped

Thanks guys.
[/quote
You're welcome!

(http://i63.tinypic.com/nmbw3l.jpg)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 04, 2017, 11:59:15 PM
^^
I'm crying I'm laughing so hard, getting weird looks ;D
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 05, 2017, 03:47:57 AM
I admit, that was a pretty damn good one  ;D
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 05, 2017, 04:21:52 AM
@Bhs;
To come back to an older post (from serious times) that I have not answered:

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on May 01, 2017, 12:22:34 PM
Indoctrination has nothing to do with what subject you are studying...Just being in the camp of college is enough.
I still do not see how I get indoctrinated on campus - can you give some examples?
Plus, I think how you get influenced does have to with the subject ("influenced" though is not exactely what I would call "indoctrination").

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on May 01, 2017, 12:22:34 PM
This is why I piss people off, I don't fall in this predetermined category, and when I am called whatever names, I simply ask for proof they can even point such a judgemental finger.
That does make sense, in this way I do agree with you.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on May 01, 2017, 12:22:34 PM
I was talking more than just intelligence quotient (though the man who has scored the highest score recorded believes in a creator  :D but that is another thread)...But certainly IQ is a factor, but not an end all be all. (Especially when you factor the people who are overdeveloped in one are, but under developed in others..You put those people in their wheel house, you better look out)
I'm not too sure about that, I do not think being overdeveloped in one area does mean you have to be underdeveloped in others (goes the other way, too). At least that's what my experience so far tells me.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on May 01, 2017, 12:22:34 PM
Would it be wise to take financial advice from a broke person?relationship advice from some married 5 times?
That really depends. If somone married 5 times is telling you what to do, probably not. If he is telling you what you should NOT do, it might be wise to listen.
I though get your point and mostly agree with it.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on May 01, 2017, 12:22:34 PM
Oh, and I Absolutely 100 percent appreciate the "normal worker"..You would know that if you read my rant towards rayzor when he called dispute just a dumb fitter. I 100 percent know how skilled they can be, and have seen fantastic ideas come from such people. Have also had my own personal designs improved before by such people..A "why didn't I think of that " moment.
100% agreed, well said.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 05, 2017, 08:41:34 PM
Quote from: User324 on May 05, 2017, 04:21:52 AM
I still do not see how I get indoctrinated on campus - can you give some examples?

Most people who have formal education have learnt to think logically,  the way the flat earthers and the 9/11 truthers argue and their thought processes are remarkably similar.

Dispute for example can't grasp that the meaning of words and phrases can be context dependent,  he consistently misreads and misunderstands simple explanations.

Any topic with a sufficient degree of logical complexity seems out of reach to them,  and they can only handle the complexity by assuming an unseen conspiracy is responsible.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 06, 2017, 12:31:39 AM
What's the explanation for all of the educated truthers then?

Also you're such a desperate shill.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 06, 2017, 12:38:08 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 05, 2017, 08:41:34 PM
Any topic with a sufficient degree of logical complexity seems out of reach to them,  and they can only handle the complexity by assuming an unseen conspiracy is responsible.

Find me a few thousand PhD's in the industry who all agree there is zero chance the earth is a sphere then you can compare us to flat earthers.

Till then get off your high horse mate.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on May 06, 2017, 12:42:20 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 06, 2017, 12:31:39 AM
you're such a desperate shill.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 06, 2017, 12:43:53 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 13, 2017, 10:36:59 PM
What real evidence is there for a conspiracy about 911?

Quote from: disputeone on February 13, 2017, 10:49:57 PM
Fall acceleration of building 7.



We've given you real evidence for a conspiracy, we've been clear what is factual and what is specualtion.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 06, 2017, 07:40:42 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 06, 2017, 12:43:53 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 13, 2017, 10:36:59 PM
What real evidence is there for a conspiracy about 911?

Quote from: disputeone on February 13, 2017, 10:49:57 PM
Fall acceleration of building 7.

We've given you real evidence for a conspiracy, we've been clear what is factual and what is specualtion.


What you've repeatedly failed to grasp is that WTC7 is a red herring.  It was going to fall anyway.  If it hadn't collapsed that day, it would have been demolished in the weeks that followed.

So why bother to demolish it?    The simplest answer is that they didn't.

Your conspiracy narrative fails at the first hurdle,  this is on a par, in terms of stupidity with BHS and his disappearing planes,  or his nano-thermite red oxide primer. 



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 06, 2017, 08:27:09 PM
Physics > Incredulity.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sceptimatic on May 07, 2017, 12:10:41 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 06, 2017, 07:40:42 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 06, 2017, 12:43:53 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 13, 2017, 10:36:59 PM
What real evidence is there for a conspiracy about 911?

Quote from: disputeone on February 13, 2017, 10:49:57 PM
Fall acceleration of building 7.

We've given you real evidence for a conspiracy, we've been clear what is factual and what is specualtion.


What you've repeatedly failed to grasp is that WTC7 is a red herring.  It was going to fall anyway.  If it hadn't collapsed that day, it would have been demolished in the weeks that followed.

So why bother to demolish it?    The simplest answer is that they didn't.

Your conspiracy narrative fails at the first hurdle,  this is on a par, in terms of stupidity with BHS and his disappearing planes,  or his nano-thermite red oxide primer.
How about looking at what WTC7 housed.
You've already been told about this.

I know you are far from backward and I also know that you know for a fact that buildings like this do not fall into their own footprint no matter what damage is done, unless a big king kong goes on the rampage with a big king kong machete slicing through every floor horizontally and then vertically into bite sized chunks.
Then you might get a close to free fall Jenga destruction.

However, I think you're just basically arguing from a strong stubborn like stand point to follow official lines, because it would look rather weak and silly if you actually admitted to the clear logic behind why those towers fell as they did, in terms of CD.

I know that you know this, deep down.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Twerp on May 07, 2017, 12:18:44 AM
Quote from: sceptimatic on May 07, 2017, 12:10:41 AM
However, I think you're just basically arguing from a strong stubborn like standpoint... because it would look rather weak and silly if you actually admitted to the clear logic

Irony
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sceptimatic on May 07, 2017, 12:20:56 AM
Quote from: Boots on May 07, 2017, 12:18:44 AM
Quote from: sceptimatic on May 07, 2017, 12:10:41 AM
However, I think you're just basically arguing from a strong stubborn like standpoint... because it would look rather weak and silly if you actually admitted to the clear logic

Irony
Of course.
I totally agree. I'm one hell of a stubborn git and I stick to my guns.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Twerp on May 07, 2017, 12:34:24 AM
Quote from: sceptimatic on May 07, 2017, 12:20:56 AM
Quote from: Boots on May 07, 2017, 12:18:44 AM
Quote from: sceptimatic on May 07, 2017, 12:10:41 AM
However, I think you're just basically arguing from a strong stubborn like standpoint... because it would look rather weak and silly if you actually admitted to the clear logic

Irony
Of course.
I totally agree. I'm one hell of a stubborn git and I stick to my guns.
Fair enough.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 07, 2017, 01:17:39 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 06, 2017, 08:27:09 PM
Physics > Incredulity.

(https://cdn.meme.am/cache/instances/folder895/38003895.jpg)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 07, 2017, 01:42:02 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 07, 2017, 01:17:39 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 06, 2017, 08:27:09 PM
Physics > Incredulity.

(https://cdn.meme.am/cache/instances/folder895/38003895.jpg)

What don't you like about finite element analysis?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 07, 2017, 01:57:28 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 07, 2017, 01:42:02 AM
What don't you like about finite element analysis?

FEM is awesome for mechanical engineering; it's cool for "small" parts and when only a manageable amount of different parts are involved (superb for single parts e.g. suspension arms and still works for whole cars/planes etc), but it sucks at predicting how a huge building with unknown damage and properties are supposed to fall.

And even if you use it where it's really good at, it's still far from 100% accurate.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on May 07, 2017, 02:05:54 AM
^lol^
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 07, 2017, 02:16:09 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on May 07, 2017, 02:05:54 AM
nuh uh

Funny thing is, as a mechanical engineer you actually know FEM is not really useful for 9/11 analysis.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 07, 2017, 02:48:37 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 07, 2017, 01:57:28 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 07, 2017, 01:42:02 AM
What don't you like about finite element analysis?

FEM is awesome for mechanical engineering; it's cool for "small" parts and when only a manageable amount of different parts are involved (superb for single parts e.g. suspension arms and still works for whole cars/planes etc), but it sucks at predicting how a huge building with unknown damage and properties are supposed to fall.

And even if you use it where it's really good at, it's still far from 100% accurate.

We only need to use it to test what would happen in the event of a single column failure.

Which Hulsey has done without a total building collapse.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 07, 2017, 03:04:42 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 06, 2017, 07:40:42 PM
What you've repeatedly failed to grasp is that WTC7 is a red herring.  It was going to fall anyway.  If it hadn't collapsed that day, it would have been demolished in the weeks that followed.

So why bother to demolish it?    The simplest answer is that they didn't.

The simplest answer is to do it that day and they did.

They even announced it had fell but timed the explosions wrong.

Quote from: Rayzor on May 06, 2017, 07:40:42 PM
rest of belittling bs snipped.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 07, 2017, 03:20:14 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 07, 2017, 03:04:42 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 06, 2017, 07:40:42 PM
What you've repeatedly failed to grasp is that WTC7 is a red herring.  It was going to fall anyway.  If it hadn't collapsed that day, it would have been demolished in the weeks that followed.

So why bother to demolish it?    The simplest answer is that they didn't.

The simplest answer is to do it that day and they did.

They even announced it had fell but timed the explosions wrong.


You missed the critical question,   WHY? 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 07, 2017, 03:22:04 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 07, 2017, 03:20:14 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 07, 2017, 03:04:42 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 06, 2017, 07:40:42 PM
What you've repeatedly failed to grasp is that WTC7 is a red herring.  It was going to fall anyway.  If it hadn't collapsed that day, it would have been demolished in the weeks that followed.

So why bother to demolish it?    The simplest answer is that they didn't.

The simplest answer is to do it that day and they did.

They even announced it had fell but timed the explosions wrong.


You missed the critical question,   WHY?

So its ok for wtc7 to violate newtons laws if you personally can't think of a reason why they would pull wtc7?

That's what you're saying, right?

Again.

Physics > Incredulity.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 07, 2017, 03:25:11 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 07, 2017, 03:22:04 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 07, 2017, 03:20:14 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 07, 2017, 03:04:42 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 06, 2017, 07:40:42 PM
What you've repeatedly failed to grasp is that WTC7 is a red herring.  It was going to fall anyway.  If it hadn't collapsed that day, it would have been demolished in the weeks that followed.

So why bother to demolish it?    The simplest answer is that they didn't.

The simplest answer is to do it that day and they did.

They even announced it had fell but timed the explosions wrong.


You missed the critical question,   WHY?

So its ok for wtc7 to violate newtons laws if you personally can't think of a reason why they would pull wtc7?

That's what you're saying, right?

Again.

Physics > Incredulity.

Tell me exactly where you think the laws of physics were broken,   and,  I'll call you an idiot.   The laws of physics aren't up for debate.   In spite of whatever it is you believe.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on May 07, 2017, 03:30:46 AM
You are one of the last people on this planet that should be calling another human being an idiot wuss
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 07, 2017, 03:35:21 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 07, 2017, 03:25:11 AM
Tell me exactly where you think the laws of physics were broken,   and,  I'll call you an idiot.   The laws of physics aren't up for debate.   In spite of whatever it is you believe.

All three of Newtons laws, on all three buildings, unless we can look at other collapse mechanisms rather than fire induced collapse of the buildings.

I know the laws of physics can't be broken, you are the one saying they can be broken if we can't explain the motive for pulling wtc 7.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 07, 2017, 03:40:25 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 07, 2017, 03:35:21 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 07, 2017, 03:25:11 AM
Tell me exactly where you think the laws of physics were broken,   and,  I'll call you an idiot.   The laws of physics aren't up for debate.   In spite of whatever it is you believe.
collapse mechanisms rather than fire induced collapse of the buildings.
Hmm, I kind of remember there was something else.
Not sure tho.
Could it have been planes flying into those buildings?!
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 07, 2017, 03:41:19 AM
Please read the NIST report user.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 07, 2017, 03:42:21 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 07, 2017, 03:35:21 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 07, 2017, 03:25:11 AM
Tell me exactly where you think the laws of physics were broken,   and,  I'll call you an idiot.   The laws of physics aren't up for debate.   In spite of whatever it is you believe.

All three of Newtons laws, on all three buildings, unless we can look at other collapse mechanisms rather than fire induced collapse of the buildings.

I know the laws of physics can't be broken, you are the one saying they can be broken if we can't explain the motive for pulling wtc 7.

Take a deep breath,  relax,  and read exactly what I asked.  tell me exactly where you think the laws of physics are being broken.   I can't put it any simpler.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 07, 2017, 03:51:25 AM
Newtons first law.

Quote
Newton's first law of motion - sometimes referred to as the law of inertia. An object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.

Absolutely smashed, all three towers fell close to free-fall disregarding the unbalanced force / resistance of the structure underneath it. At the very least we should have seen deceleration as the top of wtc 1 and 2 collided with the bottom initially.

Especially wtc 7s freefall.

So 9/11 = 1 Newton = 0

Quote
Newton's second law of motion can be formally stated as follows: The acceleration of an object as produced by a net force is directly proportional to the magnitude of the net force, in the same direction as the net force, and inversely proportional to the mass of the object.

Absolutely smashed by wtc 7s period of collapse at gravitational acceleration. And the twin towers being crushed by the small top section.

9/11 = 2 Newton = 0

Quote
Formally stated, Newton's third law is: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. The statement means that in every interaction, there is a pair of forces acting on the two interacting objects. The size of the forces on the first object equals the size of the force on the second object.

Absolutely wrecked by wtc 1 and 2 being completely pulverised by the much smaller top, no equal and opposite reaction with NIST's pancake collapse model.

So 9/11 = 3 Newton = 0.

Something is not right.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 07, 2017, 03:57:41 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 07, 2017, 03:51:25 AM
Newtons first law.

Quote
Newton's first law of motion - sometimes referred to as the law of inertia. An object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.

Absolutely smashed, all three towers fell close to free-fall disregarding the unbalanced force / resistance of the structure underneath it. At the very least we should have seen deceleration as the top of wtc 1 and 2 collided with the bottom initially.

Especially wtc 7s freefall.

So 9/11 = 1 Newton = 0

Quote
Newton's second law of motion can be formally stated as follows: The acceleration of an object as produced by a net force is directly proportional to the magnitude of the net force, in the same direction as the net force, and inversely proportional to the mass of the object.

Absolutely smashed by wtc 7s period of collapse at gravitational acceleration. And the twin towers being crushed by the small top section.

9/11 = 2 Newton = 0

Quote
Formally stated, Newton's third law is: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. The statement means that in every interaction, there is a pair of forces acting on the two interacting objects. The size of the forces on the first object equals the size of the force on the second object.

Absolutely wrecked by wtc 1 and 2 being completely pulverised by the much smaller top, no equal and opposite reaction with NIST's pancake collapse model.

So 9/11 = 3 Newton = 0.

Something is not right.

What a load of crap  ;D
Well, I'll let rayzor explain it to you, I'm too lazy to waste time on this.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 07, 2017, 03:59:23 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 07, 2017, 03:57:41 AM
I don't wanna debunk Newton.

Man, I don't blame you.

Edit.

Rayzor won't touch this, that's why he keeps asking us why they would pull wtc 7. Because he doesn't want to discuss the physics. Incredulity is easier.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 07, 2017, 04:23:23 AM
Totes tried to debunk Galileo instead of taking Newton on.

Admirable but unsuccessful.

Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 20, 2017, 07:37:26 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 20, 2017, 07:23:15 PM
Try crushing a brick with another brick.

Both have an equal and opposite reaction.

The collision isn't the exact same for both bricks. What is different about them?

Quote from: TotesReptilian on March 20, 2017, 07:47:56 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 20, 2017, 07:41:27 PM
One brick is moving and has inertia one brick is stationary.

ding ding ding

>Muh sides.

Quote from: Galileo
Because the distance covered while applying a force to an object depends on the inertial frame of reference, so does the work done. Due to Newton's law of reciprocal actions there is a reaction force; it does work depending on the inertial frame of reference in an opposite way. The total work done is independent of the inertial frame of reference.

Correspondingly the kinetic energy of an object, and even the change in this energy due to a change in velocity, depends on the inertial frame of reference. The total kinetic energy of an isolated system also depends on the inertial frame of reference: it is the sum of the total kinetic energy in a center of momentum frame and the kinetic energy the total mass would have if it were concentrated in the center of mass. Due to the conservation of momentum the latter does not change with time, so changes with time of the total kinetic energy do not depend on the inertial frame of reference.

By contrast, while the momentum of an object also depends on the inertial frame of reference, its change due to a change in velocity does not.

The sheer amount of mental gymnastics you guys are willing to do to believe the TV blows me away.

Edit. Messed up code.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 07, 2017, 04:23:59 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 07, 2017, 03:59:23 AM
Rayzor won't touch this, that's why he keeps asking us why they would pull wtc 7. Because he doesn't want to discuss the physics. Incredulity is easier.
Will see, I'll let him the chance.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 07, 2017, 04:29:06 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 07, 2017, 04:23:59 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 07, 2017, 03:59:23 AM
Rayzor won't touch this, that's why he keeps asking us why they would pull wtc 7. Because he doesn't want to discuss the physics. Incredulity is easier.
Will see, I'll let him the chance.

He's had 130 pages, to be fair.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 07, 2017, 04:33:02 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 07, 2017, 04:29:06 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 07, 2017, 04:23:59 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 07, 2017, 03:59:23 AM
Rayzor won't touch this, that's why he keeps asking us why they would pull wtc 7. Because he doesn't want to discuss the physics. Incredulity is easier.
Will see, I'll let him the chance.

He's had 130 pages, to be fair.
*133
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 07, 2017, 06:59:40 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 07, 2017, 03:51:25 AM
Newtons first law.

Quote
Newton's first law of motion - sometimes referred to as the law of inertia. An object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.

Absolutely smashed, all three towers fell close to free-fall disregarding the unbalanced force / resistance of the structure underneath it. At the very least we should have seen deceleration as the top of wtc 1 and 2 collided with the bottom initially.

Especially wtc 7s freefall.

So 9/11 = 1 Newton = 0


The first law,  wasn't broken,  if you do the calculations you will find that there is more than sufficient momentum and energy for the collapse to progress once initiated.  You are ignoring that the amount of energy to collapse a floor is a reducing fraction of the total energy available.   I linked to a paper earlier in the thread that did the maths.   I'll see if I can find it again. 

(https://s2.postimg.org/6puatz749/WTCCollapse_Times.jpg)

Notice first of all that the collapse times wasn't free-fall,  second why did WTC2 collapse a bit faster?   


Quote from: disputeone on May 07, 2017, 03:51:25 AM
Quote
Newton's second law of motion can be formally stated as follows: The acceleration of an object as produced by a net force is directly proportional to the magnitude of the net force, in the same direction as the net force, and inversely proportional to the mass of the object.

Absolutely smashed by wtc 7s period of collapse at gravitational acceleration. And the twin towers being crushed by the small top section.

9/11 = 2 Newton = 0

I think your logic is faulty,  there is no correlation between free-fall collapse and controlled demolition,   all that is required is for the supporting structure to collapse first,  and that's what happened with WTC7.


Quote from: disputeone on May 07, 2017, 03:51:25 AM
Quote
Formally stated, Newton's third law is: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. The statement means that in every interaction, there is a pair of forces acting on the two interacting objects. The size of the forces on the first object equals the size of the force on the second object.

Absolutely wrecked by wtc 1 and 2 being completely pulverised by the much smaller top, no equal and opposite reaction with NIST's pancake collapse model.

So 9/11 = 3 Newton = 0.

Something is not right.

Once again,  you can't ignore conservation of momentum and conversion of gravitational potential energy to kinetic and thermal energy,   there was more than enough energy in the collapsing structure to pulverize the concrete. 

Here is a link to that paper  http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf

Sorry to disappoint you but Newton's laws weren't broken.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 07, 2017, 07:31:14 AM
Quote from: sceptimatic on May 07, 2017, 12:10:41 AM

How about looking at what WTC7 housed.
You've already been told about this.

I know you are far from backward and I also know that you know for a fact that buildings like this do not fall into their own footprint no matter what damage is done, unless a big king kong goes on the rampage with a big king kong machete slicing through every floor horizontally and then vertically into bite sized chunks.
Then you might get a close to free fall Jenga destruction.

However, I think you're just basically arguing from a strong stubborn like stand point to follow official lines, because it would look rather weak and silly if you actually admitted to the clear logic behind why those towers fell as they did, in terms of CD.

I know that you know this, deep down.

I recall the discussion,  but  if I recall correctly,  the Gold you were talking about wasn't  actually under WTC7  but under WTC4.

In spite of what you might think about me just following official lines,  that's not true,   I think there should be a new 911 commission to investigate the cover up, that the spooks orchestrated to cover up their own incompetance.   There was a strong feeling that the over-reliance on electronic surveillance and not  enough effort put into "boots on the ground" intelligence gathering.   They are still doing it today,  trying to rely on technology, and ignoring the fact that when dealing with people,   that only tells a tiny fraction of the real story.

As far as being stubborn,   maybe,  but it's easy when the other side never presents any supporting evidence. :)


 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 07, 2017, 09:27:21 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 07, 2017, 03:20:14 AM
You missed the critical question,   WHY?
Why not?

The Bush family/US Government/Israelis already knew what the overall plan was.

It included the CD's of 1/2/7.

On 9/11.

The timing of the BBC report is a gaff, corrected later that day.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 07, 2017, 10:04:13 AM
Rayzor 1, disputeone 0

Quote from: totallackey on May 07, 2017, 09:27:21 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 07, 2017, 03:20:14 AM
You missed the critical question,   WHY?
Why not?
In dubio pro reo.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 07, 2017, 02:50:49 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 07, 2017, 06:59:40 AM
The TV says I am right.

I know and I can't argue against the TV.

You just linked to three debunked pseudoscientific papers.

https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/02/14/a-scientific-theory-of-the-wtc-7-collapse/

http://www.scientistsfor911truth.org/docs/ProfMorroneOnMeltingWTCsteel.pdf

http://www.scientistsfor911truth.org/docs/ChandlerDownwardAccelerationOfWTC1.pdf
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 07, 2017, 02:56:31 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 07, 2017, 06:59:40 AM

I think your logic is faulty,  there is no correlation between free-fall collapse and controlled demolition,   all that is required is for the supporting structure to collapse first,  and that's what happened with WTC7.

So just like this?


#cartoonphysics.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 07, 2017, 08:04:35 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 07, 2017, 02:50:49 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 07, 2017, 06:59:40 AM
The TV says I am right.

I know and I can't argue against the TV.

Lying and dishonestly quoting things that were never said,  is a good indicator that you actually have nothing of substance to say.


Quote from: disputeone on May 07, 2017, 02:50:49 PM
You just linked to three debunked pseudoscientific papers.

https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2011/02/14/a-scientific-theory-of-the-wtc-7-collapse/

http://www.scientistsfor911truth.org/docs/ProfMorroneOnMeltingWTCsteel.pdf

http://www.scientistsfor911truth.org/docs/ChandlerDownwardAccelerationOfWTC1.pdf

I didn't link to them,  you just did.   I agree with you however in that I think they are debunked.

David Chandler is generally quite a good advocate for conspiracy.   The central tenet of his argument is that the top section could not have crushed the lower section since it was designed to carry the weight,  he is correct as far as he goes,  but fails to account for the fact that the area around the impact zone suffered severe structural damage as well as fires that reached temperatures sufficient to weaken the structure.

One the collapse starts it's all over red rover.   Then you are dealing with impact physics,   you can carefully rest a heavy weight on a cardboard box and it will sit there,  now try dropping that heavy weight from 10 feet onto the cardboard box. 

I should add that no conspiracy theory I've yet seen satisfactorily explains the following.

1.   The collapse was in both cases of WTC1 and WTC2 top down progressive collapse initiated at the exact locations that the hijacked aircraft hit.
2.   The delay from impact to the start of collapse.   If it was CD,  why wait?   Why did WTC2 collapse first?


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 07, 2017, 08:09:50 PM
The problem is comparing wtc 1 and 2 to a "heavy weight on a cardboard box" is innacurate. A better comparison would be dropping a single brick on a pile of bricks.

Brainlet.

There are conflicting scientific papers on 9/11. The ones funded by the government seem to come to a different conclusion than investigations done independently.

I wonder why?

Also this.

(https://s23.postimg.org/t09yxozfv/1494210614870.jpg)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 07, 2017, 08:23:07 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 07, 2017, 08:04:35 PM
1.   The collapse was in both cases of WTC1 and WTC2 top down progressive collapse initiated at the exact locations that the hijacked aircraft hit.
2.   The delay from impact to the start of collapse.   If it was CD,  why wait?   Why did WTC2 collapse first?

To be fair the official story can't explain the collapses of the three buildings so...

(https://s1.postimg.org/jc3dg5qtr/downloadfile.png)

Also they keep telling me they won't explain the collapse of the three buildings.

Funny that
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 07, 2017, 08:27:38 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 07, 2017, 08:23:07 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 07, 2017, 08:04:35 PM
1.   The collapse was in both cases of WTC1 and WTC2 top down progressive collapse initiated at the exact locations that the hijacked aircraft hit.
2.   The delay from impact to the start of collapse.   If it was CD,  why wait?   Why did WTC2 collapse first?

To be fair the official story can't explain the collapses of the three buildings so...

Also they keep telling me they won't explain the collapse of the three buildings.

Funny that

That's just ducking the question,  how do YOU explain that the collapse starts exactly where the planes hit?

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 07, 2017, 08:28:04 PM
Computer piloted drones.

However it's speculation.

Now answer my question, why can't / won't NIST explain the building collapses.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 07, 2017, 09:29:04 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 07, 2017, 08:28:04 PM
Computer piloted drones.

However it's speculation.

Now answer my question, why can't / won't NIST explain the building collapses.

There's zero evidence of computer piloted drones,  and if you wanted to persue that path then you'd have a zillion other things to explain.

Here's your answer.
https://www.nist.gov/engineering-laboratory/final-reports-nist-world-trade-center-disaster-investigation

Specifically

https://www.nist.gov/publications/global-structural-analysis-response-world-trade-center-towers-impact-damage-and-fire?pub_id=101366

I don't see how you can claim they didn't explain the collapse mechanism,  the following is from the above report

"The finite element analyses (FEA) of the global models and of the component and subsystem models
showed that the key structural responses that led to the collapse of the towers were as follows: 1) floor
sagging caused by the failure of thermally-weakened truss members, resulting in pull-in forces between
the floor and the exterior wall, and in some cases, disconnection of the floor from the exterior wall;
2) downward displacement of the core due to aircraft impact damage and shortening of the remaining core
columns from increased load, plasticity, creep of steel at high temperatures, and buckling resulting from
fire-induced high temperatures, and unloading of the core; 3) bowing and buckling of exterior walls
caused by the pull-in forces and loss of lateral support from the sagged floors, and floor/wall
disconnections at high temperatures; and 4) redistribution of gravity loads among the columns locally,
among the exterior walls, and between the exterior walls and the core, resulting from impact damage,
relative thermal expansion, shortening of core columns, tilting of the tower above the impact zone, and
bowing and buckling of exterior walls.
In WTC 1, the aircraft impact caused damage to the north and south walls, floors, some core columns, and
insulation. The subsequent fires caused sagging of the floors on the south side of the office area, where
insulation was damaged, and inward bowing of the south wall. The damage to the core columns resulted
in local load redistribution to the remaining core columns. The subsequent fire-induced high
temperatures caused the core to displace downward from plasticity and high creep strains in high stress
and high temperatures. The downward displacement of the core resulted in load redistribution from the
core to the exterior walls. With continuously increased bowing, the entire width of the south wall buckled
inward. The section of the building above the impact zone tilted to the south as instability progressed
horizontally to the adjacent east and west walls. Global collapse occurred as potential energy of the
falling upper structure exceeded the strain energy capacity in the deforming structural members.

In WTC 2, the aircraft impact caused damage to the south and north exterior walls, floors, and columns in
the southeast corner of the core. The floor damage and the subsequent fires caused sagging of the floors
and local floor/wall disconnections, and resulted in bowing and buckling of the east wall. The damage to
the core columns and fire-induced high temperatures resulted in local load redistribution to the remaining
core columns in the southeast corner, which redistributed the core column loads to the east and south wall
columns, as the core leaned toward the south and east. With continuously increased bowing, the entire
width of the east wall buckled inward. The section of the building above the impact zone tilted to the east
and south as instability progressed horizontally to the adjacent north and south walls. Global collapse
occurred when the potential energy of the falling upper structure exceeded the strain energy capacity in
the deforming structural members.
The results of global analysis of both WTC 1 and WTC 2 showed that global collapse of both towers was
initiated by the instability of the exterior walls pursuant to their excessive inward bowing which
progressed horizontally to adjacent walls."

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 07, 2017, 10:05:50 PM
That's them "telling" us what happened without explaining why.

Unacceptable.

Quote from: disputeone on May 07, 2017, 08:23:07 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 07, 2017, 08:04:35 PM
1.   The collapse was in both cases of WTC1 and WTC2 top down progressive collapse initiated at the exact locations that the hijacked aircraft hit.
2.   The delay from impact to the start of collapse.   If it was CD,  why wait?   Why did WTC2 collapse first?

To be fair the official story can't explain the collapses of the three buildings so...

(https://s1.postimg.org/jc3dg5qtr/downloadfile.png)

Also they keep telling me they won't explain the collapse of the three buildings.

Funny that

Now answer my question, why can't / won't NIST explain the building collapses.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 07, 2017, 10:12:13 PM
Can't you read?
1) floor sagging caused by the failure of thermally-weakened truss members, resulting in pull-in forces between
the floor and the exterior wall, and in some cases, disconnection of the floor from the exterior wall;
2) downward displacement of the core due to aircraft impact damage and shortening of the remaining core
columns from increased load, plasticity, creep of steel at high temperatures, and buckling resulting from
fire-induced high temperatures, and unloading of the core; 3) bowing and buckling of exterior walls
caused by the pull-in forces and loss of lateral support from the sagged floors, and floor/wall
disconnections at high temperatures; and 4) redistribution of gravity loads among the columns locally,
among the exterior walls, and between the exterior walls and the core, resulting from impact damage,
relative thermal expansion, shortening of core columns, tilting of the tower above the impact zone, and
bowing and buckling of exterior walls.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 07, 2017, 10:16:29 PM
Can you not read? User?

Their inputs are classified. Therefore they haven't been explained.

(https://s1.postimg.org/jc3dg5qtr/downloadfile.png)

Now answer my question, why can't / won't NIST explain the building collapses.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 07, 2017, 10:21:09 PM
In other news I have 100% proof the earth is flat, but it's classified, all the proof is there, it's just you can't see it.


This statement was released publicly.

Quote
"The earth is flat."

All other data is classified as a matter of national security.

Would you believe it? This is exactly what NIST did and you believed it even before you read anything to do with the reports.

Edit. Typo.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 07, 2017, 10:30:11 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 07, 2017, 10:16:29 PM
Their inputs are classified. Therefore they haven't been explained.
Very classified explanation:

1) floor sagging caused by the failure of thermally-weakened truss members, resulting in pull-in forces between
the floor and the exterior wall, and in some cases, disconnection of the floor from the exterior wall;
2) downward displacement of the core due to aircraft impact damage and shortening of the remaining core
columns from increased load, plasticity, creep of steel at high temperatures, and buckling resulting from
fire-induced high temperatures, and unloading of the core; 3) bowing and buckling of exterior walls
caused by the pull-in forces and loss of lateral support from the sagged floors, and floor/wall
disconnections at high temperatures; and 4) redistribution of gravity loads among the columns locally,
among the exterior walls, and between the exterior walls and the core, resulting from impact damage,
relative thermal expansion, shortening of core columns, tilting of the tower above the impact zone, and
bowing and buckling of exterior walls.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 07, 2017, 10:34:47 PM
Do you understand what inputs are used for in modelling?

Don't argue against NIST again, the inputs are classified, I am sorry about this.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 07, 2017, 11:38:50 PM
Now can anyone answer my question, why can't / won't NIST explain the building collapses.

It's fine to say "I don't know."

My opinion is they know the inputs don't get the results they have told us they do.

I would guess any unbiased investigation would come to a similar conclusion that Hulsey and his team did.

This is why I think they won't explain the collapse mechanism in regards to their model and finite element analysis.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on May 08, 2017, 12:11:45 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 07, 2017, 10:30:11 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 07, 2017, 10:16:29 PM
Their inputs are classified. Therefore they haven't been explained.
Very classified explanation:

1) floor sagging caused by the failure of thermally-weakened truss members, resulting in pull-in forces between
the floor and the exterior wall, and in some cases, disconnection of the floor from the exterior wall;
2) downward displacement of the core due to aircraft impact damage and shortening of the remaining core
columns from increased load, plasticity, creep of steel at high temperatures, and buckling resulting from
fire-induced high temperatures, and unloading of the core; 3) bowing and buckling of exterior walls
caused by the pull-in forces and loss of lateral support from the sagged floors, and floor/wall
disconnections at high temperatures; and 4) redistribution of gravity loads among the columns locally,
among the exterior walls, and between the exterior walls and the core, resulting from impact damage,
relative thermal expansion, shortening of core columns, tilting of the tower above the impact zone, and
bowing and buckling of exterior walls.

Lol.....

Since this is reality and all ::)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 08, 2017, 12:31:04 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 07, 2017, 10:34:47 PM
Do you understand what inputs are used for in modelling?

Don't argue against NIST again, the inputs are classified, I am sorry about this.

I don't think you understand the data provided in the report,  all the input assumptions are there in great detail,  along with details of a number of  verification experiments that were carried out on the actual materials recovered from the site.

What particular aspect of their assumptions do you disagree with?

Also,  where do you get the idea that the inputs are classified.   They just didn't release the model files,  I can understand that they might not want detailed FEA models of 767's floating about.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 08, 2017, 12:34:59 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 08, 2017, 12:31:04 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 07, 2017, 10:34:47 PM
Do you understand what inputs are used for in modelling?

Don't argue against NIST again, the inputs are classified, I am sorry about this.

I don't think you understand the data provided in the report,  all the input assumptions are there in great detail,  along with details of a number of  verification experiments that were carried out on the actual materials recovered from the site.

What particular aspect of their assumptions do you disagree with?

Also,  where do you get the idea that the inputs are classified.   They just didn't release the model files,  I can understand that they might not want detailed FEA models of 767's floating about.

I disagree with the classified inputs for the collapse modes.

(https://s1.postimg.org/jc3dg5qtr/downloadfile.png)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 08, 2017, 12:41:21 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 08, 2017, 12:34:59 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 08, 2017, 12:31:04 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 07, 2017, 10:34:47 PM
Do you understand what inputs are used for in modelling?

Don't argue against NIST again, the inputs are classified, I am sorry about this.

I don't think you understand the data provided in the report,  all the input assumptions are there in great detail,  along with details of a number of  verification experiments that were carried out on the actual materials recovered from the site.

What particular aspect of their assumptions do you disagree with?

Also,  where do you get the idea that the inputs are classified.   They just didn't release the model files,  I can understand that they might not want detailed FEA models of 767's floating about.

I disagree with the classified inputs for the collapse modes.


Is that all you've got?   So you don't  actually  have any disagreement  with  any of their assumptions?

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 08, 2017, 12:43:11 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 08, 2017, 12:41:21 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 08, 2017, 12:34:59 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 08, 2017, 12:31:04 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 07, 2017, 10:34:47 PM
Do you understand what inputs are used for in modelling?

Don't argue against NIST again, the inputs are classified, I am sorry about this.

I don't think you understand the data provided in the report,  all the input assumptions are there in great detail,  along with details of a number of  verification experiments that were carried out on the actual materials recovered from the site.

What particular aspect of their assumptions do you disagree with?

Also,  where do you get the idea that the inputs are classified.   They just didn't release the model files,  I can understand that they might not want detailed FEA models of 767's floating about.

I disagree with the classified inputs for the collapse modes.


Is that all you've got?   So you don't  actually  have any disagreement  with  any of their assumptions?

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.0
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 08, 2017, 12:48:16 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 08, 2017, 12:43:11 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 08, 2017, 12:41:21 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 08, 2017, 12:34:59 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 08, 2017, 12:31:04 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 07, 2017, 10:34:47 PM
Do you understand what inputs are used for in modelling?

Don't argue against NIST again, the inputs are classified, I am sorry about this.

I don't think you understand the data provided in the report,  all the input assumptions are there in great detail,  along with details of a number of  verification experiments that were carried out on the actual materials recovered from the site.

What particular aspect of their assumptions do you disagree with?

Also,  where do you get the idea that the inputs are classified.   They just didn't release the model files,  I can understand that they might not want detailed FEA models of 767's floating about.

I disagree with the classified inputs for the collapse modes.


Is that all you've got?   So you don't  actually  have any disagreement  with  any of their assumptions?

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.0

Here you go,  here are the reference structural model and baseline performance analysis details.   Tell me what you disagree with?

http://ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=101013



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 08, 2017, 12:49:51 AM
Lol wut?

(https://s21.postimg.org/xhx0n4f5z/Screenshot_20170215_205717.png)

What was that?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 08, 2017, 12:53:33 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 08, 2017, 12:49:51 AM
Lol wut?

What was that?

Why are you bringing WTC7 back into the discussion?   
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 08, 2017, 12:57:23 AM
Because I said.

"The inputs are classified for the tower collapses."

You tried to say they weren't classified.

Quote from: Rayzor on May 08, 2017, 12:31:04 AM
where do you get the idea that the inputs are classified.

Here.

(https://s21.postimg.org/xhx0n4f5z/Screenshot_20170215_205717.png)

See #1 and #2.

Here we are again.

Were you being intentionally dishonest or did you forget the inputs were classified?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 08, 2017, 01:14:52 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 08, 2017, 12:57:23 AM
Because I said.

"The inputs are classified for the tower collapses."

You tried to say they weren't classified.

Quote from: Rayzor on May 08, 2017, 12:31:04 AM
where do you get the idea that the inputs are classified.


Here.

See #1 and #2.

Here we are again.

Were you being intentionally dishonest or did you forget the inputs were classified?

They aren't classified,  they are described in detail in the document I linked to.   Stop lying.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 08, 2017, 01:26:14 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 08, 2017, 01:14:52 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 08, 2017, 12:57:23 AM
Because I said.

"The inputs are classified for the tower collapses."


They aren't classified.

(https://s1.postimg.org/jc3dg5qtr/downloadfile.png)

(https://s21.postimg.org/xhx0n4f5z/Screenshot_20170215_205717.png)

So when NIST says they won't release the inputs as a matter of  security / safety what do they mean?

Is this another one of those "Rayzor decides what words mean?"

I'm tired of that game.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 08, 2017, 06:01:08 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 08, 2017, 01:26:14 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 08, 2017, 01:14:52 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 08, 2017, 12:57:23 AM
Because I said.

"The inputs are classified for the tower collapses."


They aren't classified.

So when NIST says they won't release the inputs as a matter of  security / safety what do they mean?

Is this another one of those "Rayzor decides what words mean?"

I'm tired of that game.

No,  this is a case where you are making the assumption of conspiracy based on miss-interpretation. 

Here, for reference  is the chapter headings for what you claim is "classified" material.

Chapter 1
Introduction ... 1
1.1 Description of WTC Structural System ........................................................................................... 1
1.1.1 Global Structural System... 1
1.1.2 Floor Structural System... 4
Chapter 2
Development of Structural Databases for the WTC Towers ................................................. 11
2.1 Introduction... 11
2.2 Description of the WTC Structural Documents............................................................................. 11
2.3 Overview of the WTC Structural Database (WTC-DB) ................................................................ 13
2.4 Methodology for the WTC-DB Development ............................................................................... 14
2.4.1 Data Entry... 14
2.4.2 Quality Control... 15
2.4.3 Cross Section Property Calculations .................................................................................. 15
2.4.4 Relational Database Development ..................................................................................... 16
2.5 Modifications to Database Elements.............................................................................................. 16
2.5.1 Core Column Reinforcing at Floors 98 to 106 ................................................................... 16
2.5.2 Core Column Reinforcing Due to Construction of Fiduciary Trust Vault ......................... 17
2.5.3 Repair Due to the Bombing of February 26, 1993 ............................................................. 18
2.5.4 Tenant Alteration for an Interoffice Stair ........................................................................... 18
2.5.5 Drawing Book Data Discrepancies .................................................................................... 18
2.6 Section Property Calculations... 20
2.6.1 Member Designations... 20
2.6.2 Column Member Multiple Section Property Calculation................................................... 21
2.6.3 Spandrel Member Multiple Section Property Calculation ................................................. 23
2.6.4 Section Property Calculation Comparisons........................................................................ 24
2.6.5 Rolled Shape Database ... 25
2.7 Summary ... 26

Chapter 3
Development of Reference Structural Models for the WTC Towers .................................... 27
3.1 Introduction... 27
3.2 Global Models of the Towers ... 27
3.2.1 Components and Systems in the Towers’ Global Models.................................................. 28
3.2.2 Coordinate System, Nomenclature, and Models Assembly Overview............................... 28
3.2.3 Core Columns Modeling ... 32
3.2.4 Exterior Wall, Foundation to Floor 4 Modeling................................................................. 35
3.2.5 Exterior Wall Trees (Floor 4 to 9) Modeling ..................................................................... 36
3.2.6 Exterior Wall (Floor 9 to 106) Modeling ........................................................................... 38
3.2.7 Exterior Wall (Floor 107 to 110) Modeling ....................................................................... 41
3.2.8 Hat Truss Modeling... 41
3.2.9 Flexible and Rigid Floor Diaphragm Modeling ................................................................. 43
3.2.10 Verification of Global Models............................................................................................ 43
3.2.11 Results of Modal Analysis.................................................................................................. 44
3.3 Typical Truss-Framed Floor Model—Floor 96A .......................................................................... 46
3.3.1 Primary Trusses ... 48
3.3.2 Bridging Trusses... 49
3.3.3 Truss Member Cover Plates ............................................................................................... 51
3.3.4 Viscoelastic Dampers ... 51
3.3.5 Strap Anchors ... 51
3.3.6 Concrete Slab and Metal Deck ........................................................................................... 52
3.3.7 Verification of the 96th Floor Model ................................................................................. 52
3.4 Typical Beam-Framed Floor Model—Floor 75B .......................................................................... 53
3.4.1 Composite Beams... 55
3.4.2 Horizontal Trusses... 55
3.4.3 Concrete Slab and Metal Deck ........................................................................................... 55
3.4.4 Viscoelastic Dampers ... 56
3.4.5 Verification of the 75th Floor Model ................................................................................. 56
3.5 Parametric Studies ... 56

Chapter 4
Gravity and Wind Loads on the WTC Global Models ............................................................ 67
4.1 Introduction... 67
4.2 Gravity Loads ... 68
4.2.1 Gravity Loads from Areas Outside of Core ....................................................................... 69
4.2.2 Gravity Loads from Areas Inside of Core .......................................................................... 70
4.2.3 Construction Sequence Loading Effects ............................................................................ 74
4.3 Wind Loads... 74
4.3.1 Original WTC Design Wind Loads.................................................................................... 74
4.3.2 State-of-the-Practice Wind Loads ...................................................................................... 78
4.3.3 Refined NIST Estimates ... 79
4.3.4 Comparisons of Wind Loads .............................................................................................. 79
4.4 References... 81

Chapter 5
Baseline Performance Analysis of the WTC Global Models ................................................. 83
5.1 Introduction... 83
5.2 Calculation of Demand/Capacity Ratios........................................................................................ 83
5.2.1 Selection of Global Models Design Parameters ................................................................. 85
5.3 Baseline Performance Analysis of WTC 1 .................................................................................... 87
5.3.1 Original WTC Design Load Case....................................................................................... 87
5.3.2 State-of-the-Practice Case ................................................................................................ 105
5.3.3 The Refined NIST Estimate Case..................................................................................... 107
5.4 Baseline Performance Analysis of WTC 2 .................................................................................. 109
5.4.1 Original WTC Design Load Case..................................................................................... 110
5.4.2 State-of-the-Practice Case ................................................................................................ 128
5.4.3 The Refined NIST Estimate Case..................................................................................... 130
5.5 Summary ... 132
5.6 References... 134

Chapter 6
Baseline Performance Analysis of Typical Floor Models ................................................... 135
6.1 Introduction... 135
6.2 Typical Truss-Framed Floor ... 136
6.2.1 Gravity Loads ... 136
6.2.2 Results of Baseline Analysis ............................................................................................ 137
6.3 Typical Beam-Framed Floor... 140
6.3.1 Gravity Loads ... 140
6.3.2 Results of Baseline Analysis ............................................................................................ 141
Chapter 7
Summary... 145
Appendix A
WTC Tower Structural Drawings Index for Large-Size Sheets ........................................... 149
Appendix B
Drawing Book 19 Modifications for Structural Elements Not Included in the
Database ... 167
Appendix C
WTC Drawing Book Flowcharts............................................................................................. 169
Appendix D
Excel File List and Description.............................................................................................. 179
Appendix E
Relational Database File List and Description ..................................................................... 185
Appendix F
Relational Database Tutorial.................................................................................................. 187
Appendix G
Categorization of Floor Construction Types for Areas Outside of Core ........................... 191

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 08, 2017, 07:11:42 AM
So when NIST says they won't release the inputs as a matter of  public safety what do they mean?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 08, 2017, 07:58:25 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 08, 2017, 07:11:42 AM
So when NIST says they won't release the inputs as a matter of  public safety what do they mean?

If you took the time to actually educate yourself,  you'd already know that a lot of detailed data was provided to NIST under commercial non-disclosure agreements.  That would have included detailed structural data on the Boeing 767,   so that alone would be sufficient reason to withhold the machine readable files. 

What I can say with certainty is that failure to release certain sensitive data,  does NOT mean there is some evil conspiracy.  If that's your conclusion,  I'd say you have a mental blind spot.

Your argument for conspiracy is sinking fast.   Time to start paddling.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 08, 2017, 08:07:03 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 08, 2017, 07:58:25 AM
I'd say you have a mental blind spot.
I'd say, multiple mental blind spots.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 08, 2017, 08:07:50 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 07, 2017, 08:04:35 PM
One the collapse starts it's all over red rover.   Then you are dealing with impact physics,   you can carefully rest a heavy weight on a cardboard box and it will sit there,  now try dropping that heavy weight from 10 feet onto the cardboard box. 

I should add that no conspiracy theory I've yet seen satisfactorily explains the following.

1.   The collapse was in both cases of WTC1 and WTC2 top down progressive collapse initiated at the exact locations that the hijacked aircraft hit.
2.   The delay from impact to the start of collapse.   If it was CD,  why wait?   Why did WTC2 collapse first?
Impact physics?

This should be relatively easy to do a scale model then.

Go ahead.

Get like substances of any sort, construct a scale model of a 110 story tower, cut off the top 30 stories, add 20 more feet for good measure, and drop the 30 stories on top of the remaining 80 stories.

Get back to us with the results.

I say you won't like em.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 08, 2017, 08:11:30 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 08, 2017, 07:58:25 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 08, 2017, 07:11:42 AM
So when NIST says they won't release the inputs as a matter of  public safety what do they mean?

If you took the time to actually educate yourself,  you'd already know that a lot of detailed data was provided to NIST under commercial non-disclosure agreements.  That would have included detailed structural data on the Boeing 767,   so that alone would be sufficient reason to withhold the machine readable files.
You are wrong.

Anyone can ask for blueprints on a 767.

A 767 is not classified information.

Quote from: Rayzor on May 08, 2017, 07:58:25 AM
What I can say with certainty is that failure to release certain sensitive data,  does NOT mean there is some evil conspiracy.

9/11 was an evil conspiracy, even according to you.

So a conspiracy is the explanation.

Who was part of that conspiracy still remains to be seen for a lot of people, even surviving family members of victims that day.

If that's your conclusion,  I'd say you have a mental blind spot.

Quote from: Rayzor on May 08, 2017, 07:58:25 AM
Your argument for conspiracy is sinking fast.   Time to start paddling.
No it is not.

It is quite simple.

The NIST refuses to release inputs/results data for WTC 7 collapse  models included in the the NIST final report.

Therefore, their conclusions on WTC 7  are not validated.

They will remain invalidated until such time as the input/results data is released.

Anything you have to post on this matter is moot.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 08, 2017, 08:36:53 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 08, 2017, 08:11:30 AM
Anything you have to post on this matter is moot.

Let's see if you can read,  without letting your conspiracy mindset get in the way.

Disclaimer No. 3
Pursuant to section 7 of the National Construction Safety Team Act, the NIST Director has determined that certain
evidence received by NIST in the course of this Investigation is “voluntarily provided safety-related information” that is
“not directly related to the building failure being investigated” and that “disclosure of that information would inhibit the
voluntary provision of that type of information” (15 USC 7306c).
In addition, a substantial portion of the evidence collected by NIST in the course of the Investigation has been
provided to NIST under nondisclosure agreements.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 08, 2017, 08:40:00 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 08, 2017, 08:07:50 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 07, 2017, 08:04:35 PM
One the collapse starts it's all over red rover.   Then you are dealing with impact physics,   you can carefully rest a heavy weight on a cardboard box and it will sit there,  now try dropping that heavy weight from 10 feet onto the cardboard box. 

I should add that no conspiracy theory I've yet seen satisfactorily explains the following.

1.   The collapse was in both cases of WTC1 and WTC2 top down progressive collapse initiated at the exact locations that the hijacked aircraft hit.
2.   The delay from impact to the start of collapse.   If it was CD,  why wait?   Why did WTC2 collapse first?
Impact physics?

This should be relatively easy to do a scale model then.

Go ahead.

Get like substances of any sort, construct a scale model of a 110 story tower, cut off the top 30 stories, add 20 more feet for good measure, and drop the 30 stories on top of the remaining 80 stories.

Get back to us with the results.

I say you won't like em.

Why don't you try answering the question for a change?

I should add that no conspiracy theory I've yet seen satisfactorily explains the following.

1.   The collapse was in both cases of WTC1 and WTC2 top down progressive collapse initiated at the exact locations that the hijacked aircraft hit.
2.   The delay from impact to the start of collapse.   If it was CD,  why wait?   Why did WTC2 collapse first?

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 08, 2017, 08:44:04 AM
Quote
Get like substances of any sort, construct a scale model of a 110 story tower, cut off the top 30 stories, add 20 more feet for good measure, and drop the 30 stories on top of the remaining 80 stories.
That's not how the thing called "real world" works.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 08, 2017, 08:46:27 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 08, 2017, 08:40:00 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 08, 2017, 08:07:50 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 07, 2017, 08:04:35 PM
One the collapse starts it's all over red rover.   Then you are dealing with impact physics,   you can carefully rest a heavy weight on a cardboard box and it will sit there,  now try dropping that heavy weight from 10 feet onto the cardboard box. 

I should add that no conspiracy theory I've yet seen satisfactorily explains the following.

1.   The collapse was in both cases of WTC1 and WTC2 top down progressive collapse initiated at the exact locations that the hijacked aircraft hit.
2.   The delay from impact to the start of collapse.   If it was CD,  why wait?   Why did WTC2 collapse first?
Impact physics?

This should be relatively easy to do a scale model then.

Go ahead.

Get like substances of any sort, construct a scale model of a 110 story tower, cut off the top 30 stories, add 20 more feet for good measure, and drop the 30 stories on top of the remaining 80 stories.

Get back to us with the results.

I say you won't like em.

Why don't you try answering the question for a change?

I should add that no conspiracy theory I've yet seen satisfactorily explains the following.

1.   The collapse was in both cases of WTC1 and WTC2 top down progressive collapse initiated at the exact locations that the hijacked aircraft hit.
2.   The delay from impact to the start of collapse.   If it was CD,  why wait?   Why did WTC2 collapse first?
As soon as you can reproduce your impact physics claim, I think we can proceed to clearly address points 1 and 2.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 08, 2017, 08:47:00 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 08, 2017, 08:44:04 AM
Quote
Get like substances of any sort, construct a scale model of a 110 story tower, cut off the top 30 stories, add 20 more feet for good measure, and drop the 30 stories on top of the remaining 80 stories.
That's not how the thing called "real world" works.
On the contrary, that is very real world.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 08, 2017, 08:53:50 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 08, 2017, 08:46:27 AM
As soon as you can reproduce your impact physics claim, I think we can proceed to clearly address points 1 and 2.

Ok,  go find a brick,  take off your shoes and socks,   now rest the brick on your foot,  no problems.

Now lift that same brick and drop if from 4 feet onto that same foot.   Same brick same foot, 

Let me know how it goes.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 08, 2017, 08:56:14 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 08, 2017, 08:47:00 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 08, 2017, 08:44:04 AM
Quote
Get like substances of any sort, construct a scale model of a 110 story tower, cut off the top 30 stories, add 20 more feet for good measure, and drop the 30 stories on top of the remaining 80 stories.
That's not how the thing called "real world" works.
On the contrary, that is very real world.
If you truely believe that, I think all hope is lost with you  :'(
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 08, 2017, 09:07:41 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 08, 2017, 08:53:50 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 08, 2017, 08:46:27 AM
As soon as you can reproduce your impact physics claim, I think we can proceed to clearly address points 1 and 2.

Ok,  go find a brick,  take off your shoes and socks,   now rest the brick on your foot,  no problems.

Now lift that same brick and drop if from 4 feet onto that same foot.   Same brick same foot, 

Let me know how it goes.

What part of "like substances," escapes you?

Here is the assignment:

YOU claim:

Impact physics.

Top down progressive collapse.

Therefore, prove it.

This should be relatively easy to do a scale model then.

Go ahead.

Get like substances of any sort, construct a scale model of a 110 story tower, cut off the top 30 stories, add 20 more feet for good measure, and drop the 30 stories on top of the remaining 80 stories.

Get back to us with the results.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 08, 2017, 09:09:04 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 08, 2017, 08:56:14 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 08, 2017, 08:47:00 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 08, 2017, 08:44:04 AM
Quote
Get like substances of any sort, construct a scale model of a 110 story tower, cut off the top 30 stories, add 20 more feet for good measure, and drop the 30 stories on top of the remaining 80 stories.
That's not how the thing called "real world" works.
On the contrary, that is very real world.
If you truely believe that, I think all hope is lost with you  :'(

I will call your "think," and raise the bet to "know," as far as you are concerned.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 08, 2017, 09:15:56 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 08, 2017, 09:09:04 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 08, 2017, 08:56:14 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 08, 2017, 08:47:00 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 08, 2017, 08:44:04 AM
Quote
Get like substances of any sort, construct a scale model of a 110 story tower, cut off the top 30 stories, add 20 more feet for good measure, and drop the 30 stories on top of the remaining 80 stories.
That's not how the thing called "real world" works.
On the contrary, that is very real world.
If you truely believe that, I think all hope is lost with you  :'(

I will call your "think," and raise the bet to "know," as far as you are concerned.
I'm pretty confident about myself, don't worry about me ;)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 08, 2017, 09:21:36 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 08, 2017, 09:15:56 AM
I'm pretty confident about myself, don't worry about me ;)
Okay.

Thanks.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on May 08, 2017, 09:36:37 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 07, 2017, 10:12:13 PM
Can't you read?
1) floor sagging caused by the failure of thermally-weakened truss members, resulting in pull-in forces between
the floor and the exterior wall, and in some cases, disconnection of the floor from the exterior wall;
2) downward displacement of the core due to aircraft impact damage and shortening of the remaining core
columns from increased load, plasticity, creep of steel at high temperatures, and buckling resulting from
fire-induced high temperatures, and unloading of the core; 3) bowing and buckling of exterior walls
caused by the pull-in forces and loss of lateral support from the sagged floors, and floor/wall
disconnections at high temperatures; and 4) redistribution of gravity loads among the columns locally,
among the exterior walls, and between the exterior walls and the core, resulting from impact damage,
relative thermal expansion, shortening of core columns, tilting of the tower above the impact zone, and
bowing and buckling of exterior walls.

Y'all can keep repeating this wall of bullshit all you want, it does not make it any more of a reality. For someone who knows nothing about this subject, the wall of bologna might sound possible.

Just the core design alone makes this a load of crap...The pancake theory for the towers is a joke to put it politely.

Cartoon physics, though according to cartoons I can jump off a cliff and be ok, just turn into an accordion for a moment.

Quote from: User324 on May 08, 2017, 09:15:56 AM
I'm pretty confident about myself, don't worry about me ;)

I have met many confident idiots.

How do you tell a blow hard from someone who is not? See what fruits that person produces, if they produce none, then they are an idiotic​ blow hard.... I think you know where you stand user.

There are emperors who confidently drank mercury in search for health...Go have a cup, y'all can be confident together ::)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 08, 2017, 09:55:39 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on May 08, 2017, 09:36:37 AM
Y'all can keep repeating this wall of bullshit all you want
Same can be said about what you/dispute write all the time, especially dispute with his wall of text he thinks is the ultimative proof.


Quote from: Babyhighspeed on May 08, 2017, 09:36:37 AM
How do you tell a blow hard from someone who is not? See what fruits that person produces, if they produce none, then they are an idiotic​ blow hard.... I think you know where you stand user.
Yep, judging me on the "fruits I have produced" I'd say I'm defintely no "blow hard" ;)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 08, 2017, 09:58:04 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 08, 2017, 09:07:41 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 08, 2017, 08:53:50 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 08, 2017, 08:46:27 AM
As soon as you can reproduce your impact physics claim, I think we can proceed to clearly address points 1 and 2.

Ok,  go find a brick,  take off your shoes and socks,   now rest the brick on your foot,  no problems.

Now lift that same brick and drop if from 4 feet onto that same foot.   Same brick same foot, 

Let me know how it goes.

What part of "like substances," escapes you?

Here is the assignment:

YOU claim:

Impact physics.

Top down progressive collapse.

Therefore, prove it.

This should be relatively easy to do a scale model then.

Go ahead.

Get like substances of any sort, construct a scale model of a 110 story tower, cut off the top 30 stories, add 20 more feet for good measure, and drop the 30 stories on top of the remaining 80 stories.

Get back to us with the results.

The experiment has been done,  and I have video of that exact collapse scenario,  done full scale,  would you like to see it?

Here you go.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 08, 2017, 10:13:38 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 08, 2017, 09:58:04 AM
The experiment has been done,  and I have video of that exact collapse scenario,  done full scale,  would you like to see it?

Here you go.


You should be able to reproduce the results then.

I think everyone here knows you cannot.

Therefore, no science to back up what you claim to be the cause.

But everyone knows you are not an actual fan of science anyway...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 08, 2017, 10:25:23 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 08, 2017, 10:13:38 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 08, 2017, 09:58:04 AM
The experiment has been done,  and I have video of that exact collapse scenario,  done full scale,  would you like to see it?

Here you go.


You should be able to reproduce the results then.
You asking him to fly planes into buildings?
Are you mad?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 08, 2017, 10:27:26 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 08, 2017, 10:25:23 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 08, 2017, 10:13:38 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 08, 2017, 09:58:04 AM
The experiment has been done,  and I have video of that exact collapse scenario,  done full scale,  would you like to see it?

Here you go.


You should be able to reproduce the results then.
You asking him to fly planes into buildings?
Are you mad?

Which part of the words "scale model," escapes you?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 08, 2017, 10:35:05 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 08, 2017, 10:27:26 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 08, 2017, 10:25:23 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 08, 2017, 10:13:38 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 08, 2017, 09:58:04 AM
The experiment has been done,  and I have video of that exact collapse scenario,  done full scale,  would you like to see it?

Here you go.


You should be able to reproduce the results then.
You asking him to fly planes into buildings?
Are you mad?

Which part of the words "scale model," escapes you?
The part where you have not used them. I quote it for you, because I understand that conspiracy theorists do have some reading-comprehension issues.
"You should be able to reproduce the results then."
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 08, 2017, 10:41:13 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 08, 2017, 10:35:05 AM
The part where you have not used them. I quote it for you, because I understand that conspiracy theorists do have some reading-comprehension issues.
"You should be able to reproduce the results then."
Conveniently leaving off where the topic was first raised.

I advised him to "scale model" his top down collapse theory.

Might be to difficult for you to difficult to read the entire exchange.

I am also beginning to understand context is also quite a challenge for you and that might be the reason for selectively ignoring the whole exchange.

That's okay.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 08, 2017, 10:50:52 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 08, 2017, 10:41:13 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 08, 2017, 10:35:05 AM
The part where you have not used them. I quote it for you, because I understand that conspiracy theorists do have some reading-comprehension issues.
"You should be able to reproduce the results then."
Conveniently leaving off where the topic was first raised.

I advised him to "scale model" his top down collapse theory.

Might be to difficult for you to difficult to read the entire exchange.

I am also beginning to understand context is also quite a challenge for you and that might be the reason for selectively ignoring the whole exchange.

That's okay.
He said
"that exact collapse scenario,  done full scale,  would you like to see it?"
And posted a video of a tower collapsing

You answered
"You should be able to reproduce the results then."

So just stop your deception-bullshit talk and admit you were wrong on this, it's not so hard and being wrong can happen to everyone. You just have to learn to admit when you were wrong.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 08, 2017, 10:56:18 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 08, 2017, 10:50:52 AM
He said
"that exact collapse scenario,  done full scale,  would you like to see it?"
And posted a video of a tower collapsing

You answered
"You should be able to reproduce the results then."

So just stop your deception-bullshit talk and admit you were wrong on this, it's not so hard and being wrong can happen to everyone. You just have to learn to admit when you were wrong.
I know where the current conversation concerning the matter started.

I know you are ignoring it.

i know what I wrote.

I know what he wrote.

I know what you wrote.

Everybody who reads the thread knows.

I am happy with what I wrote.

When Rayzor follows my instructions, could you please be there somewhere around the impact points?

Don't worry.

Later on during the live TV coverage, there was clear cut video of people looking out from the areas of impact.

So you will survive.

Thanks.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 08, 2017, 10:58:48 AM
In the meanwhile, for the normal people here.

Rayzor,

Get yourself some scale models of buildings and airplanes.

Recreate the entire thing.

It can be done.

All the information is known, right?

Recreate in a scale model, the collapse of WTC 7.

All the information is kno...

Oops...

Sorry...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 08, 2017, 11:01:22 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 08, 2017, 10:58:48 AM
In the meanwhile, for the normal people here.

Rayzor,

Get yourself some scale models of buildings and airplanes.

Recreate the entire thing.

It can be done.

All the information is known, right?

Recreate in a scale model, the collapse of WTC 7.

All the information is kno...

Oops...

Sorry...

You're mad. I feel bad for you  :'(
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 08, 2017, 11:02:13 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 08, 2017, 11:01:22 AM
I am a fine human being and I demonstrate it through my fine posts here at the Flat Earth Society. It gives me a sense of accomplishment.
FTFY.

No need to thank me.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 08, 2017, 11:04:49 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 08, 2017, 10:58:48 AM
In the meanwhile, for the normal people here.

Rayzor,

Get yourself some scale models of buildings and airplanes.

Recreate the entire thing.

It can be done.

All the information is known, right?

Recreate in a scale model, the collapse of WTC 7.

All the information is kno...

Oops...

Sorry...

Why would I  want do your research work for you,  I've already showed  you what actually  happens in real life at full scale.   

It's your theory that it won't collapse,  but we've already seen that it did collapse progressively from the point of impact.   




Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 08, 2017, 11:05:37 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 08, 2017, 11:04:49 AM

Why would I  want do your research work for you,  I've already showed  you what actually  happens in real life at full scale.   

It's your theory that it won't collapse,  but we've already seen that it did collapse progressively from the point of impact.
It is your claim it would collapse due to:

Impact;

Fires.

So, get busy modeling.

Should be easily reproducible.

All the variables are known.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 08, 2017, 11:07:59 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 08, 2017, 11:05:37 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 08, 2017, 11:04:49 AM

Why would I  want do your research work for you,  I've already showed  you what actually  happens in real life at full scale.   

It's your theory that it won't collapse,  but we've already seen that it did collapse progressively from the point of impact.

We did not see why though.

Yes we did,  you should learn how to read instead of flapping your gums.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 08, 2017, 11:09:29 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 08, 2017, 11:07:59 AM
Yes we did,  you should learn how to read instead of flapping your gums.
No, we didn't.

All variables are known according to you.

Therefore, everything can be scaled down and reproduced.

Get busy modeling.

Or, just continue to believe what you want.

Just know, that is all it is.

Belief.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 08, 2017, 11:12:07 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 08, 2017, 11:05:37 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 08, 2017, 11:04:49 AM

Why would I  want do your research work for you,  I've already showed  you what actually  happens in real life at full scale.   

It's your theory that it won't collapse,  but we've already seen that it did collapse progressively from the point of impact.
It is your claim it would collapse due to:

Impact;

Fires.

So, get to modeling.

Should be easily reproducible.

All the variables are known.

I see you've adopted your Papa Legba style and persona,  it doesn't suit you,  makes you look  psychotic.

When you've taken your meds and calmed down we can talk,  until then GTFO
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 08, 2017, 11:53:45 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 08, 2017, 11:02:13 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 08, 2017, 11:01:22 AM
I am a fine human being and I demonstrate it through my fine posts here at the Flat Earth Society. It gives me a sense of accomplishment.
FTFY.

No need to thank me.

I find it cute that you first wrote "have a nice day", then edited that part out because you're such a bad, bad boy  ;D
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 08, 2017, 01:58:33 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 08, 2017, 11:12:07 AM
I see you've adopted your Papa Legba style and persona,  it doesn't suit you,  makes you look  psychotic.
Oh.

Where?

Have you got busy modeling your fictional collapse theory yet?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 08, 2017, 01:59:49 PM
Quote from: User324 on May 08, 2017, 11:53:45 AM
I find it cute that you first wrote "have a nice day", then edited that part out because you're such a bad, bad boy  ;D

Have a nice day.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 08, 2017, 02:42:41 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 08, 2017, 09:58:04 AM
The experiment has been done,  and I have video of that exact collapse scenario,  done full scale,  would you like to see it?

Here you go.



The cause of collapse for that tower is still under debate.

It's not a valid experiment.

Come on man that was really dishonest. I can't say that I am surprised.

Quote from: User324 on May 08, 2017, 11:53:45 AM

Do you really have nothing to contribute?

Edit. @ Rayzor, I am glad you changed your dishonest stance from "the inputs are not classified" to "it doesn't matter if the inputs are classified." Much more "honest".

Except, in science, if something isn't peer reviewed, it is bunk, sorry just a fact.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review

Good show old chap.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 08, 2017, 09:06:30 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 08, 2017, 02:42:41 PM

Edit. @ Rayzor, I am glad you changed your dishonest stance from "the inputs are not classified" to "it doesn't matter if the inputs are classified." Much more "honest".


Nope I just checked,  you can still download the  report details,  so, still not classified.    And you have still to answer the questions.

1.   The collapse was in both cases of WTC1 and WTC2 top down progressive collapse initiated at the exact locations that the hijacked aircraft hit.
2.   The delay from impact to the start of collapse.   If it was CD,  why wait?   
3.   Why did WTC2 collapse first?


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on May 08, 2017, 09:08:58 PM
Dispute...Since the vagina rayzor has ignored me, can you ask him to please post the inputs. I have been looking for them over a decade.

I will plug them into both of my programs and watch them run... Actually still at the shop right now, I am excited.

Lets see what happens!!
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 08, 2017, 09:09:57 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on May 08, 2017, 09:08:58 PM
Dispute...Since the vagina rayzor has ignored me, can you ask him to please post the inputs. I have been looking for them over a decade.

I will plug them into both of my programs and watch them run... Actually still at the shop right now, I am excited.

Lets see what happens!!

I'd also love to see the inputs.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 08, 2017, 09:24:40 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 08, 2017, 09:09:57 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on May 08, 2017, 09:08:58 PM
Dispute...Since the vagina rayzor has ignored me, can you ask him to please post the inputs. I have been looking for them over a decade.

I will plug them into both of my programs and watch them run... Actually still at the shop right now, I am excited.

Lets see what happens!!

I'd also love to see the inputs.

Start here with the  reference structural models and baseline performance  http://ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=101013
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 08, 2017, 10:01:38 PM
Why are you still claiming the inputs are freely available, when I can cite NIST directly saying they won't be released?

(https://s1.postimg.org/jc3dg5qtr/downloadfile.png)

(https://s21.postimg.org/xhx0n4f5z/Screenshot_20170215_205717.png)

How can you expect anyone to think you're honest??

Do you know what inputs are in the context of a structural model or finite element analysis?

I don't think you do. Would it help if I sent in another foia request??
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 08, 2017, 11:26:25 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 08, 2017, 10:01:38 PM
Why are you still claiming the inputs are freely available, when I can cite NIST directly saying they won't be released?

How can you expect anyone to think you're honest??

Do you know what inputs are in the context of a structural model or finite element analysis?

I don't think you do. Would it help if I sent in another foia request??

All the assumptions made in determining the model inputs are available,  if you want to start anywhere,  start with examining their structural model assumptions.   The next steps after that is the impact and fire modelling, finally the collapse mechanism.

But you can't just wave you hands about saying they got it wrong because they won't give out the machine readable files.   That's a flimsy basis for assuming conspiracy.

I'd suggest that you try an FOI request,  who knows,  you might get a nice letter.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 08, 2017, 11:48:12 PM
A letter like this one?

(https://s1.postimg.org/jc3dg5qtr/downloadfile.png)

I'm not "assuming conspiracy" I merely stated the fact that the inputs for their models weren't released as a matter of "public safety."

I am glad you stopped saying that the inputs were available. People might think that you feel you have to lie to debate me.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 08, 2017, 11:54:38 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 08, 2017, 11:26:25 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 08, 2017, 10:01:38 PM
Why are you still claiming the inputs are freely available, when I can cite NIST directly saying they won't be released?

How can you expect anyone to think you're honest??

Do you know what inputs are in the context of a structural model or finite element analysis?

I don't think you do. Would it help if I sent in another foia request??

All the assumptions made in determining the model inputs are available,  if you want to start anywhere,  start with examining their structural model assumptions.   The next steps after that is the impact and fire modelling, finally the collapse mechanism.

We're also doing the best with what we have. The inputs NIST used would be really, really nice.

www.wtc7investigation.org

Quote
We are pleased and honored to have Dr. Leroy Hulsey, Ph.D., PR, SE as our in-house engineer. The list below is a brief summary of his education and professional experience. Dr. Hulsey has been instrumental in guiding the research, development, and testing of ThermaSteel products for many years, as well as assisting on the engineerng and oversite of many projects. Dr. Hulsey is the  author of more than 70 publications and is the author of one book in the field of structural engineering.

 

EDUCATION

1964 B.S. Civil Engineering, Missouri School of Mines and Metallurgy

1966 M.S. Civil Engineering, University of Missouri at Rolla

1968-1971 Post Graduate, University of Illinois

1976 Ph.D. Structural Engineering, University of Missouri-Rolla

 

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE

2015 – July Department Head, Civil & Environmental Engineering Department

2006- Present Associate Director of the Alaska University Transportation Center and Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Alaska Fairbanks.

2001 - Present President, CEO of Alignment Systems, Inc.

1993 - 2006 Assoc. Professor, Dept. of Civil Eng., University of Alaska Fairbanks; Vice President of Advanced Engineering Consolidated Technologies, Inc.

1987 - 1993 Assoc. Professor, Dept. of Civil Eng., University of Alaska Fairbanks. Department Chairman, 1988 - 1990, Structural Engineering & Construction Management Consultant.

1985 - 1987 Assistant Director of the Institute for Transportation Research and Education (ITRE), General Services Administration, University of North Carolina

1981 - Present President of Applied Computer Services, Inc., Raleigh, N.C.

1983 - 1985 Associate and office manager, Sutton-Kennerly & Associates, resulting from a purchase of Civil Engineering & Applied Research, Inc.;

1979 - 1983 President of Civil Engineering & Applied Research, Inc.

1976 - 1980 Asst. Professor, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.

1972 - 1976 Research Asst. & Teaching Asst., Univ. of Missouri-Rolla, Rolla, MO.

1968 - 1972 Project Engineer, Daily & Associates, Engineers, Inc., Champaign, IL

1966 - 1968 Civil Engineering Asst., United States Army, Ft. Greely, AK

1965 - 1966 Design Engineer, Daily & Associates, Engineers, Inc., Champaign, IL

 

SPECIAL SKILLS

Practical Experience - Buildings, bridges, special structures and special excavations and foundations. Experienced as an owner, office manager, project leader, designer, project manager, early in career he was a master craftsman, carpenter, construction foreman, draftsman and surveyor.

 

Academic Experience - Teaching, research, and author. Experienced at developing user friendly computer programs for structures, geotechnical and soil-structure interaction problems. Programs include static and dynamic analysis of structures, bridge design, retaining wall design, slope stability analysis, the pile wave equation, and others. Analytical capabilities include finite element, finite difference, and closed form for both continuum and discrete field mechanics. Research includes structural response caused by thermal changes introduced by the weather, fire or other. Experienced in experimental stress analysis; this includes design & manufacture of special transducers. Expertise in composites with a provisional patent for a “wearing surface coating” for timbers; the system may be used for board walks, decks, and highway bridge decks.

You've just dismissed the results out of hand. If NIST released their inputs maybe we could see why Hulsey can't get a building collapse.

Sure seems like the truth community might lose some steam if NIST can show their models do what they are claimed to do.

Imo.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 09, 2017, 02:01:02 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 08, 2017, 11:54:38 PM

We're also doing the best with what we have. The inputs NIST used would be really, really nice.

www.wtc7investigation.org


Does that URL resolve for you?    I used  http://www.wtc7evaluation.org/   but  your URL is a new one I haven't seen before?

I downloaded their stuff a while back and it was pitiful.  Zero detail,   incomplete work books,  nonsense.

Hulsey lost all credibiltiy when he chose to be funded by the AE911truthers.   

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on May 09, 2017, 02:09:53 AM
You have no room to call into question anyone's credibility
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 09, 2017, 02:11:36 AM
Sorry my bad, wrote it by hand, wasn't paying attention.

Did you read his resume?

Hulsey > some blowhard on the internet.

For me anyway.

Let's wait for peer review shall we?

Edit.

Hulsey is well aware he is throwing away his "credibility" over this, he's a superhero in my books.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 09, 2017, 02:23:31 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 09, 2017, 02:01:02 AM
Hulsey lost all credibiltiy when he chose to be funded by the AE911truthers.

Can I just also point out how hilarious it is, for me, personally. That you are trying to use the fact we have a few thousand architects and engineers that call BS on the O/S to discredit another decorated PhD structural engineer.

You never cease to amaze me mate.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 09, 2017, 02:49:48 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 09, 2017, 02:01:02 AM
Hulsey lost all credibiltiy (sic) [emphasis mine]when he chose to be funded by the AE911truthers.

I am sure he is deeply wounded by this.

Next time you wish to cast someone else as having no credibility, I suggest you correctly spell the word credibility.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 09, 2017, 03:30:02 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 09, 2017, 02:23:31 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 09, 2017, 02:01:02 AM
Hulsey lost all credibiltiy when he chose to be funded by the AE911truthers.

Can I just also point out how hilarious it is, for me, personally. That you are trying to use the fact we have a few thousand architects and engineers that call BS on the O/S to discredit another decorated PhD structural engineer.

You never cease to amaze me mate.

Most of them are crackpots,  like that looney  cold fusion physics professor from Brigham.   Real engineers and Architects,  just  roll their eyes and shake their heads.   

What's the reason they mostly just brush off the 9/11 truthers?   


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 09, 2017, 03:30:56 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 09, 2017, 02:49:48 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 09, 2017, 02:01:02 AM
Hulsey lost all credibiltiy (sic) [emphasis mine]when he chose to be funded by the AE911truthers.

I am sure he is deeply wounded by this.

Next time you wish to cast someone else as having no credibility, I suggest you correctly spell the word credibility.

LOL,   thank you little spell checker.   Keep up the good work.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 09, 2017, 03:48:36 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 09, 2017, 03:30:02 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 09, 2017, 02:23:31 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 09, 2017, 02:01:02 AM
Hulsey lost all credibiltiy when he chose to be funded by the AE911truthers.

Can I just also point out how hilarious it is, for me, personally. That you are trying to use the fact we have a few thousand architects and engineers that call BS on the O/S to discredit another decorated PhD structural engineer.

You never cease to amaze me mate.

Most of them are crackpots,  like that looney  cold fusion physics professor from Brigham.   Real engineers and Architects,  just  roll their eyes and shake their heads.   

What's the reason they mostly just brush off the 9/11 truthers?
Please provide evidence of your "real engineers and architects mostly" brushing off  people who question the validity of the O/S.

A person actually having the credential of a licensed architect or engineer would not mind explaining in detail why the collapse models presented by the NIST in their final reports is valid.

The trouble is?

They cannot.

The reason is?

Because the inputs/results data is not available.

So if your group of "real engineers and architects," exists and they are "brushing off," that would be a good reason (i.e., "We real engineers and architects ask you ignore the fact the inputs/results data is not released and simply trust us.")
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 09, 2017, 03:54:33 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 09, 2017, 03:30:56 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 09, 2017, 02:49:48 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 09, 2017, 02:01:02 AM
Hulsey lost all credibiltiy (sic) [emphasis mine]when he chose to be funded by the AE911truthers.

I am sure he is deeply wounded by this.

Next time you wish to cast someone else as having no credibility, I suggest you correctly spell the word credibility.

LOL,   thank you little spell checker.   Keep up the good work.
Sorry, I do not find this post of yours credible.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 09, 2017, 04:10:15 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 09, 2017, 03:48:36 AM
Please provide evidence of your "real engineers and architects mostly" brushing off  people who question the validity of the O/S.

A person actually having the credential of a licensed architect or engineer would not mind explaining in detail why the collapse models presented by the NIST in their final reports is valid.

The trouble is?

They cannot.

The reason is?

Because the inputs/results data is not available.

So if your group of "real engineers and architects," exists and they are "brushing off," that would be a good reason (i.e., "We real engineers and architects ask you ignore the fact the inputs/results data is not released and simply trust us.")


"Architects and Engineers
I guess a lot of you have heard about the website ae911truth where a group of individuals claim that what happened to WTC 1, 2 and 7 could not have happened. This is just a claim, because they have nothing to show for their allegation that it could not have happened the way it did. You won't find any calculations that show how the NIST Report is wrong. On this site, you will find many structural engineers - those who actually know what they are talking about - explaining why the towers collapsed the way they did. So feel free to look at all the information I have gathered about the research done on the collapse on the towers. The research has been published in numerous engineering magazines and all over the internet on engineering sites (See the links on the right side of this site).

Only a handful of architects and engineers question the NIST Report, but they have never come up with an alternative. Although at first blush it may seem impressive that these people don't believe the NIST Report, remember that there are 123,000 members of ASCE(American Society of Civil Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 80,000 members of AIA(American Institute of Architects) who do not question the NIST Report.

Although their field of expertise is not related to the construction of buildings - they don't seem to have a problem with that over at AE911truth - there are also 120,000 members of ASME(American Society of Mechanical Engineers) who do not question the NIST report. There are also 370,000 members of IEEE(Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) who do not question the NIST report. There are also 40,000 members of AIChE(American Institute of Chemical Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 35,000 members of AIAA (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics) who do not question the NIST report. So who would you rather believe?"

So,  that's  768,000 who don't question the NIST report.  vs what 3000 ae911truthers?       http://911-engineers.blogspot.com.au/

Argumentum Ad Populum  is a fallacious argument anyway,   but you and dipstick raised it.   In any event you lose.



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 09, 2017, 04:25:24 AM
Nice copy pasta.

Quote from: Rayzor on May 09, 2017, 04:10:15 AM
In any event you lose.

You're like some five year olds I know.

"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 09, 2017, 04:37:12 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 09, 2017, 04:10:15 AM

"Architects and Engineers
I guess a lot of you have heard about the website ae911truth where a group of individuals claim that what happened to WTC 1, 2 and 7 could not have happened. This is just a claim, because they have nothing to show for their allegation that it could not have happened the way it did.
A claim without substance.
Quote from: Rayzor on May 09, 2017, 04:10:15 AM
You won't find any calculations that show how the NIST Report is wrong.
Hard to calculate how it might be wrong when the input/results data is withheld.
Quote from: Rayzor on May 09, 2017, 04:10:15 AM
On this site, you will find many structural engineers - those who actually know what they are talking about - explaining why the towers collapsed the way they did.

Many = ?

There might be a total of 200 posts on this site, period.

Quote from: Rayzor on May 09, 2017, 04:10:15 AM
So feel free to look at all the information I have gathered about the research done on the collapse on the towers. The research has been published in numerous engineering magazines and all over the internet on engineering sites (See the links on the right side of this site).
All the same shit.

Quote from: Rayzor on May 09, 2017, 04:10:15 AM
Only a handful of architects and engineers question the NIST Report, but they have never come up with an alternative.
Yes they have.
Quote from: Rayzor on May 09, 2017, 04:10:15 AM
Although at first blush it may seem impressive that these people don't believe the NIST Report, remember that there are 123,000 members of ASCE(American Society of Civil Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report. There are also 80,000 members of AIA(American Institute of Architects) who do not question the NIST Report.
Baseless claim.

Cannot support these statements with any facts.

Besides, "Argumentum Ad Populum  is a fallacious argument anyway."
Quote from: Rayzor on May 09, 2017, 04:10:15 AM
Although their field of expertise is not related to the construction of buildings - they don't seem to have a problem with that over at AE911truth - there are also 120,000 members of ASME(American Society of Mechanical Engineers) who do not question the NIST report.
Baseless claim.
Quote from: Rayzor on May 09, 2017, 04:10:15 AM
There are also 370,000 members of IEEE(Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) who do not question the NIST report.
Baseless claim
Quote from: Rayzor on May 09, 2017, 04:10:15 AM
There are also 40,000 members of AIChE(American Institute of Chemical Engineers) who do not question the NIST Report.
Baseless claim.
Quote from: Rayzor on May 09, 2017, 04:10:15 AM
There are also 35,000 members of AIAA (American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics) who do not question the NIST report.
Baseless claim.
Quote from: Rayzor on May 09, 2017, 04:10:15 AM
So who WHATwould you rather believe?"
FTFY and the author.

No need to thank me.

The truth.
Quote from: Rayzor on May 09, 2017, 04:10:15 AM
So,  that's  768,000 who don't question the NIST report.  vs what 3000 ae911truthers?       http://911-engineers.blogspot.com.au/

Argumentum Ad Populum  is a fallacious argument anyway,   but you and dipstick raised it.   In any event you lose.
The author provided many baseless claims in his presentation.

According to him:

No formal statement from these boards in support or denial of NIST final reports = support of all members.

That is just bull shit.

You lose.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 09, 2017, 04:46:33 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 09, 2017, 04:37:12 AM
According to him:

No formal statement from these boards in support or denial of NIST final reports = support of all members.

That is just bull shit.

You lose.

It's nearly like the author was deliberately pushing a dishonest narrative in that article.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 09, 2017, 04:49:47 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 09, 2017, 04:46:33 AM
It's nearly like the author was deliberately pushing a dishonest narrative in that article.
An extremely dishonest narrative.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 09, 2017, 05:05:59 AM
Rayzor and the NIST narrative of WTC 1, 2, 7 on 9/11 =

(https://image.shutterstock.com/z/stock-vector-a-newton-s-cradle-executive-desk-toy-with-tangled-balls-150234869.jpg)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 09, 2017, 05:13:39 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 09, 2017, 05:05:59 AM
Rayzor and the NIST narrative of WTC 1, 2, 7 on 9/11 =

Pretty much the exact parallel of the  flat earther's  denial of any evidence produced by NASA

You claim the author's narrative was dishonest,  prove it..     I happen to think it's true that more than 99% of professional engineers and architects think 9/11 truthers are wrong.

Nice puzzle pics BTW.   





Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 09, 2017, 05:26:07 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 09, 2017, 05:13:39 AM
You claim the author's narrative was dishonest,  prove it..

No formal statement from these boards in support or denial of NIST final reports ==/== support of all members.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 09, 2017, 05:28:30 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 09, 2017, 05:13:39 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 09, 2017, 05:05:59 AM
Rayzor and the NIST narrative of WTC 1, 2, 7 on 9/11 =

Pretty much the exact parallel of the  flat earther's  denial of any evidence produced by NASA

You claim the author's narrative was dishonest,  prove it..     I happen to think it's true that more than 99% of professional engineers and architects think 9/11 truthers are wrong.

Nice puzzle pics BTW.
I know you happen to think it is true.

You have no evidence to support that thought.

The author's narrative is dishonest and it is not true based on the mere fact no official statement has been released by any of the organizations listed in that narrative.

Since there is no formal statement, the only true statement that can be written is this:

A lack of any statement by these organizations concerning the final NIST reports =/= support for the final NIST reports.

The author of your referenced blog clearly interprets a lack of a formal statement by these organizations as:

A lack of any statement by these organizations concerning the final NIST reports = support for the final NIST reports.

That is a false statement.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 09, 2017, 05:46:24 AM
From Quora

"Few professional people with any responsibilities in the world would be willing to endure the ridicule and ostracism that would result from associating with a "conspiracy movement".

I'm not aware that any scientific poll was ever undertaken to assess the attitudes of structural engineers about the WTC stuctural failures. I know that one professional structural engineer sent out questionnaires to 100 of his professional colleagues and only 2 of those were returned."

He doesn't say if the two returned questionnaires were pro conspiracy or con,   but it doesn't matter,  98% of the professional engineers asked,   didn't bother to respond.   I can guess why.

ae9/11truthers are a vanishingly small minority of professional engineers whichever way you cut the cake.

Fail.
 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 09, 2017, 05:53:07 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 09, 2017, 05:46:24 AM
From Quora

"Few professional people with any responsibilities in the world would be willing to endure the ridicule and ostracism that would result from associating with a "conspiracy movement".

I'm not aware that any scientific poll was ever undertaken to assess the attitudes of structural engineers about the WTC stuctural failures. I know that one professional structural engineer sent out questionnaires to 100 of his professional colleagues and only 2 of those were returned."

He doesn't say if the two returned questionnaires were pro conspiracy or con,   but it doesn't matter,  98% of the professional engineers asked,   didn't bother to respond.   I can guess why.

ae9/11truthers are a vanishingly small minority of professional engineers whichever way you cut the cake.

Fail.
You can guess why.

I can guess why.

Either way, the only true statement is this:

A lack of an official pronouncement concerning the veracity or validity of the final NIST reports on WTC1/2/7 =/= support for the reports.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 09, 2017, 06:04:18 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 09, 2017, 05:53:07 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 09, 2017, 05:46:24 AM
From Quora

"Few professional people with any responsibilities in the world would be willing to endure the ridicule and ostracism that would result from associating with a "conspiracy movement".

I'm not aware that any scientific poll was ever undertaken to assess the attitudes of structural engineers about the WTC stuctural failures. I know that one professional structural engineer sent out questionnaires to 100 of his professional colleagues and only 2 of those were returned."

He doesn't say if the two returned questionnaires were pro conspiracy or con,   but it doesn't matter,  98% of the professional engineers asked,   didn't bother to respond.   I can guess why.

ae9/11truthers are a vanishingly small minority of professional engineers whichever way you cut the cake.

Fail.
You can guess why.

I can guess why.

Either way, the only true statement is this:

A lack of an official pronouncement concerning the veracity or validity of the final NIST reports on WTC1/2/7 =/= support for the reports.

A lack of an official pronouncement concerning the veracity or validity of the final NIST reports on WTC1/2/7 =/= support for the views of ae911truthers.

Stalemate.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 09, 2017, 06:07:21 AM
Have I taught you a bit of integrity?

I think I might have.

Good show Rayzor.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 09, 2017, 06:14:00 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 09, 2017, 05:46:24 AM
98% of the professional engineers asked,   didn't bother to respond.   I can guess why.

You answered it here, dumbshoe.

Quote from: Rayzor on May 09, 2017, 05:46:24 AM
"Few professional people with any responsibilities in the world would be willing to endure the ridicule and ostracism that would result from associating with a "conspiracy movement".

The fact we have three thousand brave enough to risk their careers and reputations is massive, whichever way you look at it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 09, 2017, 06:57:14 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 09, 2017, 06:04:18 AM

A lack of an official pronouncement concerning the veracity or validity of the final NIST reports on WTC1/2/7 =/= support for the views of ae911truthers.

Stalemate.
Between us?

Yes, on that statement as it is true as much as:

A lack of an official pronouncement concerning the veracity or validity of the final NIST reports on WTC1/2/7 =/= support for final NIST report.

However, regarding the validity of the information presented at your source:

 http://911-engineers.blogspot.com.au/ (http://911-engineers.blogspot.com.au/)

the author's stance is shown to be biased without a doubt and there is no stalemate.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 09, 2017, 10:09:45 AM
@BHS, I think you missed that post, would be nice if you could answer it:

Quote from: User324 on May 05, 2017, 04:21:52 AM
@Bhs;
To come back to an older post (from serious times) that I have not answered:

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on May 01, 2017, 12:22:34 PM
Indoctrination has nothing to do with what subject you are studying...Just being in the camp of college is enough.
I still do not see how I get indoctrinated on campus - can you give some examples?
Plus, I think how you get influenced does have to with the subject ("influenced" though is not exactely what I would call "indoctrination").

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on May 01, 2017, 12:22:34 PM
This is why I piss people off, I don't fall in this predetermined category, and when I am called whatever names, I simply ask for proof they can even point such a judgemental finger.
That does make sense, in this way I do agree with you.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on May 01, 2017, 12:22:34 PM
I was talking more than just intelligence quotient (though the man who has scored the highest score recorded believes in a creator  :D but that is another thread)...But certainly IQ is a factor, but not an end all be all. (Especially when you factor the people who are overdeveloped in one are, but under developed in others..You put those people in their wheel house, you better look out)
I'm not too sure about that, I do not think being overdeveloped in one area does mean you have to be underdeveloped in others (goes the other way, too). At least that's what my experience so far tells me.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on May 01, 2017, 12:22:34 PM
Would it be wise to take financial advice from a broke person?relationship advice from some married 5 times?
That really depends. If somone married 5 times is telling you what to do, probably not. If he is telling you what you should NOT do, it might be wise to listen.
I though get your point and mostly agree with it.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on May 01, 2017, 12:22:34 PM
Oh, and I Absolutely 100 percent appreciate the "normal worker"..You would know that if you read my rant towards rayzor when he called dispute just a dumb fitter. I 100 percent know how skilled they can be, and have seen fantastic ideas come from such people. Have also had my own personal designs improved before by such people..A "why didn't I think of that " moment.
100% agreed, well said.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 09, 2017, 08:03:11 PM
Answer implies a question was asked.

Also, this.

Whoops.

(https://s2.postimg.org/e4usnj6nd/1494380611775.jpg)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 09, 2017, 09:19:35 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 09, 2017, 06:14:00 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 09, 2017, 05:46:24 AM
98% of the professional engineers asked,   didn't bother to respond.   I can guess why.

You answered it here, dumbshoe.

Quote from: Rayzor on May 09, 2017, 05:46:24 AM
"Few professional people with any responsibilities in the world would be willing to endure the ridicule and ostracism that would result from associating with a "conspiracy movement".

The fact we have three thousand brave enough to risk their careers and reputations is massive, whichever way you look at it.

That's a very telling observation,   the fact that  a tiny minority are prepared to "endure the ridicule and ostracism that would result from associating with a "conspiracy movement".

I read that as the majority of professional engineers who know better think that those in the conspiracy movement are deserving of ridicule,  but you saw it as exactly the opposite.   "brave souls"  indeed.   I could say exactly the same about  any of the flat earthers here who stand up publicly for the flat earth.   Brave souls they are indeed.   ( Initikam, excepted he's  just  fruitcake loopy ) 

Also please keep your anti MSM anti Jewish crap out of the 9/11 discsussion.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 09, 2017, 09:20:23 PM
No thanks.

It clearly agitates you.

Plus nothing about that is anti-jewish.

Edit.
Neither is this.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 09, 2017, 09:33:30 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 09, 2017, 09:19:35 PM
I could say exactly the same about  any of the flat earthers here who stand up publicly for the flat earth.   Brave souls they are indeed.

If there were thousands of scientists (astrophysicists, cosmologists, geologists etc) coming forward saying the earth is flat, I would allow this comparison.

Currently I won't pay the comparison.
Sorry.

Why do you keep comparing us to flat earthers instead of engaging in debate? It's like you're following a playbook.

Tell your bosses they need to update it to handle me.

Also, this.
"I want truth for truth's sake, not for the applaud or approval of men. I would not reject truth because it is unpopular, nor accept error because it is popular. I should rather be right and stand alone than run with the multitude and be wrong." - C.S. DeFord
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 09, 2017, 09:39:15 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 09, 2017, 08:03:11 PM
Answer implies a question was asked.

You can generally recognise questions by the odd thing called questionmark: '?'.

But I understand that from a person who's brain capability is mostly limited to "he is."  and who believes in conspiracy BS, I cannot expect too much. You shall be forgiven.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 09, 2017, 09:41:00 PM
Low content post is low content.

Read your post and point out the question mark and the question you'd like answered.

What's that? There wasn't a question?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 09, 2017, 10:37:58 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 09, 2017, 09:41:00 PM
Low content post is low content.

Read your post and point out the question mark and the question you'd like answered.

What's that? There wasn't a question?
If it is so hard for you to find that, you can use "ctrl+f" in most browsers to search for the questionmark.

Anyway, talking about "low content", maybe start with yourself before trying to lecture others.

Quote from: Disputeone
Based.
Quote from: Disputeone
Answer implies a question was asked.

Also, this.

Whoops.
Quote from: Disputeone
Love is the law.
Quote from: Disputeone
No it doesn't.
Quote from: Disputeone
Nevar change Rab.
Quote from: Disputeone
He is.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 09, 2017, 11:06:55 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 09, 2017, 09:41:00 PM
Low content post is low content.

Can you stop stalking me please? It's creepy. We have a thread for out of context quotes.

Please also know how hilarious I find it that some kid with one year of uni under his belt wants to call me stupid.

It really is great value.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 09, 2017, 11:18:20 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 09, 2017, 11:06:55 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 09, 2017, 09:41:00 PM
Low content post is low content.

Can you stop stalking me please? It's creepy. We have a thread for out of context quotes.

Please also know how hilarious I find it that some kid with one year of uni under his belt wants to call me stupid.

It really is great value.
Actually it's 2 years.
But anyway even 1 year > 0 years.

By the way, you might want to look up the definition of 'stalking', since you're obviously using it wrong.

Edit: I find it amusing that everytime you find yourself in a corner you take the 'lel you in uni' way.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 09, 2017, 11:29:45 PM
A corner?

Dude you haven't raised a point yet except to call us dumb. You admit you still haven't even read the reports.

Is that your definition of "having me in a corner?" Are you serious?

You are, aren't you? I'm not in a corner at all, just posting for teh lulz now really.

I have already justified my position of wanting a new independent investigation into 9/11, ten times over.

Toodle-pip.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 09, 2017, 11:51:24 PM
Quote from: User324 on May 09, 2017, 11:18:20 PM
But anyway even 1 year > 0 years.

If that really is your attitude check out my buddies resumè.

Please take note that it puts everyone on this thread to shame.

Quote
We are pleased and honored to have Dr. Leroy Hulsey, Ph.D., PR, SE as our in-house engineer. The list below is a brief summary of his education and professional experience. Dr. Hulsey has been instrumental in guiding the research, development, and testing of ThermaSteel products for many years, as well as assisting on the engineerng and oversite of many projects. Dr. Hulsey is the  author of more than 70 publications and is the author of one book in the field of structural engineering.

 

EDUCATION

1964 B.S. Civil Engineering, Missouri School of Mines and Metallurgy

1966 M.S. Civil Engineering, University of Missouri at Rolla

1968-1971 Post Graduate, University of Illinois

1976 Ph.D. Structural Engineering, University of Missouri-Rolla

 

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE

2015 – July Department Head, Civil & Environmental Engineering Department

2006- Present Associate Director of the Alaska University Transportation Center and Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Alaska Fairbanks.

2001 - Present President, CEO of Alignment Systems, Inc.

1993 - 2006 Assoc. Professor, Dept. of Civil Eng., University of Alaska Fairbanks; Vice President of Advanced Engineering Consolidated Technologies, Inc.

1987 - 1993 Assoc. Professor, Dept. of Civil Eng., University of Alaska Fairbanks. Department Chairman, 1988 - 1990, Structural Engineering & Construction Management Consultant.

1985 - 1987 Assistant Director of the Institute for Transportation Research and Education (ITRE), General Services Administration, University of North Carolina

1981 - Present President of Applied Computer Services, Inc., Raleigh, N.C.

1983 - 1985 Associate and office manager, Sutton-Kennerly & Associates, resulting from a purchase of Civil Engineering & Applied Research, Inc.;

1979 - 1983 President of Civil Engineering & Applied Research, Inc.

1976 - 1980 Asst. Professor, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.

1972 - 1976 Research Asst. & Teaching Asst., Univ. of Missouri-Rolla, Rolla, MO.

1968 - 1972 Project Engineer, Daily & Associates, Engineers, Inc., Champaign, IL

1966 - 1968 Civil Engineering Asst., United States Army, Ft. Greely, AK

1965 - 1966 Design Engineer, Daily & Associates, Engineers, Inc., Champaign, IL

 

SPECIAL SKILLS

Practical Experience - Buildings, bridges, special structures and special excavations and foundations. Experienced as an owner, office manager, project leader, designer, project manager, early in career he was a master craftsman, carpenter, construction foreman, draftsman and surveyor.

 

Academic Experience - Teaching, research, and author. Experienced at developing user friendly computer programs for structures, geotechnical and soil-structure interaction problems. Programs include static and dynamic analysis of structures, bridge design, retaining wall design, slope stability analysis, the pile wave equation, and others. Analytical capabilities include finite element, finite difference, and closed form for both continuum and discrete field mechanics. Research includes structural response caused by thermal changes introduced by the weather, fire or other. Experienced in experimental stress analysis; this includes design & manufacture of special transducers. Expertise in composites with a provisional patent for a “wearing surface coating” for timbers; the system may be used for board walks, decks, and highway bridge decks.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 10, 2017, 12:00:16 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 09, 2017, 11:51:24 PM
If that really is your attitude check out my buddies resumè.

Please take note that it puts everyone on this thread to shame.

Is he here, talking to me? No?
Too bad.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 10, 2017, 12:04:18 AM
Low content post is low content.

He's already given his professional testimony.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 10, 2017, 12:10:41 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 10, 2017, 12:04:18 AM
Low content post is low content.
The high-content-master talking himself.  ::)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 10, 2017, 12:11:37 AM
Are you incapable of anything but shitposts?

I am yet to see it.

**awaits shitpost.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 10, 2017, 12:22:46 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 10, 2017, 12:11:37 AM
Are you incapable of anything but shitposts?

I am yet to see it.

**awaits shitpost.

I could ask you the same.

**awaits shit answer.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 10, 2017, 12:33:20 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 10, 2017, 12:11:37 AM
**awaits shitpost.

Good show mate. Your maturity is showing.

If you would actively oppose a new 9/11 investigation then good for you. Personally I find it abhorrent.

Honestly I don't waste my time on people I consider not to have the intellectual prerequisites for a productive conversation.

In saying that, back to not acknowledging your posts, you bore me and honestly I feel we are on different levels intellectually, I'd prefer not to drop to your level of "no u."

Goodbye mate, sorry for the arrogant rant however you deserved it. If you want to see my contributions to this forum I suggest you read more of my posts. Having a sense of humour beyond calling others stupid is actually a sign of intelligence.

I hope you gain wisdom with experience, in my experience the only things we really learn are learned the hard way.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 10, 2017, 12:42:16 AM
Here are a few higher content posts.

Quote from: disputeone on February 16, 2017, 01:33:41 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 16, 2017, 12:17:31 AM
So zero contribution to the discussion yet again from disputeone.   Try making a case for what you believe for a change,  and leave off posting dictionary definitions,  I know you've just got a new dictionary, and are keen to use it, but do it somewhere else.

Quote from: disputeone on February 14, 2017, 11:45:45 PM
Sigh, how does weakened steel lead to a collapse at gravitational acceleration?

Was the steel weakened by a factor of 100% to make it fall at gravitational acceleration? Or was it say X% weakend with the structure underneath it providing mechanical resistance during the collapse?

If the fires weakened the structure by a factor of 100% then fine, freefall is not only acceptable but logical.

If, however, the fires didn't take 100% of the structural strength of the tower, why didn't some of the towers potential energy get used to crush the structure as it was falling?

You haven't debunked this point, you get hysterical every time it's brought up.

And then have the gall to say that we are the ones being intellectually dishonest.

If you want to try to refute this point I will consider giving you the time of day again.

Quote from: disputeone on February 14, 2017, 11:52:17 PM
For example, put a bowling ball on any structure you like. Weaken the structure until it collapses, does it collapse at g? Or does the structural resistance of the structure slow the fall speed as the balls potential energy is taken crushing the structure underneath it.

I dare you to answer that truthfully.

Quote from: disputeone on February 15, 2017, 12:35:52 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 12:21:46 AM

Quote from: disputeone on February 14, 2017, 11:52:17 PM
For example, put a bowling ball on any structure you like. Weaken the structure until it collapses, does it collapse at g? Or does the structural resistance of the structure slow the fall speed as the balls potential energy is taken crushing the structure underneath it.

I dare you to answer that truthfully.

It falls at 1G  I was sure you already knew that any unsupported mass will fall at 1G

You are exactly right in saying, any unsupported mass will fall at exactly 1G, however, there's this thing called Terminal velocity (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Terminal+velocity) which means anything moving through a medium will eventually be slowed down by the medium.

So things don't fall at exactly 1G in our reality, air resistance, amongst other things (hardened structural steel and reinforced concrete under compression), will slow down the fall speed of any object.

Another experiment you could do is to try and shoot a cannon ball through a piece of say 10mm thick aluminum.

Would the cannon ball, given as much velocity as you like, eventually have enough energy to pass through the 10mm thick ally without expending any of its potential energy?

The answer is no because every action has an equal and opposite reaction, but I would like you to do your own tests.

You are digging a massive hole with me and BHS is the one with the PhD  ;D ;D

I see why you were scared to debate him.

Quote from: disputeone on February 14, 2017, 11:52:17 PM
For example, put a bowling ball on any structure you like. Weaken the structure until it collapses, does it collapse at g? Or does the structural resistance of the structure slow the fall speed as the balls potential energy is taken crushing the structure underneath it.

I dare you to answer that truthfully.

I am being condescending now, I admit it, you lost your chance on page two tbh.

Quote from: disputeone on February 15, 2017, 01:44:38 AM
It's just not critical to the demolition hypothesis when we can measure free fall.

It's been, I think thoroughly proven, that a building will not fall at free fall under it's own weight, plus a plane impact and full fuel load. At the very least there have been some very good arguments put forward without the aid of youtube videos.

The fact that you just keep dodging this is concerning.

Quote from: disputeone on February 15, 2017, 02:42:39 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 15, 2017, 02:32:00 AM
My response was to post a simulation done by Perdue that refuted your assertion that the aircraft couldn't penetrate the structure.   Now you say I never answered?

Was not an answer, you just said, this is the official story. That video was not peer reviewed it doesn't give us access to their numbers.

I did actually send an email asking for the numbers they used, I don't think they will reply, you said I should earlier in the thread.

Quote from: hoppy on February 15, 2017, 04:13:57 AM
Rayzor, you really suck dude. Bhs and d1 are beating the fuck out you. I don't even know why they keep responding to you. They have offered plenty if evidence and you keep offering strawmen. You believe the governments stupid report, either for pay or due to brainwashing. You really suck.

*In honor of one of the greatest shitposters of our time, (papa) even if we hate each other ;D.

Edit.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 10, 2017, 12:53:09 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 10, 2017, 12:33:20 AM
I feel we are on different levels intellectually
I feel so, too, but it's okay I do not judge you on your intellect since it's nothing you did choose.


Quote from: disputeone on May 10, 2017, 12:33:20 AM
Honestly I don't waste my time on people I consider not to have the intellectual prerequisites for a productive conversation.
Quote from: disputeone on May 10, 2017, 12:33:20 AM
If you want to see my contributions to this forum I suggest you read more of my posts.
I don't even understand why people would visit a forum called the "flat earth society" if they were looking for an intellectual conversation.
It's like going to a circus hoping to have a political debate.

Anyway, about the acceleration thing you keep bringing up. I have answered to that multiple times, but I'll do it (briefly) again:

acceleration that occured
It's impossible to calculate the actual acceleration of a falling building due to lot's of factors, so you can only get an approach to the real acceleration rate. Factors are e.g. unknown and not visible center of gravity, dust, perspective calculation errors, etc.

acceleration that should occure
You cannot accurately calculate how fast the building would fall with gravitational acceleration only, because of lots of unknown factors (like air resistance & mass).

It's totally impossible to accurately predict when, how fast and with which acceleration rate a building damaged by a plane flying into it + fire burning would fall.


So, in conclusion, you can of course make approaches but they are nothing but approaches, if you take them as absolute numbers and thus conclude it was exactely free fall, that's just stupid and wrong. If you say, it might have been close to free fall considering all the errors in calculations, you are right but this does in no way support controlled demolition over a "natural" fall.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 10, 2017, 01:15:34 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 10, 2017, 12:53:09 AM
It's impossible to calculate the actual acceleration of a falling building.

http://m.wikihow.com/Calculate-Acceleration

Couldn't help myself. Alright I'm done.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 10, 2017, 01:21:35 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 10, 2017, 01:15:34 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 10, 2017, 12:53:09 AM
It's impossible to calculate the actual acceleration of a falling building.

http://m.wikihow.com/Calculate-Acceleration

Couldn't help myself. Alright I'm done.

This just shows that you are not understanding. Well, no wonder with a conspiracy theory guy.

Anyway, if you think you could accurately calculate the acceleration of any of the buildings collapsing: show me!
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 10, 2017, 01:30:57 AM


Edit.

Quote from: NIST
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)

https://www.nist.gov/pba/questions-and-answers-about-nist-wtc-7-investigation

Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on March 31, 2017, 12:14:38 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/Y1HDPtV.png)
This is what the external skin looks like. These are not minor steel beams they where using to keep it together either. Godzilla would not have gotten through that.

Oh and acceleration is just a change in velocity over time, it's really not as complicated as you think to calculate.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 10, 2017, 01:42:48 AM
Yep, you definitely do not understand. I even mentioned some of the factors that cause inaccurate results (like not knowing the CoG, perspective errors etc.).

I haven't watched (nor listened to, I'm in a library) the whole video, but it seems the guy got an acceleration above 10 m/s*s, which just proves my point. But yeah, it's hard to tell with a 240p potato video.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 10, 2017, 02:10:59 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 10, 2017, 01:30:57 AM
Quote from: NIST
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
https://www.nist.gov/pba/questions-and-answers-about-nist-wtc-7-investigation

We can calculate fall acceleration within acceptable error to be free-fall for 2.25 seconds.

Do you really still not understand that?

Why not try to address how it was possible for the outer steel frame to collapse at free-fall for 2.25 seconds starting with a girder on floor 13 losing connection to column 79 and column 79 subsequently failing.

I am fine starting from here, I would just like to raise a few initial points on these starting assumptions.

1. NIST failed to model the concrete on wtc7 which was primarily for fire protection.

2. Even assuming the beams exposed, no honest investigation has been able to get the massive amount of thermal expansion using the official fire models claimed by NIST for their collapse initiation sequence, so thats a big red flag. This is why their classified inputs are so critical.

With that out of the way column 79 led to the collapse of the entire core, which any architect or engineer can tell you a single column failure should not lead to a total collapse. Especially a column similar to column 79 in wtc 7.

(https://s14.postimg.org/6u3ghnuz5/911-destruction-of-evidence-1948.jpg)(poor quality pic, 79 is the southernmost interior column.)

There is obvious damage to wtc 7 before it collapsed so I will pay that as a contributing factor. However this is already looking very suspicious.

Once the core has collapsed we get to our smoking gun, the symmetrical free-fall of the outer frame of wtc 7, like clockwork, the buildings core collapses leaving the outer shell standing straight until the outer shell collapses in free-fall.

(https://s4.postimg.org/rfiwwr7v1/wtc7naudetxf5-1.gif)

You couldn't ask for a more perfect controlled demolition and this is impossible to replicate in any similar building due to fires alone.

NIST demonstrates this for us.


That's it for me, there's heaps of evidence in wtc 1 and 2, not to mention the pentagon and the mysterious United 93 incident. However wtc 7 is the smoking gun, if we can show that wtc 7s collapse couldn't be caused by fire it will be a massive victory for truth and justice imo.

I put a bit of effort in, show me it was worth it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 10, 2017, 02:20:27 AM
Quote
I put a bit of effort in, show me it was worth it.
I appreciate it, I though have not time for a longer answer. I'll address it later on.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on May 10, 2017, 03:07:11 AM
Sigh...I give you credit dispute, your patience is extraordinary. My patience used to out last yours, however, seems to have flip flopped.

Rayzor is a broken record, and obviously is supporting an agenda for whatever motive. Not to mention a complete and total fraud as well as coward... Though I understand why he had to ignore me and hide.

User, I am questioning his intelligence in general...Though he is good at calling people names and making shit posts (even when he isn't trying to)...

To continue on with these people as you have, bless you!

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 10, 2017, 03:36:47 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on May 10, 2017, 03:07:11 AM
User, I am questioning his intelligence in general...Though he is good at calling people names and making shit posts (even when he isn't trying to)...
What you're questioning is up to you, feel free to question whatever you like. But don't worry too much about my intelligence, it should be just alright ;)
I'd tho still appreciate an answer to my post from earlier that was addressed to you.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Babushka on May 10, 2017, 03:37:56 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on May 10, 2017, 03:07:11 AM
Rayzor is a broken record, and obviously is supporting an agenda for whatever motive. Not to mention a complete and total fraud as well as coward... Though I understand why he had to ignore me and hide.

User, I am questioning his intelligence in general...Though he is good at calling people names and making shit posts (even when he isn't trying to)...

To continue on with these people as you have, bless you!

And then there's Sandokhan... a terrifying half-man half-tiger, expert at shooting down arguments all over the forum...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 10, 2017, 03:51:44 AM
Sandokhans making an ass of himself taking on Newton.

I do see the comparison.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Babushka on May 10, 2017, 03:52:58 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 10, 2017, 03:51:44 AM
Sandokhans making an ass of himself taking on Newton.


I'm surprised, he didn't seem like an idiot at all.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 10, 2017, 06:29:55 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 10, 2017, 02:10:59 AM

That's it for me, there's heaps of evidence in wtc 1 and 2, not to mention the pentagon and the mysterious United 93 incident. However wtc 7 is the smoking gun, if we can show that wtc 7s collapse couldn't be caused by fire it will be a massive victory for truth and justice imo.

I put a bit of effort in, show me it was worth it.

Nice to see at least a half baked attempt at an argument.   

Let's recap.   What is the evidence for conspiracy  ( apart from the obvious terrorist conspiracy ).

The only evidence that has half a chance of making sense with the evidence we have  is that there is something unexplained about the collapse mechanism.   

That's it.  No really, that's all they've got.

Seriously,   if the argument for conspiracy boils down to we don't agree with the analysis of the collapse mechanism.   That's an incredibly flimsy basis for assuming such a far reaching conspiracy.

What about some "real evidence"  not half baked wild assertions.   I'm going to hazard a guess there is none.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Pezevenk on May 10, 2017, 06:33:22 AM
Quote from: Babushka on May 10, 2017, 03:52:58 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 10, 2017, 03:51:44 AM
Sandokhans making an ass of himself taking on Newton.


I'm surprised, he didn't seem like an idiot at all.

Newton? No.

But sandokhan? Yes.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 10, 2017, 07:38:10 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 10, 2017, 06:29:55 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 10, 2017, 02:10:59 AM

That's it for me, there's heaps of evidence in wtc 1 and 2, not to mention the pentagon and the mysterious United 93 incident. However wtc 7 is the smoking gun, if we can show that wtc 7s collapse couldn't be caused by fire it will be a massive victory for truth and justice imo.

I put a bit of effort in, show me it was worth it.

Nice to see at least a half baked attempt at an argument.   

Let's recap.   What is the evidence for conspiracy  ( apart from the obvious terrorist conspiracy ).

The only evidence that has half a chance of making sense with the evidence we have  is that there is something unexplained about the collapse mechanism.   

That's it.  No really, that's all they've got.

Seriously,   if the argument for conspiracy boils down to we don't agree with the analysis of the collapse mechanism.   That's an incredibly flimsy basis for assuming such a far reaching conspiracy.

What about some "real evidence"  not half baked wild assertions.   I'm going to hazard a guess there is none.
There is no analysis of the collapse mechanisms for all three buildings that would be accepted by any reputable institution of higher learning.

It might be accepted by Rayzor's School of Shillerama, but last I checked they had lost accredited status even at FES.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 10, 2017, 07:48:35 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 10, 2017, 07:38:10 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 10, 2017, 06:29:55 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 10, 2017, 02:10:59 AM

That's it for me, there's heaps of evidence in wtc 1 and 2, not to mention the pentagon and the mysterious United 93 incident. However wtc 7 is the smoking gun, if we can show that wtc 7s collapse couldn't be caused by fire it will be a massive victory for truth and justice imo.

I put a bit of effort in, show me it was worth it.

Nice to see at least a half baked attempt at an argument.   

Let's recap.   What is the evidence for conspiracy  ( apart from the obvious terrorist conspiracy ).

The only evidence that has half a chance of making sense with the evidence we have  is that there is something unexplained about the collapse mechanism.   

That's it.  No really, that's all they've got.

Seriously,   if the argument for conspiracy boils down to we don't agree with the analysis of the collapse mechanism.   That's an incredibly flimsy basis for assuming such a far reaching conspiracy.

What about some "real evidence"  not half baked wild assertions.   I'm going to hazard a guess there is none.
There is no analysis of the collapse mechanisms for all three buildings that would be accepted by any reputable institution of higher learning.

It might be accepted by Rayzor's School of Shillerama, but last I checked they had lost accredited status even at FES.

So no evidence then,  just a off the wall opinion by a tiny minority of engineers.   Maybe if you actually had an argument it would help your case.

PS What colour hair do you have?   
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 10, 2017, 07:55:22 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 10, 2017, 07:48:35 AM


So no evidence then,  just a off the wall opinion by a tiny minority of engineers.   Maybe if you actually had an argument it would help your case.

PS What colour hair do you have?
The evidence is there is no scientific evidence (i.e.,formal accepted analysis) of the collapse mechanisms for WTC 1/2/7.

There is an accepted informal analysis but that does not constitute scientific evidence.

That is not speculation nor is it an opinion.

It is fact, according to the scientific method.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Babushka on May 10, 2017, 08:46:56 AM
My hair is the color of Speed Racer's soul, with the face of a babushka doing the mamushka.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 10, 2017, 08:50:09 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 10, 2017, 07:38:10 AM
There is no analysis of the collapse mechanisms for all three buildings that would be accepted by any reputable institution of higher learning.

It might be accepted by Rayzor's School of Shillerama, but last I checked they had lost accredited status even at FES.
Well, as far as I know universities do support the official version. Some guy actually got fired from one of the top 10 universities worldwide, because he was spreading 9/11 conspiracy bullshit.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 10, 2017, 10:49:45 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 10, 2017, 08:50:09 AM
Well, as far as I know universities do support the official version. Some guy actually got fired from one of the top 10 universities worldwide, because he was spreading 9/11 conspiracy bullshit.
I can't find any in a search.

I did find this:

"In an e-mail, Roger Bowen, general secretary of the American Association of University Professors, had harsh words for New Hampshire politicians who are calling for Woodward to be fired.
"That some legislators apparently believe they have an obligation to criticize the content of faculty classroom instruction is of enormous concern to the AAUP. The U.S. Supreme Court has held repeatedly that academic freedom is a First Amendment right of professors and at least six federal appellate courts have followed Supreme Court rulings," he said. "So long as the faculty member teaches within his or her discipline and is careful to teach the truth as set by the highest standards of scholarship within their discipline, they and their universities should not be subjected to political intrusions. This rule applies even in highly charged times like today. Professors outside the classroom should speak truth to power as their conscience dictates and inside the classroom they should speak the truths of their discipline. Based on the press reports I have read, it appears that Professor Woodward exemplifies both these professional desiderata."

https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/08/29/woodward (https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2006/08/29/woodward)

So it seems the pressure is coming from politicians who have no vested interest in the scientific method.

Universities do not support/decry the OS.

Have you ever seen a written statement from the chancellor of any university stating,"We the students/staff/faculty of this university support the official government version of events taking place on 9/11" ?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Coneerthe on May 10, 2017, 11:05:42 AM
I LIK BALL
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Babushka on May 10, 2017, 11:55:33 AM
Quote from: Coneerthe on May 10, 2017, 11:05:42 AM
I LIK BALL

That's fantastic. Kindly go LIK BALL somewhere else.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 10, 2017, 11:56:59 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 10, 2017, 10:49:45 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 10, 2017, 08:50:09 AM
Well, as far as I know universities do support the official version. Some guy actually got fired from one of the top 10 universities worldwide, because he was spreading 9/11 conspiracy bullshit.
I can't find any in a search.
this guy
http://911blogger.com/topics/daniele-ganser

You probably won't find lot's of english sources since the news most likely hasn't spread further than the german speaking part of europe.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Twerp on May 10, 2017, 12:03:04 PM
Quote from: Coneerthe on May 10, 2017, 11:05:42 AM
I LIK BALL
Are you good looking? I might be interested.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 10, 2017, 02:59:15 PM
Quote from: User324 on May 10, 2017, 11:56:59 AM
You promised to address my argument.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 10, 2017, 03:36:25 PM
Quote from: User324 on May 10, 2017, 11:56:59 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 10, 2017, 10:49:45 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 10, 2017, 08:50:09 AM
Well, as far as I know universities do support the official version. Some guy actually got fired from one of the top 10 universities worldwide, because he was spreading 9/11 conspiracy bullshit.
I can't find any in a search.
this guy
http://911blogger.com/topics/daniele-ganser

You probably won't find lot's of english sources since the news most likely hasn't spread further than the german speaking part of europe.
"Ganser was born in Lugano, Switzerland and was Senior Researcher at the ETH Zurich, Center for Security Studies (CSS).[1] He was president (2006–2012) of the Swiss branch of the "Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas" (ASPO),[2] and teaches History and Future of Energy Systems at the University of St. Gallen.[3][4]

Seems he has a job teaching at a...(wait for it)... UNIVERSITY!

Again,

Have you ever seen a written statement from the chancellor of any university stating,"We the students/staff/faculty of this university support the official government version of events taking place on 9/11" ?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on May 10, 2017, 04:03:24 PM
I can speak from personal experience they will not put it that way...They just support the government because they have to (their paychecks depend on it) as well as supporting their agenda.

So they won't say "we support the official story" word for word...They will shun you as a student until you do or wish you did. As for teachers, they will be shunned first, if you don't follow suit they will fire you for some other "non related" incidence.

The professor that got me into it, he was fired relatively quickly...

Though remember, it's not really the 9/11 issue , it's the colleges attempting to remove all critical thought....Anyone who sways outside the group think (on any issue from being a mandatory liberal, to mandatory pro choice, to a thousand other issues) is black balled until they step in line.

User is a prime example of a typical "product" of the educational system. Maybe he is passing his courses maybe he isn't, yet he has no fruits to show, as well as barely being able to tie his own shoe laces (more than likely uses Velcro)

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 10, 2017, 04:10:38 PM


This pretty much sums up the attitude towards people willing to speak out. Really a disgusting video.

"The enemy."

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 10, 2017, 04:14:39 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on May 10, 2017, 04:03:24 PM
I can speak from personal experience they will not put it that way...They just support the government because they have to (their paychecks depend on it) as well as supporting their agenda.

So they won't say "we support the official story" word for word...They will shun you as a student until you do or wish you did. As for teachers, they will be shunned first, if you don't follow suit they will fire you for some other "non related" incidence.

The professor that got me into it, he was fired relatively quickly...

Though remember, it's not really the 9/11 issue , it's the colleges attempting to remove all critical thought....Anyone who sways outside the group think (on any issue from being a mandatory liberal, to mandatory pro choice, to a thousand other issues) is black balled until they step in line.

User is a prime example of a typical "product" of the educational system. Maybe he is passing his courses maybe he isn't, yet he has no fruits to show, as well as barely being able to tie his own shoe laces (more than likely uses Velcro)
I was force fed more liberal crap (at all very conservative campuses) than I cared to digest while I was in school and got into heated debates several times with all my instructors.

During one of my logic classes, I got into a classic with my instructor over the issue of God.

All post - 9/11.

A majority of students and a great deal of faculty all very skeptical of the OS.

I agree they will not put it that way but I do not think I was shunned, nor did I ever think I was.

Most people I hang around do not wish to sit down and go over the story with me because I take them through the whole thing.

By the time we are done talking they are usually questioning the OS too.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on May 10, 2017, 04:42:48 PM
Quote from: totallackey on May 10, 2017, 04:14:39 PM
I was force fed more liberal crap (at all very conservative campuses) than I cared to digest while I was in school and got into heated debates several times with all my instructors.

During one of my logic classes, I got into a classic with my instructor over the issue of God.

All post - 9/11.

A majority of students and a great deal of faculty all very skeptical of the OS.

I agree they will not put it that way but I do not think I was shunned, nor did I ever think I was.

Most people I hang around do not wish to sit down and go over the story with me because I take them through the whole thing.

By the time we are done talking they are usually questioning the OS too.

When did you go to school? Things were different when I was in and that was a decade ago. You literally were "shunned"...Maybe not the exact definition of the word, but I feel close enough. We are hardwired to have pack mentality, so that is group thinks number one weapon... Exclusion and ridicule.

I can only imagine now...I don't think they are even trying to hide the fact of their overall goals and agenda anymore. The random couple times I do visit a university throughout the year, it gives me a headache, makes me sick and sad all at once.

It is really hard to get a grip who truly believes what anymore...Most professors aren't willing to risk their lively Hood for being different or going against the grain, I don't blame them for that. Nor are many students willing to risk the ridicule, exclusion, and sometimes violence that equates to going against group think. I don't blame them either.

College used to be about free ideas and education....Those days have long since passed unfortunately.

If you went to a college where you could have open conversations with the professors, I am happy for you and a bit envious as well.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 10, 2017, 06:08:55 PM
Quote from: totallackey on May 10, 2017, 04:14:39 PM
[Most people I hang around do not wish to sit down and go over the story with me because I take them through the whole thing.

By the time we are done talking they are usually questioning the OS too.

No,  they are just politely saying that to get you to shut the fuck up already.   

For variety,  how about telling your friends about the flat earth,  you know,  all about the migrating  moonshramp, and the invisible shadow object.  I'm sure they will be impressed.

Are all conspiracy nuttters social misfits with a chip on their shoulder about something or other?

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 10, 2017, 06:38:35 PM
Oho, looks like Rayzor's upset. Chill out dude people will think you have a vested interest in discrediting the truth movement.

If there are unanswered questions the logical thing to do is ask those questions.

Nice work Totallackey.

User I am just going to leave this here as I put in some effort and you didn't want to play anymore.

Quote from: disputeone on May 10, 2017, 12:33:20 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 10, 2017, 12:11:37 AM
**awaits shitpost.

Good show mate. Your maturity is showing.

If you would actively oppose a new 9/11 investigation then good for you. Personally I find it abhorrent.

Honestly I don't waste my time on people I consider not to have the intellectual prerequisites for a productive conversation.

In saying that, back to not acknowledging your posts, you bore me and honestly I feel we are on different levels intellectually, I'd prefer not to drop to your level of "no u."

Goodbye mate, sorry for the arrogant rant however you deserved it. If you want to see my contributions to this forum I suggest you read more of my posts. Having a sense of humour beyond calling others stupid is actually a sign of intelligence.

I hope you gain wisdom with experience, in my experience the only things we really learn are learned the hard way.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 10, 2017, 06:47:49 PM
Would you be so kind as to address this Rayzor?

Quote from: disputeone on May 10, 2017, 02:10:59 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 10, 2017, 01:30:57 AM
Quote from: NIST
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
https://www.nist.gov/pba/questions-and-answers-about-nist-wtc-7-investigation

We can calculate fall acceleration within acceptable error to be free-fall for 2.25 seconds.

Do you really still not understand that?

Why not try to address how it was possible for the outer steel frame to collapse at free-fall for 2.25 seconds starting with a girder on floor 13 losing connection to column 79 and column 79 subsequently failing.

I am fine starting from here, I would just like to raise a few initial points on these starting assumptions.

1. NIST failed to model the concrete on wtc7 which was primarily for fire protection.

2. Even assuming the beams exposed, no honest investigation has been able to get the massive amount of thermal expansion using the official fire models claimed by NIST for their collapse initiation sequence, so thats a big red flag. This is why their classified inputs are so critical.

With that out of the way column 79 led to the collapse of the entire core, which any architect or engineer can tell you a single column failure should not lead to a total collapse. Especially a column similar to column 79 in wtc 7.

(https://s14.postimg.org/6u3ghnuz5/911-destruction-of-evidence-1948.jpg)(poor quality pic, 79 is the southernmost interior column.)

There is obvious damage to wtc 7 before it collapsed so I will pay that as a contributing factor. However this is already looking very suspicious.

Once the core has collapsed we get to our smoking gun, the symmetrical free-fall of the outer frame of wtc 7, like clockwork, the buildings core collapses leaving the outer shell standing straight until the outer shell collapses in free-fall.

(https://s4.postimg.org/rfiwwr7v1/wtc7naudetxf5-1.gif)

You couldn't ask for a more perfect controlled demolition and this is impossible to replicate in any similar building due to fires alone.

NIST demonstrates this for us.


That's it for me, there's heaps of evidence in wtc 1 and 2, not to mention the pentagon and the mysterious United 93 incident. However wtc 7 is the smoking gun, if we can show that wtc 7s collapse couldn't be caused by fire it will be a massive victory for truth and justice imo.

I put a bit of effort in, show me it was worth it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 10, 2017, 07:28:07 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 10, 2017, 06:47:49 PM
Would you be so kind as to address this Rayzor?

I already did but you,  either weren't paying attention or you didn't understand.

Here's a couple that you have been avoiding,

1.   The collapse was in both cases of WTC1 and WTC2 top down progressive collapse initiated at the exact locations that the hijacked aircraft hit.
2.   The delay from impact to the start of collapse.   If it was CD,  why wait?   
3.   Why did WTC2 collapse first?

Let's actually go one step further,  and let's assume that  you and the ae911truthers are correct in that the NIST explanation is incomplete or wrong in some sense. 
Why do you automatically leap from that to assuming a conspiracy.   

For your conspiracy theory to be correct you have to prove not only that it was controlled demolition,  but that controlled demolition is definitively the ONLY possibility,  given a complex collapse like the WTC1&2,  and complete lack of any corroborating evidence,  your task in proving conspiracy is an impossibility.

I know that you will misread and misunderstand the above, since it contains logical argument.  But read it at least once properly before posting one of your usual nonsensical replies.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 10, 2017, 07:32:56 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 10, 2017, 06:38:35 PM
Oho, looks like Rayzor's upset. Chill out dude people will think you have a vested interest in discrediting the truth movement.

You just said nuh-uh. If this is your idea of addresing it thats ok.

Once again, physics > incredulity.

1. Naturally, no one would entertain the O/S if wtc 1 and 2 weren't "top-down" collapses.

2. If the collapse was the instant the plane hit the building no one would entertain the O/S.

3. They pulled wtc 2 first.


Controlled demolition is the only possibility of wtc 7s collapse.

QED.

Quote from: Rayzor on May 10, 2017, 07:28:07 PM
For your conspiracy theory hypothesis to be correct you have to prove not only that it was controlled demolition.

Actually I'm happy to prove just that.

Please take my response to user also as a response to you.

Toodle-pip turbo.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 10, 2017, 07:50:32 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 10, 2017, 07:32:56 PM
Controlled demolition is the only possibility of wtc 7s collapse.

You decided this based on what evidence?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 10, 2017, 07:56:05 PM
The collapse.

Have you not been following?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 10, 2017, 09:30:34 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 10, 2017, 07:56:05 PM
The collapse.

Have you not been following?

Yes,  I've been following,  more closely than you it seems,  don't you remember we discussed this a hundred times.   

Controlled demolition is not the only reason buildings collapse. 

Please get it through that thick skull of yours that the important word in that sentence in that context is ONLY.    Did you understand it this time.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 10, 2017, 09:55:50 PM
Of course controlled demolition isn't the only way buildings collapse.

Great strawman turbo.

Here's a bone.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 10, 2017, 10:19:48 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 10, 2017, 02:59:15 PM
Quote from: User324 on May 10, 2017, 11:56:59 AM
You promised to address my argument.
Don't be such a baby!
Anyway,

Well, maybe this evening I'll address it.

Quote
Seems he has a job teaching at a...(wait for it)... UNIVERSITY!
At a business school; the federal institute of technologie (ETH, has mechanical, structural etc. engineering) has fired him after he started publishing 9/11 bullshit.

Quote from: bhs
So they won't say "we support the official story" word for word...They will shun you as a student until you do or wish you did. As for teachers, they will be shunned first, if you don't follow suit they will fire you for some other "non related" incidence.
Though remember, it's not really the 9/11 issue , it's the colleges attempting to remove all critical thought....Anyone who sways outside the group think (on any issue from being a mandatory liberal, to mandatory pro choice, to a thousand other issues) is black balled until they step in line.
Stop generalizing, just it was so for you doesn't mean it is so everywhere.

Quote
User is a prime example of a typical "product" of the educational system. Maybe he is passing his courses maybe he isn't, yet he has no fruits to show, as well as barely being able to tie his own shoe laces (more than likely uses Velcro)
You keep repeating that, Mr critical thinker, but fail to provide or explain anything. Lame.
Anyway, your critical thinking seems to be rather limited when you cannot accept other peoples opinion. It actually makes you really narrow minded, doesn't it?

Quote from: bhd
It is really hard to get a grip who truly believes what anymore...Most professors aren't willing to risk their lively Hood for being different or going against the grain
Actually, my profs care about their research and a little bit about teaching the students. They're not giving a fuck about whether they're "going against the grain" etc.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 10, 2017, 10:28:55 PM
If you don't want to tackle it then that's fine.

Just you lost the right to say I haven't made an argument.

(Not that you ever had that right.)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 10, 2017, 10:32:32 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 10, 2017, 10:28:55 PM
(Not that you ever had that right.)
Dispute "the king" one, trying to tell me my rights. Funny.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 10, 2017, 10:41:36 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 10, 2017, 09:55:50 PM
Of course controlled demolition isn't the only way buildings collapse.

Great strawman turbo.

Here's a bone.


So you agree finally, that the collapse of  WTC7 can never be conclusive proof of conspiracy

Keep up with the smart arse insults,  remember the last time you went down that path.



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 10, 2017, 10:43:38 PM
Quote from: User324 on May 10, 2017, 10:32:32 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 10, 2017, 10:28:55 PM
(Not that you ever had that right.)
Dispute "the king" one, trying to tell me my rights. Funny.

If I make an argument that you won't address then you don't have the right to say I don't have an argument.

It's not me telling you, it just is what it is, reality.

@Rayzor.

Steady on turbo.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 10, 2017, 10:51:27 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 10, 2017, 10:43:38 PM
It's not me telling you, it just is what it is, reality

Now Dispute "the god" one is trying to tell me what reality is. Funny.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 10, 2017, 10:56:04 PM
You really only have insults?

I regret putting in effort for you.

You disappoint me.

Lesson learned.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 10, 2017, 11:04:29 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 10, 2017, 10:56:04 PM
You really only have insults?

I regret putting in effort for you.

You disappoint me.

Lesson learned.

You sure got to be a nonbeliever saying that calling you god is an insult ;)

Come on, I'm just joking, don't take it that hard, it's not a dick...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 10, 2017, 11:05:32 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 10, 2017, 10:56:04 PM
You really only have insults?

Welp.

Quote from: disputeone on May 10, 2017, 12:33:20 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 10, 2017, 12:11:37 AM
**awaits shitpost.

Good show mate. Your maturity is showing.

If you would actively oppose a new 9/11 investigation then good for you. Personally I find it abhorrent.

Honestly I don't waste my time on people I consider not to have the intellectual prerequisites for a productive conversation.

In saying that, back to not acknowledging your posts, you bore me and honestly I feel we are on different levels intellectually, I'd prefer not to drop to your level of "no u."

Goodbye mate, sorry for the arrogant rant however you deserved it. If you want to see my contributions to this forum I suggest you read more of my posts. Having a sense of humour beyond calling others stupid is actually a sign of intelligence.

I hope you gain wisdom with experience, in my experience the only things we really learn are learned the hard way.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 10, 2017, 11:32:17 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 10, 2017, 11:05:32 PM
Mimimi
Such a crybaby!
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 10, 2017, 11:35:42 PM
Quote from: User324 on May 10, 2017, 11:32:17 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 10, 2017, 11:05:32 PM
Mimimi
Such a crybaby!

Quote from: disputeone on May 10, 2017, 10:56:04 PM
You really only have insults?

**awaits shitpost.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 10, 2017, 11:37:01 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 10, 2017, 01:30:57 AM


Edit.

Quote from: NIST
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)

https://www.nist.gov/pba/questions-and-answers-about-nist-wtc-7-investigation

Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on March 31, 2017, 12:14:38 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/Y1HDPtV.png)
This is what the external skin looks like. These are not minor steel beams they where using to keep it together either. Godzilla would not have gotten through that.

Oh and acceleration is just a change in velocity over time, it's really not as complicated as you think to calculate.

Quote from: disputeone on May 10, 2017, 02:10:59 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 10, 2017, 01:30:57 AM
Quote from: NIST
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
https://www.nist.gov/pba/questions-and-answers-about-nist-wtc-7-investigation

We can calculate fall acceleration within acceptable error to be free-fall for 2.25 seconds.

Do you really still not understand that?

Why not try to address how it was possible for the outer steel frame to collapse at free-fall for 2.25 seconds starting with a girder on floor 13 losing connection to column 79 and column 79 subsequently failing.

I am fine starting from here, I would just like to raise a few initial points on these starting assumptions.

1. NIST failed to model the concrete on wtc7 which was primarily for fire protection.

2. Even assuming the beams exposed, no honest investigation has been able to get the massive amount of thermal expansion using the official fire models claimed by NIST for their collapse initiation sequence, so thats a big red flag. This is why their classified inputs are so critical.

With that out of the way column 79 led to the collapse of the entire core, which any architect or engineer can tell you a single column failure should not lead to a total collapse. Especially a column similar to column 79 in wtc 7.

(https://s14.postimg.org/6u3ghnuz5/911-destruction-of-evidence-1948.jpg)(poor quality pic, 79 is the southernmost interior column.)

There is obvious damage to wtc 7 before it collapsed so I will pay that as a contributing factor. However this is already looking very suspicious.

Once the core has collapsed we get to our smoking gun, the symmetrical free-fall of the outer frame of wtc 7, like clockwork, the buildings core collapses leaving the outer shell standing straight until the outer shell collapses in free-fall.

(https://s4.postimg.org/rfiwwr7v1/wtc7naudetxf5-1.gif)

You couldn't ask for a more perfect controlled demolition and this is impossible to replicate in any similar building due to fires alone.

NIST demonstrates this for us.


That's it for me, there's heaps of evidence in wtc 1 and 2, not to mention the pentagon and the mysterious United 93 incident. However wtc 7 is the smoking gun, if we can show that wtc 7s collapse couldn't be caused by fire it will be a massive victory for truth and justice imo.

I put a bit of effort in, show me it was(n't) worth it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 10, 2017, 11:44:41 PM
Please stop crapping all over the thread with your stupid posts.   How many times do I have to debunk this garbage,   are you OCD?   Or are you just off your meds this afternoon?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 10, 2017, 11:46:47 PM
If you believe you have debunked it I would recommend getting checked for any delusional disorders. Perhaps with a side of sociopathic personality disorder.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 10, 2017, 11:57:26 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 10, 2017, 11:37:01 PM
Nu uh

Damn, I'm getting good in adapting conspiracy theorist strategies!
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 10, 2017, 11:58:25 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 10, 2017, 11:46:47 PM
If you believe you have debunked it I would recommend getting checked for any delusional disorders. Perhaps with a side of sociopathic personality disorder.
Dispute "the doctor" one giving out health recommendations!
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 10, 2017, 11:58:42 PM
Yet you won't address my argument.

Stop the personal attacks.

Insulting me intead of trying to debunk my arguments is very weak indeed.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 11, 2017, 12:03:11 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 10, 2017, 11:58:42 PM
Yet you won't address my argument.
You're doing it again, confusing opinion and fact.
I have never said I won't address your argument, it's just you who thinks that I won't address it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 11, 2017, 12:06:39 AM
I look forward to it then.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 11, 2017, 12:35:22 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 10, 2017, 11:46:47 PM
If you believe you have debunked it I would recommend getting checked for any delusional disorders. Perhaps with a side of sociopathic personality disorder.

Once again you prove your inability to think logically,   is that a side effect of your condition?

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 11, 2017, 12:38:36 AM
https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/bipolar-disorder/index.shtml
Educate yourself turbo.

You are the one being illogical.

If NIST can't explain the towers collapse then we need a new open honest investigation as to how it collapsed.

Like this one.

www.wtc7evaluation.org
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 11, 2017, 12:54:28 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 11, 2017, 12:38:36 AM
https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/bipolar-disorder/index.shtml
Educate yourself turbo.

You are the one being illogical.

If NIST can't explain the towers collapse then we need a new open honest investigation as to how it collapsed.

Like this one.

www.wtc7evaluation.org

So explain your logic in concluding that there must be a conspiracy  simply because someone has a different theory of how WTC7 collapsed.   
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 11, 2017, 12:57:15 AM
Our physics can't explain wtc 7s collapse in the context of structural failure.

Therefore we need to explore other collapse mechanisms.

Using occams razor we can deduce that wtc 7 was pulled.

**different hypothesis.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 11, 2017, 01:16:46 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 11, 2017, 12:57:15 AM
Our physics can't explain wtc 7s collapse in the context of structural failure.

Not true,   and  irrelevant.


Quote from: disputeone on May 11, 2017, 12:57:15 AM
Therefore we need to explore other collapse mechanisms.

That's how science works.   

Quote from: disputeone on May 11, 2017, 12:57:15 AM
Using occams razor we can deduce that wtc 7 was pulled.

Nope,  occams razor tells us it collapsed by itself after structural and fire damage.   The overwhelming evidence is that it was about to collapse for most of the afternoon.

Inventing weird conspiracies as to WHY you would demolish something that was about to collapse.  Makes for a more complex answer,  that's against Occam's razor.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 11, 2017, 01:27:51 AM
"Irrelevant"

rotflmao.

Take five turbo I'm done for a bit.

NIST and popular mechanics can't explain wtc 7s symmetry and fall acceleration, get over it.





Get bent, reality.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 11, 2017, 02:10:27 AM
Listen to this video carefully,  what do you see and hear about the imminent collapse of WTC7?



Oh,  almost forgot, your assertion was untrue and irrelevant because the laws of physics can't be changed,  even by 9/11 truthers,   

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 11, 2017, 02:14:30 AM
>teh newz told us it was gonna collapse.

Getting tired of this.

Physics > Incredulity.

Edit. The news did indeed tell us it was going to, and by that I mean had collapsed before it did.

You actually might be on to something.



Nearly like a script.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 11, 2017, 02:24:19 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 11, 2017, 02:14:30 AM
>teh newz told us it was gonna collapse.

Getting tired of this.

Physics > Incredulity.

No,  wrong again,  the  NYPD  assessed the damage and decided not to fight the fire because of the danger of collapse.   The news media reported that.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 11, 2017, 02:49:29 AM
Police aren't qualified to do a structural damage analysis on a building. I think that's more in the realm of structural engineers.

Anyway danger of collapse ==/== symmetrical free-fall for 2.25 seconds.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 11, 2017, 03:24:28 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 10, 2017, 06:08:55 PM
Quote from: totallackey on May 10, 2017, 04:14:39 PM
[Most people I hang around do not wish to sit down and go over the story with me because I take them through the whole thing.

By the time we are done talking they are usually questioning the OS too.

No,  they are just politely saying that to get you to shut the fuck up already.   

For variety,  how about telling your friends about the flat earth,  you know,  all about the migrating  moonshramp, and the invisible shadow object.  I'm sure they will be impressed.

Are all conspiracy nuttters social misfits with a chip on their shoulder about something or other?
We have discussed flat earth on occasion also.

When this is discussed, they generally do not wish to continue to the conversation and say so out loud.

On 9/11, they don't.

So, it seems you have no ability to ascertain, via mental telepathy, their supposed polite  dismissal.

Maybe you can come by and urge them to follow your lead, ignoring valid questions and legitimate scientific inquiry into 9/11.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 11, 2017, 03:35:32 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on May 10, 2017, 04:42:48 PM
When did you go to school? Things were different when I was in and that was a decade ago. You literally were "shunned"...Maybe not the exact definition of the word, but I feel close enough. We are hardwired to have pack mentality, so that is group thinks number one weapon... Exclusion and ridicule.
Completed my AAS in computer science in 2003/BS in organizational supervision in 2005/MBA in 2007.

We just had open discussions.

Pack mentality?

Yes, when it came to helping everyone complete course requirements in order to graduate; no, when it came to political views and discourse... :)

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on May 10, 2017, 04:42:48 PM
I can only imagine now...I don't think they are even trying to hide the fact of their overall goals and agenda anymore. The random couple times I do visit a university throughout the year, it gives me a headache, makes me sick and sad all at once.

It is really hard to get a grip who truly believes what anymore...Most professors aren't willing to risk their lively Hood for being different or going against the grain, I don't blame them for that. Nor are many students willing to risk the ridicule, exclusion, and sometimes violence that equates to going against group think. I don't blame them either.

College used to be about free ideas and education....Those days have long since passed unfortunately.

If you went to a college where you could have open conversations with the professors, I am happy for you and a bit envious as well.
I do not disagree the environment in US institutions of higher learning is very fraternal and getting that way more and more each day.

Performance is sacrificed at the altar of the bill.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 11, 2017, 04:33:20 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 11, 2017, 02:49:29 AM
Police aren't qualified to do a structural damage analysis on a building. I think that's more in the realm of structural engineers.

Anyway danger of collapse ==/== symmetrical free-fall for 2.25 seconds.

Yeah,  don't  be an asshole,  you know I meant FDNY, and they are in charge of fighting fires,  not structural engineers.   

This was their call,  and as it happened they were spot on,  it did collapse.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 11, 2017, 04:43:14 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 11, 2017, 04:33:20 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 11, 2017, 02:49:29 AM
Police aren't qualified to do a structural damage analysis on a building. I think that's more in the realm of structural engineers.

Anyway danger of collapse ==/== symmetrical free-fall for 2.25 seconds.

Yeah,  don't  be an asshole,  you know I meant FDNY, and they are in charge of fighting fires,  not structural engineers.   

This was their call,  and as it happened they were spot on,  it did collapse.

It did indeed collapse, no arguments from me there.

These firemen?

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 11, 2017, 05:01:47 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 11, 2017, 04:43:14 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 11, 2017, 04:33:20 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 11, 2017, 02:49:29 AM
Police aren't qualified to do a structural damage analysis on a building. I think that's more in the realm of structural engineers.

Anyway danger of collapse ==/== symmetrical free-fall for 2.25 seconds.

Yeah,  don't  be an asshole,  you know I meant FDNY, and they are in charge of fighting fires,  not structural engineers.   

This was their call,  and as it happened they were spot on,  it did collapse.

It did indeed collapse, no arguments from me there.

These firemen?


Why would you expect a building of that size collapse quietly.   

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 11, 2017, 05:07:04 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 11, 2017, 03:35:32 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on May 10, 2017, 04:42:48 PM
When did you go to school? Things were different when I was in and that was a decade ago. You literally were "shunned"...Maybe not the exact definition of the word, but I feel close enough. We are hardwired to have pack mentality, so that is group thinks number one weapon... Exclusion and ridicule.
Completed my AAS in computer science in 2003/BS in organizational supervision in 2005/MBA in 2007.

We just had open discussions.

Pack mentality?

Yes, when it came to helping everyone complete course requirements in order to graduate; no, when it came to political views and discourse... :)

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on May 10, 2017, 04:42:48 PM
I can only imagine now...I don't think they are even trying to hide the fact of their overall goals and agenda anymore. The random couple times I do visit a university throughout the year, it gives me a headache, makes me sick and sad all at once.

It is really hard to get a grip who truly believes what anymore...Most professors aren't willing to risk their lively Hood for being different or going against the grain, I don't blame them for that. Nor are many students willing to risk the ridicule, exclusion, and sometimes violence that equates to going against group think. I don't blame them either.

College used to be about free ideas and education....Those days have long since passed unfortunately.

If you went to a college where you could have open conversations with the professors, I am happy for you and a bit envious as well.
I do not disagree the environment in US institutions of higher learning is very fraternal and getting that way more and more each day.

Performance is sacrificed at the altar of the bill.

You should have been there in the 1960's  going against the norms of society, and questioning authority  was the duty of every student.   These days they are meek and mild as sheep.

Free thinking was encouraged,  and celebrated.   But scientific truth and logic was never under threat like it is today.     

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Dither on May 11, 2017, 05:20:50 AM
911 What is the truth?

Governments kill people occasionally so they can make lots of money.
Everyone should be aware of that, its a dangerous world we live in.

I've been following this thread and I must admit this subject brings out the worst in me,
Hard to believe that some people on here actually think it was terrorists.
I was in a pub in Bondi while it was happening and there was a girl in the pub who was cheering, (no joke) I was pretty rude to her at the time, but I kind of understand, she had lost a lot of relatives in her home country so it was an interesting reaction.

Remember, some nations are at war with America and with democracy in general, but 911 remains, and is still, an inside job in my opinion.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 11, 2017, 06:51:33 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 11, 2017, 05:07:04 AM

You should have been there in the 1960's  going against the norms of society, and questioning authority  was the duty of every student.   These days they are meek and mild as sheep.

Free thinking was encouraged,  and celebrated.   But scientific truth and logic was never under threat like it is today.   
I believe I was just as much "there," as you were.

I doubt very much you are much older than I am.

I remember RFK and MLK distinctly, having been born in 1960.

I agree, scientific truth and logic are under attack.

By faux "scientists," like Bill Nye, NdT, and the NIST.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 11, 2017, 10:48:31 AM
Quote from: disputeone
We can calculate fall acceleration within acceptable error to be free-fall for 2.25 seconds.
Fact is: Noone knows how fast the acceleration really was and how fast it would have been if it was gravitational acceleration.
"acceptable error" is not scientific, it's very subjective. You can say "considering the circumstance, we have an acceptable error range of +/- 30%". I have already mentioned why it is not possible to calculate the exact acceleration earlier.

Quote from: disputeone
Why not try to address how it was possible for the outer steel frame to collapse at free-fall for 2.25 seconds starting with a girder on floor 13 losing connection to column 79 and column 79 subsequently failing.
I'm not a structural engineer, but I'd say if enough structure fails at once, there could easily be (nearly) free fall for a certain amount of time.

The principle I'm thinking about: Imagine a straw, you hold it between your hands (you know, bottom side in the left hand, top side in the right hand). You start to apply pressure, first nothing happens. But once it starts to snap, the is nearly 0 resistance and you can "clap" your hands together.

That's only one way I could imagine why nearly-free fall speeds could occure, might be there are other or better explanations.

Quote from: disputeone
1. NIST failed to model the concrete on wtc7 which was primarily for fire protection.

2. Even assuming the beams exposed, no honest investigation has been able to get the massive amount of thermal expansion using the official fire models claimed by NIST for their collapse initiation sequence, so thats a big red flag. This is why their classified inputs are so critical.
I don't know about that. I'm not even saying the NIST are qualified or that they did a good investigation. My point is: The buildings did most likely collapse due to the planes flying into them/the damage caused by that (chain of reactions).


Quote from: disputeone
With that out of the way column 79 led to the collapse of the entire core, which any architect or engineer can tell you a single column failure should not lead to a total collapse. Especially a column similar to column 79 in wtc 7.
I'm pretty sure that noone can exactely tell what caused the collapse and how it went on. In any way, somehow the collapse had to start, so why not with column 79?

Quote from: disputeone
You couldn't ask for a more perfect controlled demolition and this is impossible to replicate in any similar building due to fires alone.
I'm not sure if you due that on purpose to annoy me, but there was not just a fire involved. Read it on wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center#Collapse.

Quote from: disputeone
Once the core has collapsed we get to our smoking gun, the symmetrical free-fall of the outer frame of wtc 7, like clockwork, the buildings core collapses leaving the outer shell standing straight until the outer shell collapses in free-fall.
We already had that one two times. I provided evidence that it was no symmetrical collapse unless you have a very spaceous definition of "symmetrical".
Quote from: User324 on March 28, 2017, 11:20:07 AM
Watch 00:19


Neither the box nor the orange lines are perfectly accurate. Red box is rectuangualar, top line is supposed to aligne with the top of the building. Its obviously not trying to show how big the building is but how unsymmetrical the collapse was.

(https://img1.picload.org/image/rlwiidcw/symmetrie.png)

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 11, 2017, 01:18:00 PM
Quote from: User324 on May 11, 2017, 10:48:31 AM
Neither the box nor the orange lines are perfectly accurate. Red box is rectuangualar, top line is supposed to aligne with the top of the building.(https://img1.picload.org/image/rlwiidcw/symmetrie.png)
If, "...top line is supposed to aligne[sic] with the top of the building...then why does it NOT ALIGN with the top of the building?


What is the source of this original picture and who drew the red and orange lines on the picture?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 11, 2017, 02:52:52 PM
Quote from: User324 on May 11, 2017, 10:48:31 AM
Quote from: disputeone
Why not try to address how it was possible for the outer steel frame to collapse at free-fall for 2.25 seconds starting with a girder on floor 13 losing connection to column 79 and column 79 subsequently failing.
I'm not a structural engineer, but I'd say if enough structure fails at once, there could easily be (nearly) free fall for a certain amount of time.

The principle I'm thinking about: Imagine a straw, you hold it between your hands (you know, bottom side in the left hand, top side in the right hand). You start to apply pressure, first nothing happens. But once it starts to snap, the is nearly 0 resistance and you can "clap" your hands together.

That's only one way I could imagine why nearly-free fall speeds could occure, might be there are other or better explanations.

Lmao.

This would work if wtc was held up by a single "straw" unfortunately there were thousands of support structures.

As for your "no free-fall" "no symmetry" "arguments" you'll have to take that up with NIST.

Symmetry.

Quote
WTC 7's collapse, viewed from the exterior (most videos were taken from the north), did appear to fall almost uniformly as a single unit. This occurred because the interior failures that took place did not cause the exterior framing to fail until the final stages of the building collapse. The interior floor framing and columns collapsed downward and pulled away from the exterior frame. There were clues that internal damage was taking place, prior to the downward movement of the exterior frame, such as when the east penthouse fell downward into the building and windows broke out on the north face at the ends of the building core. The symmetric appearance of the downward fall of the WTC 7 was primarily due to the greater stiffness and strength of its exterior frame relative to the interior framing.

Free-fall

Quote
The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:
Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity

Gravitational acceleration.

Quote
Gravitational acceleration (symbolized g) is an expression used in physics to indicate the intensity of a gravitational field. It is expressed in meters per second squared (m/s 2 ). ... Conversely, a free-falling object near the earth's surface gains downward speed at a rate of 9.8 m/s 2 .

www.nist.gov/pba/questions-and-answers-about-nist-wtc-7-investigation

www.google.com

Maybe best to stick to calling me dumb instead of trying to "debate."

(https://s21.postimg.org/b9ygfbc2f/wtc7naudetxf5-1.gif)

Out of curiousity, when I say symmetry during free-fall is our smoking gun, why do you try to show a picture long after the free-fall? Seems pointless.

Typo..
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on May 11, 2017, 05:02:48 PM
Holy f balls.... I think user is degenerating like an ape every post.

He damages his own case with his nonsense. So what does the straw do? It bends a certain direction away from the resistance lol, just as a building would do in a natural failure.

Try to make that straw collapse in its own footprint lol...Even if you use a hammer and smack it as hard as you can, it wont.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 11, 2017, 05:15:48 PM
Agreed, that is why the free-fall and symmetry are impossible for a collapse caused by structural failure of wtc 7.

Also.

Quote from: User324 on May 11, 2017, 10:48:31 AM
Quote from: disputeone
You couldn't ask for a more perfect controlled demolition and this is impossible to replicate in any similar building due to fires alone.
I'm not sure if you due that on purpose to annoy me, but there was not just a fire involved. Read it on wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center#Collapse.

For the love of god read the NIST reports

https://www.nist.gov/el/faqs-nist-wtc-7-investigation
Quote
4. What caused the fires in WTC 7?

Debris from the collapse of WTC 1, which was 370 feet to the south, ignited fires on at least 10 floors in the building at its south and west faces. However, only the fires on some of the lower floors—7 through 9 and 11 through 13—burned out of control. These lower-floor fires—which spread and grew because the water supply to the automatic sprinkler system for these floors had failed—were similar to building fires experienced in other tall buildings. The primary and backup water supply to the sprinkler systems for the lower floors relied on the city's water supply, whose lines were damaged by the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2. These uncontrolled lower-floor fires eventually spread to the northeast part of WTC 7, where the building's collapse began.

5. How did the fires cause WTC 7 to collapse?
The heat from the uncontrolled fires caused steel floor beams and girders to thermally expand, leading to a chain of events that caused a key structural column to fail. The failure of this structural column then initiated a fire-induced progressive collapse of the entire building.
According to the report's probable collapse sequence, heat from the uncontrolled fires caused thermal expansion of the steel beams on the lower floors of the east side of WTC 7, damaging the floor framing on multiple floors.
Eventually, a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical column, Column 79, that provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building (see Diagram 1). The displaced girder and other local fire-induced damage caused Floor 13 to collapse, beginning a cascade of floor failures down to the 5th floor. Many of these floors had already been at least partially weakened by the fires in the vicinity of Column 79. This collapse of floors left Column 79 insufficiently supported in the east-west direction over nine stories.

The debris damage wasn't a factor in the collapse except for initially starting the fires.

Damnit man.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 11, 2017, 07:45:17 PM
Quote from: totallackey on May 11, 2017, 06:51:33 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 11, 2017, 05:07:04 AM

You should have been there in the 1960's  going against the norms of society, and questioning authority  was the duty of every student.   These days they are meek and mild as sheep.

Free thinking was encouraged,  and celebrated.   But scientific truth and logic was never under threat like it is today.   
I believe I was just as much "there," as you were.

I doubt very much you are much older than I am.

I remember RFK and MLK distinctly, having been born in 1960.

I agree, scientific truth and logic are under attack.

By faux "scientists," like Bill Nye, NdT, and the NIST.

I've got a bit more than 10 years more experience than you,   and if you were born in  1960,  it's unlikely that you experienced what university life was like in the 60's.   

As far as the current wide spread attack on science,   anti-vaxxers,  climate deniers,   NIST haters,    They are the evil that needs to be confronted.

I happen to like Bill Nye and NdT,   although, scientific truth is not a matter of like or dislike.    F=ma whether you like it or not.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 11, 2017, 07:57:55 PM
I will gladly be considered evil by lesser men as I fight for justice.

Thanks.

Quote
Beware lest any force another, King against King! Love one another with burning hearts; on the low men trample in the fierce lust of your pride, in the day of your wrath.

No amount of insults or peer pressure will make me stop fighting for truth and justice. I am not so weak to fall for that B/S.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 11, 2017, 08:03:51 PM
As for Bill Nye.

This is science.


This is backflipping under social pressure.



He is a coward.
Like you.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on May 11, 2017, 08:11:23 PM
Funny rayzor says he hates people that go against science, yet he has spent this entire thread going against science lol.

As for Bill Nye the turbocuck

Quote from: disputeone on May 11, 2017, 08:03:51 PM
He is a coward.
Like you.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: boydster on May 11, 2017, 08:13:19 PM
Sorry but that's not being a coward, that's acknowledging new information and adding it to an existing data set. It's how science works. Being a coward would be refusing to admit you were wrong because new data disagreed with your previous data. There is certainly a gender spectrum. I've posted before about my thoughts on how we actually classify male vs female, and I'm not backing away from that, but I think there is something to a person saying "I was born with boy parts but I feel like a woman". And that's different than "I was born with boy parts but I am a woman". The second one, I take issue with. But I can't help but acknowledge the gender spectrum. It's a real thing. So is biological sex. They are sometimes in disagreement, though.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 11, 2017, 08:15:18 PM
Quote from: boydster on May 11, 2017, 08:13:19 PM
I think there is something to a person saying "I was born with boy parts but I feel like a woman". And that's different than "I was born with boy parts but I am a woman". The second one, I take issue with.

I totally agree. Who am I to tell someone they can't wear the identity they want.

What Bill Nye did was different imo.

I am not saying people can't be who and what they want. Not for a second.

"Do what thou wilt, shall be the whole of the law."
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on May 11, 2017, 08:18:21 PM
He supports an agenda, not science. That is cowardly for a "science guy"..Plus I really wanted to just call rayzor a coward as always (back story there, he deserves every bit of it)..

As for the gender issue...You know you are my boy blue, but I have to disagree with you there.

Especially pushing this nonsense on prepubescent children...It is going to form fucked up people, we are already seeing the beginning stages, 20 years from now you will see the real damage.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: boydster on May 11, 2017, 08:28:20 PM
Gender isn't chromosomes - that was the basis of his retraction. I'm not going to defend him too far, because he's definitely taken an admittedly liberal stance on many issues that have more nuance. I think he's taken a lot of flack for trying to walk back a 20-year-old claim though, where both the old and the new claim are based on the data available at the time.

Pushing the current gender politics on little kids is DEFINITELY an issue. No qualms there. It's messing people up. Really, it shouldn't come down to politics, but here we are and it's happening to our kids. I'm not happy about that. But I don't think he should be hung for correcting the old adage about XX vs XY. But PUSHING gender politics is different than allowing it to develop naturally. I don't get the impression from that video that he is saying any adult should push one thing or another on their child. But the reality is that parents DO push this on their kids, on both sides. But that's not Bill Nye's fault.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 11, 2017, 08:48:22 PM
Fair comment, sorry this got O/T.

To quickly address the anti-science comment by Rayzor.

We have three building collapses that can't be explained with our knowlege of physics and engineering in the context of a natural collapse.

How is it unscientific to want a new investigation without the pre-determined cause of collapse.

NIST were told exactly what caused the collapse and didn't investigate any other collapse mechanisms except fire induced collapse.

Which is absolute unscientific B/S.

As any honest poster brave enough can tell you.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: boydster on May 11, 2017, 08:58:03 PM
LOL sorry I really gotta stop just reading the most recent posts and catch up on the intent of the threads.

Quote from: disputeone on May 11, 2017, 08:48:22 PM
We have three building collapses that can't be explained with our knowlege of physics and engineering in the context of a natural collapse.

If this statement is true (or even if it's not, but it's suspected that it could be), it's irresponsible not to look into it further. If there's even the slightest possibility that there could be a different answer than the official response, we owe it to ourselves to look into it. A lot of people lost their lives, and a lot of families are broken today because of what happened on 9/11. Everyone deserves to know exactly what went down.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 11, 2017, 09:07:08 PM
You're a gentleman and a scholar boydster.

This is all I want.

This is the lastest testimony from Professor Leroy Hulsey PhD S.E on wtc 7.



"Zero chance that fire caused wtc 7s collapse."

We need to know what really happened that day.

A lot of his data is here already (warning about 1gb worth), his finite element analysis and structutal model will be put out for peer review shortly.

www.wtc7evaluation.org

We had to fund this investigation out of our own pockets.

Hulsey is a personal hero of mine.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 11, 2017, 09:13:37 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 11, 2017, 08:48:22 PM
Fair comment, sorry this got O/T.

To quickly address the anti-science comment by Rayzor.


What anti-science comment?

Quote from: disputeone on May 11, 2017, 08:48:22 PM
We have three building collapses that can't be explained with our knowlege of physics and engineering in the context of a natural collapse.

That's just the view of a tiny minority.   I'll go with the science,  it's not unexplained and it certainly doesn't fall into the category of being unexplicable.

 
Quote from: disputeone on May 11, 2017, 08:48:22 PM
How is it unscientific to want a new investigation without the pre-determined cause of collapse.
That's more politics than science,  but a new enquiry would be a good thing.


Quote from: disputeone on May 11, 2017, 08:48:22 PM
NIST were told exactly what caused the collapse and didn't investigate any other collapse mechanisms except fire induced collapse.
They saw the hijacked planes hit the towers, they saw the collapse initate from the impact points after the fires.


Quote from: disputeone on May 11, 2017, 08:48:22 PM
Which is absolute unscientific B/S.
So you would have accepted them investigating aliens with giant space lasers?   

Quote from: disputeone on May 11, 2017, 08:48:22 PM
As any honest poster brave enough can tell you.

Ok,  so be brave and honest.



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 11, 2017, 09:15:29 PM
Coward.

Just gonna quote this because I can't put it better than that.

Quote from: boydster on May 11, 2017, 08:58:03 PM
If this statement is true (or even if it's not, but it's suspected that it could be), it's irresponsible not to look into it further. If there's even the slightest possibility that there could be a different answer than the official response, we owe it to ourselves to look into it. A lot of people lost their lives, and a lot of families are broken today because of what happened on 9/11. Everyone deserves to know exactly what went down.

Wtc 7s collapse remains unexplained and the collapse models are classified.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 11, 2017, 10:05:44 PM
Scientific papers.

http://www.scientistsfor911truth.org/docs/ChandlerDownwardAccelerationOfWTC1.pdf

http://www.sealane.org/writings/WTC7demon.html

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/GrabbeExplosionsEvidence.pdf

http://www.scientistsfor911truth.org/docs/Jones_3_WTCHighTemp2.pdf

http://www.scientistsfor911truth.org/docs/ProfMorroneOnMeltingWTCsteel.pdf

http://www.scientistsfor911truth.org/docs/Jones_1_WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletelyCollapse.pdf

http://www.scientistsfor911truth.org/docs/Active_thermite.pdf

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html

Does this not justify a new and open investigation?

Certainly not for you Rayzor.

Why else spend the whole thread dismissing my arguments on the basis I have Bipolar?

Quote from: Rayzor on May 10, 2017, 11:44:41 PM
are you just off your meds this afternoon?

The only people who don't think it's disgusting are the ones who desperately need to believe you are the good guy.

It doesn't bother me desu.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 11, 2017, 10:28:53 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 11, 2017, 10:05:44 PM
Scientific papers.

http://www.scientistsfor911truth.org/docs/ChandlerDownwardAccelerationOfWTC1.pdf

http://www.sealane.org/writings/WTC7demon.html

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/GrabbeExplosionsEvidence.pdf

http://www.scientistsfor911truth.org/docs/Jones_3_WTCHighTemp2.pdf

http://www.scientistsfor911truth.org/docs/ProfMorroneOnMeltingWTCsteel.pdf

http://www.scientistsfor911truth.org/docs/Jones_1_WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletelyCollapse.pdf

http://www.scientistsfor911truth.org/docs/Active_thermite.pdf

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html

Does this not justify a new and open investigation?

Certainly not for you Rayzor.

Why else spend the whole thread dismissing my arguments on the basis I have Bipolar?

Quote from: Rayzor on May 10, 2017, 11:44:41 PM
are you just off your meds this afternoon?

The only people who don't think it's disgusting are the ones who desperately need to believe you are the good guy.

It doesn't bother me desu.


As far as scientists for 9/11 truth go,  they are hardly unbiased reputable mainstream references,   and I've read most of those anyway,   David Chandler makes his case reasonably well,  but he's too focussed on refuting nitpicking details in the NIST report to make his arguments persuasive. 

Why didn't you link to any  unbiased reputable sources?    Echo chamber effect?

I gave you a free pass on the insults,  but keep it up,  and I'll  start to respond in kind.

PS.  The mysterious nano-thermite red/grey flakes that were high in iron oxide has been proven to be red-oxide primer paint used on the steel work.   
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 11, 2017, 10:32:52 PM
You mean why didn't I link to MSM articles?

I'll let you guess.

It wasn't proven to be primer, that is well and truly up for debate.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 11, 2017, 10:49:37 PM
As for your "respond in kind" B/S goes, you have said the most offensive things possible to me, for 140+ pages. I told you I have Bipolar and about my mentally ill mother and rough childhood and you doubled down on the crazy comments.

Even now you "threaten" to bring up mental health issues everytime you can't debunk an argument, you even went as as far as to call Professor Leroy Hulsey PhD S.E "delusional."

F*ck you turbo, you are nothing but a piece of shit on the bottom of my shoe.

Is that better?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 11, 2017, 11:07:46 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 11, 2017, 10:32:52 PM
You mean why didn't I link to MSM articles?

I'll let you guess.

It wasn't proven to be primer, that is well and truly up for debate.

What's the main stream media got to do with anything,  I'm referring to scientific journals.   

Actually it was shown conclusively to be just everyday red oxide primer,  but by all means cling to your fantasy of secret conspiracies.   Don't let the facts get in the way.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 11, 2017, 11:10:08 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 11, 2017, 10:49:37 PM
As for your "respond in kind" B/S goes, you have said the most offensive things possible to me, for 140+ pages. I told you I have Bipolar and about my mentally ill mother and rough childhood and you doubled down on the crazy comments.

Even now you "threaten" to bring up mental health issues everytime you can't debunk an argument, you even went as as far as to call Professor Leroy Hulsey PhD S.E "delusional."

F*ck you turbo, you are nothing but a piece of shit on the bottom of my shoe.

Is that better?

Are you getting close to another melt down?     Maybe it's time for you to start another  "I hate rayzor" thread,  that seems to calm you down,  even if it makes you look psychotic.

Oh, and Professor Leroy Hulsey has been bought by Richard Gage's  ae911truther movement.   He's not an unbiased source.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 11, 2017, 11:11:06 PM
Please cite sources and references.

Thats my opinion of you, if you want to call me "psychotic" I made a thread for you turbo.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 11, 2017, 11:15:00 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 11, 2017, 02:52:52 PM
This would work if wtc was held up by a single "straw" unfortunately there were thousands of support structures.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on May 11, 2017, 05:02:48 PM
So what does the straw do? It bends a certain direction away from the resistance lol, just as a building would do in a natural failure.

Those are two of the dumbest things I have ever read on this forum.
Not surprised tho, it's not that easy to understand a simple principle like "if enough structure fails at once, nearly free fall could be possible" and a simple analogy (that was so simple I hoped even dispute could understand)...


I though appreciate to see your lack of arguments :)
Quote
Holy f balls.... I think user is degenerating like an ape every post.
Quote
Maybe best to stick to calling me dumb instead of trying to "debate."
Quote
Lmao.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 11, 2017, 11:17:50 PM
How could enough of the structure fail to allow a free-fall collapse?

Except controlled demolition?

Think about it. It can't be that dumb if we have multiple PhD engineers that agree.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 11, 2017, 11:21:07 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 11, 2017, 11:17:50 PM
It can't be that dumb if we have multiple PhD engineers that agree.
You already brought up that argument, it still doesn't work.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 11, 2017, 11:23:59 PM
Well if you are calling it "the dumbest thing you've ever heard."

You clearly don't have much faith in engineers.

I think it was unneccesary, if it's wrong why not debunk it.

If anyone needs an example of what debunking actually is then check out JackBlack in "distances in the universe."

That's debunking an incorrect argument. Calling people stupid or crazy is just childish.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 11, 2017, 11:26:13 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 11, 2017, 11:11:06 PM
Please cite sources and references.

I've linked to many papers throughout this thread,  go back and read a few.   A few from MIT on structural engineering,  and the Journal of Impact engineering to mention a few that come to mind.   
I didn't link to any from the Journal of 9/11 crackpots. 

Quote from: disputeone on May 11, 2017, 11:11:06 PM
Thats my opinion of you, if you want to call me "psychotic" I made a thread for you turbo.

Thank you,  it will make you feel better in the long run,  and in future don't stop taking  your meds,   you know what happens when you do that.   Not pretty.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 11, 2017, 11:28:46 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 11, 2017, 11:23:59 PM
Well if you are calling it "the dumbest thing you've ever heard."
Liar. I have never called it that.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 11, 2017, 11:30:12 PM
Why are your scientific papers acceptable just because they agree with the MSM narrative.

Seems pretty biased to me.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 11, 2017, 11:30:50 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 11, 2017, 11:17:50 PM
How could enough of the structure fail to allow a free-fall collapse?

Except controlled demolition?

Think about it. It can't be that dumb if we have multiple PhD engineers that agree.

Wrong,  not every free fall collapse is controlled demolition,  you agreed with this just yesterday,  so either you have short term memory issues, or you changed your story . 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 11, 2017, 11:31:11 PM
Quote from: User324 on May 11, 2017, 11:28:46 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 11, 2017, 11:23:59 PM
Well if you are calling it "the dumbest thing you've ever heard."
Liar. I have never called it that.

Are you actually serious?

Quote from: User324 on May 11, 2017, 11:15:00 PM
Those are two of the dumbest things I have ever read on this forum.

Quote from: Rayzor on May 11, 2017, 11:30:50 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 11, 2017, 11:17:50 PM
How could enough of the structure fail to allow a free-fall collapse?

Except controlled demolition?

Think about it. It can't be that dumb if we have multiple PhD engineers that agree.

Wrong,  not every free fall collapse is controlled demolition,  you agreed with this just yesterday,  so either you have short term memory issues, or you changed your story .

No I said every building collapse is not a demolition. Stop twisting words to a narrative.

A symmetrical free-fall of wtc 7 could only be caused by a controlled demolition.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 11, 2017, 11:31:44 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 11, 2017, 11:30:12 PM
Why are your scientific papers acceptable just because they agree with the MSM narrative.

Seems pretty biased to me.

Only seems biased if you are a conspiracy nutter.   Oh wait.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 11, 2017, 11:35:11 PM
Insults again?

Here is the quote you dishonestly tried to twist.

Quote from: disputeone on May 10, 2017, 09:55:50 PM
Of course controlled demolition isn't the only way buildings collapse.

Great strawman turbo.

Here's a bone.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 11, 2017, 11:39:15 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 11, 2017, 11:31:11 PM
A symmetrical free-fall of wtc 7 could only be caused by a controlled demolition.

No  that's a wild assertion  which contradicts the evidence.    Anyway here's a list of peer reviewed references for you to study up.

What Did and Did not Cause Collapse of WTC Twin Towers in New York
Authors Bazant, Le, Greening & Benson. Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE 134 (2008).

Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions Co-author Verdure. PDF. Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE 133 (2007): pp. 308–319
Discussion and replies to June 2006 Bazant & Verdure paper: James Gourley, G. Szuladinski

Bazant & Zhou, 2001-2002: Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?—Simple Analysis J. Engineering Mechanics ASCE, Sept. 28, 2001, addendum March, 2002.

Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation. Eagar, T.W., & Musso, C., JOM v. 53, no. 12, (2001): 8-12.

Dissecting the Collapses Civil Engineering ASCE v. 72, no. 5, (2002): 36-46.

A suggested cause of the fire-induced collapse of the World Trade Towers. By: Quintiere, J.G.; di Marzo, M.; Becker, R.. Fire Safety Journal, Oct2002, Vol. 37 Issue 7, p707, 10p.

S. W. Banovic, T. Foecke, W.E. Luecke, et al. “The role of metallurgy in the NIST investigation of the World Trade Center towers collapse”, JOM, vol. 59, no. 11, pp. 22-29, November 2007.

Impact of the Boeing 767 Aircraft into the World Trade Center. By: Karim, Mohammed R.; Fatt, Michelle S. Hoo. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Oct2005, Vol. 131 Issue 10, p1066-1072.

Could the world trade center have been modified to prevent its collapse?; Newland, D. E.; Cebon, D. Journal of Engineering Mechanics; 2002 Vol. 128 Issue 7, p795-800, 6p.

"Elaboration on Aspects of the Postulated Collapse of the World Trade Centre Twin Towers" Clifton, Charles G., HERA: Innovation in Metals. 2001. 13 December 2001.

How the airplane wing cut through the exterior columns of the World Trade Center; Wierzbicki, T.; Teng, X. International Journal of Impact Engineering; 2003 Vol. 28, p601-625, 25p

Stability of the World Trade Center Twin Towers Structural Frame in Multiple Floor Fires. By: Usmani, A. S.. Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Jun2005, Vol. 131 Issue 6, p654-657.

Structural Responses of World Trade Center under Aircraft Attacks. Omika, Yukihiro.; Fukuzawa, Eiji.; Koshika, Norihide. Journal of Structural Engineering v. 131 no1 (January 2005) p. 6-15

The Structural Steel of the World Trade Center Towers. Gayle, Frank W.; Banovic, Stephen W.; Foecke, Tim. Advanced Materials & Processes v. 162 no10 (October 2004) p. 37-9

WTC Findings Uphold Structural Design. Post, Nadine M. ENR v. 253 no17 (November 1 2004) p. 10-11

"World Trade Center Collapse-Civil Engineering Considerations" Monahan, B., Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction v. 7, no. 3, (2002): 134-135.

Ming Wang, Peter Chang, James Quintiere, and Andre Marshall "Scale Modeling of the 96th Floor of World Trade Center Tower 1" Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities Volume 21, Issue 6, pp. 414-421


Engineering Conference Papers
"TMS Hot Topic Symposium Examines WTC Collapse and Building Engineering" Marechaux, T.G. JOM, v. 54, no. 4, (2002): 13-17.

Abboud, N., M. Levy, D. Tennant, J. Mould, H. Levine, S. King, C. Ekwueme, A. Jain, G. Hart. (2003) Anatomy of a Disaster: A Structural Investigation of the World Trade Center Collapses. In: Proceedings of the Third Congress on Forensic Engineering. San Diego: American Society of Civil Engineers. pp 360-370

Beyler, C., D. White, M. Peatross, J. Trellis, S. Li, A. Luers, D. Hopkins. (2003) Analysis of the Thermal Exposure in the Impact Areas of the World Trade Center Terrorist Attacks. In: Proceedings of the Third Congress on Forensic Engineering. San Diego: American Society of Civil Engineers. pp 371-382

Thater, G. G.; Panariello, G. F.; Cuoco, D. A. (2003) World Trade Center Disaster: Damage/Debris Assessment In: Proceedings of the Third Congress on Forensic Engineering. San Diego: American Society of Civil Engineers. pp 383-392



Fire Protection and Fire Modeling Papers
How did the WTC towers collapse? A new theory; Usmani, A. S.; Chung, Y. C.; Torero, J. L. Fire Safety Journal; 2003 Vol. 38, p501-533, 33p.

Effect of insulation on the fire behaviour of steel floor trusses. Fire and Materials, 29:4, July/August 2005. pp. 181 - 194. Chang, Jeremy; Buchanan, Andrew H.; Moss, Peter J.

"WTC: Lightweight Steel and High-Rise Buildings" Brannigan, F.L. Fire Engineering v.155, no. 4, (2002): 145-150.

"Construction and Collapse Factors" Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002): 106-108.

Corbett, G.P. "Learning and Applying the Lessons of the WTC Disaster" Fire Engineering v.155, no. 10, (2002.): 133-135.

"Collapse Lessons" Fire Engineering v. 155, no. 10, (2002): 97-103

Burgess, I.W., 'Fire Resistance of Framed Buildings', Physics Education, 37 (5), (2002) pp390-399.

G. Flint, A.S. Usmani, S. Lamont, J. Torero and B. Lane, Effect of fire on composite long span truss floor systems, Journal of Constructional Steel Research 62 (4) (2006), pp. 303–315.



Fire Protection Conference Papers
"Coupled fire dynamics and thermal response of complex building structures" Proceedings of the Combustion Institute, Volume 30, Issue 2, January 2005, Pages 2255-2262 Kuldeep Prasad and Howard R. Baum

Choi, S.K., Burgess, I.W. and Plank, R.J., 'The Behaviour of Lightweight Composite Floor Trusses in Fire', ASCE Specialty Conference: Designing Structures for Fire, Baltimore, (Oct 2003) pp 24-32.

Jowsey et all, Determination of Fire Induced Collapse Mechanisms in Steel Framed Structures, 4th European Conference on Steel and Composite Structures, 10 June 05, 69-76

Usmani et all, Collapse scenarios of WTC 1 & 2 with extension to generic tall buildings, Oct-2006 Proceedings of the International Congress on Fire Safety in Tall Buildings



Related Papers
Interactive Failure of Two Impacting Beams Xiaoqing. Teng and Tomasz Wierzbicki. J. Engrg. Mech., Volume 129, Issue 8, pp. 918-926 (August 2003)

Use of High-Efficiency Energy Absorbing Device to Arrest Progressive Collapse of Tall Building Qing Zhou and T. X. Yu Journal of Engineering Mechanics 130, 1177 (2004)

A simple model of the World Trade Center fireball dynamics. Proceedings of the Combustion Institute 30:2, January, 2005. pp. 2247-2254. Baum, Howard R.; Rehm, Ronald G.

Reconnaissance and preliminary assessment of a damaged high-rise building near Ground Zero. The Structural Design of Tall and Special Buildings. 12 :5, 15 December 2003. pp. 371 - 391. Warn, Gordon; Berman, Jeffrey; Whittaker, Andrew; Bruneau, Michel

"Acoustic and Vibration Background Noise in the Collapsed Structure of the World Trade Center" Gabrielson, T.B., Poese, M.E., & Atchley, A.A., The Journal of Acoustical Society of America v. 113, no. 1, (2003): 45-48

John K. McGee et al, “Chemical Analysis of World Trade Center Fine Particulate Matter for Use in
Toxicologic Assessment”, Environmental Health Perspective (June 2003)

UC Davis Aerosol Study: Cahill et al., “Analysis of Aerosols from the World Trade Center
Collapse Site, New York, October 2 to October 30, 2001”, Aerosol Science and Technology,

Lioy et al, “Characterization of the Dust/Smoke Aerosol that Settled East of the World Trade Center
(WTC) in Lower Manhattan after the Collapse of the WTC 11 September 2001”, Environmental Health
Perspectives, Volume 110 #7

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 11, 2017, 11:44:22 PM
>muh tv.

The TV is indeed on your side.

Nice copy pasta.

It's so easy to bow to peer pressure and so hard to fight for truth.

I'll let my buddy Newton debunk the B/S about wtc 1 and 2.

(https://s10.postimg.org/t2n05fau1/Screenshot_20170512-144632.png)

Quote
Formally stated, Newton's third law is: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. The statement means that in every interaction, there is a pair of forces acting on the two interacting objects. The size of the forces on the first object equals the size of the force on the second object.

Either fig A is wrong.

Or Newton.

>Pick one.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 11, 2017, 11:48:11 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 11, 2017, 11:31:11 PM
Quote from: User324 on May 11, 2017, 11:28:46 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 11, 2017, 11:23:59 PM
Well if you are calling it "the dumbest thing you've ever heard."
Liar. I have never called it that.

Are you actually serious?
Yes I am.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 11, 2017, 11:51:48 PM
I would like you to apologize for calling me a liar in that case.

Quote from: disputeone on May 11, 2017, 11:31:11 PM
Quote from: User324 on May 11, 2017, 11:28:46 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 11, 2017, 11:23:59 PM
Well if you are calling it "the dumbest thing you've ever heard."
Liar. I have never called it that.

Are you actually serious?

Quote from: User324 on May 11, 2017, 11:15:00 PM
Those are two of the dumbest things I have ever read on this forum.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 11, 2017, 11:56:01 PM
Quote from: User324 on May 11, 2017, 11:48:11 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 11, 2017, 11:31:11 PM
Quote from: User324 on May 11, 2017, 11:28:46 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 11, 2017, 11:23:59 PM
Well if you are calling it "the dumbest thing you've ever heard."
Liar. I have never called it that.

Are you actually serious?
Yes I am.

Dipstick has trouble with the meaning of words,  he often doesn't get the way words are used in context.   You might have to dumb it down.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 11, 2017, 11:58:21 PM
1. I said "heard" instead of "read"

2. I said "the dumbest" instead of "one of the dumbest."

I paraphrased, sue me, the meaning was clear.

All you have is insults, it's pathetic.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 12, 2017, 12:20:48 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 11, 2017, 11:44:22 PM
>muh tv.

The TV is indeed on your side.

Nice copy pasta.

It's so easy to bow to peer pressure and so hard to fight for truth.

I'll let my buddy Newton debunk the B/S about wtc 1 and 2.

(https://s10.postimg.org/t2n05fau1/Screenshot_20170512-144632.png)

Quote
Formally stated, Newton's third law is: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. The statement means that in every interaction, there is a pair of forces acting on the two interacting objects. The size of the forces on the first object equals the size of the force on the second object.

Either fig A is wrong.

Or Newton.

>Pick one.

Or you fail to understand the physics.   

Here you  go,   

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/476.pdf

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 12, 2017, 12:26:43 AM
I understand Newtons laws just fine.

Edit.

Quote from: Rayzor on May 12, 2017, 12:20:48 AM
Here you  go,   

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/476.pdf

You know my picture came from that pdf right?

Reposting the official story doesn't debunk my arguments.

Is Newtons third law wrong? Or just inapplicable to 9/11?

If you don't think N3 applies to building collapses just tell me.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 12, 2017, 01:00:12 AM
I'll let my mate Rab explain how the force on the bottom part of the tower has to be equal and opposite to the force on the top.

Quote from: rabinoz on May 11, 2017, 12:17:41 AM
This means that the two people cannot pull with different forces. Just because the stronger man has the strength to pull 350 N does not mean that he is able to pull 350 N in every circumstance. If the weaker man can only apply 200 N to the rope then that is the tension in the rope - there's nothing that the strong man can do, except to drag the rope through the hands of the weak man.

An example of applied force being limited is a drag force limited game fishing reel, such as
(http://www.anglerswarehouse.com.au/webshots/shimano_forcemaster_9000_electric_reel_13945_10250045_M.jpg)
SHIMANO FORCEMASTER 9000 ELECTRIC REEL
If you pull too hard, you either break the line or rip the hook out and bingo, one big marlin joins the "ones that got away
and are t . . . . . . . . . h . . . . . . . . . i . . . . . . . . . s                b . . . . . . . . . i . . . . . . . . . g!
Find a ".pdf" of the manual in Shimano DENDOUMARU 9000 Beast Master Instruction Manual. (http://www.normark.ru/IndexManuals/Shimano/Dendoumaru9000.pdf)

That reel can limit the drag to a maximum of 25 kg, or 245N, so it can be set to limit at your weak man's strength.
A line commonly used with such a rod is rated "PE8" or 80lb (356 N) breaking strain. So setting the reel to limit the drag to 200 N is quite reasonable.

Now, that marlin (our "strong man") can pull with a much larger force, but let's limit him to 350 N to fit.
(http://vanuatuinformation.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/vanuatu-fishing-2.jpg)
Vanuatu Fishing
That marlin would like nothing better that to break the line and escape, but the game fisherman (out weak man) sets the drag setting of his rod to 200 N.
This means that even though the marlin is strong enough exert a force of 350 N on the line (our "rope") the tension on the line is limited by the drag setting to 200 N, the fishing line is safe and the marlin finally tires out.

That's about as simple an analogy as I can work out - and it involves boats, sort of!

But, you clearly did not understand the following, so read it again:
This is never going to be resolved until we sort out some basic points. Newton's Laws are probably OK so let's look at men and ropes.

Primer for men and ropes
  • This is a "ROPE", "R" is for "ROPE": (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Science/Objects%20-%20Piece%20of%20Rope_zps5n9vfkf7.png)
    An ideal rope is massless, of infinite strength and zero elasticity.
    An ideal rope can transmit a force and change its direction, for example using an ideal pulley.
    But
    Quote
    . . . . . the tension is the same throughout its length, so that the rope won't have infinite acceleration. This means that if I draw a free body diagram of a infinitely small piece of the rope, I will have to show two tension forces of same magnitude and in opposite directions, cancelling each other.
    Physics Stack Exchange, Interaction between an ideal pulley and an ideal rope (https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/315440/interaction-between-an-ideal-pulley-and-an-ideal-rope)
    Hence if
    the force applied to the left end is FW, the tension in the left end is TL = FW,
    the tension in the right end is TR = TL and the force on the right end is FR = TR.

    Hence FR = RL.
  • This is a "WEAK MAN", "W" is for "WEAK MAN": (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Science/Objects%20-%20Weak%20Man_zpsnpwzw2k4.png)
    The "weak man" actually pulls on the rope with a force FW, though may may be able to pull with up to 200 N.

    It makes no difference whether the WEAK MAN is on hard ground, ice, in a boat or even a helicopter,
    if the WEAK MAN pulls with a force of FW he pulls with a force of FW.
    I would have thought that axiomatic!
  • This is a "STRONG MAN", "S" is for "STRONG MAN": (http://i1075.photobucket.com/albums/w433/RabDownunder/Science/Objects%20-%20Strong%20Man_zps7oubtqtn.png)
    The "strong man" actually pulls on the rope with a force FS, though may may be able to pull with up to 350 N.

    It makes no difference whether the STRONG MAN is on hard ground, ice, in a boat or is even a fish,
    if the STRONG MAN pulls with a force of FS he pulls with a force of FS.
    I would have thought that axiomatic!

The crux of this whole "discussion" is "the tension on an ideal rope is the same throughout its length".
Though another issue is that even though a person is able to pull with a certain force, they do not necessarily pull with that force. In many situations, it may not be possible, because of other constraints to do that.
This might arise when lifting a mass at a constant speed or pulling against a winch limited to a certain force.

Now, do you agree with those points. If not, where do we differ?

Thanks Rab.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 12, 2017, 02:45:16 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 11, 2017, 11:58:21 PM
1. I said "heard" instead of "read"

2. I said "the dumbest" instead of "one of the dumbest."

I paraphrased, sue me, the meaning was clear.

All you have is insults, it's pathetic.
And by that you totally changed the meaning.

And yes, this whole thread is pathetic.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 12, 2017, 03:51:35 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 11, 2017, 01:18:00 PM
Quote from: User324 on May 11, 2017, 10:48:31 AM
Neither the box nor the orange lines are perfectly accurate. Red box is rectuangualar, top line is supposed to aligne with the top of the building.(https://img1.picload.org/image/rlwiidcw/symmetrie.png)
If, "...top line is supposed to aligne[sic] with the top of the building...then why does it NOT ALIGN with the top of the building?

What is the source of this original picture and who drew the red and orange lines on the picture?
If, "...top line is supposed to aligne[sic] with the top of the building..."then why does it NOT ALIGN with the top of the building?

What is the source of this original picture and who drew the red and orange lines on the picture?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 12, 2017, 04:14:15 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 12, 2017, 03:51:35 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 11, 2017, 01:18:00 PM
Quote from: User324 on May 11, 2017, 10:48:31 AM
Neither the box nor the orange lines are perfectly accurate. Red box is rectuangualar, top line is supposed to aligne with the top of the building.(https://img1.picload.org/image/rlwiidcw/symmetrie.png)
If, "...top line is supposed to aligne[sic] with the top of the building...then why does it NOT ALIGN with the top of the building?

What is the source of this original picture and who drew the red and orange lines on the picture?
If, "...top line is supposed to aligne[sic] with the top of the building..."then why does it NOT ALIGN with the top of the building?

What is the source of this original picture and who drew the red and orange lines on the picture?
Come on...
Source is the video linked, I even wrote at which time you have to watch it.
I drew the line, feel free to draw them as you think they should be or fuck off.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 12, 2017, 04:25:58 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 12, 2017, 04:14:15 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 12, 2017, 03:51:35 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 11, 2017, 01:18:00 PM
Quote from: User324 on May 11, 2017, 10:48:31 AM
Neither the box nor the orange lines are perfectly accurate. Red box is rectuangualar, top line is supposed to aligne with the top of the building.(https://img1.picload.org/image/rlwiidcw/symmetrie.png)
If, "...top line is supposed to aligne[sic] with the top of the building...then why does it NOT ALIGN with the top of the building?

What is the source of this original picture and who drew the red and orange lines on the picture?
If, "...top line is supposed to aligne[sic] with the top of the building..."then why does it NOT ALIGN with the top of the building?

What is the source of this original picture and who drew the red and orange lines on the picture?
Come on...
Source is the video linked, I even wrote at which time you have to watch it.
I drew the line, feel free to draw them as you think they should be or fuck off.
Okay.

Thanks.

Those lines are not even close to accurate.

The bottom left hand corner of the red box does not encompass at least a half inch of the building to the left.

Feel free to keep writing I should fuck off.

Also feel free to go down to the store and pick up your latest supply:
(http://www.photographyblogger.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/crayons3.jpg)
(https://assets.themuse.com/uploaded/attachments/18471.png?v=None)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 12, 2017, 04:32:17 AM
Quote
The bottom left hand corner of the red box does not encompass at least a half inch of the building to the left.
We already went through that when I posted it the first time, don't you remember?


Feel free to re read what I wrote back then, I'm not going to repeat everything. Draw the lines like you think they'd be accurate or fuck off.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 12, 2017, 05:20:50 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 12, 2017, 04:32:17 AM
Quote
The bottom left hand corner of the red box does not encompass at least a half inch of the building to the left.
We already went through that when I posted it the first time, don't you remember?


Feel free to re read what I wrote back then, I'm not going to repeat everything. Draw the lines like you think they'd be accurate or fuck off.

(https://s28.postimg.org/9jxe7e10d/WTC7collapse1.gif)

It's overwhelmingly symmetrical, that is why NIST says the collapse was symmetrical.

Quote from: NIST
The symmetric appearance of the downward fall of the WTC 7 was primarily due to the greater stiffness and strength of its exterior frame relative to the interior framing.

If you want symmetry to a planck length I am afraid that is impossible.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 12, 2017, 05:28:57 AM
Anyway I think we've discussed pretty much everything now. I'm happy with our arguments presented.



For the good of our species, wake up.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 12, 2017, 05:38:25 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 12, 2017, 05:28:57 AM


For the good of our species, wake up.

Really?
...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 12, 2017, 05:49:09 AM
Yeah I worry about us sometimes.

Here is a more honest drawing, it doesnt debunk my argument, the building collapse becomes less symmetrical as it progresses, please note it is absolutely nowhere near as asymmetrical as you are trying to say.

(https://s24.postimg.org/ft50507lx/20170512_204405.png)

I am not even sure why I am arguing this, if you understood or even took the time to study the engineering drawings of wtc 7 you'd realize saying the collapse was asymmetrical is stupid.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 12, 2017, 05:51:02 AM
MaNaeSWolf also explains.

Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on March 31, 2017, 12:14:38 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/Y1HDPtV.png)


This is what the external skin looks like. These are not minor steel beams they where using to keep it together either. Godzilla would not have gotten through that. Somewhere I saw pictures of the collapsed WTC7 building rubble, you could still see pictures of the external structures still highly intact. I am not sure how this building could have fallen over unless the external structure was severed first.

edit note


This is the east elevation, west looks similar. The east and west elevations are heavily braced, more so than North and South, this is because the edison substation is below the northern facade. So the buildings moments have to be pulled back to support the large spans and overhangs on the Northern facade. This is what would have to be destroyed before the building can have a non-symmetrical collapse.
Northern face is lighter than above, and south is fairly strong, but not as stiff as east or west.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 12, 2017, 05:53:14 AM
You drew it at a different time.
Of course it gets more asymmetrical during the fall, it couldn't be otherwise or else it'd be thermodynamically VERY unlikely.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 12, 2017, 06:04:20 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 12, 2017, 05:53:14 AM
You drew it at a different time.

You said @ 19 seconds, check again dumbshoe.

Quote from: User324 on March 28, 2017, 11:20:07 AM
Watch 00:19

(https://s24.postimg.org/ft50507lx/20170512_204405.png)

Quote from: User324 on May 12, 2017, 05:53:14 AM
Of course it gets more asymmetrical during the fall, it couldn't be otherwise or else it'd be thermodynamically VERY unlikely.

Entropy.

The time when the collapse becomes asymmetrical is long after the freefall, I believe my gif shows the symmetry during free-fall well.

(https://s28.postimg.org/9jxe7e10d/WTC7collapse1.gif)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 12, 2017, 06:23:53 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 12, 2017, 06:04:20 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 12, 2017, 05:53:14 AM
You drew it at a different time.

You said @ 19 seconds, check again dumbshoe.
That's wrong again.

Anyway, does it make you feel smarter when you use insults? Well, if it helps I guess it's okay  :)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 12, 2017, 06:31:28 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 12, 2017, 06:23:53 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 12, 2017, 06:04:20 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 12, 2017, 05:53:14 AM
You drew it at a different time.

You said @ 19 seconds, check again dumbshoe.
That's wrong again.

Are you actually for real?

Do you remember posting this?
Or was this another user324?
Try to memba.

Quote from: User324 on March 28, 2017, 11:20:07 AM
Watch 00:19

Emphasis mine.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 12, 2017, 06:38:14 AM
"Watch 0:19" means you should watch 0:19 and not that I have taken my picture exactely from 0:19 (one second would still be about 30 frames anyway...).
And come on, for real, it's not THAT hard to select the same time in the video as I did, it's really easy to compare how much the building has collapsed and select the right time...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 12, 2017, 06:40:44 AM
Long after the free-fall the collapse becomes asymmetrical, I agree.

Quote from: Rayzor on February 13, 2017, 10:36:59 PM
What real evidence is there for a conspiracy about 911?

Quote from: disputeone on February 13, 2017, 10:49:57 PM
Fall acceleration of building 7.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 12, 2017, 07:00:20 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 12, 2017, 12:26:43 AM
I understand Newtons laws just fine.
Evidently,  you don't understand  the conservation of momentum and energy.

Quote from: disputeone on May 12, 2017, 12:26:43 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 12, 2017, 12:20:48 AM
Here you  go,   

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/476.pdf

You know my picture came from that pdf right?

Gee,  that was lucky,  that I posted the exact article you failed to understand.   What are the odds.   GTFO

Quote from: disputeone on May 12, 2017, 12:26:43 AM
Reposting the official story doesn't debunk my arguments.

Is Newtons third law wrong? Or just inapplicable to 9/11?

If you don't think N3 applies to building collapses just tell me.

Actually yes it does debunk your false invocation of Newtons laws,  Newton is just fine. 

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 12, 2017, 07:06:35 AM
It just doesn't Rayzor, also you forgot to stomp your foot.

Goodnight mate.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 12, 2017, 07:11:02 AM
Couldn't resist.

Quote from: Rayzor on May 12, 2017, 07:00:20 AM
Actually yes it does debunk your false invocation of Newtons laws,  Newton is just fine.

Quote from: disputeone on May 12, 2017, 01:00:12 AM
the force on the bottom part of the tower has to be equal and opposite to the force on the top.

So, just to confirm, you are saying the forces on the tower during collapse are not necessarily equal and opposite?



Also failed to understand ==/== disagree with, we also have papers on the collapse that back up my point.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 12, 2017, 09:30:04 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 12, 2017, 07:06:35 AM
It just doesn't Rayzor, also you forgot to stomp your foot.

Goodnight mate.

Interesting,  that's almost a good example,   describe what happens ( in terms of N3 action/reaction)  when I stomp my foot and start a rock slide.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 12, 2017, 10:46:43 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 12, 2017, 09:30:04 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 12, 2017, 07:06:35 AM
It just doesn't Rayzor, also you forgot to stomp your foot.

Goodnight mate.

Interesting,  that's almost a good example,   describe what happens ( in terms of N3 action/reaction)  when I stomp my foot and start a rock slide.

Lol, good one
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 13, 2017, 10:18:30 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 12, 2017, 06:38:14 AM
"Watch 0:19" means you should watch 0:19 and not that I have taken my picture exactely from 0:19 (one second would still be about 30 frames anyway...).
And come on, for real, it's not THAT hard to select the same time in the video as I did, it's really easy to compare how much the building has collapsed and select the right time...
So, what was the time on the video when you froze frame and drew your lines?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 13, 2017, 10:22:43 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 13, 2017, 10:18:30 AM
So, what was the time on the video when you froze frame and drew your lines?
I don't know, and it doesn't matter. You can use the same picture and draw your lines or...
Quote
...it's not THAT hard to select the same time in the video as I did, it's really easy to compare how much the building has collapsed and select the right time...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 13, 2017, 08:05:08 PM
Quote from: User324 on May 12, 2017, 10:46:43 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 12, 2017, 09:30:04 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 12, 2017, 07:06:35 AM
It just doesn't Rayzor, also you forgot to stomp your foot.

Goodnight mate.

Interesting,  that's almost a good example,   describe what happens ( in terms of N3 action/reaction)  when I stomp my foot and start a rock slide.

Lol, good one

It is pretty funny, trying to compare a rock slide to a building collapse, I laughed at the desperation.

rockslide pdf (https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.physics.usyd.edu.au/~helenj/Mechanics/Problems/L11-rockslide.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjg3_m8s-7TAhXEmpQKHdvTDF8QFggbMAA&usg=AFQjCNHI8AbXA3aREDoHe1fViUEVI9msKw)

I am sure, since it is "common" that anyone could cite a natural collapse anything like the collapse of wtc 1, 2 or 7. What's that? That's the first and last time buildings have ever collapsed like that due to structural failure?

Interesting.

Quote from: User324 on May 13, 2017, 10:22:43 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 13, 2017, 10:18:30 AM
So, what was the time on the video when you froze frame and drew your lines?
I don't know, and it doesn't matter. You can use the same picture and draw your lines or...
Quote
...it's not THAT hard to select the same time in the video as I did, it's really easy to compare how much the building has collapsed and select the right time...


Assyemtrical collapse long after the period of free-fall doesn't touch my argument.

That is the free-fall and symmetrical collapse are impossible due to a natural collapse.

Looks like you guys are all out of "rebuttals". I am bored of repeating my arguments only to have them ignored due to the difficulty in debunking them.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on May 13, 2017, 08:10:00 PM
Arguing with someone who is brain dead...

Another whom is pushing an agenda for whatever reason and a blow hard.

Wow.... Your patience is outstanding
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 13, 2017, 08:11:06 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on May 13, 2017, 08:10:00 PM
Arguing with someone who is brain dead...

Another whom is pushing an agenda for whatever reason and a blow hard.

Wow.... Your patience is outstanding

Thanks man I just woke up, had a few drinks around a fire with a few mates last night, pretty good time all in all.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 13, 2017, 08:14:57 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 13, 2017, 08:05:08 PM
Quote from: User324 on May 12, 2017, 10:46:43 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 12, 2017, 09:30:04 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 12, 2017, 07:06:35 AM
It just doesn't Rayzor, also you forgot to stomp your foot.

Goodnight mate.

Interesting,  that's almost a good example,   describe what happens ( in terms of N3 action/reaction)  when I stomp my foot and start a rock slide.

Lol, good one

It is pretty funny, trying to compare a rock slide to a building collapse, I laughed at the desperation.


You are totally wrong,  the collapse of buildings  is driven by gravitational potential energy,  the physics of the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2,  once initiated is closer to a rockslide,  than bashing bricks together.

But by all means please stop just repeating your debunked arguments over and over.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 13, 2017, 08:16:50 PM
I am sure, since it is "common" that anyone could cite a natural collapse anything like the collapse of wtc 1, 2 or 7. What's that? That's the first and last time buildings have ever collapsed like that due to structural failure?

Interesting.

Edit. Have a bone.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 13, 2017, 08:25:56 PM
I can cite thousands of building collapses that look very similar to wtc 1, 2 or 7.



Unfortunately they are all controlled demolitions.

Just wondering....

I am sure, since it is "common" that anyone could cite a natural collapse anything like the collapse of wtc 1, 2 or 7. What's that? That's the first and last time buildings have ever collapsed like that due to structural failure?



Intersting.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 13, 2017, 08:29:50 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 13, 2017, 08:16:50 PM
I am sure, since it is "common" that anyone could cite a natural collapse anything like the collapse of wtc 1, 2 or 7. What's that? That's the first and last time buildings have ever collapsed like that due to structural failure?

Interesting.

Since you seem sure,   how about you cite another example where a hijacked commercial aircraft was flown into buildings of that particular design. 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 13, 2017, 08:31:10 PM
Wtc 7 wasn't hit by a plane, try again turbo.

I am sure, since it is "common" that anyone could cite a natural collapse anything like the collapse of wtc 1, 2 or 7. What's that? That's the first and last time buildings have ever collapsed like that due to structural failure?

You cant?

Interesting.......
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 13, 2017, 08:37:31 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 13, 2017, 08:25:56 PM
I can cite thousands of building collapses that look very similar to wtc 1, 2 or 7.



Unfortunately they are all controlled demolitions.

Just wondering....

I am sure, since it is "common" that anyone could cite a natural collapse anything like the collapse of wtc 1, 2 or 7. What's that? That's the first and last time buildings have ever collapsed like that due to structural failure?



Intersting.

Show me one that where it's a  collapse from the middle and progressing top down like WTC1 and WTC2,   all those are collapse from the bottom. 

Since you like "implosion world"  here's what the demolition experts said about the WTC1 and 2 collapses

“The towers’ collapse looked exactly like explosive demolitions.”
PROTEC COMMENT: No they didn’t. It’s the “where.”
When discussing similarities between the towers’ collapse and an explosive demolition,
many people overlook the single question most central to any objective investigation. It
is not “how” or “when” the buildings failed, but “where” they failed. That answer holds
the key to understanding almost everything that occurred at Ground Zero.

Since their inception in the late 1800s, blasting engineers have understood that building
implosions work best when the forces of gravity are maximized. This is why blasters
always concentrate their efforts on the lowest floors of a structure. While smaller
supplemental charges can be placed on upper floors to facilitate breakage and maximize
control as the structure collapses, every implosion ever performed has followed the
basic model of obliterating structural supports on the bottom few floors first, “to get the
structure moving.”

This was not the case with the collapse of Towers 1 and 2. Close examination of these
events from every video and photographic angle available does not indicate failure
originating from the lowest floors, rather clearly shows each building beginning to fail at
precisely the point where the respective planes struck. That is, no floors above or below
the impact points ever move until the structural elements within the impact zone begin to
collapse (WTC 7 collapsed differently, which we will cover later).
Furthermore, there are no independent failures present while the structures are
collapsing (we’re not talking dust plumes or debris, but actual structural failure). All
lower floors remained completely intact until they were consumed by the collapse from
above.
Because countless images confirm this assessment and none contradict it, we believe
this fact to be visually indisputable."

I'm surprised you went back to this,  I debunked it when Babybullshit first brought it up and claimed it looked like controlled demolition.   

Simple answer,  No it doesn't
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on May 13, 2017, 08:46:43 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 13, 2017, 08:37:31 PM
I'm surprised you went back to this,  I debunked it when Babybullshit first brought it up and claimed it looked like controlled demolition.   

Simple answer,  No it doesn't

Such a pussy, STILL talking shit about me long after ignoring me.

Though I get it, the corner I put you in, there is no other option.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 13, 2017, 08:52:58 PM
Quoting the OS doesn't debunk my arguments.

The buildings looked just like controlled demolitions, anyone can tell you that.

Saying it looked nothing like top down CD (wtc 1 and 2) or standard CD (wtc 7) is just you trying to lie and play on peoples fears.

http://www.general-demolition.co.uk/top-down/

You bore me, turbo.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 13, 2017, 08:58:16 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 13, 2017, 08:52:58 PM
Quoting the OS doesn't debunk my arguments.

The buildings looked just like controlled demolitions, anyone can tell you that.

Saying it looked nothing like top down CD (wtc 1 and 2) or standard CD (wtc 7) is just you trying to lie and play on peoples fears.

You bore me, turbo.

The people who do this sort of demolition for a living,  say that it looks nothing like controlled demolition.   

Just because know nothing conspiracy theorists,  think it was  demolition,   exposes the fact that they don't have a clue what they are talking about.

Turbo?   Have you been talking to BHS's ex again?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 13, 2017, 09:09:12 PM
I don't think you understand how much pressure there is to "go along with" the official story, wait, you are trying to do it now, your aim is now to destroy Bhs and my credibility because you can't touch our arguments. You do the same to architects and engineers, scientists, fireman, pilots and Professor Leroy Hulsey PhD.

It's disgusting.

Read this and tell me again it couldn't have been a top down controlled demolition.

http://www.general-demolition.co.uk/top-down/

Quote
Top down demolition is essentially a method of demolition generally used for high rise buildings.  The process involves the deconstruction of the property, floor by floor, from the top down to the bottom.  This method is the safest method in which to undertake the demolition of high and medium rise properties, it provides a strong level of control in terms of the structure of the building protecting those working in and around the demolition site.

Also why bring Bhs into this? Did I ruin your cheapshots on me?

The only thing that can defeat callous lies is total honesty.

Come at me turbo.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 13, 2017, 09:29:11 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 13, 2017, 09:09:12 PM
I don't think you understand how much pressure there is to "go along with" the official story, wait, you are trying to do it now, your aim is now to destroy Bhs and my credibility because you can't touch our arguments. You do the same to architects and engineers, scientists, fireman, pilots and Professor Leroy Hulsey PhD.

It's disgusting.

Read this and tell me again it couldn't have been a top down controlled demolition.

http://www.general-demolition.co.uk/top-down/

Show me a picture of WTC1 and 2 with scaffolding?   ROTFLMAO

Quote from: disputeone on May 13, 2017, 09:09:12 PM
Also why bring Bhs into this? Did I ruin your cheapshots on me?

The only thing that can defeat callous lies is total honesty.

Come at me turbo.

So the fact that I'm pointing out that it doesn't look like a controlled demolition,  none of those videos you posted showed anything like the collapse of  WTC1 and 2. 

That threatens your looney conspiracy world view.   Maybe your world view is wrong?   

That top down demolition site you linked to is not explosive demolition,  they set up scaffolding and dismantle from the top down.    Sorry.   You are an idiot,  there was no scaffolding on WTC1 and 2

I didn't bring BHS into this,  you did.  "turbo"   LOL.   

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 13, 2017, 09:33:14 PM
Top down CD is common and safe for highrises and can be done internally or externally. Access to the lift shafts would have been enough.

Try again turbo.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 13, 2017, 09:42:40 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 13, 2017, 09:33:14 PM
Top down CD is common and safe for highrises and can be done internally or externally. Access to the lift shafts would have been enough.

Try again turbo.

So,  show me evidence of  a demolition that looks like WTC1 and 2,   you make these claims,  then get all flustered and aggro when I prove you wrong,  it's ok to admit you are wrong.

Let me remind you..

Since their inception in the late 1800s, blasting engineers have understood that building
implosions work best when the forces of gravity are maximized. This is why blasters
always concentrate their efforts on the lowest floors of a structure. While smaller
supplemental charges can be placed on upper floors to facilitate breakage and maximize
control as the structure collapses, every implosion ever performed has followed the
basic model of obliterating structural supports on the bottom few floors first, “to get the
structure moving.”



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 13, 2017, 09:50:08 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 13, 2017, 09:42:40 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 13, 2017, 09:33:14 PM
Top down CD is common and safe for highrises and can be done internally or externally. Access to the lift shafts would have been enough.

Try again turbo.

So,  show me evidence of  a demolition that looks like WTC1 and 2.

Here. Wtc 1 and 2.



Wtc 7 looks exactly like a controlled demolition, unless you'd like to argue that also ;D ;D ;D.

Dumbshoe.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 13, 2017, 09:58:28 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 13, 2017, 09:50:08 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 13, 2017, 09:42:40 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 13, 2017, 09:33:14 PM
Top down CD is common and safe for highrises and can be done internally or externally. Access to the lift shafts would have been enough.

Try again turbo.

So,  show me evidence of  a demolition that looks like WTC1 and 2.

Here. Wtc 1 and 2.



Wtc 7 looks exactly like a controlled demolition, unless you'd like to argue that also ;D ;D ;D.

Dumbshoe.

Nice find,  and a good demonstration of the type of WTC1 and 2 collapse,   which destroys your argument that no building had ever collapsed like that.

"A compilation of demolitions conducted using the French demolition technique of vérinage. This is achieved with hydraulics that push structural members out of alignment, allowing the top portion of a building to then demolish the structure below via gravity alone, without the use of explosives. Note that the collapses are rapid and produce copious dust."

Looks like no explosives were needed to demolish WTC1 and 2 and aircraft impact and fire replaced the function of the hydraulics.

You just destroyed your own CD argument.   Oh, and you BS argument about Newton's 3rd law is busted as well.   Nice work!

 


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 13, 2017, 10:02:38 PM
There is a possible demolition method used for wtc 1 and 2.

Please see steel being cut just prior to demolition.

(https://s28.postimg.org/bnob4ztt9/molten-metal-pouring-1.jpg)

Controlled demolition ==/== explosive demolition.

Cutting key structural supports would have done it also. The lack of deceleration on wtc 1 and 2 we should have seen points to the fact there was more than a gravity assisted top down demolition.

Dumbshoe. ;D ;D.

Don't forget our smoking gun is wtc 7.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 13, 2017, 10:08:47 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 13, 2017, 09:58:28 PM
You just destroyed your own CD argument.   Oh, and you BS argument about Newton's 3rd law is busted as well.   Nice work!

Absolutely incorrect, the video backs up newtons third law. The collapses started in the centre of those buildings, therefore every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

On 9/11 10% of the tower destroyed 90% of the tower.

Newton wins again.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 13, 2017, 10:08:53 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 13, 2017, 10:02:38 PM
There is a possible demolition method used for wtc 1 and 2.

Please see steel being cut just prior to demolition.

Controlled demolition ==/== explosive demolition.

Cutting key structural supports would have done it also.

Dumbshoe. ;D ;D.

Dont forget our smoking gun is wtc 7.

No you forgot WTC7 is a red herring, it was going to collapse anyway.   As a smoking gun, it just fires blanks.

But you are correct,  there was plenty of structural damage prior to collapse.   A 767 travelling at 500 mph tends to cause a fair bit of damage.

Dumbshoe?   You never learn do you?


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 13, 2017, 10:10:53 PM
So you can't touch wtc 7 lol..

Quote from: disputeone on May 13, 2017, 10:08:47 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 13, 2017, 09:58:28 PM
You just destroyed your own CD argument.   Oh, and you BS argument about Newton's 3rd law is busted as well.   Nice work!

Absolutely incorrect, the video backs up newtons third law. The collapses started in the centre of those buildings, therefore every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

On 9/11 10% of the tower destroyed 90% of the tower.

Newton wins again.





Also chill dude anyone would think this is your job.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 13, 2017, 10:12:37 PM
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 13, 2017, 10:15:13 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 13, 2017, 10:08:47 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 13, 2017, 09:58:28 PM
You just destroyed your own CD argument.   Oh, and you BS argument about Newton's 3rd law is busted as well.   Nice work!

Absolutely incorrect, the video backs up newtons third law. The collapses started in the centre of those buildings, therefore every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

On 9/11 10% of the tower destroyed 90% of the tower.

Newton wins again.

I'm not sure you understand your own argument,  I know where you copied it from,  and I think you got it wrong.

Anyway,  Newton always wins,  whether you understand it or not.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 13, 2017, 10:16:42 PM
I agree Rayzor.

Also regardless of what the news says.
Newton wins.

Flawless victory.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 13, 2017, 10:21:15 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 13, 2017, 10:16:42 PM
I agree Rayzor.

Also regardless of what the news says.
Newton wins.

Flawless victory.

Ok, 



Look at the video at 1:35,   the top stays pretty much intact as the lower floors collapse.     Do I need to explain further,  or can you see it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 13, 2017, 10:39:43 PM
Quote
NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system—that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns—consisted of a grid of steel "trusses" integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.

https://www.nist.gov/el/faqs-nist-wtc-towers-investigation

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 13, 2017, 10:48:55 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 13, 2017, 10:21:15 PM
Look at the video at 1:35,   the top stays pretty much intact as the lower floors collapse.     Do I need to explain further,  or can you see it.

50% of a structure destroying the other 50% of a structure is fine.  I would also disagree that it stays "in-tact."

10% destroying 90% not so much.

As long as Newton and Galileo are around there will be no magic top for you.

Even NIST says the pancake collapse hypothesis is BS.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 13, 2017, 11:02:28 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 13, 2017, 10:48:55 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 13, 2017, 10:21:15 PM
Look at the video at 1:35,   the top stays pretty much intact as the lower floors collapse.     Do I need to explain further,  or can you see it.

50% of a structure destroying the other 50% of a structure is fine.  I would also disagree that it stays "in-tact."

10% destroying 90% not so much.

As long as Newton and Galileo are around there will be no magic top for you.

Even NIST says the pancake collapse hypothesis is BS.

Take off those blinkers,  and watch a video of WTC2 collapse.   

We've agreed there was no need for explosives,  and that structural damage from fire and impact was enough to cause the collapse.   Now you want to argue about something that is plain to see on video?

I think the conspiracy theory just gasped it's last breath.    Mind you it took a while to die.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 13, 2017, 11:04:05 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 13, 2017, 10:48:55 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 13, 2017, 10:21:15 PM
Look at the video at 1:35,   the top stays pretty much intact as the lower floors collapse.     Do I need to explain further,  or can you see it.

50% of a structure destroying the other 50% of a structure is fine.  I would also disagree that it stays "in-tact."

10% destroying 90% not so much.

As long as Newton and Galileo are around there will be no magic top for you.

Even NIST says the pancake collapse hypothesis is BS.

You do not need the same amount of force to pulverize steel/concrete as you need to break it, so that it does collapse. What do you think happens with the top part when equal forces act, it just disappears or what? Of course not, it just gets more damaged than the part below it that 'only' has to receive enough force so it does collapse.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 13, 2017, 11:05:05 PM
I think there is a need for explosives / cutting of beams to bring down wtc 1 and 2.

I think the collapse initiation was most likely Verinage type demolition.

We have absolutely not agreed that fires and planes could bring down wtc 1 and 2 as we saw and fires could have brought down wtc 7 at free-fall.

We absolutely haven't agreed, your dishonesty is disgusting. You are still avoiding our smoking gun and my very first post.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 13, 2017, 11:11:42 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 13, 2017, 11:05:05 PM
I think there is a need for explosives / cutting of beams to bring down wtc 1 and 2.

I think the collapse initiation was a Verinage type demolition.

We have absolutely not agreed that fires and planes could bring down wtc 1 and 2 as we saw and fires could have brought down wtc 7 at free-fall.

We absolutely haven't agreed, your dishonesty is disgusting.

No,  you agreed that cutting of beams was all that was required  to cause the collapse.   No explosive demolition needed.   There is more than enough evidence of aircraft and fire causing the structural damage.

As User324 correctly points out the mass and momentum of the top section still continues down, and what's more the mass of the floor just collapsed get's added to the downward momentum,  Newton is just fine thank you.

The number of floors above the collapse point is important,  that's why WTC2 collapsed first, and fell faster than WTC1.   

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 13, 2017, 11:12:58 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 13, 2017, 11:11:42 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 13, 2017, 11:05:05 PM
I think there is a need for explosives / cutting of beams to bring down wtc 1 and 2.

I think the collapse initiation was a Verinage type demolition.

We have absolutely not agreed that fires and planes could bring down wtc 1 and 2 as we saw and fires could have brought down wtc 7 at free-fall.

We absolutely haven't agreed, your dishonesty is disgusting.

No,  you agreed that cutting of beams was all that was required  to cause the collapse.   No explosive demolition needed.   There is more than enough evidence of aircraft and fire causing the structural damage.

You are lying again, that's all you have.

I have better things to do today than entertain your shilling ;).
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 13, 2017, 11:18:41 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 13, 2017, 11:12:58 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 13, 2017, 11:11:42 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 13, 2017, 11:05:05 PM
I think there is a need for explosives / cutting of beams to bring down wtc 1 and 2.

I think the collapse initiation was a Verinage type demolition.

We have absolutely not agreed that fires and planes could bring down wtc 1 and 2 as we saw and fires could have brought down wtc 7 at free-fall.

We absolutely haven't agreed, your dishonesty is disgusting.

No,  you agreed that cutting of beams was all that was required  to cause the collapse.   No explosive demolition needed.   There is more than enough evidence of aircraft and fire causing the structural damage.

You are lying again, that's all you have.

I have better things to do today than entertain your shilling ;).

Are you having short term memory blackouts?....   I'll highlight what you just said.

Quote from: disputeone on May 13, 2017, 11:12:58 PM
I think there is a need for explosives / cutting of beams to bring down wtc 1 and 2.
I think the collapse initiation was a Verinage type demolition.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 13, 2017, 11:25:13 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 13, 2017, 11:18:41 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 13, 2017, 11:12:58 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 13, 2017, 11:11:42 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 13, 2017, 11:05:05 PM
I think there is a need for explosives / cutting of beams to bring down wtc 1 and 2.

I think the collapse initiation was a Verinage type demolition.

We have absolutely not agreed that fires and planes could bring down wtc 1 and 2 as we saw and fires could have brought down wtc 7 at free-fall.

We absolutely haven't agreed, your dishonesty is disgusting.

No,  you agreed that cutting of beams was all that was required  to cause the collapse.   No explosive demolition needed.   There is more than enough evidence of aircraft and fire causing the structural damage.

You are lying again, that's all you have.

I have better things to do today than entertain your shilling ;).

Are you having short term memory blackouts?....   I'll highlight what you just said.

Quote from: disputeone on May 13, 2017, 11:12:58 PM
I think there is a need for explosives / cutting of beams to bring down wtc 1 and 2.
I think the collapse initiation was a Verinage type demolition.
Well, to be fair he didn't say it was the only thing needed.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 13, 2017, 11:25:18 PM
I think there is a need for explosives / cutting of beams to bring down wtc 1 and 2.

(https://s28.postimg.org/bnob4ztt9/molten-metal-pouring-1.jpg)

I think the collapse initiation was a Verinage type demolition.

Honestly.

Eyewitness evidence for explosives.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyewitness_testimony

Quote from: User324 on May 13, 2017, 11:25:13 PM
Well, to be fair he didn't say it was the only thing needed.

Thanks for being honest.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 13, 2017, 11:27:45 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 13, 2017, 11:25:18 PM
I think there is a need for explosives / cutting of beams to bring down wtc 1 and 2.


I think the collapse initiation was a Verinage type demolition.

Honestly.

Eyewitness evidence for explosives.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyewitness_testimony

Quote from: User324 on May 13, 2017, 11:25:13 PM
Well, to be fair he didn't say it was the only thing needed.

Thanks for being honest.

LOL,   Verinage  is without explosives.   numnut.   Do I really have to hold your hand and walk you through your own arguments.

Cherry picking witnesses who heard noises doesn't count.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 13, 2017, 11:31:42 PM
There's a lot of eyewitness evidence for explosives. Get over it.

Also "collapse initiation"

Quote
initiation
ɪˌnɪʃɪˈeɪʃn/
noun

the action of beginning something.

Classic verinage wouldn't work on a tower with a core structure like wtc 1 or 2.

Stop trying to twist my words, even user pulled you up on it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 13, 2017, 11:38:31 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 13, 2017, 11:31:42 PM

Classic verinage wouldn't work on a tower with a core structure like wtc 1 or 2.

Stop trying to twist my words, even user pulled you up on it.

No there is zero evidence for the use of explosives,  whereas there is irrefutable evidence for extensive structural damage caused by aircraft impact and fires. 

If you would say what you mean then I wouldn't have to guess.   Are you now saying explosives are absolutely required?   

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 13, 2017, 11:43:41 PM
I am saying there is a lot of eyewitness evidence for explosives being used on 9/11.

There is, you can't dismiss hundreds of eyewitnesses out of hand.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 14, 2017, 12:31:09 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 13, 2017, 11:43:41 PM
I am saying there is a lot of eyewitness evidence for explosives being used on 9/11.

There is, you can't dismiss hundreds of eyewitnesses out of hand.

Sorry,  but no-one saw explosions,  some heard loud bangs,  but there's lots of things cause loud bangs when you've got 110 story buildings collapsing.

http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf

I asked you a direct question,  and you never answered,   are explosives absolutely required for the collapse as we saw it or not?   

Because the evidence from the video you kindly linked to says that explosives are not required for a collapse like WTC1 and WTC2
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 14, 2017, 12:35:04 AM
Those buildings were not designed like wtc 1 and 2, classic verinage demolition starting from the point we saw wouldn't totally destroy wtc 1 or 2, I think they needed explosives to bring down the tower totally, hence the tell tale squib markers we saw on wtc 1 and 2.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 14, 2017, 12:43:40 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 14, 2017, 12:35:04 AM
Those buildings were not designed like wtc 1 and 2, classic verinage demolition starting from the point we saw wouldn't totally destroy wtc 1 or 2, I think they needed explosives to bring down the tower totally, hence the tell tale squib markers we saw on wtc 1 and 2.


Sorry no squibs,  wrong place and timing,  that's been covered before.  and I think you need to watch that verinage video again,   I counted  5 lower floors collapsed to one upper floor,  and near the end is a building  where they start the collapse from just four floors down from the top,  the one where they show the excavators with cables.

Look at it closely,  and then look at WTC1 and 2,   no explosives needed.  Just gravity.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 14, 2017, 12:47:02 AM
I disagree.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 14, 2017, 02:04:24 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 14, 2017, 12:47:02 AM
I disagree.

You don't have that option.  You can have your own opinions,  but not your own facts.

Facts are that no explosives were needed or detected for collapse either WTC1, 2 or 7    You might not like it,  but I can't help that.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 14, 2017, 02:38:25 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 13, 2017, 10:22:43 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 13, 2017, 10:18:30 AM
So, what was the time on the video when you froze frame and drew your lines?
I don't know, and it doesn't matter. You can use the same picture and draw your lines or...
Quote
...it's not THAT hard to select the same time in the video as I did, it's really easy to compare how much the building has collapsed and select the right time...
You do not know when you froze the frame?

That is a rather disingenuous statement, is it not?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 14, 2017, 02:51:02 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 13, 2017, 08:58:16 PM

A small subset (i.e. ONE COMPANY) of people who do this sort of demolition for a living,  say that it looks nothing like controlled explosivedemolition. Most other controlled demolition experts state it does look like controlled demolition.   

FTFY.

No need to thank me.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 14, 2017, 02:52:36 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 14, 2017, 02:51:02 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 13, 2017, 08:58:16 PM

A small subset (i.e. ONE COMPANY) of people who do this sort of demolition for a living,  say that it looks nothing like controlled explosivedemolition. Most other controlled demolition experts state it does look like controlled demolition.   

FTFY.

No need to thank me.

Counterfeiting of quotes; poor way of debating.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 14, 2017, 03:03:11 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 14, 2017, 02:52:36 AM
Counterfeiting of quotes; poor way of debating.

He's famous for that tactic,  and he's been reprimanded for it in the past,   Basically he resorts to falsifying and misquoting because he's got nothing else.   

If you catch him doing it,  report it to a moderator.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 14, 2017, 04:15:49 AM
This thread has just devolved into nonsense, I have presented enough evidence to justify another 9/11 investigation ten times over.

This is enough, I'm getting really tired of you just throwing insults and shilling.

It is not a fact that wtc 7s collapse was causey by fire, you have a very loose definition of facts indeed.

Saying something is a fact because you saw it on TV reeks of desperation.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 14, 2017, 04:31:16 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 14, 2017, 04:15:49 AM
This thread has just devolved into nonsense, I have presented enough evidence to justify another 9/11 investigation ten times over.
Do you think a new investigation will be started because you write posts in this forum?

If you really want to make a difference you'd collect your evidence, talk to structural engineers, contact newspapers/journalists etc. But that is, of course, not as convenient as being an internet-warrior.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 14, 2017, 04:44:26 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 14, 2017, 04:31:16 AM
I am become shitpost, destroyer of threads.

www.ae911truth.org
www.wtc7evaluation.org

The biggest lie we were ever told is that we are powerless to change things, with enough people anything is possible.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 14, 2017, 06:38:03 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 14, 2017, 04:15:49 AM
This thread has just devolved into nonsense, I have presented enough evidence to justify another 9/11 investigation ten times over.

None of your evidence has stood up to even basic scrutiny. 

Quote from: disputeone on May 14, 2017, 04:15:49 AM
This is enough, I'm getting really tired of you just throwing insults and shilling.

Nope,  you are the one with all the insults.   

Quote from: disputeone on May 14, 2017, 04:15:49 AM
It is not a fact that wtc 7s collapse was causey by fire, you have a very loose definition of facts indeed.

Sorry, it's a fact,  that WTC7 collapsed, and it's a fact that fires burned uncontrolled for 7 hours,  and it's a fact there is  no evidence of explosives being used.   

Quote from: disputeone on May 14, 2017, 04:15:49 AM
Saying something is a fact because you saw it on TV reeks of desperation.

Refereed scientific papers in reputable publications,  trumps your ae911truther rubbish.

What is it with you and TV?   Did you see something scary on TV and it still bothers you?   

To answer your question,  none of the information or conclusions I've come to about 9/11 conspiracies comes from TV.   


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 14, 2017, 10:13:38 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 14, 2017, 02:52:36 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 14, 2017, 02:51:02 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 13, 2017, 08:58:16 PM

A small subset (i.e. ONE COMPANY) of people who do this sort of demolition for a living,  say that it looks nothing like controlled explosivedemolition. Most other controlled demolition experts state it does look like controlled demolition.   

FTFY.

No need to thank me.

Counterfeiting of quotes; poor way of debating.
Quote from: Rayzor on May 14, 2017, 03:03:11 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 14, 2017, 02:52:36 AM
Counterfeiting of quotes; poor way of debating.

He's famous for that tactic,  and he's been reprimanded for it in the past,   Basically he resorts to falsifying and misquoting because he's got nothing else.   

If you catch him doing it,  report it to a moderator.

Neither one of you can demonstrate where I falsified the quote.

I corrected the quote.

Neither one of you can actually read the quote by PROTEC and claim I was one the who falsified the quote.

Rayzor did.

PROTEC wrote: "explosive demolition."

PROTEC did not write: "controlled demolition."

So both of you can take a flying leap...

Which both of you are very good at...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 14, 2017, 11:31:52 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 14, 2017, 10:13:38 AM
I corrected the quote.
My bad, now I see your point!

You corrected the quote! You know, that's fine, it's like with the alternative facts. You kind of used an alternative way of quoting!

No, really, you corrected him, that's totally legit!

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 14, 2017, 12:23:11 PM
Quote from: User324 on May 14, 2017, 11:31:52 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 14, 2017, 10:13:38 AM
I corrected the quote.
My bad, now I see your point!

You corrected the quote! You know, that's fine, it's like with the alternative facts. You kind of used an alternative way of quoting!

No alternative way of quoting.

Rayzor posted:
Quote from: Rayzor on May 13, 2017, 08:37:31 PM
“The towers’ collapse looked exactly like explosive demolitions.”
PROTEC COMMENT: No they didn’t.

I'm surprised you went back to this,  I debunked it when Babybullshit first brought it up and claimed it looked like controlled demolition.   

Simple answer,  No it doesn't
Notice that PROTEC does not support Rayzor, in that the word used is"explosive," not "controlled."

I can't help it if you do not understand the difference.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 14, 2017, 12:39:17 PM
No reason to defend yourself.
I sometimes too use alternative answers in exams, I can totally relate.


Anyway, you might want to find out what "quotation" means and why you do not correct a quote.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotation

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 14, 2017, 02:23:25 PM
If Rayzor deliberately changed a quote from a website to fit a narrative, who is the one being dishonest?

I've had quite enough of this now, there is plenty of evidence to say that we were lied to about 9/11, about the WMD's, about operation Iraqi freedom and that we are still being lied to now.

Rayzor and User have just shitposted this thread into oblivion and I really can't be bothered anymore.

I might pick it up again when Hulseys model is peer reviewed, even though it will be dismissed out of hand.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 14, 2017, 02:25:18 PM
I just saw Rayzor deleted the quote to cover for his disgusting lies.

Great work Totallackey.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 14, 2017, 02:43:34 PM
Quote from: User324 on May 14, 2017, 12:39:17 PM
No reason to defend yourself.
I sometimes too use alternative answers in exams, I can totally relate.


Anyway, you might want to find out what "quotation" means and why you do not correct a quote.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quotation
Rayzor quoted PROTEC for support, stating WTC 1/2/7 did not look like "controlled demolitions."

PROTEC wrote: “The towers’ collapse looked exactly like explosive demolitions.”
PROTEC COMMENT: No they didn’t."

So, you are right.

I am not defending myself.

The day I relate to anything you do, say, think, believe, support, will be my day of final judgment and you won't know about it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 14, 2017, 03:44:08 PM
The US would never stage a false flag to start a wa.........

Quote
The Gulf of Tonkin incident (Vietnamese: Sự kiện Vịnh Bắc Bộ), also known as the USS Maddox incident, drew the United States more directly into the Vietnam War. It involved two separate confrontations involving North Vietnam and the United States in the waters of the Gulf of Tonkin. The original American report blamed North Vietnam for both incidents, but eventually became very controversial with widespread claims that either one or both incidents were false, and possibly deliberately so. The original U.S. claim was that on August 2, 1964, the destroyer USS Maddox, while performing a signals intelligence patrol as part of DESOTO operations, was pursued by three North Vietnamese Navy torpedo boats of the 135th Torpedo Squadron.[1][5] Maddox fired three warning shots and the North Vietnamese boats then attacked with torpedoes and machine gun fire.[5] Maddox expended over 280 3-inch and 5-inch shells in what was claimed to be a sea battle. One U.S. aircraft was damaged, three North Vietnamese torpedo boats were allegedly damaged, and four North Vietnamese sailors were said to have been killed, with six more wounded. There were no U.S. casualties.[6] Maddox "was unscathed except for a single bullet hole from a Vietnamese machine gun round".[5]

It was originally claimed by the National Security Agency that a Second Gulf of Tonkin incident occurred on August 4, 1964, as another sea battle, but instead evidence was found of "Tonkin ghosts"[7] (false radar images) and not actual North Vietnamese torpedo boats. In the 2003 documentary The Fog of War, the former United States Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara admitted that the August 2 USS Maddox attack happened with no Defense Department response, but the August 4 Gulf of Tonkin attack never happened.[8]

The outcome of these two incidents was the passage by Congress of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which granted President Lyndon B. Johnson the authority to assist any Southeast Asian country whose government was considered to be jeopardized by "communist aggression". The resolution served as Johnson's legal justification for deploying U.S. conventional forces and the commencement of open warfare against North Vietnam.

In 1995, former Secretary of Defense McNamara met with former Vietnam People's Army General Võ Nguyên Giáp to ask what happened on August 4, 1964 in the second Gulf of Tonkin Incident. "Absolutely nothing", Giáp replied.[9] Giáp claimed that the attack had been imaginary.[10]

In 2005, an internal National Security Agency historical study was declassified; it concluded that Maddox had engaged the North Vietnamese Navy on August 2, but that there were no North Vietnamese naval vessels present during the incident of August 4. The report stated, regarding the first incident on August 2, that "at 1500G,[note 1] Captain Herrick ordered Ogier's gun crews to open fire if the boats approached within ten thousand yards. At about 1505G,[note 1] Maddox fired three rounds to warn off the communist boats. This initial action was never reported by the Johnson administration, which insisted that the Vietnamese boats fired first."[5]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident

Oops.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 14, 2017, 06:32:34 PM
Quote from: totallackey on May 14, 2017, 10:13:38 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 14, 2017, 02:52:36 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 14, 2017, 02:51:02 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 13, 2017, 08:58:16 PM

A small subset (i.e. ONE COMPANY) of people who do this sort of demolition for a living,  say that it looks nothing like controlled explosivedemolition. Most other controlled demolition experts state it does look like controlled demolition.   

FTFY.

No need to thank me.

Counterfeiting of quotes; poor way of debating.
Quote from: Rayzor on May 14, 2017, 03:03:11 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 14, 2017, 02:52:36 AM
Counterfeiting of quotes; poor way of debating.

He's famous for that tactic,  and he's been reprimanded for it in the past,   Basically he resorts to falsifying and misquoting because he's got nothing else.   

If you catch him doing it,  report it to a moderator.

Neither one of you can demonstrate where I falsified the quote.

I corrected the quote.

Neither one of you can actually read the quote by PROTEC and claim I was one the who falsified the quote.

Rayzor did.

PROTEC wrote: "explosive demolition."

PROTEC did not write: "controlled demolition."

So both of you can take a flying leap...

Which both of you are very good at...

In this discussion,  we have not until now distinguished between  "Controlled Demolition"   and a subset of that called "Explosive Demolition"   in fact read the thread,  we have been using the abbreviation "CD"  to refer to explosive demolition for some time.   

If you now want to separate the two,    ( since the Verinage video  LOL  )   that's fine by me.

But don't edit the quotation,   that's dishonest in the extreme,   type your correction or clarification underneath the quote.

So are you now saying that no explosives were used,  on WTC1,2 and 7,  because that's what Protec are saying  and they should know.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 14, 2017, 06:34:24 PM
Quote from: User324 on May 14, 2017, 11:31:52 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 14, 2017, 10:13:38 AM
I corrected the quote.
My bad, now I see your point!

You corrected the quote! You know, that's fine, it's like with the alternative facts. You kind of used an alternative way of quoting!

No, really, you corrected him, that's totally legit!


No it's not legit,   he should leave quotes alone and if he wants to make a correction type it underneath. 

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 14, 2017, 06:36:20 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 14, 2017, 02:25:18 PM
I just saw Rayzor deleted the quote to cover for his disgusting lies.

Great work Totallackey.

Huh?   I did no such thing,  that's the most delusional thing you've posted so far.   

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 14, 2017, 06:39:41 PM
You're lying ;).
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 14, 2017, 06:42:59 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 14, 2017, 06:39:41 PM
You're lying ;).

No,  I'm serious,   I haven't altered any posts.    Show me where you think I've altered anything.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 14, 2017, 07:12:33 PM
Right here.

(https://s29.postimg.org/xcw43bxmf/Screenshot_20170515-101031.jpg)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 14, 2017, 07:26:43 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 14, 2017, 07:12:33 PM
Right here.

(https://s29.postimg.org/xcw43bxmf/Screenshot_20170515-101031.jpg)

I didn't post anything with that time stamp,  I think you are lying. 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 14, 2017, 07:30:57 PM
Speak up... I can't hear you?

:P.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 14, 2017, 07:35:08 PM
In case anyone missed this.

Quote from: disputeone on May 14, 2017, 02:23:25 PM
I've had quite enough of this now, there is plenty of evidence to say that we were lied to about 9/11, about the WMD's, about operation Iraqi freedom and that we are still being lied to now.

Rayzor and User have just shitposted this thread into oblivion and I really can't be bothered anymore.

I might pick it up again when Hulseys model is peer reviewed, even though it will be dismissed out of hand.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 14, 2017, 07:36:20 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 14, 2017, 07:30:57 PM
Speak up... I can't hear you?

:P.

Ok, so you lied through your teeth about me altering posts,  now you are hiding in shame.   I would too if I were in your shoes.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 14, 2017, 07:36:57 PM
Sorry, missed that.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on May 14, 2017, 07:45:37 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 14, 2017, 07:36:20 PM
now you are hiding in shame.

Lmao..You really have the nerve to say this as you still hide from me! Classic razyor.

Though I would hide from me too if I were in your shoes   ;)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 14, 2017, 07:53:13 PM
I, for one, see the irony.

;D.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 14, 2017, 08:03:40 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 14, 2017, 07:53:13 PM
I, for one, see the irony.

;D.

I think you finally lost the plot completely,   maybe you should have a long chat with your sister about spending some time away from the internet,  it's not doing your mental health any favours.

You got caught in a bald faced lie,  that's bad enough,  but why not just man up and admit you were wrong,   you can't be a wuss all your life.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on May 14, 2017, 08:14:02 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 14, 2017, 08:03:40 PM
You can't be a wuss all your life.

Lol.. lead by example.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 14, 2017, 08:25:56 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 14, 2017, 08:03:40 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 14, 2017, 07:53:13 PM
I, for one, see the irony.

;D.

I think you finally lost the plot completely,   maybe you should have a long chat with your sister about spending some time away from the internet,  it's not doing your mental health any favours.

You got caught in a bald faced lie,  that's bad enough,  but why not just man up and admit you were wrong,   you can't be a wuss all your life.

Moar gaslighting?

Quote from: disputeone on May 14, 2017, 08:17:46 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 14, 2017, 07:47:17 PM
have you forgotten that  it's you that's asking for help, (outright lie) Seriously,  I hope you get the help you  need. (Gaslighting)

http://m.wikihow.com/Spot-a-Sociopath
Quote
Gaslighting. Since sociopaths lie and deceive, they have the tendency to make the victim look and feel as though they are the problem that the sociopath is causing. The medical terminology is "projection". This is a calling card of the sociopath.
Blaming you for what they have done to you. If the person is lying and accuses you of being a liar, then you could be dealing with a sociopath.
Making you feel crazy. If the person is doing something that is driving you nuts, and making it seem as though you are crazy, then you are likely dealing with a sociopath.

If I was wrong it was because the wrong link was given for your post.

It's a non issue, anything you say has a 98% chance of being a lie therefore I didn't bother putting in hours of fact checking.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 14, 2017, 08:27:17 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on May 14, 2017, 08:14:02 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 14, 2017, 08:03:40 PM
You can't be a wuss all your life.

Lol.. lead by example.

Anytime I can fly over. Anytime at all.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on May 14, 2017, 08:47:29 PM
He wouldn't answer the door if y'all were neighbors
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 14, 2017, 08:52:26 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on May 14, 2017, 08:47:29 PM
He wouldn't answer the door if y'all were neighbors

He'd be the guy who leaves a threatening abusive letter in your mailbox then locks himself inside and calls the cops while shaking and crying, when you knock on the door to sort it out.

Then the cops get there he wipes his tears away and comes out pretending he has a pair.

I've delt with his type.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 14, 2017, 09:01:34 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 14, 2017, 08:52:26 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on May 14, 2017, 08:47:29 PM
He wouldn't answer the door if y'all were neighbors

He'd be the guy who leaves a threatening abusive letter in your mailbox then locks himself inside and calls the cops while shaking and crying, when you knock on the door to sort it out.

Then the cops get there he wipes his tears away and comes out pretending he has a pair.

I've delt with his type.

That sounds more like the sort of thing you would do,   you can dish out insults but fall to pieces when it comes back at you.   "You cry and plead,  please don't insult me because I'm bipolar"    Wimp.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 14, 2017, 09:06:19 PM
Say it to my face?

Or u still scared?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 14, 2017, 09:10:50 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 14, 2017, 09:06:19 PM
Say it to my face?

Or u still scared?

You conspiracy nutters are way too predictable,  when your arguments are debunked and you have no answers, you resort to insults and threats.   

You really need to talk to your sister again,  she gave you good advice and here you are ignoring it.   
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 14, 2017, 09:14:33 PM
U so scared.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 14, 2017, 09:21:50 PM
As for "debunked arguments."

Quote from: disputeone on February 13, 2017, 10:49:57 PM
Fall acceleration of building 7.

Lol.

What advice has my sister given me? I don't believe I have told you about any advice she gave me.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 14, 2017, 10:25:23 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 14, 2017, 02:23:25 PM
If Rayzor deliberately changed a quote from a website to fit a narrative, who is the one being dishonest?
Both.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 14, 2017, 10:27:05 PM
Quote from: User324 on May 14, 2017, 10:25:23 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 14, 2017, 02:23:25 PM
If Rayzor deliberately changed a quote from a website to fit a narrative, who is the one being dishonest?
Both.

I find your logic acceptable.

Good one.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 14, 2017, 11:48:22 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 14, 2017, 10:27:05 PM
Quote from: User324 on May 14, 2017, 10:25:23 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 14, 2017, 02:23:25 PM
If Rayzor deliberately changed a quote from a website to fit a narrative, who is the one being dishonest?
Both.

I find your logic acceptable.

Good one.

Except it's not true,   controlled demolition has been equivalent to explosive demolition for 100 or more pages.    It's only turkeys like  totallackey and dipstick think that it was deliberately changed,

What I find totally unacceptable is for dipstick to blatantly lie about me changing posts.    Then when he is called out for the lie, he goes nuts.   
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 14, 2017, 11:52:42 PM
control
kənˈtrəʊl/
verb
past tense: controlled; past participle: controlled
1.
determine the behaviour or supervise the running of.
"he was appointed to control the company's marketing strategy"
synonyms:   be in charge of, run, be in control of, manage, direct, administer, head, preside over, have authority over, supervise, superintend, oversee, guide, steer; More
2.
take into account (an extraneous factor that might affect the results of an experiment).
"no attempt was made to control for variations"

demolition
dɛməˈlɪʃn/
noun
the action or process of demolishing or being demolished.
"the monument was saved from demolition"
synonyms:   destruction, knocking down, pulling down, tearing down, flattening, razing, levelling, bulldozing, clearance; More
informal
an overwhelming defeat.
"Ireland's demolition of England"
synonyms:   defeat, conquest, vanquishing, trouncing, routing, rout; More



What's your first language Rayzor?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 14, 2017, 11:56:44 PM
Putting these two words together we get an accurate definition.

Controlled demolition.

determine the behaviour or supervise the running of the action or process of demolishing or being demolished.

What's your first language?

I'm betting Hindi.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 14, 2017, 11:58:38 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 14, 2017, 11:56:44 PM
What's your first language?

I'm betting Hindi.
Not sure how that would be a bad thing tho.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 15, 2017, 12:00:14 AM
Neither. It just explains his difficulty with definitions if English is his second language.

I had to guess something.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 15, 2017, 12:05:07 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 15, 2017, 12:00:14 AM
Neither. It just explains his difficulty with definitions if English is his second language.

I had to guess something.

So for the last 100 or so pages what did you mean when you used the abbreviation "CD" 

Are you now saying that you never said or implied that explosives were involved with CD
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 15, 2017, 12:06:34 AM
When I said CD I meant controlled demolition. That is, determine the behaviour or supervise the running of the action or process of demolishing or being demolished.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 15, 2017, 12:32:57 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 15, 2017, 12:06:34 AM
When I said CD I meant controlled demolition. That is, determine the behaviour or supervise the running of the action or process of demolishing or being demolished.

So are you saying no explosives were required to demolish WTC1, 2 or 7?     Just want to be clear, because you seem to be shifting ground.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 15, 2017, 12:41:10 AM
I think they used explosives on wtc 1 2 and 7.

What's your first language?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 15, 2017, 12:53:48 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 15, 2017, 12:41:10 AM
I think they used explosives on wtc 1 2 and 7.

What's your first language?

So whenever you've used the abbreviation "CD" you meant  explosive demolition?

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 15, 2017, 01:01:38 AM
No I meant controlled demolition.

Do you need the definitions again?
When I said CD I meant controlled demolition. That is, determine the behaviour or supervise the running of the action or process of demolishing or being demolished.

Wtc 7 was a standard explosive demolition.

Wtc 1 and 2 were a verinage type collapse initiation with explosives to destroy the core structure.

A standard verinage demolition would not work on wtc 1 and 2 the collapse initiation was verinage with explosives to destroy the core from the top down. Causing near total destruction and the massive pulverization of concrete.

Wtc 1 and 2 can be explained a little better by the OS, hence why wtc 7 is our smoking gun.


What's your first language?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 15, 2017, 01:08:24 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 15, 2017, 01:01:38 AM
No I meant controlled demolition.

Do you need the definitions again?
When I said CD I meant controlled demolition. That is, determine the behaviour or supervise the running of the action or process of demolishing or being demolished.

Wtc 7 was a standard explosive demolition.

Wtc 1 and 2 were a verinage type collapse initiation with explosives to destroy the core structure.

A standard verinage demolition would not work on wtc 1 and 2 the collapse initiation was verinage with explosives to destroy the core from the top down. Causing near total destruction and the massive pulverization of concrete.

Wtc 1 and 2 can be explained by the OS a little better by the OS, hence why wtc 7 is our smoking gun.


What's your first language?

Ok,  so you've changed your mind,   that's fine.   So WTC7  collapse mechanism is all you have left.   No wonder you are pinning your hopes on Hulsey. 

The core on WTC1 and 2 was severely damaged by aircraft impact and fires,  there  is zero doubt about that,  so finally we can close the book on conspiracy.   

You can have WTC7 as your smoking gun. 


My first language?   68000 assembler.    Sorry,   PDP 8 assembler before that.  Or was it Burroughs L2000?   I don't remember.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 15, 2017, 01:12:12 AM
I disagree about wtc 1 and 2.

So do thousands of architects, engineers, pilots, firefighters and scientists.

We can agree to disagree.

Who are you even shilling for anymore?
What's your first language?

Quote
Wtc 1 and 2 were a verinage type collapse initiation with explosives to destroy the core structure.

A standard verinage demolition would not work on wtc 1 and 2 the collapse initiation was verinage with explosives to destroy the core from the top down. Causing near total destruction and the massive pulverization of concrete.

If you think that says that I believe the OS as far as wtc 1 and 2 go, you are delusional and I hope you get the help you need.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 15, 2017, 01:18:28 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 15, 2017, 01:12:12 AM
I disagree about wtc 1 and 2.

So do thousands of architects, engineers, pilots, firefighters and scientists.

We can agree to disagree.

LOL   Surprise surprise.   Do you at least agree that the core columns were damaged by aircraft impact and fire?

Quote from: disputeone on May 15, 2017, 01:12:12 AM
Who are you even shilling for anymore?
What's your first language?

I was never a shill,  that's just your paranoia kicking in. 

First Language?  On reflection,  I'm pretty sure it was the Burroughs L2000,   all in assembler.

Quote from: disputeone on May 15, 2017, 01:12:12 AM
Quote
Wtc 1 and 2 were a verinage type collapse initiation with explosives to destroy the core structure.

A standard verinage demolition would not work on wtc 1 and 2 the collapse initiation was verinage with explosives to destroy the core from the top down. Causing near total destruction and the massive pulverization of concrete.

If you think that says that I believe the OS as far as wtc 1 and 2 go, you are delusional and I hope you get the help you need.

One of us has paranoid delusional tendencies.   You choose.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 15, 2017, 01:20:16 AM
The core column was damaged by the plane where the plane hit it.

20 to 30 floors down it would be aight.

If you aren't shilling and you think that post was me agreeing with the OS version of the collapse of wtc 1 and 2 then you are delusional.
(It's nearly like you don't like your own medicine.)

Memba damage doesn't equal total collapse.

What's your first language?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 15, 2017, 01:34:35 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 15, 2017, 01:20:16 AM
The core column was damaged by the plane where the plane hit it.
And the subsequent fires. 

Quote from: disputeone on May 15, 2017, 01:20:16 AM
20 to 30 floors down it would be aight.
Agreed,  with the exception that there was some jet fuel blast that went down the lift wells.   But that didn't cause significant structural damage.

Quote from: disputeone on May 15, 2017, 01:20:16 AM
If you aren't shilling and you think that post was me agreeing with the OS version of the collapse of wtc 1 and 2 then you are delusional.
(It's nearly like you don't like your own medicine.)

Memba damage doesn't equal total collapse.

What's your first language?

So the case for conspiracy or not,   comes down to did the aircraft impact and fires cause sufficient damage to initiate collapse or not. 






Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on May 15, 2017, 01:39:56 AM
Is it strange rayzor won't take me off ignore?

Is it strange rayzor can only attack Dispute and try to gaslight him by calling him crazy?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 15, 2017, 01:43:39 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 15, 2017, 01:34:35 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 15, 2017, 01:20:16 AM
20 to 30 floors down it would be aight.
Agreed,  with the exception that there was some jet fuel blast that went down the lift wells.   But that didn't cause significant structural damage.

I gave you the rundown of fireproofing code in lift shafts already, I agree the fires in the shafts wouldn't have caused significant structural damage.

Quote from: Rayzor on May 15, 2017, 01:34:35 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 15, 2017, 01:20:16 AM
If you aren't shilling and you think that post was me agreeing with the OS version of the collapse of wtc 1 and 2 then you are delusional.
(It's nearly like you don't like your own medicine.)

Memba damage doesn't equal total collapse.

What's your first language?

So the case for conspiracy or not,   comes down to did the aircraft impact and fires cause sufficient damage to initiate collapse (as per the collapses observed.) or not.

Have I really not been clear? I know I have been explicitly clear, it really activates my almonds that you would play dumb. That's why I call you a shill.

This has been my argument from page one.

The damage caused by planes and fires was not enough to cause the total collapse at the acceleration and velocity we saw on wtc 1 and 2.

The damage caused by fires and minimal structural damage wasn't anywhere near enough to cause the total collapse of the core and symmetrical free-fall for 2.25 seconds of wtc 7.

There is an ocean of other circumstantial evidence, however the actual tower collapses are much stronger evidence for foul play.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 15, 2017, 01:49:53 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 15, 2017, 01:43:39 AM

Have I really not been clear? I know I have been explicitly clear, it really activates my almonds that you would play dumb. That's why I call you a shill.

This has been my argument from page one.

The damage caused by planes and fires was not enough to cause the total collapse at the acceleration and velocity we saw on wtc 1 and 2.

The damage caused by fires and minimal structural damage wasn't anywhere near enough to cause the total collapse of the core and symmeteical free-fall for 2.25 seconds of wtc 7.

There is an ocean of other circumstantial evidence, however the actual tower collapses are much stronger evidence for foul play.

The evidence says otherwise.   As for your claim that the damage was minimal,  I'd suggest you re-read the NIST report.   

At least you've dropped that ridiculous  N3 argument.   That's a step forward.   
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 15, 2017, 01:55:32 AM
I stand by that argument.

10% of a structure totally destroying 90% of a structure is pretty laughable.

Newton is laughing at you with us.

You are practically begging me to believe the O/S because it is what we've been told is true. I don't and I won't believe it.

Why are we still arguing?

Edit. The NIST report agrees with me that the structural damage was minimal on wtc 7, the fires caused the collapse, the damage to the outer structure wasn't a contributing factor to the collapse of the core.

I suggest you re-read the NIST report. Are you shilling or do you have a developmental disorder?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 15, 2017, 03:21:18 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 14, 2017, 06:32:34 PM

In this discussion,  we have not until now distinguished between  "Controlled Demolition"   and a subset of that called "Explosive Demolition"   in fact read the thread,  we have been using the abbreviation "CD"  to refer to explosive demolition for some time.
Wrong.

Please find those instances.

If you have, then it was wrong then, it remains wrong now, and will so forever remain.

I have seen you use controlled demolition many times and even when you brought up PROTEC before, I needed to clarify what PROTEC was writing.

There is a definite reason why PROTEC writes the words: “The towers’ collapse looked exactly like explosive demolitions.”
PROTEC COMMENT: No they didn’t."

The reason: Because they know they cannot write the words "controlled demolitions," because WTC 1/2/7 all looked exactly like controlled demolitions. 

Quote from: Rayzor on May 14, 2017, 06:32:34 PM
If you now want to separate the two,    ( since the Verinage video  LOL  )   that's fine by me.
I have always separated the two.

You did too and should keep doing so because to rely on the PROTEC quote to support they did not look like controlled demolitions is a false equivalency.

Quote from: Rayzor on May 14, 2017, 06:32:34 PM
But don't edit the quotation,   that's dishonest in the extreme,   type your correction or clarification underneath the quote.
Your original quote is easily referenced and anyone can see what I did, why I did it, and if they have a legitimate beef, go from there...

Quote from: Rayzor on May 14, 2017, 06:32:34 PM
So are you now saying that no explosives were used,  on WTC1,2 and 7,  because that's what Protec are saying  and they should know.


Wrong again. PROTEC writing they did NOT look like "explosive demolitions," does not mean no explosives...

ETA: I omitted the word NOT from the very last sentence in the post.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 15, 2017, 03:28:14 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 15, 2017, 01:55:32 AM
I stand by that argument.

10% of a structure totally destroying 90% of a structure is pretty laughable.

Newton is laughing at you with us.

 I explained this already.   Don't play dumb.    Here you go (again)  http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf   Let's see if you understand basic physics. 

If AA77 had hit higher up  the momentum and energy of the top section might NOT have been sufficient to collapse a floor, but once it did,  then it accelerates.

Also the fact that UA175 hit lower down than AA11,  matches well with the faster collapse time,  and earlier collapse, even though it was hit second.   No conspiracy theory I've seen
explains these facts.   


Quote from: disputeone on May 15, 2017, 01:55:32 AM
You are practically begging me to believe the O/S because it is what we've been told is true. I don't and I won't believe it.
Why are we still arguing?

In spite of the evidence you cling to your conspiracy.    Much like a flat earther might.
 

Quote from: disputeone on May 15, 2017, 01:55:32 AM
Edit. The NIST report agrees with me that the structural damage was minimal on wtc 7, the fires caused the collapse, the damage to the outer structure wasn't a contributing factor to the collapse of the core.

I suggest you re-read the NIST report. Are you shilling or do you have a developmental disorder?

We were discussing the extent of the core damage on WTC1 and 2,   but  since you changed the subject to WTC7,  a 20 story gash is not minimal.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 15, 2017, 03:31:24 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 15, 2017, 03:21:18 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 14, 2017, 06:32:34 PM

In this discussion,  we have not until now distinguished between  "Controlled Demolition"   and a subset of that called "Explosive Demolition"   in fact read the thread,  we have been using the abbreviation "CD"  to refer to explosive demolition for some time.
Wrong.

Please find those instances.

If you have, then it was wrong then, it remains wrong now, and will so forever remain.

I have seen you use controlled demolition many times and even when you brought up PROTEC before, I needed to clarify what PROTEC was writing.

There is a definite reason why PROTEC writes the words: “The towers’ collapse looked exactly like explosive demolitions.”
PROTEC COMMENT: No they didn’t."

The reason: Because they know they cannot write the words "controlled demolitions," because WTC 1/2/7 all looked exactly like controlled demolitions. 

Quote from: Rayzor on May 14, 2017, 06:32:34 PM
If you now want to separate the two,    ( since the Verinage video  LOL  )   that's fine by me.
I have always separated the two.

You did too and should keep doing so because to rely on the PROTEC quote to support they did not look like controlled demolitions is a false equivalency.

Quote from: Rayzor on May 14, 2017, 06:32:34 PM
But don't edit the quotation,   that's dishonest in the extreme,   type your correction or clarification underneath the quote.
Your original quote is easily referenced and anyone can see what I did, why I did it, and if they have a legitimate beef, go from there...

Quote from: Rayzor on May 14, 2017, 06:32:34 PM
So are you now saying that no explosives were used,  on WTC1,2 and 7,  because that's what Protec are saying  and they should know.


Wrong again. PROTEC writing they did look like "explosive demolitions," does not mean no explosives...

I don't think you actually read the Protec paper,  they were debunking the false assertion that people were saying they looked like explosive demolition.

Get the facts right.    Protec are saying they did not look like explosive demolition.

Here you go sunshine,  read it again and this time get it right.   http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 15, 2017, 03:35:44 AM
They do look exactly like controlled demolitions however.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 15, 2017, 03:37:28 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 15, 2017, 03:35:44 AM
They do look exactly like controlled demolitions however.

Just not the type that would lead you to conclude conspiracy.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 15, 2017, 03:46:13 AM
Also it's clearly not just a matter of "understanding the physics" as the collapse of wtc 1 and 2 has been so contested.

There are engineers and scientists on both sides of the issue, as I have said before every independent investigation into the collapses has given us vastly different results than NIST.

Anyone would think you get paid for this rayzor. I am so sick of this (((debate)))
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 15, 2017, 04:01:52 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 15, 2017, 03:46:13 AM
Anyone would think you get paid for this rayzor. I am so sick of this (((debate)))

I do not think that anyone would spend money on someone defending the OS on the flat earth society.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 15, 2017, 04:12:48 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 15, 2017, 03:31:24 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 15, 2017, 03:21:18 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 14, 2017, 06:32:34 PM

In this discussion,  we have not until now distinguished between  "Controlled Demolition"   and a subset of that called "Explosive Demolition"   in fact read the thread,  we have been using the abbreviation "CD"  to refer to explosive demolition for some time.
Wrong.

Please find those instances.

If you have, then it was wrong then, it remains wrong now, and will so forever remain.

I have seen you use controlled demolition many times and even when you brought up PROTEC before, I needed to clarify what PROTEC was writing.

There is a definite reason why PROTEC writes the words: “The towers’ collapse looked exactly like explosive demolitions.”
PROTEC COMMENT: No they didn’t."

The reason: Because they know they cannot write the words "controlled demolitions," because WTC 1/2/7 all looked exactly like controlled demolitions. 

Quote from: Rayzor on May 14, 2017, 06:32:34 PM
If you now want to separate the two,    ( since the Verinage video  LOL  )   that's fine by me.
I have always separated the two.

You did too and should keep doing so because to rely on the PROTEC quote to support they did not look like controlled demolitions is a false equivalency.

Quote from: Rayzor on May 14, 2017, 06:32:34 PM
But don't edit the quotation,   that's dishonest in the extreme,   type your correction or clarification underneath the quote.
Your original quote is easily referenced and anyone can see what I did, why I did it, and if they have a legitimate beef, go from there...

Quote from: Rayzor on May 14, 2017, 06:32:34 PM
So are you now saying that no explosives were used,  on WTC1,2 and 7,  because that's what Protec are saying  and they should know.


Wrong again. PROTEC writing they did look like "explosive demolitions," does not mean no explosives...

I don't think you actually read the Protec paper,  they were debunking the false assertion that people were saying they looked like explosive demolition.

Get the facts right.    Protec are saying they did not look like explosive demolition.

Here you go sunshine,  read it again and this time get it right.   http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%20STUDY%208-06%20w%20clarif%20as%20of%209-8-06%20.pdf
I know.

I accidentally left the word "not," out my last sentence.

Sue me.

I went back and corrected it.

Are you now going to correct your post and cease using PROTEC as support for your NO CD point of view?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 15, 2017, 04:16:30 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 15, 2017, 04:01:52 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 15, 2017, 03:46:13 AM
Anyone would think you get paid for this rayzor. I am so sick of this (((debate)))

I do not think that anyone would spend money on someone defending the OS on the flat earth society.
Yeah they would.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 15, 2017, 04:27:46 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 15, 2017, 04:16:30 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 15, 2017, 04:01:52 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 15, 2017, 03:46:13 AM
Anyone would think you get paid for this rayzor. I am so sick of this (((debate)))

I do not think that anyone would spend money on someone defending the OS on the flat earth society.
Yeah they would.
I don't think so, especially not on the flat earth society.

Edit: Lol I should get in contact with those people, I'd love to get paid for posting here :D
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 15, 2017, 04:28:33 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 15, 2017, 03:31:24 AM
I don't think you actually read the Protec paper,  they were debunking the false assertion that people were saying they looked like explosive demolition.
I have never read anyone write the words," WTC 1/2/7 looked like explosive demolitions."

I have never heard the words, "WTC 1/2/7 looked like explosive demolitions."

You want to know why I have never heard or read those words?

Because nobody, prior to PROTEC, ever said or wrote those words referencing WTC 1/2/7.

PROTEC did not use the words "controlled demolitions."

You want to know why?

Because WTC 1/2/7 all looked exactly like controlled demolitions.

Quote from: Rayzor on May 15, 2017, 03:31:24 AM
Get the facts right.    Protec are saying they did not look like explosive demolition.
I do have my facts right and my accidental omission of one word (NOT) from the last statement of my post #1913  is now corrected.

What does not remain corrected is your misguided reliance on PROTEC as a support for your NO CD TOOK PLACE on 9/11.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 15, 2017, 04:34:56 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 15, 2017, 04:27:46 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 15, 2017, 04:16:30 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 15, 2017, 04:01:52 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 15, 2017, 03:46:13 AM
Anyone would think you get paid for this rayzor. I am so sick of this (((debate)))

I do not think that anyone would spend money on someone defending the OS on the flat earth society.
Yeah they would.
I don't think so, especially not on the flat earth society.

Edit: Lol I should get in contact with those people, I'd love to get paid for posting here :D
Nobody would ever pay you for posting anything.

Rayzor has been doing his job for some time now.

He was a regular contributor to all of the 9/11 threads on ATS and his frequent use of the words "nutter," "loon," "crazy," etc... are all giveaways he used to post as GoodOleDave at ATS.

As are his style of using and mixing up incongruent terms.

That way he can always go back and insert the convenient arguments:

"Oh, you got my meaning wrong," or, "Get your facts straight," when called out on his overall BS. 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 15, 2017, 04:38:28 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 15, 2017, 04:34:56 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 15, 2017, 04:27:46 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 15, 2017, 04:16:30 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 15, 2017, 04:01:52 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 15, 2017, 03:46:13 AM
Anyone would think you get paid for this rayzor. I am so sick of this (((debate)))

I do not think that anyone would spend money on someone defending the OS on the flat earth society.
Yeah they would.
I don't think so, especially not on the flat earth society.

Edit: Lol I should get in contact with those people, I'd love to get paid for posting here :D
Nobody would ever pay you for posting anything.
What if I already got paid for posting in this thread?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 15, 2017, 04:49:36 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 15, 2017, 04:38:28 AM
What if I already got paid for posting in this thread?
Well, it would solidify my personally held view the world is going to hell in a handbasket.

Also make you out to be a liar.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 15, 2017, 04:51:41 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 15, 2017, 04:49:36 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 15, 2017, 04:38:28 AM
What if I already got paid for posting in this thread?
Well, it would solidify my personally held view the world is going to hell in a handbasket.

Also make you out to be a liar.

What if I were a honest shill?
(+0.1$)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 15, 2017, 05:04:14 AM
Anyway, returning to topic:

Rayzor gets busted again, using PROTEC as a source of supporting his NO CD took place on 9/11 view.

PROTEC does not utilize the words "controlled demolitions."

PROTEC uses the words, "explosive demolitions."

Reason?

Explosive demolitions DOES NOT NECESSARILY EQUAL controlled demolitions.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 15, 2017, 05:11:21 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 15, 2017, 05:04:14 AM
Anyway, returning to topic:

Rayzor gets busted again, using PROTEC as a source of supporting his NO CD took place on 9/11 view.

PROTEC does not utilize the words "controlled demolitions."

PROTEC uses the words, "explosive demolitions."

Reason?

Explosive demolitions DOES NOT NECESSARILY EQUAL controlled demolitions.
Where has he said that it does necessarily equal controlled demolition?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 15, 2017, 05:14:28 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 15, 2017, 05:11:21 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 15, 2017, 05:04:14 AM
Anyway, returning to topic:

Rayzor gets busted again, using PROTEC as a source of supporting his NO CD took place on 9/11 view.

PROTEC does not utilize the words "controlled demolitions."

PROTEC uses the words, "explosive demolitions."

Reason?

Explosive demolitions DOES NOT NECESSARILY EQUAL controlled demolitions.
Where has he said that it does necessarily equal controlled demolition?
Read the thread.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 15, 2017, 05:16:39 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 15, 2017, 05:14:28 AM
Read the thread.
So you're admitting he hasn't.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 15, 2017, 05:20:25 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 15, 2017, 05:16:39 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 15, 2017, 05:14:28 AM
Read the thread.
So you're admitting he hasn't.
No.

I am stating you are incapable of reading the thread.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 15, 2017, 05:24:08 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 15, 2017, 05:20:25 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 15, 2017, 05:16:39 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 15, 2017, 05:14:28 AM
Read the thread.
So you're admitting he hasn't.
No.

I am stating you are incapable of reading the thread.
And I am stating you are incapable of providing a quote because rayzor hasn't said that.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 15, 2017, 05:30:33 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 15, 2017, 05:24:08 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 15, 2017, 05:20:25 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 15, 2017, 05:16:39 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 15, 2017, 05:14:28 AM
Read the thread.
So you're admitting he hasn't.
No.

I am stating you are incapable of reading the thread.
And I am stating you are incapable of providing a quote because what you've said is not true.
I do not need to post a quote.

Rayzor has written in the thread that explosive demolitions and the initials CD have been used to mean essentially the same thing throughout this thread.

And they have not.

All three towers came down in a controlled manner.

All three looked like controlled demolitions.

None of them looked liked explosive demolitions.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 15, 2017, 05:36:11 AM
Dispute & lackey, you two should get that one sorted out:

Quote from: totallackey on May 15, 2017, 05:30:33 AM
All three towers came down in a controlled manner.

All three looked like controlled demolitions.

None of them looked liked explosive demolitions.

Quote from: disputeone on May 15, 2017, 12:41:10 AM
I think they used explosives on wtc 1 2 and 7.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 15, 2017, 05:39:04 AM
Rayzor wants to use PROTEC to try to equate the words "controlled," and "explosive."

Rayzor wants thread narrative to focus on the word "explosive," when it comes down to demolition.

He has no ground when it comes to the term "controlled."

PROTEC does not try to debunk the claim the towers, "looked exactly like controlled demolitions."

Because they can't.

Why?

They are not stupid enough to write bull shit.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 15, 2017, 05:41:00 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 15, 2017, 05:36:11 AM
Dispute & lackey, you two should get that one sorted out:

Quote from: totallackey on May 15, 2017, 05:30:33 AM
All three towers came down in a controlled manner.

All three looked like controlled demolitions.

None of them looked liked explosive demolitions.

Quote from: disputeone on May 15, 2017, 12:41:10 AM
I think they used explosives on wtc 1 2 and 7.
I agree.

I think they used explosives also.

What is your problem?

Are you claiming that all explosions will leave outside visual evidence at all times?

Have you ever seen an explosive demolition?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 15, 2017, 05:42:53 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 15, 2017, 05:39:04 AM
Rayzor wants to use PROTEC to try to equate the words "controlled," and "explosive."

Rayzor wants thread narrative to focus on the word "explosive," when it comes down to demolition.

He has no ground when it comes to the term "controlled."

PROTEC does not try to debunk the claim the towers, "looked exactly like controlled demolitions."
Because it was CD in some way; controlled by laws of physics ...

Quote
I think they used explosives also.

What is your problem?

Are you claiming that all explosions will leave outside visual evidence at all times?
I think it sounds dumb to say "it didnt look like explosives were used, but explosives were used"
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 15, 2017, 05:43:40 AM
I think you sound dumb.

Whats your point?

Also your shitposts are incessant.

Edit. Explosive demolition is a particular style of demolition, it looks exactly like wtc 7.

Protec was right to say wtc 1 and 2 didnt look like explosive demolition. It did look like a controlled demolition and that's not to say explosives weren't used.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 15, 2017, 05:48:27 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 15, 2017, 05:43:40 AM
Protec was right to say wtc 1 and 2 didnt look like explosive demolition. It did look like a controlled demolition and that's not to say explosives weren't used.
Honest question: How does controlled demolition without explosives work?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 15, 2017, 05:55:18 AM
A verinage type demolition, amongst other types. This type of demolition would not be used for a structure like wtc 1 or 2, the core is too strong.

The collapse initiation looked just like a verinage demolition, after this I believe explosives were used to destroy the core sequentially and allow for the total collapse, massive pulverization of concrete and molten steel at ground zero.

We can see a column/s being cut just prior to demolition, after the initial collapse the squib explosions are a tell tale sign of explosives being used to sever structural supports.



(https://s13.postimg.org/9qxfjlb1z/screen-shot-2016-09-07-at-15-43-27.png)

Here's a substantial amount of eyewitness testimony to say that explosives were indeed used.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 15, 2017, 05:55:57 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 15, 2017, 05:42:53 AM
Because it was CD in some way; controlled by laws of physics ...
As soon you can explain how three buildings, without the intervention of man, aside from impact and fires, subsequently achieved a controlled collapse according to physics, then you can write this claim.

Otherwise, you cannot write this claim because impact and fires:

1) Have never, prior to 9/11, caused a collapse to begin with;
2) Collapses are uncontrolled as the tendency of all buildings (if not being demolished in a controlled fashion) is to topple.
Quote from: User324 on May 15, 2017, 05:42:53 AM
I think it sounds dumb to say "it didnt look like explosives were used, but explosives were used"
And I think it is dumb to assume all explosions will leave immediate visual evidence.

Especially in case of shaped charges.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 15, 2017, 06:07:10 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 15, 2017, 05:48:27 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 15, 2017, 05:43:40 AM
Protec was right to say wtc 1 and 2 didnt look like explosive demolition. It did look like a controlled demolition and that's not to say explosives weren't used.
Honest question: How does controlled demolition without explosives work?
Cuts can be made in specific spots of key building supports.

Explosives are used because they are cheaper and safer.

Wrecking balls/bulldozer/cranes.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 15, 2017, 06:19:36 AM
Quote
Protec was right to say wtc 1 and 2 didnt look like explosive demolition. It did look like a controlled demolition and that's not to say explosives weren't used.
But you posted this picture
(https://s13.postimg.org/9qxfjlb1z/screen-shot-2016-09-07-at-15-43-27.png)

So, did it look like explosive demolition or didn't it look like explosive demolition?

Quote
As soon you can explain how three buildings, without the intervention of man, aside from impact and fires, subsequently achieved a controlled collapse according to physics, then you can write this claim.
I'm neither god nor a physicist; but you can find all explanations online anyway. Nevertheless I'm pretty sure the collapse did go according to the laws of physics.

Quote
1) Have never, prior to 9/11, caused a collapse to begin with;
Yeah, like it happens so often, right. Solid argument.

Quote
Cuts can be made in specific spots of key building supports.
Don't you think people would have noticed and the workers doing it would have asked questions?
Also, you'd need some REALLY good engineers to weaken it juuuust the right amount...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 16, 2017, 06:39:00 PM
Quote from: User324 on May 15, 2017, 06:19:36 AM
Quote
Protec was right to say wtc 1 and 2 didnt look like explosive demolition. It did look like a controlled demolition and that's not to say explosives weren't used.
But you posted this picture
(https://s13.postimg.org/9qxfjlb1z/screen-shot-2016-09-07-at-15-43-27.png)

So, did it look like explosive demolition or didn't it look like explosive demolition?

You tell me.

The collapse initiation didn't look like a standard explosive demolition sure. But pic related shows some "explosions."

Edit.

(https://s23.postimg.org/ml0w0x28r/1494916192928s.jpg)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 16, 2017, 07:54:59 PM
Quote from: totallackey on May 15, 2017, 06:07:10 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 15, 2017, 05:48:27 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 15, 2017, 05:43:40 AM
Protec was right to say wtc 1 and 2 didnt look like explosive demolition. It did look like a controlled demolition and that's not to say explosives weren't used.
Honest question: How does controlled demolition without explosives work?
Cuts can be made in specific spots of key building supports.

Explosives are used because they are cheaper and safer.

Wrecking balls/bulldozer/cranes.

Or you could fly a 767 at 500 mph into the building,   severely damaging  the structure and starting fires that weakened it to the point of collapse.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 16, 2017, 07:58:35 PM
Quote
ACE Elevator Company
9/11 Questions and Research

How could explosives be planted in the WTC?

Ace is the trump card to win a new 9/11 investigation

By Rick Shaddock, ANETA Writing Team
 with thanks to Dr. Crockett Grabbe (PhD, Physics, CalTech)
 

Although we do not know exactly how explosives could have been planted in the World Trade Center prior to 9/11, without detection, we do know two things for sure. Other possible explanations were not considered in the 9/11 Commission or NIST Reports. Key people were not even mentioned in the final reports.

The possibility of controlled demolition was not seriously considered in the Nine Eleven Official Conspiracy Theory (NEOCT).  There were workers with unfettered access to parts of the builds that were perfect for the planting of explosives, such as in the elevators shafts next to the vertical support columns, and above the ceiling panels next to the horizontal beams.   There were also fireproofing renovation workers.

Dr. Niels Harrit has estimated that it would take "tons" of explosives to demolish the buildings.  Demolition experts such as Tom Sullivan have said that it would be quite easy to plant them, if a group had access to the elevator shafts, next to the core columns.

 Workers had access to unoccupied areas by day, and in occupied areas by night, and on week ends.  Workers from the A.C.E. Elevator Company in the WTC elevator shafts from 1994 until 9/11/2001 were not even mentioned in the final reports.  Neither was LVI Services, working on the asbestos removal project.  Nor were the fireproofing workers.  (See video)

The words "Ace elevator" or "A.C.E." (herein ACE) are not found anywhere in the PDF files of the 9/11 Commission or NIST reports, although "elevator" appears multiple times. You can check this out for yourself. The names of the security company, "Securacom" (renamed "Stratesec" after 9/11), are not found either.   If the security company cannot be trusted, than there are many ways the explosives could be brought in.  The building owner is also key.  The landlord, Larry Silverstein is only mentioned in the WTC 7 report, as a contributor. http://911Experiments.com/reports.

With the assistance of Frank Lowy, Paul Eisenberg, and Ronald Lauder, Larry the N.Y. Port Authority turned over the management to Silverstein Properties.  He hired the firm Kroll for security.

Kevin Ryan has well researched who had access to the WTC towers in his article. http://911review.com/articles/ryan/demolition_access_p1.html

According to Dennis Cimino, interviewed on Dr. James Fetzer's show, there were other fake sounding names on the list of renovation contractors working on the World Trade Center.

This report will focus on ACE.

ACE got the WTC contract, the biggest elevator project in history, There was an article "Drive to the Top" in the trade magazine Elevator World about the ACE project.

Elevator modernization would be the perfect cover for the planting of explosives. Tom Sullivan, who worked for Controlled Demolition Inc., said that the elevator shafts, next to the load bearing columns, would be the perfect place.
http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-sectio: n/41-articles/529-tom-sullivan-eso.html

NEOCT supporters may say "people would have seen A.C.E. Elevator planting explosives in the shafts". But building occupants, except for A.C.E. workers and StrateSec security, could not look in the elevator shafts. As an experiment you can do, just try to get permission to look in the shafts. I could not even look in one that I partly own.


A.C.E. Elevator Company went bankrupt in 2006. How could ACE go bankrupt, if they were skilled enough to get the largest contract in history? Presumably they got paid, because Larry Silverstein was fully insured, received over $4 billion, and there are no records of ACE suing Larry.  This supports the hypothesis that Ace Elevator was a "front company" created for the purpose of planting explosives, with just enough background to sound credible.

http://aneta.org/911experiments_com/AceElevator/

Quote
ACE Elevator Company - Twin Towers Contractor On 9/11 - 80 Elevator Mechanics, Where ?





Elevator mechanics left

On Sept. 11, ACE Elevator of Palisades Park, N.J., had 80 elevator mechanics inside the World Trade Center.

Following the Port Authority's emergency plan, after the first jet hit the north tower, elevator mechanics from both towers reported to the fire safety desk in the south tower lobby for instructions from police or firefighters. About 60 mechanics had arrived in the south tower lobby and others were in radio contact when the second jet struck that building.



"We were standing there trying to count heads when the second plane hit (the south tower)," said Peter Niederau, ACE Elevator's supervisor of the modernization project.

https://m.liveleak.com/view?i=026_1447172161#qhOqHVFhxOhLm1IL.99

Edit.

Oh and check out this wtc 7 gif a kind anonymous stranger shared.

(https://s3.postimg.org/cbsz0q8eb/1494917289889.gif)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 16, 2017, 08:21:08 PM
So we have evidence of explosions on all three towers, we also know how a group could get explosives into the buildings in the positions required.

Add that with the hundreds of eyewitnesses who state directly the words "bombs" or "explosions" and I believe we have strong evidence to say explosives were used to completely destroy wtc 1 and 2.

Add in this and it's pretty much undeniable.

Quote
Rapid onset of destruction,

Constant acceleration at or near free-fall through what should have been the path of greatest resistance,

Numerous eyewitness accounts of explosions including 118 FDNY personnel,

Lateral ejection of multi-ton steel framing members distances of 600 feet at more than 60 mph,

Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete, and large volumes of expanding pyroclastic-like dust clouds,

Isolated explosive ejections 20 to 60 stories below the “crush zone,”

Total destruction and dismemberment of all three buildings, with 220 floors each an acre in size missing from the Twin Towers’ debris pile,

Several tons of molten steel/iron found in the debris piles.

http://www.ae911truth.org/evidence.html
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on May 17, 2017, 03:39:56 AM
Be careful destroying rayzor personally as well as his "argument" so horribly... you will join the perma ignore with me. It's getting ugly.

As for

(https://s3.postimg.org/cbsz0q8eb/1494917289889.gif)

Anyone with the proper prerequisites and honesty know you cannot get that motion with the penthouse from the collapse of one beam and the localized heating of a few areas when you look at the prints of 7. (All models with the inputs released only showed the beams maybe heating to not even 200 degrees in the worst areas, that is the beauty of steel framed building, they share thermal load better than any other structure...Heat a 300 foot rod at the end to 700 degrees, let me know how hot the other end is)

100 percent impossible, which is why this fairy tale is just that to people in the industry. Funny to me only blow hard nobodies spout the official story as truth (which I have 100 percent proven razyor to be, ask why I am still ignored)..

As for explosions heard by hundreds upon hundreds of people (conveniently rejected by NIST, as anything that violated their predetermined story MUST be rejected)...Sorry, metal presented with a 100 percent Structural failure does not sound like an "explosion"..

I have pushed more steel and other forms of metal to failure more times than I can remember for a plethora of different certifications etc..

Point of this story....An explosion is a dirac-type pressure excitation...The complete failure of steel (no matter the thickness) is not. An explosion is a relatively flat spectrum, with humps around the 20 Hertz and 250 Hertz area, however, the higher frequencies attenuate quickly in the air medium (long waves are tough to stop), thus why you step away from fireworks a bit, you can only hear and "feel" the boom, however, it doesn't hurt your ears.

However, snapping of metal, has a small hump around 3,500 hertz and large humps past 8,000 hertz...Very little below 2500 Hertz (not a flat spectrum what so ever)..A very short distance, this noise would be attenuated quickly by the air medium. 10 feet away, the sound is deafening..

This is why you don't hear metal buckling in controlled demos...Not to mention sound waves are survival of the fittest.. if you have a catalyst both fighting for a spot in the 500hertz area, one produces 70db, the other 100 db, you will never hear the 70 in our ears, or in a mic.

This is the same principle with opera singing, the Orchestra leaves a hole in the 2500-3500 area, and they keep their hump below 2000...If the orchestra did not do this, and the singer didn't not format tune his voice, not even the largest best singer on the planet would be heard without a mic in a hall. Brute decibels have nothing to do with it...

Long story short, all the explosions heard, the catalyst being metal failing is 100 percent impossible...All such noises would be masked by stronger sounds just like every other CD...So the explosions would have to have another catalyst.


I know I haven't​ provided much of use for a while and have just been making fun of the lying failure of a trashcan that is rayzor lately, figured I would extend something of use again for a change.

*Edit for typo
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 17, 2017, 03:49:32 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 15, 2017, 06:19:36 AM
Quote
Protec was right to say wtc 1 and 2 didnt look like explosive demolition. It did look like a controlled demolition and that's not to say explosives weren't used.
But you posted this picture
(https://s13.postimg.org/9qxfjlb1z/screen-shot-2016-09-07-at-15-43-27.png)

So, did it look like explosive demolition or didn't it look like explosive demolition?
Type in the words "images of explosive demolition," in a Google search.

Report on your findings.

My result?

Images of wrecking balls, cranes, bucket loaders, and even shit flying all over the place.

Nothing like WTC 1/2/7.

Quote from: User324 on May 15, 2017, 06:19:36 AM
Quote
As soon you can explain how three buildings, without the intervention of man, aside from impact and fires, subsequently achieved a controlled collapse according to physics, then you can write this claim.
I'm neither god nor a physicist; but you can find all explanations online anyway. Nevertheless I'm pretty sure the collapse did go according to the laws of physics.
Nevertheless, you are pretty wrong.

Quote from: User324 on May 15, 2017, 06:19:36 AM
Quote
1) Have never, prior to 9/11, caused a collapse to begin with;
Yeah, like it happens so often, right. Solid argument.
Yes, it is.

Thanks.

Plus you forgot #2:

2) Collapses are uncontrolled as the tendency of all buildings (if not being demolished in a controlled fashion) is to topple.
Quote from: User324 on May 15, 2017, 06:19:36 AM
Quote
Cuts can be made in specific spots of key building supports.
Don't you think people would have noticed and the workers doing it would have asked questions?
Just the people doing the cutting and planting of the shaped charges.

If you have your assignment, just get on with it.
Quote from: User324 on May 15, 2017, 06:19:36 AM
Also, you'd need some REALLY good engineers to weaken it juuuust the right amount...
If your building schematics have those places already identified, nothing magical about it.

A building erected is already planned for safely bringing it down.

Nothing is designed to last forever.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 17, 2017, 04:00:45 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 17, 2017, 03:49:32 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 15, 2017, 06:19:36 AM
Quote
As soon you can explain how three buildings, without the intervention of man, aside from impact and fires, subsequently achieved a controlled collapse according to physics, then you can write this claim.
the collapse did go according to the laws of physics.
Nevertheless, you are pretty wrong.
Now you're being ridiculous.

Quote
Type in the words "images of explosive demolition," in a Google search.
[...]
Nothing like WTC 1/2/7.
I agree.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 17, 2017, 04:13:06 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 17, 2017, 04:00:45 AM
Now you're being ridiculous.
No I'm not.

I have the entire history of prior building collapses on my side:

2) Collapses are uncontrolled as the tendency of all buildings (if not being demolished in a controlled fashion) is to topple.

You have nothing.
Quote from: User324 on May 17, 2017, 04:00:45 AM
Quote
Type in the words "images of explosive demolition," in a Google search.
[...]
Nothing like WTC 1/2/7.
I agree.
Good.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 17, 2017, 05:01:29 AM
So, now you're even fighting against physics. Wow.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 17, 2017, 05:50:13 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 17, 2017, 05:01:29 AM
So, now you're even fighting against physics. Wow.
Specific a priori evidence dictates I am not the one fighting against evidence.

You are.

2) Collapses are uncontrolled as the tendency of all buildings (if not being demolished in a controlled fashion) is to topple.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 17, 2017, 05:59:06 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 17, 2017, 04:13:06 AM
I have the entire history of prior building collapses on my side
Show me one example.
(anyway, one example is obviously not statistically relevant, but still...let's start with one).
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 17, 2017, 06:04:11 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 17, 2017, 05:59:06 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 17, 2017, 04:13:06 AM
I have the entire history of prior building collapses on my side
Show me one example.
(anyway, one example is obviously not statistically relevant, but still...let's start with one).
Type in the words "images of building collapses," in a Google search.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 17, 2017, 06:11:44 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 17, 2017, 06:04:11 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 17, 2017, 05:59:06 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 17, 2017, 04:13:06 AM
I have the entire history of prior building collapses on my side
Show me one example.
(anyway, one example is obviously not statistically relevant, but still...let's start with one).
Type in the words "images of building collapses," in a Google search.
You remind me of a record with a scratch in it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 17, 2017, 06:25:21 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 17, 2017, 06:11:44 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 17, 2017, 06:04:11 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 17, 2017, 05:59:06 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 17, 2017, 04:13:06 AM
I have the entire history of prior building collapses on my side
Show me one example.
(anyway, one example is obviously not statistically relevant, but still...let's start with one).
Type in the words "images of building collapses," in a Google search.
You remind me of a record with a scratch in it.
https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2017/01/19/tehran-high-rise-collapses-during-fire-30-firefighters-killed.html (https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2017/01/19/tehran-high-rise-collapses-during-fire-30-firefighters-killed.html)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 17, 2017, 07:43:42 AM
Not comparable.
Totally different building size, different building style & quality, no planes/debris.
Try again.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 17, 2017, 08:00:50 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 17, 2017, 07:43:42 AM
Not comparable.
Totally different building size, different building style & quality, no planes/debris.
Try again.
Funny!

You do realize, earlier in this very thread, this building was offered into evidence that fires and resulting damage CAN bring down high rise buildings?

Ah...

Who am I kidding...

You probably don't realize anything.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 17, 2017, 08:06:51 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 17, 2017, 08:00:50 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 17, 2017, 07:43:42 AM
Not comparable.
Totally different building size, different building style & quality, no planes/debris.
Try again.
Funny!

You do realize, earlier in this very thread, this building was offered into evidence that fires and resulting damage CAN bring down high rise buildings?

Ah...

Who am I kidding...

You probably don't realize anything.

Since this is a building brought down by fire, it is a 100% proof that buildings can be brought down by fire. No probleme here.

You have to work on your logic.

Easy analogy that you might understand:
I ate an apple that tasted sour. Now this is proof that a fruit can taste sour.
On the other hand, this does not mean that all fruits are apples, that all fruits are round or that all fruits have to taste sour. Nor does it mean that all sour fruits are apples.
Understand? It's basic logical thinking.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 17, 2017, 09:02:12 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 17, 2017, 08:06:51 AM
Since this is a building brought down by fire, it is a 100% proof that buildings can be brought down by fire. No probleme here.
It is (and will FOREVER remain) a problem, because you stated physics dictates that buildings collapse straight down and do not topple.

Aside from being the nonsensical BS you typically write, WTC 1 and 2 further have a problem with this:
(https://media0.giphy.com/media/o65WgXSDBVY1G/giphy.gif)
9/11 OS wants all the world to throw this shit out the window, as do you.

Please note if one ball is striking the mass of four balls in the cradle, only one of the balls moves on the other end.

Now, trick question:

If two balls are set in motion on one side, how many balls are forced into motion on the other side?

Please discuss the ramifications of your observations and answer as it relates to WTC 1 and 2.
Quote from: User324 on May 17, 2017, 08:06:51 AM
You have to work on your logic.

Easy analogy that you might understand:
I ate an apple that tasted sour. Now this is proof that a fruit can taste sour.
On the other hand, this does not mean that all fruits are apples, that all fruits are round or that all fruits have to taste sour. Nor does it mean that all sour fruits are apples.
Understand? It's basic logical thinking.
Nope, if you want to post sour grapes for the most part, they remain sour grapes.

You need to work on your logic.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 17, 2017, 09:06:07 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 17, 2017, 09:02:12 AM
you stated physics dictates that buildings collapse straight down and do not topple.
I have never written that, liar. Stop making up your own world with alternative facts.

Anyway, with your "ball experiment" you just prove that you do not understand physics, also I have already answered that to dispute (or someone else) a while ago, because they didn't understand what action/reactio means either. Feel free to search my explanation, I won't post it again.

Also you didn't understand my apple-analogy. Doesn't surprise me tbh, but I'm still a little bit disappointed since I made it extra-easy to understand.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 17, 2017, 09:18:40 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 17, 2017, 09:06:07 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 17, 2017, 09:02:12 AM
you stated physics dictates that buildings collapse straight down and do not topple.
I have never written that, liar. Stop making up your own world with alternative facts.
Yeah, right...

Here you are sparky...
Quote from: User324 on May 15, 2017, 06:19:36 AM
I'm neither god nor a physicist; but you can find all explanations online anyway. Nevertheless I'm pretty sure the collapse did go according to the laws of physics.
..clearly insinuating collapses fall straight down.

God, you are pathetic.

Quote from: User324 on May 17, 2017, 09:06:07 AM
Anyway, with your "ball experiment" you just prove that you do not understand physics, also I have already answered that to dispute (or someone else) a while ago, because they didn't understand what action/reactio means either. Feel free to search my explanation, I won't post it again.
I do not care if you do not post it again.

What ever you post here has been wrong, remains wrong, and will forever remain wrong, in perpetuity.

Newton's cradle means exactly what it means.

A mass in motion will have an equal and opposite reaction, whether the object is vertical or horizontal.

40 floors would compress 40 floors, not one floor and then another and then another...

Quote from: User324 on May 17, 2017, 09:06:07 AM
Also you didn't understand my apple-analogy. Didn't surprise me tbh.
You fruit analogy is more applicable to your NAMBLA forum participation.

I am sure you get that mixed up.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 17, 2017, 09:25:07 AM
I wrote
Quote
I'm pretty sure the collapse did go according to the laws of physics.

You wrote
Quote
What ever you post here has been wrong, remains wrong, and will forever remain wrong, in perpetuity.
Denying physics again, you really are hillarious!

And, if you think "the collapse did go according to the laws of physics" is the same as "you stated physics dictates that buildings collapse straight down and do not topple." then you are really simple minded.

Quote
Newton's cradle means exactly what it means.
Yes, problem is: you do not understand it.

Quote
40 floors would compress 40 floors, not one floor and then another and then another...
They wouldnt. Think hard about it. Maybe try drawing it. Imagine it in your head. Maybe you will get to understand it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 17, 2017, 09:39:07 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 17, 2017, 09:25:07 AM
I wrote
Quote
I'm pretty sure the collapse did go according to the laws of physics.
You wrote
Quote
What ever you post here has been wrong, remains wrong, and will forever remain wrong, in perpetuity.
Denying physics again, you really are hillarious!

And, if you think "the collapse did go according to the laws of physics" is the same as "you stated physics dictates that buildings collapse straight down and do not topple." then you are really simple minded.
Now you claim this statement by you:
"the collapse did go according to the laws of physics"

was not to be interpreted as

"buildings collapse straight down and do not topple."

Disingenuous and laughable.

You cannot provide any reasonable, salient explanation for it being interpreted any other way.

Quote from: User324 on May 17, 2017, 09:25:07 AM
Quote
Newton's cradle means exactly what it means.
Yes, problem is: you do not understand it.

Quote
40 floors would compress 40 floors, not one floor and then another and then another...
They wouldnt. Think hard about it. Maybe try drawing it. Imagine it in your head. Maybe you will get to understand it.
You draw it.

Explain for the benefit of all to see how your understanding is correct.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 17, 2017, 09:42:17 AM
Quote
You cannot provide any reasonable, salient explanation for it being interpreted any other way.
The only valid interpretation for
"I'm pretty sure the collapse did go according to the laws of physics."

Is "the collapse did go according to the laws of physics".
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 17, 2017, 09:56:48 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 17, 2017, 09:42:17 AM
Quote
You cannot provide any reasonable, salient explanation for it being interpreted any other way.
The only valid interpretation for
"I'm pretty sure the collapse did go according to the laws of physics."

Is "the collapse did go according to the laws of physics".
You faulty opinion of what happened, totally incapable of support with known facts and physics.

WTC 1 and 2 fell straight down, not toppling.

Therefore, according to you:

"The collapse did go according to the laws of physics," = "The buildings fell straight down."
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 17, 2017, 10:29:03 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 17, 2017, 09:56:48 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 17, 2017, 09:42:17 AM
Quote
You cannot provide any reasonable, salient explanation for it being interpreted any other way.
The only valid interpretation for
"I'm pretty sure the collapse did go according to the laws of physics."

Is "the collapse did go according to the laws of physics".
You faulty opinion of what happened, totally incapable of support with known facts and physics.

WTC 1 and 2 fell straight down, not toppling.

Therefore, according to you:

"The collapse did go according to the laws of physics," = "The buildings fell straight down."
Your logic is so flawed all the time. Don't you notice it yourself?
The way you draw conclusions is dreadful.

Your logic is again like "I ate an apple. It was very sour, which is perfectly fine according to bio-chemistry. That means, every apple has to be very sour because very sour = according to bio-chemistry"
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 17, 2017, 01:53:56 PM
Quote from: User324 on May 10, 2017, 10:19:48 PM
Quote
Seems he has a job teaching at a...(wait for it)... UNIVERSITY!
At a business school; the federal institute of technologie (ETH, has mechanical, structural etc. engineering) has fired him after he started publishing 9/11 bullshit.
Please post a source indicating when he was fired and why.

Plus, here is an accurate summation of your validated arguments (i.e., those supported by reputable source material)in this thread:
(https://ifihadaminutetospare.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/nothing.jpg)

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 17, 2017, 02:03:33 PM
Quote
Please post a source indicating when he was fired and why.
Why would you bring that up again?

Hoping to find at least one point where you are right? Given up with physics?

Learn to google and stop annoying me...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 17, 2017, 02:44:58 PM
Quote from: User324 on May 17, 2017, 02:03:33 PM
Quote
Please post a source indicating when he was fired and why.
Why would you bring that up again?
Because you are a liar.

Quote from: User324 on May 17, 2017, 02:03:33 PM
I know I do not know about physics.

That is why I do not post sources.
FTFY.

No need to thank me.
Quote from: User324 on May 17, 2017, 02:03:33 PM
I am an (http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f226/PsychoPsonic/Fark/asshat.jpg)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 17, 2017, 03:09:32 PM
Lol user...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 17, 2017, 04:07:22 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on May 17, 2017, 03:39:56 AM
Be careful destroying rayzor personally as well as his "argument" so horribly... you will join the perma ignore with me. It's getting ugly.

As for

(https://s3.postimg.org/cbsz0q8eb/1494917289889.gif)

Anyone with the proper prerequisites and honesty know you cannot get that motion with the penthouse from the collapse of one beam and the localized heating of a few areas when you look at the prints of 7. (All models with the inputs released only showed the beams maybe heating to not even 200 degrees in the worst areas, that is the beauty of steel framed building, they share thermal load better than any other structure...Heat a 300 foot rod at the end to 700 degrees, let me know how hot the other end is)

100 percent impossible, which is why this fairy tale is just that to people in the industry. Funny to me only blow hard nobodies spout the official story as truth (which I have 100 percent proven razyor to be, ask why I am still ignored)..

As for explosions heard by hundreds upon hundreds of people (conveniently rejected by NIST, as anything that violated their predetermined story MUST be rejected)...Sorry, metal presented with a 100 percent Structural failure does not sound like an "explosion"..

I have pushed more steel and other forms of metal to failure more times than I can remember for a plethora of different certifications etc..

Point of this story....An explosion is a dirac-type pressure excitation...The complete failure of steel (no matter the thickness) is not. An explosion is a relatively flat spectrum, with humps around the 20 Hertz and 250 Hertz area, however, the higher frequencies attenuate quickly in the air medium (long waves are tough to stop), thus why you step away from fireworks a bit, you can only hear and "feel" the boom, however, it doesn't hurt your ears.

However, snapping of metal, has a small hump around 3,500 hertz and large humps past 8,000 hertz...Very little below 2500 Hertz (not a flat spectrum what so ever)..A very short distance, this noise would be attenuated quickly by the air medium. 10 feet away, the sound is deafening..

This is why you don't hear metal buckling in controlled demos...Not to mention sound waves are survival of the fittest.. if you have a catalyst both fighting for a spot in the 500hertz area, one produces 70db, the other 100 db, you will never hear the 70 in our ears, or in a mic.

This is the same principle with opera singing, the Orchestra leaves a hole in the 2500-3500 area, and they keep their hump below 2000...If the orchestra did not do this, and the singer didn't not format tune his voice, not even the largest best singer on the planet would be heard without a mic in a hall. Brute decibels have nothing to do with it...

Long story short, all the explosions heard, the catalyst being metal failing is 100 percent impossible...All such noises would be masked by stronger sounds just like every other CD...So the explosions would have to have another catalyst.


I know I haven't​ provided much of use for a while and have just been making fun of the lying failure of a trashcan that is rayzor lately, figured I would extend something of use again for a change.

*Edit for typo

Great post, also notice the clear flashes on the left hand side just prior to the building collapse.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 17, 2017, 07:26:26 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 17, 2017, 04:07:22 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on May 17, 2017, 03:39:56 AM
Be careful destroying rayzor personally as well as his "argument" so horribly... you will join the perma ignore with me. It's getting ugly.

As for

(https://s3.postimg.org/cbsz0q8eb/1494917289889.gif)

Anyone with the proper prerequisites and honesty know you cannot get that motion with the penthouse from the collapse of one beam and the localized heating of a few areas when you look at the prints of 7. (All models with the inputs released only showed the beams maybe heating to not even 200 degrees in the worst areas, that is the beauty of steel framed building, they share thermal load better than any other structure...Heat a 300 foot rod at the end to 700 degrees, let me know how hot the other end is)

100 percent impossible, which is why this fairy tale is just that to people in the industry. Funny to me only blow hard nobodies spout the official story as truth (which I have 100 percent proven razyor to be, ask why I am still ignored)..

As for explosions heard by hundreds upon hundreds of people (conveniently rejected by NIST, as anything that violated their predetermined story MUST be rejected)...Sorry, metal presented with a 100 percent Structural failure does not sound like an "explosion"..

I have pushed more steel and other forms of metal to failure more times than I can remember for a plethora of different certifications etc..

Point of this story....An explosion is a dirac-type pressure excitation...The complete failure of steel (no matter the thickness) is not. An explosion is a relatively flat spectrum, with humps around the 20 Hertz and 250 Hertz area, however, the higher frequencies attenuate quickly in the air medium (long waves are tough to stop), thus why you step away from fireworks a bit, you can only hear and "feel" the boom, however, it doesn't hurt your ears.

However, snapping of metal, has a small hump around 3,500 hertz and large humps past 8,000 hertz...Very little below 2500 Hertz (not a flat spectrum what so ever)..A very short distance, this noise would be attenuated quickly by the air medium. 10 feet away, the sound is deafening..

This is why you don't hear metal buckling in controlled demos...Not to mention sound waves are survival of the fittest.. if you have a catalyst both fighting for a spot in the 500hertz area, one produces 70db, the other 100 db, you will never hear the 70 in our ears, or in a mic.

This is the same principle with opera singing, the Orchestra leaves a hole in the 2500-3500 area, and they keep their hump below 2000...If the orchestra did not do this, and the singer didn't not format tune his voice, not even the largest best singer on the planet would be heard without a mic in a hall. Brute decibels have nothing to do with it...

Long story short, all the explosions heard, the catalyst being metal failing is 100 percent impossible...All such noises would be masked by stronger sounds just like every other CD...So the explosions would have to have another catalyst.


I know I haven't​ provided much of use for a while and have just been making fun of the lying failure of a trashcan that is rayzor lately, figured I would extend something of use again for a change.

*Edit for typo

Great post, also notice the clear flashes on the left hand side just prior to the building collapse.

More word salad.  ( and insults )  He's never going to get it,   so why bother debating.     
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 17, 2017, 07:49:41 PM
You will never get it, I agree.

What do you suppose are the clear flashes on the left hand side just prior to the building collapse?

(https://s3.postimg.org/cbsz0q8eb/1494917289889.gif)

I'd like to watch you squirm.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 17, 2017, 09:23:56 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 17, 2017, 07:49:41 PM
You will never get it, I agree.

What do you suppose are the clear flashes on the left hand side just prior to the building collapse?

(https://s3.postimg.org/cbsz0q8eb/1494917289889.gif)

I'd like to watch you squirm.

That's the interior of the building collapsing,  leaving only the unsupported facade remaining.   But,   you already knew this.   Just as well the FDNY  pulled everybody back. 

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 17, 2017, 09:25:57 PM
So, uh.

What do you suppose are the clear flashes on the left hand side just prior to the building collapse?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 17, 2017, 09:31:17 PM
Are you allowed to answer? It's ok if you're not allowed to answer.

Just in your opinion, what caused those flashes?

Edit.

I got $100 AUD for anyone who can answer this honestly.

In b4 muh fake video.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 17, 2017, 09:55:54 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 17, 2017, 09:31:17 PM
Are you allowed to answer? It's ok if you're not allowed to answer.

Just in your opinion, what caused those flashes?

Edit.

I got $100 AUD for anyone who can answer this honestly.

That's the internal structure collapsing,  you can see the light through the windows.   

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 17, 2017, 09:57:21 PM
Lmao that's priceless.

(https://s3.postimg.org/cbsz0q8eb/1494917289889.gif)

That's sunlight through the windows?

Rotflmfao.

The correct answer is to use the flat earth go-to of a fake video.

There was a disinfo agent who claimed all the flashes we saw live on tv were photoshopped.

>mfw photoshopping live TV.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 17, 2017, 10:03:01 PM
Quote from: totallackey on May 17, 2017, 02:44:58 PM
Quote from: User324 on May 17, 2017, 02:03:33 PM
Quote
Please post a source indicating when he was fired and why.
Why would you bring that up again?
Because you are a liar.

Quote from: User324 on May 17, 2017, 02:03:33 PM
I know I do not know about physics.

That is why I do not post sources.
FTFY.
No need to thank me.
In the same post we have you making up fake quotes and calling other people 'liar'.
Seldom have I seen such a great example of hypocrisy.

Anyway, 5 sec of googling and here you have a source: click (https://www.schweizamwochenende.ch/basel/die-ganser-verschwoerung-131036785).
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 17, 2017, 10:05:35 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 17, 2017, 09:57:21 PM
Lmao that's priceless.

(https://s3.postimg.org/cbsz0q8eb/1494917289889.gif)

That's sunlight through the windows?

Rotflmfao.

The correct answer is to use the flat earth go-to of a fake video.

There was a disinfo agent who claimed all the flashes we saw live on tv were photoshopped.

>mfw photoshopping live TV.

There was nothing but sky behind those windows after the internal collapse.   Proof positive that all the internal structure had gone from behind those windows.

You can actually see the internals collapsing.     

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 17, 2017, 10:08:47 PM
I'd rather say those are sparks from e.g. electrical systems (if they were not take from the net).
Or maybe sparks due to friction. Or just some random reflexions.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 17, 2017, 10:10:13 PM
That's about as (((honest))) an answer as we are going to get folks.

Is there anyone who isn't 100% sure Rayzor is a shill yet?

I can keep asking him questions he's not allowed to answer if anyone is still unsure.

Quote from: User324 on May 17, 2017, 10:08:47 PM
I'd rather say those are sparks from e.g. electrical systems that we can see.
Or maybe due to friction, that obviously can cause sparks, too. Or just some random reflexions.

See? He looks like an idiot, but at least an honest idiot.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 17, 2017, 10:11:51 PM
Quote from: User324 on May 17, 2017, 10:08:47 PM
I'd rather say those are sparks from e.g. electrical systems (if they were not take from the net).
Or maybe sparks due to friction. Or just some random reflexions.

Also, when people start saying "I'd rather say" "I'd like to believe" or "I want to think that."

You know they have nothing.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 17, 2017, 10:15:20 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 17, 2017, 10:11:51 PM
Quote from: User324 on May 17, 2017, 10:08:47 PM
I'd rather say those are sparks from e.g. electrical systems (if they were not take from the net).
Or maybe sparks due to friction. Or just some random reflexions.

Also, when people start saying "I'd rather say" "I'd like to believe" or "I want to think that."

You know they have nothing.
We both can only guess what those lights are. We both have nothing. I can easily imagine a handful of explanations that do not include explosives...
So, try again.


Edit, about the idiot thing... if you keep posting multiple times answering to your own posts without anyone else having made a post in between, people might aswell see you as the idiot in here.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 17, 2017, 10:18:53 PM
I bet you can imagine your way out of just about anything you don't wanna believe mate.



There is nothing you will accept as evidence except your TV telling you what to think. That is the only "evidence" that could change your mind.

Admit it to yourself, you'll thank me.
P.S thanks for admitting they look like explosives.

I'll send you $100 if you want.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 17, 2017, 10:22:10 PM
Quote
There is nothing you will accept as evidence except your TV telling you what to think. That is the only "evidence" that could change your mind.

Admit it to yourself, you'll thank me.
P.S thanks for admitting they look like explosives.
Except for that I do not own a tv.

Anyway, you can send met the $100 via paypal. Pm me.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 17, 2017, 10:26:40 PM
Get your Mums permission and I'll transer it. I don't wanna get in trouble for giving you extra pocket money ;D.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 17, 2017, 10:52:41 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 17, 2017, 10:26:40 PM
Get your Mums permission and I'll transer it. I don't wanna get in trouble for giving you extra pocket money ;D.

Don't worry, I'm old enough :)

But to be honest, I don't need your money. So please donate it here: https://www.icrc.org/en/faq/donate-by-bank-transfer-or-cheque and send an image of the transfer to proof you did it. Thank you.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 17, 2017, 11:16:49 PM
I chose a different charity. I already gib to the Red Cross.

$100 USD.

(https://s8.postimg.org/kvnm44ew5/20170518_141659.png)

(https://s15.postimg.org/3vpkw3gd7/20170518_141424.png)

There, now do me a favour and answer this. What (evidence) would it take for you to question the O/S?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 17, 2017, 11:20:59 PM
I actually expected you to be a honest man (not excessively smart, but honest). Well, I see I was wrong. Disappointing.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 17, 2017, 11:25:50 PM
I already give to the red cross.

Charity is charity bro.

My only promise was to give you $100, you could have accepted it and gave it to the charity of your choice.

Don't call me dishonest.

Quote from: User324 on May 17, 2017, 10:52:41 PM
I don't need your money.

At the point you forfeited your prize it became mine to do as I will with.

As I did.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 17, 2017, 11:36:21 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 17, 2017, 11:25:50 PM
I already give to the red cross.

Charity is charity bro.

My only promise was to give you $100, you could have accepted it and gave it to the charity of your choice.

Don't call me dishonest.

Quote from: User324 on May 17, 2017, 10:52:41 PM
I don't need your money.

At the point you forfeited your prize it became mine to do as I will with.

As I did.
Disappointing. Nothing I have to add to this.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 17, 2017, 11:40:18 PM
Except for apologizing for calling me dishonest, I was willing to give you $100, you declined. At that point it was again my money.

I'm waiting for an apology.

I was being a dick, no doubt, however it wasn't dishonest at all.

I expect an apology.

Shoulda just taken the cash if you're so cut up over $100.....
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 17, 2017, 11:47:26 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 17, 2017, 11:40:18 PM
Shoulda just taken the cash if you're so cut up over $100.....
I'm not "cut up" about the money, but you being purposely dishonest and a prick.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 18, 2017, 12:05:08 AM
I'll take the prick. (You don't like your own medicine either hey?)

However it wasn't dishonest. I promised to give you $100, I was fully prepared to give you $100. You then said.

"I don't need your money."

Forfeiting your prize, therefore the prize was returned to the the person offering the prize (me).

I then donated it to a good cause.
It wasn't dishonest.

Anyway enough derailing, I see you are still skipping over my arguments because they are too hard to debunk.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 18, 2017, 12:12:54 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 18, 2017, 12:05:08 AM
"I don't need your money."

Forfeiting your prize, therefore the prize was returned to the the person offering the prize (me).

I then donated it to a good cause.
It wasn't dishonest.

Employer: Look, here I have an extra paycheck $1000
Employee: Well, thank you. I actually don't need your money but my wife does.
Employer: OH, you don't need my money, so I'm free to do with it as I like. Bye, I'll go golfing now with that money :)

Totally not dishonest.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 18, 2017, 12:29:20 AM
You know Richard Gage is a scammer.



Bye bye beer money for this week.   LOL
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 18, 2017, 12:33:55 AM
If $100 is such a big deal to you guys then I am sorry you aren't financially secure.

If I told my boss he didn't have to pay me he wouldn't.

Nice shilling Rayzor. 9/11.

0.005 shekels have been deposited into your account.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 18, 2017, 12:38:16 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 18, 2017, 12:33:55 AM
If $100 is such a big deal to you guys then I am sorry you aren't financially secure.

If I told my boss he didn't have to pay me he wouldn't.

Nice shilling Rayzor. 9/11.

If your boss knew how much time you spent on flat earth forums you might get your wish.    As far as Richard Gage is concerned,  by all means give him all your money,  he loves it.

I think the AIA has a few opinions about Richard Gage.

http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/19339-the-aia-disowns-richard-gage-aia-and-few-architect-want-to-have-anything-to-do-with-him/



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 18, 2017, 12:40:49 AM
Another 0.005 shekels for you Rayzor.

If you need money that badly just ask.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 18, 2017, 12:51:36 AM
Dispute, now you're just making yourself look stupid (additionally to dishonest).
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 18, 2017, 12:54:03 AM
That's your opinion.

You are entitled to it.

Seems like Rayzor is pissed he doesn't have two dollars to rub together.

Why freak out and try to discourage everyone from donating to people seeking truth?

I could tell you.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 18, 2017, 12:57:30 AM
Being dishonest in this case is a fact, not an opinion.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 18, 2017, 01:05:56 AM
No its not. You said not to give you the $100, I didn't.

I only promised to give you $100. I didn't promise to jump through hoops.

I am not your errand boy, quit it with the shitposts if you are capable.

You could have accepted it and done whatever you willed with it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 18, 2017, 03:05:38 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 18, 2017, 01:05:56 AM
No its not. You said not to give you the $100, I didn't.

I only promised to give you $100. I didn't promise to jump through hoops.

I am not your errand boy, quit it with the shitposts if you are capable.

You could have accepted it and done whatever you willed with it.
Impressive amount of dishonesty.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 18, 2017, 03:09:13 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 17, 2017, 10:03:01 PM
In the same post we have you making up fake quotes and calling other people 'liar'.
Seldom have I seen such a great example of hypocrisy.

Anyway, 5 sec of googling and here you have a source: click (https://www.schweizamwochenende.ch/basel/die-ganser-verschwoerung-131036785).
Oh...

Sorry I offended you</sarcasm.>

Please point out the words, "Ganser was fired from his position due to his public statements on 9/11," anywhere in the article you sourced.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 18, 2017, 03:11:45 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 17, 2017, 09:31:17 PM
Are you allowed to answer? It's ok if you're not allowed to answer.

Just in your opinion, what caused those flashes?

I got $100 AUD for anyone who can answer this honestly.
I believe it is User324 lighting his farts.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 18, 2017, 03:24:51 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 18, 2017, 03:11:45 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 17, 2017, 09:31:17 PM
Are you allowed to answer? It's ok if you're not allowed to answer.

Just in your opinion, what caused those flashes?

I got $100 AUD for anyone who can answer this honestly.
I believe it is User324 lighting his farts.

Thanks mate.

This is a great video with a lot of eyewitnesses also, back on topic.

Disregard the title, it's not 100% proof but it is compelling.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 18, 2017, 04:40:14 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 18, 2017, 03:09:13 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 17, 2017, 10:03:01 PM
In the same post we have you making up fake quotes and calling other people 'liar'.
Seldom have I seen such a great example of hypocrisy.

Anyway, 5 sec of googling and here you have a source: click (https://www.schweizamwochenende.ch/basel/die-ganser-verschwoerung-131036785).
Oh...

Sorry I offended you</sarcasm.>

Please point out the words, "Ganser was fired from his position due to his public statements on 9/11," anywhere in the article you sourced.
Read it yourself.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 18, 2017, 05:25:04 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 18, 2017, 04:40:14 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 18, 2017, 03:09:13 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 17, 2017, 10:03:01 PM
In the same post we have you making up fake quotes and calling other people 'liar'.
Seldom have I seen such a great example of hypocrisy.

Anyway, 5 sec of googling and here you have a source: click (https://www.schweizamwochenende.ch/basel/die-ganser-verschwoerung-131036785).
Oh...

Sorry I offended you</sarcasm.>

Please point out the words, "Ganser was fired from his position due to his public statements on 9/11," anywhere in the article you sourced.
Read it yourself.
I did.

Does not state Ganser was fired.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 18, 2017, 05:28:49 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 18, 2017, 05:25:04 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 18, 2017, 04:40:14 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 18, 2017, 03:09:13 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 17, 2017, 10:03:01 PM
In the same post we have you making up fake quotes and calling other people 'liar'.
Seldom have I seen such a great example of hypocrisy.

Anyway, 5 sec of googling and here you have a source: click (https://www.schweizamwochenende.ch/basel/die-ganser-verschwoerung-131036785).
Oh...

Sorry I offended you</sarcasm.>

Please point out the words, "Ganser was fired from his position due to his public statements on 9/11," anywhere in the article you sourced.
Read it yourself.
I did.

Does not state Ganser was fired.
It does. It's okay tho, I guess you used google translator? That fucks it up sometimes.

Quote
Von Ganser distanzieren sich auch die wissenschaftlichen Institutionen. Den Anfang machte die ETH Zürich, die ihn 2006 entliess. Zum Eklat kam es, weil Ganser dafür plädiert, die Verschwörungstheorien zu 9/11 ebenso ernst zu nehmen wie die offizielle Version.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on May 18, 2017, 06:46:56 AM
Quote from: disputeone on May 17, 2017, 04:07:22 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on May 17, 2017, 03:39:56 AM
Be careful destroying rayzor personally as well as his "argument" so horribly... you will join the perma ignore with me. It's getting ugly.

As for

(https://s3.postimg.org/cbsz0q8eb/1494917289889.gif)

Anyone with the proper prerequisites and honesty know you cannot get that motion with the penthouse from the collapse of one beam and the localized heating of a few areas when you look at the prints of 7. (All models with the inputs released only showed the beams maybe heating to not even 200 degrees in the worst areas, that is the beauty of steel framed building, they share thermal load better than any other structure...Heat a 300 foot rod at the end to 700 degrees, let me know how hot the other end is)

100 percent impossible, which is why this fairy tale is just that to people in the industry. Funny to me only blow hard nobodies spout the official story as truth (which I have 100 percent proven razyor to be, ask why I am still ignored)..

As for explosions heard by hundreds upon hundreds of people (conveniently rejected by NIST, as anything that violated their predetermined story MUST be rejected)...Sorry, metal presented with a 100 percent Structural failure does not sound like an "explosion"..

I have pushed more steel and other forms of metal to failure more times than I can remember for a plethora of different certifications etc..

Point of this story....An explosion is a dirac-type pressure excitation...The complete failure of steel (no matter the thickness) is not. An explosion is a relatively flat spectrum, with humps around the 20 Hertz and 250 Hertz area, however, the higher frequencies attenuate quickly in the air medium (long waves are tough to stop), thus why you step away from fireworks a bit, you can only hear and "feel" the boom, however, it doesn't hurt your ears.

However, snapping of metal, has a small hump around 3,500 hertz and large humps past 8,000 hertz...Very little below 2500 Hertz (not a flat spectrum what so ever)..A very short distance, this noise would be attenuated quickly by the air medium. 10 feet away, the sound is deafening..

This is why you don't hear metal buckling in controlled demos...Not to mention sound waves are survival of the fittest.. if you have a catalyst both fighting for a spot in the 500hertz area, one produces 70db, the other 100 db, you will never hear the 70 in our ears, or in a mic.

This is the same principle with opera singing, the Orchestra leaves a hole in the 2500-3500 area, and they keep their hump below 2000...If the orchestra did not do this, and the singer didn't not format tune his voice, not even the largest best singer on the planet would be heard without a mic in a hall. Brute decibels have nothing to do with it...

Long story short, all the explosions heard, the catalyst being metal failing is 100 percent impossible...All such noises would be masked by stronger sounds just like every other CD...So the explosions would have to have another catalyst.


I know I haven't​ provided much of use for a while and have just been making fun of the lying failure of a trashcan that is rayzor lately, figured I would extend something of use again for a change.

*Edit for typo

Great post, also notice the clear flashes on the left hand side just prior to the building collapse.

So rayzor, your answer to that is word salad?? Lmao... Besides the few jabs, it was simple factual information...Explaining a few things about the explosions heard, refuting with facts why those explosions were not failing steel. Then a few tid bits about the impossibility of a natural collapse focusing on the penthouse over and under reaction...Look at he prints you will fine this is impossible naturally with one core support failing.

Of course you cannot form a rebuttal on these things... However, this was probably your weakest attempt...

Wait...

Actually, you claiming the orange flashes is sunshine from the other side would be your weakest...Lmao!!

You are losing it rayzor, should just ignore Dispute as well, it's getting painful seeing him kick you around.

As for user.....

Get help
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 18, 2017, 07:13:32 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 18, 2017, 05:28:49 AM
It does. It's okay tho, I guess you used google translator? That fucks it up sometimes.
Quote
Von Ganser distanzieren sich auch die wissenschaftlichen Institutionen. Den Anfang machte die ETH Zürich, die ihn 2006 entliess. Zum Eklat kam es, weil Ganser dafür plädiert, die Verschwörungstheorien zu 9/11 ebenso ernst zu nehmen wie die offizielle Version.
You are informing everyone here your snipped paragraph states Ganser was "fired due to his public views," on 9/11?

Why are you lying?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 18, 2017, 07:14:16 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on May 18, 2017, 06:46:56 AM
Actually, you claiming the orange flashes is sunshine from the other side
I agree that one doesn't make any sense.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on May 18, 2017, 06:46:56 AM
As for user.....

Get help
What should I get help for?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 18, 2017, 07:18:43 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 18, 2017, 07:14:16 AM
What should I get help for?
(http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j12/blessedsilvermoon/asshat.jpg)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 18, 2017, 07:25:32 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 17, 2017, 10:05:35 PM
There was nothing but sky behind those windows after the internal collapse.   Proof positive that all the internal structure had gone from behind those windows.

You can actually see the internals collapsing.   
Wait...

Did you just actually claim "all internal structures are gone..."

And "you can see the internal (structure) collapsing..."

In the very same post?

How can you see something that is gone?

Or are you gonna now come back with, "You should know what I mean..." or, "I did not mean that," or, the GoodOleDave argumentative classic," I can't help it you don't understand" line of BS?

What a joke...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 18, 2017, 07:43:57 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 18, 2017, 07:13:32 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 18, 2017, 05:28:49 AM
It does. It's okay tho, I guess you used google translator? That fucks it up sometimes.
Quote
Von Ganser distanzieren sich auch die wissenschaftlichen Institutionen. Den Anfang machte die ETH Zürich, die ihn 2006 entliess. Zum Eklat kam es, weil Ganser dafür plädiert, die Verschwörungstheorien zu 9/11 ebenso ernst zu nehmen wie die offizielle Version.
You are informing everyone here your snipped paragraph states Ganser was "fired due to his public views," on 9/11?

Why are you lying?
What do you think the paragraph says? Do you speak german?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 18, 2017, 07:44:28 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 18, 2017, 12:38:16 AM
If your boss knew how much time you spent on flat earth forums you might get your wish.    As far as Richard Gage is concerned,  by all means give him all your money,  he loves it.
Many families of the victims are following your advice and will continue to do so until the end of time.

Quote from: Rayzor on May 18, 2017, 12:38:16 AM
I think the AIA has a few opinions about Richard Gage.
Fuck their opinions.

We want the truth.
Quote from: Rayzor on May 18, 2017, 12:38:16 AM
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/19339-the-aia-disowns-richard-gage-aia-and-few-architect-want-to-have-anything-to-do-with-him/
From your link:
LEN COLBY: " But even IF Gage was right about the above (which I doubt) that wouldn't vidicate him using the wrong NIST simulation in his presentations."

QUESTION: Why doesn't Mr. Colby start with providing Gage (and everyone else for that matter) the CORRECT NIST simulation to use?

Please choose the correct answer from the following list:

a) There is no independently validated correct simulation available from the NIST due to the NIST refusing to release the inputs/results data utilized in their simulations
b) There is no independently validated correct simulation available from the NIST due to the NIST refusing to release the inputs/results data utilized in their simulations
c) There is no independently validated correct simulation available from the NIST due to the NIST refusing to release the inputs/results data utilized in their simulations
d) All of the above

Try again Dave...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 18, 2017, 07:48:44 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 18, 2017, 07:43:57 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 18, 2017, 07:13:32 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 18, 2017, 05:28:49 AM
It does. It's okay tho, I guess you used google translator? That fucks it up sometimes.
Quote
Von Ganser distanzieren sich auch die wissenschaftlichen Institutionen. Den Anfang machte die ETH Zürich, die ihn 2006 entliess. Zum Eklat kam es, weil Ganser dafür plädiert, die Verschwörungstheorien zu 9/11 ebenso ernst zu nehmen wie die offizielle Version.
You are informing everyone here your snipped paragraph states Ganser was "fired due to his public views," on 9/11?

Why are you lying?
What do you think the paragraph says? Do you speak german?
I am calling you a liar.

Ganser was not fired.

That is all I need to say about it.

Got a problem with it, prove your claim he was fired to a mod and I will accept the ban.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 18, 2017, 07:55:36 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 18, 2017, 07:48:44 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 18, 2017, 07:43:57 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 18, 2017, 07:13:32 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 18, 2017, 05:28:49 AM
It does. It's okay tho, I guess you used google translator? That fucks it up sometimes.
Quote
Von Ganser distanzieren sich auch die wissenschaftlichen Institutionen. Den Anfang machte die ETH Zürich, die ihn 2006 entliess. Zum Eklat kam es, weil Ganser dafür plädiert, die Verschwörungstheorien zu 9/11 ebenso ernst zu nehmen wie die offizielle Version.
You are informing everyone here your snipped paragraph states Ganser was "fired due to his public views," on 9/11?

Why are you lying?
What do you think the paragraph says? Do you speak german?
I am calling you a liar.

Ganser was not fired.

That is all I need to say about it.

Got a problem with it, prove your claim he was fired to a mod and I will accept the ban.
I conclude you do not speak german, otherwise you wouldn't be talking that bullshit. I can translate it, if you want.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 18, 2017, 08:14:14 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 18, 2017, 07:55:36 AM
I conclude you do not speak german, otherwise you wouldn't be talking that bullshit. I can translate it, if you want.
Nothing bull shit about my response.

I called you, here on this forum, a liar.

An offense worthy of a ban.

Unless of course, what I wrote was true.

Go ahead and provide a direct translation to moderator, verified by an independent, third party source to be accurate.

I will accept the consequences if I am incorrect.

Because I am absolutely 100 percent correct when I state there is nothing in your paragraph stating, "Ganser was fired."
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 18, 2017, 08:17:44 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 18, 2017, 08:14:14 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 18, 2017, 07:55:36 AM
I conclude you do not speak german, otherwise you wouldn't be talking that bullshit. I can translate it, if you want.
Nothing bull shit about my response.

I called you, here on this forum, a liar.

An offense worthy of a ban.

Unless of course, what I wrote was true.

Go ahead and provide a direct translation to moderator, verified by an independent, third party source to be accurate.

I will accept the consequences if I am incorrect.
Wtf are you talking.
Are you drunk?


Edit: Give me your translaten of the paragraph I quoted, so I can inform you where you failed.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 18, 2017, 08:20:37 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 18, 2017, 08:17:44 AM
I am a liar.

I make shit up.

Edit: I can't help it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 18, 2017, 08:50:00 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 18, 2017, 07:18:43 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 18, 2017, 07:14:16 AM
What should I get help for?
(http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j12/blessedsilvermoon/asshat.jpg)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 18, 2017, 09:05:33 AM
Why not just post your translation?
I guess you already know you are wrong and just want to be a prick.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 18, 2017, 09:09:17 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 18, 2017, 07:25:32 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 17, 2017, 10:05:35 PM
There was nothing but sky behind those windows after the internal collapse.   Proof positive that all the internal structure had gone from behind those windows.

You can actually see the internals collapsing.   
Wait...

Did you just actually claim "all internal structures are gone..."

And "you can see the internal (structure) collapsing..."

In the very same post?

How can you see something that is gone?

Or are you gonna now come back with, "You should know what I mean..." or, "I did not mean that," or, the GoodOleDave argumentative classic," I can't help it you don't understand" line of BS?

What a joke...

 Proof positive that all the internal structure had gone from behind those windows.

Learn to read English,   I know you can't read German, 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 18, 2017, 09:10:10 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 18, 2017, 07:18:43 AM
(http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j12/blessedsilvermoon/asshat.jpg)

LOL  Where did you get the picture of Dipstick from?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 18, 2017, 09:15:40 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 18, 2017, 09:10:10 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 18, 2017, 07:18:43 AM
(http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j12/blessedsilvermoon/asshat.jpg)

LOL  Where did you get the picture of Dipstick from?
I guess they made the pic when they last met. Well I don't judge, let them their fun if they like it. It's 2017 :)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 18, 2017, 10:23:53 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 18, 2017, 09:09:17 AM
Proof positive that all the internal structure had gone from behind those windows.
If the internal structure is "gone," as you wrote...

How can you see it collapsing?

Du bist ein verdammter Narr


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 18, 2017, 10:26:54 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 18, 2017, 09:10:10 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 18, 2017, 07:18:43 AM
(http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j12/blessedsilvermoon/asshat.jpg)
Wo hast du mein Selbstporträt gefunden??
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 18, 2017, 10:27:11 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 18, 2017, 10:23:53 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 18, 2017, 09:09:17 AM
Proof positive that all the internal structure had gone from behind those windows.
If the internal structure is "gone," as you wrote...

How can you see it collapsing?

Du bist ein verdammter Narr
Und du kannst deutsch schreiben, aber nicht verstehen?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 18, 2017, 10:29:21 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 18, 2017, 08:50:00 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 18, 2017, 07:14:16 AM
What should I get help for?
(http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j12/blessedsilvermoon/asshat.jpg)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 18, 2017, 10:30:28 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 18, 2017, 10:29:21 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 18, 2017, 08:50:00 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 18, 2017, 07:14:16 AM
What should I get help for?
(http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j12/blessedsilvermoon/asshat.jpg)

Lol, now totallackey turns completely mad. We need a doc...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on May 18, 2017, 10:52:39 AM
Y'all's tactics are getting old...Step from actual content to focus on the arbitrary. Derailment at its finest.

Rayzor is the master...However, I found the cure for his tactics, embarrassed his argument as well as himself personally...He had no choice but to ignore.

User, you are catching up quick, don't be like that. It's too late for rayzor, you are young enough to take a different turn for the better.

Don't be like rayzor...He has no fruits to show for it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 18, 2017, 10:55:24 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on May 18, 2017, 10:52:39 AM
User, you are catching up quick, don't be like that. It's too late for rayzor, you are young enough to take a different turn for the better.

Don't be like rayzor...He has no fruits to show for it.

Oh come one, don't get that emotional...
Fun is this thread's only purpose at the moment, everything has been discussed 10 times already. Nonsense to further discuss it.

Anyway, you still owe me an answer to my question (about how exactely university influences / brainwashes me on a daily basis). I'd be happy to further discuss that matter.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on May 18, 2017, 10:58:12 AM
I don't find the subject of 9/11 fun, costing millions of people their lives and destabilizing regions over a complete fabrication is quite far from fun to me.

I can have fun in many other subjects, not this one.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 18, 2017, 11:00:56 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on May 18, 2017, 10:58:12 AM
I don't find the subject of 9/11 fun, costing millions of people their lives and destabilizing regions over a complete fabrication is quite far from fun to me.

I can have fun in many other subjects, not this one.
The thread is fun, not 9/11. Small, but important difference.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 18, 2017, 11:08:58 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 18, 2017, 11:00:56 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on May 18, 2017, 10:58:12 AM
I don't find the subject of 9/11 fun, costing millions of people their lives and destabilizing regions over a complete fabrication is quite far from fun to me.

I can have fun in many other subjects, not this one.
The thread is fun, not 9/11. Small, but important difference.
Jesus, what a moran.

GFY you loser.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 18, 2017, 11:11:32 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 18, 2017, 11:08:58 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 18, 2017, 11:00:56 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on May 18, 2017, 10:58:12 AM
I don't find the subject of 9/11 fun, costing millions of people their lives and destabilizing regions over a complete fabrication is quite far from fun to me.

I can have fun in many other subjects, not this one.
The thread is fun, not 9/11. Small, but important difference.
Jesus, what a moran.

GFY you loser.
Du hast immer noch nicht gesagt, welchen Teil von "entlassen" du nicht verstehst.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 18, 2017, 03:12:18 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on May 18, 2017, 10:58:12 AM
I don't find the subject of 9/11 fun, costing millions of people their lives and destabilizing regions over a complete fabrication is quite far from fun to me.

I can have fun in many other subjects, not this one.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 19, 2017, 12:18:50 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 18, 2017, 11:00:56 AM
The thread is fun, not 9/11. Small, but important difference.

Agreed,   watching  Totallackey pretending he knows German is good entertainment.   

Oh,   and   "Fall acceration of WTC7"    from dipstick   who doesn't understand  gravity.   

But not funny that there are people making money off people dumb enough to fall for their scam. 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 19, 2017, 12:34:31 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 19, 2017, 12:18:50 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 18, 2017, 11:00:56 AM
The thread is fun, not 9/11. Small, but important difference.
dipstick   who doesn't understand  gravity. 
Well, if it only was the gravity thing... he basically has knowledge gaps in every part of physics.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 19, 2017, 02:53:59 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 18, 2017, 11:11:32 AM
Du hast immer noch nicht gesagt, welchen welchem Teil von "entlassen" du nicht verstehst.
Der Teil, in dem das Wort "entlassen", entspricht "gefeuert".

Again, GFY.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 19, 2017, 03:22:35 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 19, 2017, 02:53:59 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 18, 2017, 11:11:32 AM
Du hast immer noch nicht gesagt, welchen welchem Teil von "entlassen" du nicht verstehst.
Der Teil, in dem das Wort "entlassen", entspricht "gefeuert".

Again, GFY.
Lol fuckboi, german is my mothertongue, don't even try to annoy me with your google translator german.
'Welchen' was obviously correct.
Your sentence is plain bullshit, you should learn in which order the words should be put...

And yes, 'entlassen' and 'gefeuert' are synonyms and both mean 'fired' or 'dismissed'.

Seriously, you're such an idiot. I'm cringing when reading your posts.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 19, 2017, 03:43:21 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 19, 2017, 03:22:35 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 19, 2017, 02:53:59 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 18, 2017, 11:11:32 AM
Du hast immer noch nicht gesagt, welchen welchem Teil von "entlassen" du nicht verstehst.
Der Teil, in dem das Wort "entlassen", entspricht "gefeuert".

Again, GFY.
Lol fuckboi, german is my mothertongue, don't even try to annoy me with your google translator german.
'Welchen' was obviously correct.
Your sentence is plain bullshit, you should learn in which order the words should be put...

And yes, 'entlassen' and 'gefeuert' are synonyms and both mean 'fired' or 'dismissed'.

Seriously, you're such an idiot. I'm cringing when reading your posts.
Only in your
(http://netdna.copyblogger.com/images/jack-ass.jpg)
do they mean the same.

Fuck off, you pathetic lying, sack of shit.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 19, 2017, 03:49:58 AM
Funny, lackey got busted and is now trying to talk himself out of it.
Hilarious!

No wonder 9/11 "truthers" like you aren't taken serious...


Edit:
In case it's not proof enough that german is my mothertongue:

Entlassen & feuern are synonyms: http://synonyme.woxikon.de/synonyme/feuern.php
point 2

They both mean "firing"
http://www.dict.cc/?s=feuern
http://www.dict.cc/?s=entlassen

So, where are your sources?


Quick reminder:
Quote from: totallackey on May 18, 2017, 05:25:04 AM
Does not state Ganser was fired.

Quote from: totallackey on May 18, 2017, 07:48:44 AM
I am calling you a liar.

Ganser was not fired.

That is all I need to say about it.

Got a problem with it, prove your claim he was fired to a mod and I will accept the ban.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 19, 2017, 04:08:11 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 19, 2017, 03:49:58 AM
Funny, lackey got busted and is now trying to talk himself out of it.
Hilarious!

No wonder 9/11 "truthers" like you aren't taken serious...


Edit:
In case it's not proof enough that german is my mothertongue:

Entlassen & feuern are synonyms: http://synonyme.woxikon.de/synonyme/feuern.php
point 2

They both mean "firing"
http://www.dict.cc/?s=feuern
http://www.dict.cc/?s=entlassen

So, where are your sources?


Quick reminder:
Quote from: totallackey on May 18, 2017, 05:25:04 AM
Does not state Ganser was fired.

Quote from: totallackey on May 18, 2017, 07:48:44 AM
I am calling you a liar.

Ganser was not fired.

That is all I need to say about it.

Got a problem with it, prove your claim he was fired to a mod and I will accept the ban.
When writing or conversing about employment entlassen means dismissed.

When writing or conversing about employment feuern means fired.

Ganser was dismissed.

Ganser was not fired.

Fact remains:
Quote from: User324 on May 17, 2017, 02:03:33 PM
I am an
(http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f226/PsychoPsonic/Fark/asshat.jpg)

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 19, 2017, 04:45:48 AM
Lol, as I said: lackey got busted and is now trying to talk himself out of it.
Hilarious!
You got to try harder...

Quote from: totallackey on May 19, 2017, 04:08:11 AM
When writing or conversing about employment entlassen means dismissed.

When writing or conversing about employment feuern means fired.

Ganser was dismissed.

Ganser was not fired.

Dismissed and fired are synonyms, too, you genius. Same as with "entlassen" and "gefeuert" - they both mean that the employer told the employee he's no longer employed.

Anyway, you really are a linguistic numbskull. Nevertheless I enjoy the conversation, it's really amusing to see you trying!
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 19, 2017, 05:07:48 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 19, 2017, 04:45:48 AM
Dismissed and fired are synonyms, too, you genius.
I am a genius and it is about fucking time you recognized it you fucking idiot.

Dismissed and fired are synonyms.
Quote from: User324 on May 19, 2017, 04:45:48 AM
Same as with "entlassen" and "gefeuert" - they both mean that the employer told the employee he's no longer employed.
Correct.

He was no longer employed there upon being dismissed; however:

1) "You are dismissed from employment," =/= "You are fired."; whereas;

2) "You are fired," = "You are dismissed."

Quote from: User324 on May 19, 2017, 04:45:48 AM
Anyway, I really am a linguistic
(http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f226/PsychoPsonic/Fark/asshat.jpg)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 19, 2017, 05:38:33 AM
Uh, you're getting quite a bit salty?

Quote from: totallackey on May 19, 2017, 05:07:48 AM
I am a genius and it is about fucking time you recognized it you fucking idiot.

Quote from: totallackey on May 19, 2017, 05:07:48 AM
1) "You are dismissed from employment," =/= "You are fired."; whereas;

2) "You are fired," = "You are dismissed."
So you are saying
"You are fired" = "You are dismissed"

And then you say
"You are dismissed from employment" =/= "You are fired."
Since being dismissed in this case means dismissed from employment, we can follow your logic and conclude

You are dismissed = You are fired
You are fired =/= you are dismissed

And thus
You are dismissed =/= You are dismissed

One more time you got that brilliant logic! Keep going :)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 19, 2017, 06:15:56 AM
Quote from: totallackey on May 19, 2017, 05:07:48 AM
I am a genius and it is about fucking time you recognized it you fucking idiot.

Don't forget to tell everyone how modest you are as well.    ::)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 19, 2017, 10:30:54 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 19, 2017, 05:38:33 AM
Anyway, I really am a linguistic
(http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f226/PsychoPsonic/Fark/asshat.jpg)
Further logic:

User324 is a lying asshat.

Lying asshats (for purposes of illustration) = People fired from their jobs.

Asshats = People dismissed from their jobs.

Asshats being asshats includes the subsets of lying asshats.

But only lying asshats are included in the subset of lying asshats.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 19, 2017, 10:32:15 AM
I expected more. So that's how you behave when defeated...interesting.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on May 19, 2017, 10:38:34 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 19, 2017, 10:32:15 AM
I expected more. So that's how you behave when defeated...interesting.
No.

That is how I explain things so lying asshats clearly understand when they have been put in their fucking place by someone who knows what the fuck they are writing about.

Now STFU and GTFO.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 19, 2017, 10:54:25 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 19, 2017, 05:38:33 AM
Uh, you're getting quite a bit salty?

Quote from: totallackey on May 19, 2017, 05:07:48 AM
I am a genius and it is about fucking time you recognized it you fucking idiot.

Quote from: totallackey on May 19, 2017, 05:07:48 AM
1) "You are dismissed from employment," =/= "You are fired."; whereas;

2) "You are fired," = "You are dismissed."
So you are saying
"You are fired" = "You are dismissed"

And then you say
"You are dismissed from employment" =/= "You are fired."
Since being dismissed in this case means dismissed from employment, we can follow your logic and conclude

You are dismissed = You are fired
You are fired =/= you are dismissed

And thus
You are dismissed =/= You are dismissed

One more time you got that brilliant logic! Keep going :)

You got no argument to my post so you keep crying and insulting. Very mature behaviour! Nice basic for a discussion.

Quote
User324 is a lying asshat.
Quote
Now STFU and GTFO.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 23, 2017, 08:27:03 PM
I see the conspiracy loonies are out in force calling the Manchester bombing a false flag,  played by actors,  etc etc.  and there was no explosion.   Same people who push the 9/11 conspiracy wagon. 

There seems to be a competition amongst  conspiracy theorists as to who can make the most outlandish claim. 

The best is that the Manchester bombing was actually done by the Russians to help sway the British election towards May.     
Another loopy conspiracy is that it was a distraction to divert attention away from the Seth Rich conspiracy.     

And then there are the Israeli conspiracies ...    FFS.   



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on May 23, 2017, 10:42:22 PM
Stfu dickhead..

Legitimate 9/11 researchers have nothing to do with outlandish claims.

Tactics of using a few nutters/dumbasses/evil etc in attempts to discredit the legitimate is nothing new. This is not only 9/11..

Maybe we should imprison all Muslims in the states because of the actions of a few with that type of thinking..::)

Very weak
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 23, 2017, 11:51:51 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on May 23, 2017, 10:42:22 PM
Stfu dickhead..

Legitimate 9/11 researchers have nothing to do with outlandish claims.

Tactics of using a few nutters/dumbasses/evil etc in attempts to discredit the legitimate is nothing new. This is not only 9/11..

Maybe we should imprison all Muslims in the states because of the actions of a few with that type of thinking..::)

Very weak

More insults?   Still can't help yourself can you?

These nutters are the exact same ones who push the  9/11 conspiracies.   Just wait a few years and there will be people claiming the media coverage was faked and there were no victims.   And don't rush to judgement because it's exactly the same as what happened with 9/11.   

 

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on May 24, 2017, 08:43:44 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 23, 2017, 11:51:51 PM
More insults?   Still can't help yourself can you?

These nutters are the exact same ones who push the  9/11 conspiracies.   Just wait a few years and there will be people claiming the media coverage was faked and there were no victims.   And don't rush to judgement because it's exactly the same as what happened with 9/11.

I don't try to help myself when it comes to you, I could though, just don't want to.

As for the rest of your post, just more hot air from an empty corner. I am impressed I am at least temporarily off your ignore list.

As always, I wouldn't say people who dwarf you in education, professional experience, worldly experience, and just general intelligence is just "some nutters" (actually a little over 50 percent of the general populous as well)... These aren't just a few dudes hanging out in a basement making up random nonsense.

Though as I always say, with your bold and insulting statements..Please prove you are in a position to make such remarks (or anything actually)..I have waited for sometime.. still am...otherwise it's just hot air from an inferior person.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 24, 2017, 08:51:51 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on May 24, 2017, 08:43:44 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 23, 2017, 11:51:51 PM
More insults?   Still can't help yourself can you?

These nutters are the exact same ones who push the  9/11 conspiracies.   Just wait a few years and there will be people claiming the media coverage was faked and there were no victims.   And don't rush to judgement because it's exactly the same as what happened with 9/11.

I don't try to help myself when it comes to you, I could though, just don't want to.

As for the rest of your post, just more hot air from an empty corner. I am impressed I am at least temporarily off your ignore list.

As always, I wouldn't say people who dwarf you in education, professional experience, worldly experience, and just general intelligence is just "some nutters" (actually a little over 50 percent of the general populous as well)... These aren't just a few dudes hanging out in a basement making up random nonsense.

Though as I always say, with your bold and insulting statements..Please prove you are in a position to make such remarks (or anything actually)..I have waited for sometime.. still am...otherwise it's just hot air from an inferior person.
Read your post.
0 argument
1000 insults.
In my country we say "who sits in a glass house, shouldn't throw stones'.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on May 24, 2017, 09:36:21 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 24, 2017, 08:51:51 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on May 24, 2017, 08:43:44 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on May 23, 2017, 11:51:51 PM
More insults?   Still can't help yourself can you?

These nutters are the exact same ones who push the  9/11 conspiracies.   Just wait a few years and there will be people claiming the media coverage was faked and there were no victims.   And don't rush to judgement because it's exactly the same as what happened with 9/11.

I don't try to help myself when it comes to you, I could though, just don't want to.

As for the rest of your post, just more hot air from an empty corner. I am impressed I am at least temporarily off your ignore list.

As always, I wouldn't say people who dwarf you in education, professional experience, worldly experience, and just general intelligence is just "some nutters" (actually a little over 50 percent of the general populous as well)... These aren't just a few dudes hanging out in a basement making up random nonsense.

Though as I always say, with your bold and insulting statements..Please prove you are in a position to make such remarks (or anything actually)..I have waited for sometime.. still am...otherwise it's just hot air from an inferior person.
Read your post.
0 argument
1000 insults.
In my country we say "who sits in a glass house, shouldn't throw stones'.

Bolded area, 85 percent facts mixed with a question, 15 percent insults.

Will he answer? Doubt it...Though he did take me off ignore, so perhaps this is a start of a new rayzor
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 24, 2017, 08:31:09 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on May 24, 2017, 09:36:21 AM
Will he answer? Doubt it...Though he did take me off ignore, so perhaps this is a start of a new rayzor

I'm feeling a bit sorry for you.   You seem  very self centered and insecure.   Why do you feel the need to constantly prove yourself,   was it something in your background?  Culture perhaps.

Anyway,  I don't feel the need to prove anything about myself,   so you can stop asking.   

Back on topic,   Alex Jones is on the Manchester Conspiracy bandwagon.   

Quote
ALEX JONES: You notice that Don Henley song, "Inside Job." It is an inside job. The western governments are bringing in radical Islamicists, allowing them to attack. For two-plus years, he was known to be an Islamicist, planning attacks. His family had actually spoke out. People ask why Muslims don’t speak out. The governments in Europe especially will not ever stand up against it, then they let the attacks take place, then they take the public’s freedom. And then they get up there, whether it’s conservative or liberal prime ministers in England, and say, “Stiff upper lip, we’re going to be strong. We’re going to move forward, we’re going to come together.” You can’t come together with a rattlesnake that’s in your bed biting you if you just say, “I love the rattlesnake. I love the rattlesnake. I love the black widow. I love the water moccasin.”

Now tell me he's not a nutter,   I dare you.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 26, 2017, 05:36:26 PM
Rotflmao.

No he's just a shill, like you, Rayzor.

Quote
Alex Jones’ mother testified in court on Friday, April 21st, saying in part that Infowars is a “family business” and that she and Alex Jones’ father are both heavily involved in all aspects of the Infowars operation. Since Alex Jones has already stated in the past that both of his parents were/are C.I.A. operatives, these recent admissions from Alex Jones’ parents constitute direct evidence that Infowars is a covert U.S. Govt. intelligence operation.

https://alexjonesexposed.info/

Nice work bringing your disinfo buddy into this, anyway what does any of this have to do with Alex (mossad) Jones?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 26, 2017, 05:50:12 PM
(https://s3.postimg.org/qplz0yh6b/1495401320983.jpg)

http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.791969?v=6F8003057DFE6ACC58A03D9421C7CB8F

http://www.salon.com/2016/08/23/israeli-think-tank-dont-destroy-isis-its-a-useful-tool-against-iran-hezbollah-syria/

Quote
“The continuing existence of IS serves a strategic purpose,” wrote Efraim Inbar in “The Destruction of Islamic State Is a Strategic Mistake,” a paper published on Aug. 2.

By cooperating with Russia to fight the genocidal extremist group, the United States is committing a “strategic folly” that will “enhance the power of the Moscow-Tehran-Damascus axis,” Inbar argued, implying that Russia, Iran and Syria are forming a strategic alliance to dominate the Middle East.

“The West should seek the further weakening of Islamic State, but not its destruction,” he added. “A weak IS is, counterintuitively, preferable to a destroyed IS.”

They don't even try to hide it anymore.

(https://s9.postimg.org/mqiiwqrgf/1495014148018.jpg)

Rayzor go look in a mirror.
Millions of civilian casualities and you are just as guilty as anyone.
No, you are more guilty than the soilders that simply couldn't see through the lies.

https://www.ptsd.va.gov/public/ptsd-overview/reintegration/overview-mental-health-effects.asp
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on May 26, 2017, 06:35:35 PM
"I haven't checked the 9/11 thread in a while, I wonder how they are doing..."

Quote from: disputeone on May 26, 2017, 05:50:12 PM
Rayzor go look in a mirror.
Millions of civilian casualities and you are just as guilty as anyone.
No, you are more guilty than the soilders that simply couldn't see through the lies.

https://www.ptsd.va.gov/public/ptsd-overview/reintegration/overview-mental-health-effects.asp

"Oh look, they are accusing each other of being as bad as terrorists, how cute..."

(http://www.reactiongifs.com/r/oh-shi.gif)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 26, 2017, 06:42:12 PM
Thanks for your shitpost and virtue signal totes.

Much appreciated.

Thanks for skipping over any points I raised to shitpost.

I'm not sure why I came back.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 26, 2017, 10:48:20 PM
Quote from: disputeone on May 26, 2017, 06:42:12 PM
Thanks for your shitpost and virtue signal totes.

Much appreciated.

Thanks for skipping over any points I raised to shitpost.

I'm not sure why I came back.
I'm not sure why I came back either.

Oh I know, I think it still is a rather funny thread :-*
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on May 26, 2017, 11:15:18 PM
(https://s3.postimg.org/qplz0yh6b/1495401320983.jpg)

Is this Donald Trump  being officially inducted into the conspiracy to hide the fact that the earth is flat,  by  swearing on the sacred globular altar?

LOL.

 

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on May 31, 2017, 07:19:19 PM
No, it's a weapons deal with the saudis.

Brainlet.

Imo it does say something about globalism.

Quote
WTC 7 Evaluation is a study at the University of Alaska Fairbanks using finite element modeling to evaluate the possible causes of World Trade Center Building 7's collapse. The final report is scheduled for release in August 2017.

August will be an interesting month. People aren't stupid Rayzor, most of us know the official story is B/S.

Why are you so obsessed with the flat earth? I thought you were a round earther.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on May 31, 2017, 10:09:07 PM
I don't even understand why you want this thread to keep going. What are you hoping for?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on June 01, 2017, 01:04:54 AM
Quote from: User324 on May 31, 2017, 10:09:07 PM
I don't even understand why you want this thread to keep going. What are you hoping for?

He's lonely.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on June 05, 2017, 06:42:09 PM
Quote from: User324 on May 31, 2017, 10:09:07 PM
I don't even understand why you want this thread to keep going. What are you hoping for?

To bolster support for http://www.wtc7evaluation.org/ mainly.

It's nearly due out for peer review.

Why are you so desperate for us to stop talking?

@Rayzor.

You are the leaf for this example. I keked, pretty accurate.

(https://s2.postimg.org/grr6erc3d/1496630557076m.jpg)
Autumns over c*nt. Time to rake the yard.

9/11 was a Mossad / CIA false flag.

http://www.wtc7evaluation.org/
http://www.ae911truth.org/
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/
http://ff911truthandunity.org/
http://www.scientistsfor911truth.org/



Wake up.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on June 05, 2017, 10:35:28 PM
Oh no, dispute just can't let it go :'(
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on June 10, 2017, 04:23:15 PM
Quote from: User324 on June 05, 2017, 10:35:28 PM
Oh no, dispute just can't let it go :'(

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2015/03/26/body-count-report-reveals-least-13-million-lives-lost-us-led-war-terror

Millions of innocents dead. No, I won't let it go.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Pezevenk on June 13, 2017, 06:01:04 AM
Come on, we can't let this thread stick around at 151 pages forever! Do something people!
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on June 13, 2017, 06:19:16 AM
Quote from: Definitely Not Official on June 13, 2017, 06:01:04 AM
Come on, we can't let this thread stick around at 151 pages forever! Do something people!

Man stick hand in cobra cage, he might get bit :D
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Crouton on June 13, 2017, 08:59:56 AM
Quote from: Definitely Not Official on June 13, 2017, 06:01:04 AM
Come on, we can't let this thread stick around at 151 pages forever! Do something people!

You asked for it.  But I'm not sure you're going to like what I find.  Let's start with some basic math.

Day and month of 911 9+1+1=11
DNO post count 3397
DNO's post index 4515
4515-3397=1118
1+1+1+8=11

Simplified:
DNO=911

These numbers don't lie DNO.  What exactly are you trying to hide?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Pezevenk on June 13, 2017, 10:44:29 AM
Quote from: crutonius on June 13, 2017, 08:59:56 AM
Quote from: Definitely Not Official on June 13, 2017, 06:01:04 AM
Come on, we can't let this thread stick around at 151 pages forever! Do something people!

You asked for it.  But I'm not sure you're going to like what I find.  Let's start with some basic math.

Day and month of 911 9+1+1=11
DNO post count 3397
DNO's post index 4515
4515-3397=1118
1+1+1+8=11

Simplified:
DNO=911

These numbers don't lie DNO.  What exactly are you trying to hide?

Well, you almost had me figured out, but now my post count is not the same any more. You'll have to try harder, there's more to it than you might initially suspect  ;D
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Pezevenk on June 13, 2017, 10:46:32 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on June 13, 2017, 06:19:16 AM
Quote from: Definitely Not Official on June 13, 2017, 06:01:04 AM
Come on, we can't let this thread stick around at 151 pages forever! Do something people!

Man stick hand in cobra cage, he might get bit :D

Eh, the worst thing that can happen to me is to die. That's pretty normal.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Crouton on June 13, 2017, 10:46:44 AM
Quote from: Definitely Not Official on June 13, 2017, 10:44:29 AM
Quote from: crutonius on June 13, 2017, 08:59:56 AM
Quote from: Definitely Not Official on June 13, 2017, 06:01:04 AM
Come on, we can't let this thread stick around at 151 pages forever! Do something people!

You asked for it.  But I'm not sure you're going to like what I find.  Let's start with some basic math.

Day and month of 911 9+1+1=11
DNO post count 3397
DNO's post index 4515
4515-3397=1118
1+1+1+8=11

Simplified:
DNO=911

These numbers don't lie DNO.  What exactly are you trying to hide?

Well, you almost had me figured out, but now my post count is not the same any more. You'll have to try harder, there's more to it than you might initially suspect  ;D

The cover up continues...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on June 14, 2017, 12:56:59 AM
Is it really that funny?

Death?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on June 14, 2017, 01:12:32 AM
Quote from: disputeone on June 14, 2017, 12:56:59 AM
Is it really that funny?

Death?

You know crutonius is usually joking, nor did he ever become involved in this thread...so he gets a pass. You also have to give him credit for creativity on blaming 9/11 on DNO.

However. .

DNO prodded this thread...so I will answer the call, as I know you will as well.

Is there anyone on this forum that can compose an actual argument besides shilling or saying "muh TV said"? (This excludes the architect that came in and said "the official story is not lining up" when he started to look at the details)

Doubt it...but I could be surprised.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on June 14, 2017, 04:58:17 AM
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/06/13/europe/london-fire-live-updates/index.html

Six dead so far apparently, a tragedy and no disrespect intended to the decreased however would anyone like to speculate if it will collapse?









at free-fall?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sokarul on June 14, 2017, 06:51:18 AM
If modeling was perfect research wouldn't exist.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Crouton on June 14, 2017, 07:42:24 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on June 14, 2017, 01:12:32 AM
Quote from: disputeone on June 14, 2017, 12:56:59 AM
Is it really that funny?

Death?

You know crutonius is usually joking, nor did he ever become involved in this thread...so he gets a pass. You also have to give him credit for creativity on blaming 9/11 on DNO.

However. .

DNO prodded this thread...so I will answer the call, as I know you will as well.

Is there anyone on this forum that can compose an actual argument besides shilling or saying "muh TV said"? (This excludes the architect that came in and said "the official story is not lining up" when he started to look at the details)

Doubt it...but I could be surprised.

That is correct sir.  No disrespect intended.  Just doing the Lord's work making jokes wherever I can.

Back I go to the Trump thread.  As you were gentlemen.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Pezevenk on June 14, 2017, 11:17:39 AM
Quote from: disputeone on June 14, 2017, 12:56:59 AM
Is it really that funny?

Death?
>:(
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Galileo_Galilei on June 14, 2017, 05:28:06 PM
Today a 27 story building in London was completely engulfed in flames. 12 people are confirmed dead. The fire blazed for 12 hours. It is believed that the fire started on the 4th floor of the building. My heart pours out to every family for their loss.

The building stood in spite of the flames allowing rescue workers and emergency personnel to perform their duties. My highest gratitude goes out to those heroes and every soul reaching out to help the victims of this tragedy.

There are only three high rise buildings to ever collapse due to fire. They all happened on the same day. September 11th 2001. Many high rise buildings have burned many hours longer than towers 1 and 2 and 7 and withstood the blaze still standing. This is why the 9/11 report will always be suspect in my mind.

There are true heroes in this country and every country across the globe. Whatever your way to pray or praise or help or offer condolences to the victims of today I hope that you practice your beliefs and offer what you can.

Thanks for reading.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: dutchy on June 17, 2017, 08:57:52 AM
Quote from: Galileo_Galilei on June 14, 2017, 05:28:06 PM
Today a 27 story building in London was completely engulfed in flames. 12 people are confirmed dead. The fire blazed for 12 hours. It is believed that the fire started on the 4th floor of the building. My heart pours out to every family for their loss.

The building stood in spite of the flames allowing rescue workers and emergency personnel to perform their duties. My highest gratitude goes out to those heroes and every soul reaching out to help the victims of this tragedy.

There are only three high rise buildings to ever collapse due to fire. They all happened on the same day. September 11th 2001. Many high rise buildings have burned many hours longer than towers 1 and 2 and 7 and withstood the blaze still standing. This is why the 9/11 report will always be suspect in my mind.

There are true heroes in this country and every country across the globe. Whatever your way to pray or praise or help or offer condolences to the victims of today I hope that you practice your beliefs and offer what you can.

Thanks for reading.
Indeed another nail in the 9/11 coffin!
(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/624/cpsprodpb/40D6/production/_96489561_bc2154a7-cfa7-41a0-ad90-a63df5054f02.jpg)
(http://www.911hardfacts.com/images/wtc-7.gif)

(https://prof77.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/a39ae149b0f6.gif)

I have never heard so much science haters as those silently ignoring 9/11, but rediculing everyone who doesn't believe in the moonlandings or globe.

They know that once we have established that 9/11 was orchestrated by the US and blamed upon a CIA fictional villain in a cave in Tora Bora/ Afghanistan, then governments could also lie about the moonlandings and earth's shape.
Therefor they try to avoid wtc-7 like the plague, because all their beloved ''science'' immidiatly destroys the official NIST lecture.

What a bunch of cowards,....who in reality fear science very much.
Every critical mind and especially the worldwide ''scientific community'' should do everything within their power to finally expose the official story of 9/11 based on hardcore scientific facts.



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Pezevenk on June 17, 2017, 10:00:23 AM
Quote from: dutchy on June 17, 2017, 08:57:52 AM

They know that once we have established that 9/11 was orchestrated by the US and blamed upon a CIA fictional villain in a cave in Tora Bora/ Afghanistan, then governments could also lie about the moonlandings and earth's shape.


Are you going to stop saying dumb stuff like that?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on June 17, 2017, 10:05:03 AM
hear hear Dutchy!!!

Or maybe we should just listen to the idiot blow hards that feel they know better than easily proven science, logic, physics and just general common sense.

It's usually always the ones you either question the motives of their argument or simply just blow hards with no experience or knowledge in life that push the official story.

At least the story part is accurate, certainly is..and a bad one on top of that.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: onebigmonkey on June 17, 2017, 10:13:05 AM
No-one's ignoring it, people just aren't engaging with moronic anti-science, anti-engineering, anti-logic bullshit about WTC-7.

The two buildings, and the circumstances surrounding their destruction, are completely different. Stop pretending they aren't.

I find it both pitiful and disgusting that the first response of 9-11 conspiratards has been to point and jump and down in glee at this because they think it vindicates their retarded view of the world, instead of being appalled at the loss of life and the dreadful human tragedy that this represents.

The moon landings happened, the earth is a sphere, and terrorists attacked New York causing the destruction of those buildings. You don't want to prove those statements are false, you just want the ego trip of thinking you're right.

Tough.

You're not.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on June 17, 2017, 10:29:43 AM
^^speaking of blowhards who have done nothing but "know more" somehow

I base my "retarded world view" off education, 10 years experience, logic, reason, and just simple common sense. There are many many others that dwarf my experience and education that has the same "retarded worldview"..

Let's face it, I am arguing against your TV and group think, not against science and evidence. If it were just science and evidence, this wouldn't even be a thing right now. So by all means obey your TV, there are a lot of sheep waiting at the bottom of the cliff for you.


One last thing...dont you fucking call out my care of the tragedy of 9/11. That is the reason I have fought so hard is because I care about the bloodshed in a lie, not just americans but the millions in the middle East afterwards. You could buy a few houses with the amount of just raw cash I have put towards fighting for the truth in the last 10 years, that completely excludes the countless man hours.

What have you done besides obey your TV and parrot shit you don't even understand?? Nothing...you don't even care enough about the bloodshed you spout off to even look into it...pretty cowardly too me, but usually people throwing rocks in glass houses are such a way.

Now go on...your TV is calling, you need to know what to do... pathetic
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: dutchy on June 17, 2017, 10:33:09 AM
Quote from: onebigmonkey on June 17, 2017, 10:13:05 AM
No-one's ignoring it, people just aren't engaging with moronic anti-science, anti-engineering, anti-logic bullshit about WTC-7.

The two buildings, and the circumstances surrounding their destruction, are completely different. Stop pretending they aren't.

I find it both pitiful and disgusting that the first response of 9-11 conspiratards has been to point and jump and down in glee at this because they think it vindicates their retarded view of the world, instead of being appalled at the loss of life and the dreadful human tragedy that this represents.

The moon landings happened, the earth is a sphere, and terrorists attacked New York causing the destruction of those buildings. You don't want to prove those statements are false, you just want the ego trip of thinking you're right.

Tough.

You're not.
Killing over 1000.000 Iraqies and Afghanies because of a lie of weapons of mass destruction and retalliation towards Osama Bin Laden is disgusting...and so was Pearl Harbor and the Gulf of Tonkin.
Those in charge don't value human life,....i do.

And ''monkey'' if you have a grain of honest research left in your soul watch this video , presented after 9/11 to our international top expert on demolition control.

(http://)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: dutchy on June 17, 2017, 10:34:43 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on June 17, 2017, 10:29:43 AM
^^speaking of blowhards who have done nothing but "know more" somehow

I base my "retarded world view" off education, 10 years experience, logic, reason, and just simple common sense. There are many many others that dwarf my experience and education that has the same "retarded worldview"..

Let's face it, I am arguing against your TV and group think, not against science and evidence. If it were just science and evidence, this wouldn't even be a thing right now. So by all means obey your TV, there are a lot of sheep waiting at the bottom of the cliff for you.


One last thing...dont you fucking call out my care of the tragedy of 9/11. That is the reason I have fought so hard is because I care about the bloodshed in a lie, not just americans but the millions in the middle East afterwards. You could buy a few houses with the amount of just raw cash I have put towards fighting for the truth in the last 10 years, that completely excludes the countless man hours.

What have you done besides obey your TV and parrot shit you don't even understand?? Nothing...you don't even care enough about the bloodshed you spout off to even look into it...pretty cowardly too me, but usually people throwing rocks in glass houses are such a way.

Now go on...your TV is calling, you need to know what to do... pathetic
Excelent reply and also sad that it is still very much needed !!!!
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on June 17, 2017, 10:57:58 AM
I wanted do read everything you wrote here since yesterday, but
Quote
I have never heard so much science haters as those silently ignoring 9/11, but rediculing everyone who doesn't believe in the moonlandings or globe.
After that my daily bullshit-reading-capacity was already saturated :(
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: dutchy on June 17, 2017, 11:11:38 AM
Quote from: User324 on June 17, 2017, 10:57:58 AM
I wanted do read everything you wrote here since yesterday, but
Quote
I have never heard so much science haters as those silently ignoring 9/11, but rediculing everyone who doesn't believe in the moonlandings or globe.
After that my daily bullshit-reading-capacity was already saturated :(
It is the truth !!!!
The detailed info spread by the Apollo and NASA fanboys concerning the globe and the moonlandings is huge !!! Always hyping the details and blurry dots.

But when it comes to 9/11 they seem not to care for details, obvious facts, glaring inconsistancies, lies etc.
Of all the conspiracies 9/11 is the most obvious and it takes only a few weeks to conclude it was an inside job.
Alone the 2.3 trillion that Rumsfeld and his crooks could not track ...announced the day before the 9/11 attacks is hilarious.
A ''plane'' hits the accounting offices at the Pentagon and the rest of the possible revealing data was over at the WTC-7.

You must be from another realm to consider this just a rare coincidence....no one ever complained about the specific spoiling money machine (2.3 trillion) that the military was/is afterwards.....how convenient.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on June 17, 2017, 11:21:05 AM
Quote
It is the truth !!!!
It's not. It's your stupid opinion.

May I ask you what your profession is?

Also, feel free to take a look at my thread 'astounding easy to disprove flst earth'.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on June 17, 2017, 11:23:22 AM
Let's not derail to earth shape there is an entire site for that. Stay with 9/11
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on June 17, 2017, 11:32:43 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on June 17, 2017, 11:23:22 AM
Let's not derail to earth shape there is an entire site for that. Stay with 9/11
This thread is part of that site. So this thread is actually derailment of the actual topic of that site  ;)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: dutchy on June 17, 2017, 03:28:25 PM
Quote from: User324 on June 17, 2017, 11:21:05 AM
Quote
It is the truth !!!!
It's not. It's your stupid opinion.

May I ask you what your profession is?

Also, feel free to take a look at my thread 'astounding easy to disprove flst earth'.
You may ask.....
I am a musician and craftsman of acoustic instruments with an overall education in sound, studio, tuning, building and maintaining certain instruments.
That is about as detailed as i want to be on a forum, due to possible backlashes.

It is because of my profession , that i was able to immediatly recognise the ISS scam of a supposed intergalactic performance between a singing ISS guitar hero in zero gravity and earth.
It is so extremely easy to explain why this is not possible in reality and what you hear is a prerecorded studio mix, but all the stubborn globers around here who know shit about acoustics, recordings and mixing persist it could be done....go figure.
It doesn't matter how many credentials i can display , but the amount of ignorance i received was stunning when talking about recordings, mixing and acoustics in relation to the ISS+earth performance.

The expert showed in the 9/11 video is dead now, but he commented cincerely as an expert on Dutch TV about what his view was on the collapse of WTC-7.
I saw that specific item on Dutch TV when it was broadcasted first.....made me raise my eyebrows and was the start of my personal journey into some conspiracies.
You cannot find a better demolition expert........that should tell you something.

But like i found out you globers are rarely ever interested in expertise, unless it supports your pre defined idea of reality,.....not reality itself.

I think it's a shame, we could disclose so much more with an open mind you know.........
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on June 17, 2017, 11:41:12 PM
A dutch musician... talking so much crap.

And then people try to tell me, cannabis doesn't damage your brain  ::)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Pezevenk on June 18, 2017, 01:41:18 AM
Quote from: dutchy on June 17, 2017, 03:28:25 PM

It is because of my profession , that i was able to immediatly recognise the ISS scam of a supposed intergalactic performance between a singing ISS guitar hero in zero gravity and earth.


Are you going to stop saying stupid stuff?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on June 26, 2017, 05:51:47 PM
http://www.news.com.au/world/europe/grenfell-tower-why-it-hasnt-collapsed/news-story/7c71ab28f57c4c073d4bcf78aa1e79db

Suck my mainstream media balls.

Quote
The National Institute of Standards and Technology concluded that the heat generated by the infernos brought the tower down — making it the first and only steel skyscraper in the world to collapse because of fire.

But with Grenfell having burned about four times longer than the WTC7 yet remaining upright it’s a comparison that has left many commentators and conspiracy theorists scratching their heads.

Please note neither myself or any other truther is "scratching their head."
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on June 26, 2017, 05:58:35 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on June 17, 2017, 10:29:43 AM
Now go on...your TV is calling, you need to know what to do... pathetic

(https://s21.postimg.org/qtd386ojr/1496967874802.gif)

@ OBM. Are you saying finite element analysis in structural engineering is "anti-science?" Cause just wow man.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite_element_method

Whatever lets you sleep at night.

Edit.
@ Bhs how you been man sorry I haven't had the patience for this as of late.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Pezevenk on June 26, 2017, 10:35:05 PM
Just asking a genuine question out of curiosity here, why would they need to bring them down with explosives?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on June 26, 2017, 11:22:07 PM
For wtc 7, I believe the speed (2.25 seconds of free-fall) and symmetry of collapse could not have been caused by office fires. Due to the design of the building, loads involved the structural resistance etc.

This isn't a "crazy" opinion it is based on facts and evidence.



"In your professional opinion what is the likelyhood that fire caused wtc 7s collapse?"

Professor Leroy Hulsey PhD S.E
"Zero."

http://www.wtc7evaluation.org/
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on June 26, 2017, 11:24:32 PM
Quote from: Definitely Not Official on June 26, 2017, 10:35:05 PM
Just asking a genuine question out of curiosity here, why would they need to bring them down with explosives?

What?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Pezevenk on June 27, 2017, 12:09:55 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on June 26, 2017, 11:24:32 PM
Quote from: Definitely Not Official on June 26, 2017, 10:35:05 PM
Just asking a genuine question out of curiosity here, why would they need to bring them down with explosives?

What?

Why did they feel inclined to blow them up when a collision with two jets would have been adequate for the conspiracy?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on June 27, 2017, 12:14:30 AM
Quote from: Definitely Not Official on June 27, 2017, 12:09:55 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on June 26, 2017, 11:24:32 PM
Quote from: Definitely Not Official on June 26, 2017, 10:35:05 PM
Just asking a genuine question out of curiosity here, why would they need to bring them down with explosives?

What?

Why did they feel inclined to blow them up when a collision with two jets would have been adequate for the conspiracy?

I can speculate, if you like. I'd prefer to talk facts and physics.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on June 27, 2017, 01:01:37 AM
Quote from: disputeone on June 27, 2017, 12:14:30 AM
I can speculate, if you like. I'd prefer to talk facts and physics.
But those are languages you're not capable of speaking, let alone understanding.

Quote
@ OBM. Are you saying finite element analysis in structural engineering is "anti-science?"
Something tells me you have no idea about fe or it's application area.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on June 27, 2017, 01:03:22 AM
The short answer of why the towers were demolished instead of just flying the planes into the towers is I don't know DNO. I can only work back from wtc 7s collapse not making physical sense given the circumstances we were told.

Here's some speculation, I don't claim it as evidence, merely my opinion / musings. If it interests you.

Bless you for fixing the search function John.

Quote from: disputeone on March 02, 2017, 02:10:53 AM
To also try to address the "why" they took the towers down.

I have been thinking on this deeply.
In a psychological sense, it wasn't enough for the planes to hit the towers, they had to be removed, the difference on every photo, everytime someones visits and sees those towers no longer on the skyline, all the old photos videos postcards etc with the wtc buildings.

The power of this is unfathomable on a population, the fear, anxiety and stress it causes is huge, then promise to fix everything as long as we trust in our leaders, go to war for "wmd's" come back with oil, money countless deaths of innocents / innocence and geopolitical control in the middle east with an added advantage over Russia.

Everytime someone questions it or speaks out they are reminded of the forever changed skyline and sense of safety and called a "nutter" like has happened on this thread since the OP.



Quote from: User324 on June 27, 2017, 01:01:37 AM
Nuh-uh

I have no intention of continuing any type of communication with you.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on June 27, 2017, 01:12:54 AM
I stopped reading at
Quote
I have been thinking on this deeply.

Because obvious bullshit is obvious.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Pezevenk on June 27, 2017, 01:35:11 AM
Wouldn't they have to take them down anyways afterwards? You can't keep a destroyed, burnt down building with a massive hole just standing there... Just a thought.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on June 27, 2017, 01:40:42 AM
Quote from: Definitely Not Official on June 27, 2017, 01:35:11 AM
Wouldn't they have to take them down anyways afterwards? You can't keep a destroyed, burnt down building with a massive hole just standing there... Just a thought.

Of course. The buildings, had they not collapsed on the day would have been most likely inspected by structural engineers who made the call whether to pull them or if they are worth repairing. The England apartment block will most likely be demolished.

It can take months to prep a large building for demolition. There is a lot of work involved.

Also with respect, I am not sure of the point you are trying to make.

Edit. In retrospect I kinda get it, Seeing the towers fall in front of us was powerful, the effect would be somewhat lost if the towers were pulled weeks or months afterwards. I can keep speculating but I'd really prefer not to.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on June 27, 2017, 01:57:25 AM
Just to properly touch on this.

Quote from: onebigmonkey on June 17, 2017, 10:13:05 AM
I find it both pitiful and disgusting that the first response of 9-11 conspiratards has been to point and jump and down in glee at this because they think it vindicates their retarded view of the world, instead of being appalled at the loss of life and the dreadful human tragedy that this represents.

"People died so don't ask questions."

No, never, please see my sig.

Quote from: onebigmonkey on June 17, 2017, 10:13:05 AM
The moon landings happened

No doubt, we can prove it with physics also NASA to their credit has been quite open about their tech and methods. (Your website for example)

Quote from: onebigmonkey on June 17, 2017, 10:13:05 AM
the earth is a sphere

Duh, like really dude? Again, this can be proven with physics

Quote from: onebigmonkey on June 17, 2017, 10:13:05 AM
and terrorists attacked New York causing the destruction of those buildings.

Actually, especially for wtc 7, but wtc 1 and 2 also, we can show that the planes and fires weren't enough to cause the total symmetrical collapse at the fall acceleration observed.

This can be proven with,
Wait for it,

Keep waiting,

Physics.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Pezevenk on June 27, 2017, 02:04:10 AM
Quote from: disputeone on June 27, 2017, 01:40:42 AM
Quote from: Definitely Not Official on June 27, 2017, 01:35:11 AM
Wouldn't they have to take them down anyways afterwards? You can't keep a destroyed, burnt down building with a massive hole just standing there... Just a thought.

Of course. The buildings, had they not collapsed on the day would have been most likely inspected by structural engineers who made the call whether to pull them or if they are worth repairing. The England apartment block will most likely be demolished.

It can take months to prep a large building for demolition. There is a lot of work involved.

Also with respect, I am not sure of the point you are trying to make.

Edit. In retrospect I kinda get it, Seeing the towers fall in front of us was powerful, the effect would be somewhat lost if the towers were pulled weeks or months afterwards. I can keep speculating but I'd really prefer not to.

I'm not trying to make a point, it just seems weird to me that they would risk doing this controlled demolition manoeuvre for seemingly no reason at all.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on June 27, 2017, 02:06:03 AM
Seems unnecessary to me also tbqh.

They dropped the ball on wtc 7, if it was just wtc 1 and 2 that collapsed I'd be on the fence about the issue.

I don't claim to understand the motives behind the day.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Pezevenk on June 27, 2017, 02:09:52 AM
Quote from: disputeone on June 27, 2017, 02:06:03 AM
Seems unnecessary to me also tbqh.

They dropped the ball on wtc 7, if it was just wtc 1 and 2 that collapsed I'd be on the fence about the issue.

I don't claim to understand the motives behind the day.

Especially for WTC 7.

Anyways I don't really believe in this conspiracy theory, but I don't really want to say anything about it because I don't know anything about this whole affair.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on June 27, 2017, 02:11:25 AM
That's fine man I respect your opinion and am happy to agree to disagree.

I hope I might have piqued maybe just a bit of your curiosity to learn a little more, you seem very bright from your posts.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on June 27, 2017, 02:24:48 AM
Quote from: disputeone on June 27, 2017, 02:11:25 AM
That's fine man I respect your opinion and am happy to agree to disagree.

I hope I might have piqued maybe just a bit of your curiosity to learn a little more, you seem very bright from your posts.

Your manipulating skills are so low level; way to obvious. Long way to go there, bro.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Pezevenk on June 27, 2017, 02:28:32 AM
Quote from: disputeone on June 27, 2017, 02:11:25 AM
[...] you seem very bright from your posts.

Well maybe you should look again  ;)

I did look up some stuff a few weeks ago but I couldn't draw any definite conclusion from that. But I'm not really interested in this particular thread...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on June 27, 2017, 03:03:04 AM
Quote from: User324 on June 27, 2017, 02:24:48 AM
Quote from: disputeone on June 27, 2017, 02:11:25 AM
That's fine man I respect your opinion and am happy to agree to disagree.

I hope I might have piqued maybe just a bit of your curiosity to learn a little more, you seem very bright from your posts.

Your manipulating skills are so low level; way to obvious. Long way to go there, bro.

Heres your (you)

Thanks for quoting the whole post. So you think I am trying to manipulate him to
Quote from: disputeone on June 27, 2017, 02:11:25 AM
learn a little more
that is quite a nefarious deed I must admit. I certainly hope I didn't "manipulate" you DNO, my humble apologies.

If you are wondering why I am more polite it's because he's not an arrogant blowhard. Please control your hate boner for me.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Pezevenk on June 27, 2017, 03:49:17 AM
Haha I don't feel particularly "manipulated", but I'm outta here before all the drama starts  ;D
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on June 27, 2017, 03:51:05 AM
Quote from: Definitely Not Official on June 27, 2017, 03:49:17 AM
Haha I don't feel particularly "manipulated", but I'm outta here before all the drama starts  ;D

You already stirred the pot sunshine.

Plus ignore user for obvious reasons
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Pezevenk on June 27, 2017, 04:02:16 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on June 27, 2017, 03:51:05 AM
You already stirred the pot sunshine.


Can I unstir it somehow?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on June 27, 2017, 04:06:59 AM
Quote from: Definitely Not Official on June 27, 2017, 03:49:17 AM
Haha I don't feel particularly "manipulated", but I'm outta here before all the drama starts  ;D
Drama is the only reason for this thread's existance.

Quote
Thanks for quoting the whole post. So you think I am trying to manipulate him to
So, you're trying to tell me your effort of manipulation wasn't even conscious? Makes it even worse to be honest.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on July 02, 2017, 08:23:49 PM
Quick bump. If you have a spare 30 minutes please watch it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Space Cowgirl on July 03, 2017, 09:36:07 AM
If it is ever shown to the public that there really was a govt conspiracy to make it look like terrorists did 9/11, what then?  What do you think will change because of it?

It usually takes many years for the govt to release classified information, like 50yrs sometimes, by then most people who were involved are dead or near to death. The people alive don't even care about whatever happened anymore.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on July 03, 2017, 01:25:33 PM
Quote from: Space Cowgirl on July 03, 2017, 09:36:07 AM
If it is ever shown to the public that there really was a govt conspiracy to make it look like terrorists did 9/11, what then?  What do you think will change because of it?

It usually takes many years for the govt to release classified information, like 50yrs sometimes, by then most people who were involved are dead or near to death. The people alive don't even care about whatever happened anymore.

You are correct cowgirl on both parts. This is why I fought so hard in the beginning knowing the timeline was finite. That's like discovering the truth about JFK's assassination now...really what would it change...nothing..

I don't want the same destiny for 9/11...because we are talking about multiple countries destabilised, millions dead, and countless others millions lives destroyed on a lie. However, you are right, the clock is ticking.

I have considered making one more pass at it seriously and seeing what happens...however the other side of me simply says "no one will care". Most of the newer generation doesn't even care enough one way or another because they are trained narcissist.

Then you have the idiotic blowhards that pretend to know something, yet in reality they are just quoting their TV and have zero real understanding.

Sadly the narcissist group is becoming the majority, then second place the idiots. That is almost impossible conditioning to fight, no matter how sound your evidence is or how well qualified you are to speak for it.


Then finally I have always thought to myself "if I had the ultimate chance to out everything would I"...what would be the consequences world wide? Do you think the rest of the world would take the fact we killed millions and destroyed countries on a complete fabrication laying down?? I don't think they would...I think the repercussions could be devastating.

Very devastating

*Edit, changing auto correct
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Pezevenk on July 03, 2017, 01:28:25 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on July 03, 2017, 01:25:33 PM
Most of the newer generation doesn't even care enough one way or another because they are trained narcissist.

"GET OFF MY LAWN!"
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on July 03, 2017, 01:52:15 PM
Quote from: disputeone on July 02, 2017, 08:23:49 PM
Quick bump. If you have a spare 30 minutes please watch it.
No I don't, but thanks for the proposal.

Quote from: babyhighspeed
Most of the newer generation doesn't even care enough one way or another because they are trained narcissist.
"The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for
authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place
of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their
households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They
contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties
at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers."
- Socrates, ~400bc
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on July 03, 2017, 02:35:46 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on July 03, 2017, 01:25:33 PM
Then you have the idiotic blowhards that pretend to know something, yet in reality they are just quoting their TV and have zero real understanding.

Thou hath summoned me?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on July 03, 2017, 03:47:01 PM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on July 03, 2017, 02:35:46 PM
Thou hath summoned me?

Hey sexy  :-* welcome back to the 9/11 thread haus, been a while.

Get tired of arguing politics?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on July 03, 2017, 03:58:01 PM
Quote from: Definitely Not Official on July 03, 2017, 01:28:25 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on July 03, 2017, 01:25:33 PM
Most of the newer generation doesn't even care enough one way or another because they are trained narcissist.

"GET OFF MY LAWN!"

I am glad that phrase exists in your country as well, quite humorous.

Quote from: User324 on July 03, 2017, 01:52:15 PM
"The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for
authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place
of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their
households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They
contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties
at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers."
- Socrates, ~400bc


Yep, and they were right. Humanity corrupts in phases, then sometimes takes a step forward, then backwards etc etc.

However..

Never in history have we had the variables present we have today. There was always a barrier before technology, then the correct ideas would have the chance to rebound and stomp the bad ideas and mentalities.

Now, a bad mentality, ideas etc can literally attack the whole planet... Being a blind follower is already dangerous enough, but a narcissistic blind follower??? That is as dangerous as you can get.

Control is beyond easy for such a person, as well as they would never attack an injustice for it would appear to not effect them.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on July 03, 2017, 04:15:24 PM
Quote from: Space Cowgirl on July 03, 2017, 09:36:07 AM
If it is ever shown to the public that there really was a govt conspiracy to make it look like terrorists did 9/11, what then?  What do you think will change because of it?

It usually takes many years for the govt to release classified information, like 50yrs sometimes, by then most people who were involved are dead or near to death. The people alive don't even care about whatever happened anymore.

For people like you, nothing will ever change. It's painfully obvious you don't care for truth.

What convinved you the earth is flat?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Space Cowgirl on July 03, 2017, 04:26:29 PM
Quote from: disputeone on July 03, 2017, 04:15:24 PM
Quote from: Space Cowgirl on July 03, 2017, 09:36:07 AM
If it is ever shown to the public that there really was a govt conspiracy to make it look like terrorists did 9/11, what then?  What do you think will change because of it?

It usually takes many years for the govt to release classified information, like 50yrs sometimes, by then most people who were involved are dead or near to death. The people alive don't even care about whatever happened anymore.

For people like you, nothing will ever change. It's painfully obvious you don't care for truth.


Why do you take such offense? This was a real question. I suppose you really just want to fight with people now.

What do you honestly think will happen if a conspiracy is proven? Who will be the scapegoat? Will there be new laws? Will they get rid of the Patriot Act? Will they stop making people take off their shoes at airports?

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on July 03, 2017, 04:31:29 PM
It's not a real question, you are trying to convince people fighting for the truth is pointless.

Yes, I find it offensive.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on July 03, 2017, 04:35:10 PM
Quote from: Space Cowgirl on July 03, 2017, 04:26:29 PM
Why do you take such offense? This was a real question. I suppose you really just want to fight with people now.

What do you honestly think will happen if a conspiracy is proven? Who will be the scapegoat? Will there be new laws? Will they get rid of the Patriot Act? Will they stop making people take off their shoes at airports?

I answered your question above in a relatively detailed fashion.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on July 03, 2017, 04:42:47 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on July 03, 2017, 03:47:01 PM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on July 03, 2017, 02:35:46 PM
Thou hath summoned me?

Hey sexy  :-* welcome back to the 9/11 thread haus, been a while.

Get tired of arguing politics?

Nah. It's just been awhile since I've been called a literal TV. I think I am starting to suffer from withdrawal. There is an odd buzzing in my ears and I have this weird desire to keep my head tilted 30 degrees south, 12 degrees west.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Space Cowgirl on July 03, 2017, 04:43:45 PM
BHS, you agreed with me that time is running out. You didn't say what you thought would change. That's what interests me. Will knowing the truth change anything in our life? For the better, I hope. So far in response to 9/11 we've had all the bullshit in the Patriot Act, which a lot of seems unconstitutional. The never ending wars in the ME.  All the stuff Snowden leaked (too much to list!).  If it is proven there was a conspiracy, will any of these things be fixed? Will we ever be free of the surveillance state, or at least have it cut back some?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on July 03, 2017, 04:56:50 PM
Quote from: Space Cowgirl on July 03, 2017, 04:26:29 PM
What do you honestly think will happen if a conspiracy is proven?

Last post.

We will have the truth.

That's enough for me.

Never be afraid to raise your voice for honesty and truth and compassion against injustice and lying and greed. If people all over the world...would do this, it would change the earth.

William Faulkner
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on July 03, 2017, 05:28:28 PM
Quote from: Space Cowgirl on July 03, 2017, 04:43:45 PM
BHS, you agreed with me that time is running out. You didn't say what you thought would change. That's what interests me. Will knowing the truth change anything in our life? For the better, I hope. So far in response to 9/11 we've had all the bullshit in the Patriot Act, which a lot of seems unconstitutional. The never ending wars in the ME.  All the stuff Snowden leaked (too much to list!).  If it is proven there was a conspiracy, will any of these things be fixed? Will we ever be free of the surveillance state, or at least have it cut back some?

I addressed it some here.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on July 03, 2017, 01:25:33 PM

Then finally I have always thought to myself "if I had the ultimate chance to out everything would I"...what would be the consequences world wide? Do you think the rest of the world would take the fact we killed millions and destroyed countries on a complete fabrication laying down?? I don't think they would...I think the repercussions could be devastating.

Very devastating

On the home front, I am sure there would be changes if people cared enough and truly took the time to wrap their minds around the trillions and freedoms we were swindled out of.

However, I think the international backlash would make us forget about any changes here. At the minimum damaging sanctions, at the worst war. I personally feel it would be closer to the latter than the former.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on July 03, 2017, 05:35:40 PM
http://israellobby.org/urbanmoving/1169683-001%20---%20303A-NY-C237934-Serial%20325%20---%20Section%201%20(1037758).pdf
(FOI request)

http://www.haaretz.com/odigo-says-workers-were-warned-of-attack-1.70579
Quote
Odigo, the instant messaging service, says that two of its workers received messages two hours before the Twin Towers attack on September 11 predicting the attack would happen, and the company has been cooperating with Israeli and American law enforcement, including the FBI, in trying to find the original sender of the message predicting the attack.

Edit.

CNN and NBC reported wtc 7 as having collapsed before it did, they tried to take the videos down but they didn't count on internets.

[Open]
[Open]

Lucky Larry Silverstein said they "pulled" wtc 7.


Emergency services were told that wtc 7 would collapse although no steel framed high rise has ever collapsed due to fire.

This is the explosion heard by firefighters.
[Open]

Here is a finite element analysis made by three PhD Structural Engineers showing that fires couldn't have brought down wtc 7.

http://www.wtc7evaluation.org/
[Open]

Here is NIST admitting they can't / won't explain how wtc 7 fell in the interests of """public safety."""

(https://s1.postimg.org/klu1d3i8v/Screenshot_20170703-161757.png)

Here is a related FOI request.
https://archive.org/stream/NIST_WTC7_FOIA_11-209/NIST_WTC7_FOIA_11-209/100511rhb%20FOIA%2011-209_djvu.txt

9/11 was a CIA / Mossad false flag.
Seriously what's left to "prove?"
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on July 03, 2017, 07:23:15 PM
Whoops did I break the thread?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on July 04, 2017, 02:10:23 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on July 03, 2017, 03:58:01 PM
Yep, and they were right. Humanity corrupts in phases, then sometimes takes a step forward, then backwards etc etc.

However..

Never in history have we had the variables present we have today. There was always a barrier before technology, then the correct ideas would have the chance to rebound and stomp the bad ideas and mentalities.

Now, a bad mentality, ideas etc can literally attack the whole planet... Being a blind follower is already dangerous enough, but a narcissistic blind follower??? That is as dangerous as you can get.

Control is beyond easy for such a person, as well as they would never attack an injustice for it would appear to not effect them.
I already knew you were a crazy madman, but this tops it once again.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Pezevenk on July 04, 2017, 02:19:23 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on July 03, 2017, 03:58:01 PM
Quote from: Definitely Not Official on July 03, 2017, 01:28:25 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on July 03, 2017, 01:25:33 PM
Most of the newer generation doesn't even care enough one way or another because they are trained narcissist.

"GET OFF MY LAWN!"

I am glad that phrase exists in your country as well, quite humorous.


Sadly, it doesn't. Fyge apo to grasidi mou doesn't sound very appealing!
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on July 04, 2017, 02:21:30 AM
Quote from: User324 on July 04, 2017, 02:10:23 AM

"crazy madman"

1. Are you serious?
2. Is that really the best you have?
3. Profit ? ? ? ?

Please see
Quote from: disputeone on July 03, 2017, 05:35:40 PM
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on July 04, 2017, 03:15:49 AM
Quote from: disputeone on July 04, 2017, 02:21:30 AM
Quote from: User324 on July 04, 2017, 02:10:23 AM

"crazy madman"

1. Are you serious?
2. Is that really the best you have?
3. Profit ? ? ? ?

Please see
Quote from: disputeone on July 03, 2017, 05:35:40 PM
Disputeone, talking like a 13 year old memer again.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on July 04, 2017, 03:23:48 AM
Quote from: User
Quote from: User324 on July 04, 2017, 03:15:49 AM
Please see
Quote from: disputeone on July 03, 2017, 05:35:40 PM
Disputeone, talking like a 13 year old memer again.

Great rebuttal, some of your best work.

Honestly with debunkers like user the truth movement may as well give up. He's sure got us on the ropes.

Wew lad.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on July 05, 2017, 02:56:18 AM
Quote from: User324 on July 04, 2017, 03:15:49 AM
Quote from: disputeone on July 04, 2017, 02:21:30 AM
Quote from: User324 on July 04, 2017, 02:10:23 AM

"crazy madman"

1. Are you serious?
2. Is that really the best you have?
3. Profit ? ? ? ?

Please see
Quote from: disputeone on July 03, 2017, 05:35:40 PM
Disputeone, talking like a 13 year old memer again.

I'm going to suggest that your comment is probably closer to the real truth than anything dipstickone has posted on this thread.   He's got a 13 year old mind.   
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on July 05, 2017, 03:19:37 AM
Holy shit I literally summoned it.

Here is the post, for your convenience.

http://israellobby.org/urbanmoving/1169683-001%20---%20303A-NY-C237934-Serial%20325%20---%20Section%201%20(1037758).pdf
(FOI request)

http://www.haaretz.com/odigo-says-workers-were-warned-of-attack-1.70579
Quote
Odigo, the instant messaging service, says that two of its workers received messages two hours before the Twin Towers attack on September 11 predicting the attack would happen, and the company has been cooperating with Israeli and American law enforcement, including the FBI, in trying to find the original sender of the message predicting the attack.

Edit.

CNN and NBC reported wtc 7 as having collapsed before it did, they tried to take the videos down but they didn't count on internets.

[Open]
[Open]

Lucky Larry Silverstein said they "pulled" wtc 7.


Emergency services were told that wtc 7 would collapse although no steel framed high rise has ever collapsed due to fire.

This is the explosion heard by firefighters.
[Open]

Here is a finite element analysis made by three PhD Structural Engineers showing that fires couldn't have brought down wtc 7.

http://www.wtc7evaluation.org/
[Open]

Here is NIST admitting they can't / won't explain how wtc 7 fell in the interests of """public safety."""

(https://s1.postimg.org/klu1d3i8v/Screenshot_20170703-161757.png)

Here is a related FOI request.
https://archive.org/stream/NIST_WTC7_FOIA_11-209/NIST_WTC7_FOIA_11-209/100511rhb%20FOIA%2011-209_djvu.txt

9/11 was a CIA / Mossad false flag.
Seriously what's left to "prove?"
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on July 05, 2017, 06:32:29 AM
Quote from: disputeone on July 05, 2017, 03:19:37 AM
Holy shit I literally summoned it.

Here is the post, for your convenience.


TL:DR;   got anything new?   Or just same old BS?

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on July 05, 2017, 06:45:54 AM
Your debunking skills are on par with users, that's pretty impressive man.

(https://s1.postimg.org/843h4kngf/1-_Israeli-_Van-911-_Dancing.jpg)

Quote
Millions saw the horrific images of the World Trade Center attacks, and those who saw them won't forget them. But a New Jersey homemaker saw something that morning that prompted an investigation into five young Israelis and their possible connection to Israeli intelligence.

Maria, who asked us not to use her last name, had a view of the World Trade Center from her New Jersey apartment building. She remembers a neighbor calling her shortly after the first plane hit the towers.

She grabbed her binoculars and watched the destruction unfolding in lower Manhattan. But as she watched the disaster, something else caught her eye.

Maria says she saw three young men kneeling on the roof of a white van in the parking lot of her apartment building. "They seemed to be taking a movie," Maria said.

The men were taking video or photos of themselves with the World Trade Center burning in the background, she said. What struck Maria were the expressions on the men's faces. "They were like happy, you know … They didn't look shocked to me. I thought it was very strange," she said.

She found the behavior so suspicious that she wrote down the license plate number of the van and called the police. Before long, the FBI was also on the scene, and a statewide bulletin was issued on the van.

The plate number was traced to a van owned by a company called Urban Moving. Around 4 p.m. on Sept. 11, the van was spotted on a service road off Route 3, near New Jersey's Giants Stadium. A police officer pulled the van over, finding five men, between 22 and 27 years old, in the vehicle. The men were taken out of the van at gunpoint and handcuffed by police.

The arresting officers said they saw a lot that aroused their suspicion about the men. One of the passengers had $4,700 in cash hidden in his sock. Another was carrying two foreign passports. A box cutter was found in the van. But perhaps the biggest surprise for the officers came when the five men identified themselves as Israeli citizens.

‘We Are Not Your Problem’

According to the police report, one of the passengers told the officers they had been on the West Side Highway in Manhattan "during the incident" — referring to the World Trade Center attack. The driver of the van, Sivan Kurzberg, told the officers, "We are Israeli. We are not your problem. Your problems are our problems. The Palestinians are the problem." The other passengers were his brother Paul Kurzberg, Yaron Shmuel, Oded Ellner and Omer Marmari.

When the men were transferred to jail, the case was transferred out of the FBI's Criminal Division, and into the bureau's Foreign Counterintelligence Section, which is responsible for espionage cases, ABCNEWS has learned.

One reason for the shift, sources told ABCNEWS, was that the FBI believed Urban Moving may have been providing cover for an Israeli intelligence operation.

After the five men were arrested, the FBI got a warrant and searched Urban Moving's Weehawken, N.J., offices.

The FBI searched Urban Moving's offices for several hours, removing boxes of documents and a dozen computer hard drives. The FBI also questioned Urban Moving's owner. His attorney insists that his client answered all of the FBI's questions. But when FBI agents tried to interview him again a few days later, he was gone.

Three months later 2020's cameras photographed the inside of Urban Moving, and it looked as if the business had been shut down in a big hurry. Cell phones were lying around; office phones were still connected; and the property of dozens of clients remained in the warehouse.

The owner had also cleared out of his New Jersey home, put it up for sale and returned with his family to Israel.

‘A Scary Situation’

Steven Gordon, the attorney for the five Israeli detainees, acknowledged that his clients' actions on Sept. 11 would easily have aroused suspicions. "You got a group of guys that are taking pictures, on top of a roof, of the World Trade Center. They're speaking in a foreign language. They got two passports on 'em. One's got a wad of cash on him, and they got box cutters. Now that's a scary situation."

But Gordon insisted that his clients were just five young men who had come to America for a vacation, ended up working for a moving company, and were taking pictures of the event.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=123885&page=1
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on July 05, 2017, 09:59:26 AM
Lol, dispute spaming again.
Well, if you don't have an argument you try to hide behind a wall of text, I understand.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on July 05, 2017, 02:48:23 PM
User.
Pick an argument at your leisure and try to debunk it if you can. I spent 100+ pages using my own words. The article is really quite interesting.

Quote from: markjo on July 05, 2017, 08:06:00 AM
Quote from: disputeone on July 05, 2017, 12:49:26 AM
Quote from: Definitely Not Official on July 05, 2017, 12:46:57 AM
Dispute, a comparison with the brick stacks is not accurate at all. You're only breaking each floor one after the other, not all at once.

Please see the second video.
Why couldn't we break each brick one by one like what some people claim happened to wtc 1 and 2?
First of all, the tower collapse wasn't so much a matter of breaking bricks (floors) as breaking the spacers (walls) holding the bricks up.

Secondly, there is already an active 9/11 thread to discuss these things.

And for some reason the core structure had no effect in holding the building up, just the "walls?"

Cool man.

Here Markjo tell me honestly the floors weren't broken.



You guys seem to want to compare steel and concrete highrises to a house of cards.

I did enjoy DNO using his own words to debate, it was a welcome change.

Also NIST says the pancake hypothesis is B/S, why would you defend a hypothesis that the creators say doesn't work.

Quote from: NIST
NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Space Cowgirl on July 11, 2017, 08:36:04 AM
http://www.tampabay.com/opinion/columns/column-sixteen-years-after-911-the-american-public-deserves-answers-not/2329923

Quote
Sixteen years is a long time to expect the American public to wait to know who was behind 9/11, the most significant act of terror in modern U.S. history. Unfortunately, the wait continues because of the resistance of federal agencies to openness, the over-classification of information and the weakness of the Freedom of Information Act.

Vast numbers of investigative and intelligence documents related to 9/11 remain classified. The FBI alone has acknowledged it has tens of thousands of pages of 9/11 reports that it refuses to make public. To make matters worse, agencies withholding information tell what are essentially lies to make their actions seem as acceptable as possible.

For example, the FBI repeatedly has said its investigation of a Saudi family who moved abruptly out of their Sarasota home two weeks before 9/11 — leaving behind their cars, clothes, furniture and other belongings — found no connections to the attacks. Yet statements in the FBI's own files that were never disclosed to Congress or the 9/11 Commission say the opposite — that the Sarasota Saudis had "many connections" to "individuals associated with the terrorist attacks on 9/11/2001."

Trust in government today is near historic lows. Recent polls by Gallup and the Pew Research Center found that only 20 percent of Americans trust Washington to do what's right. When the people think government isn't listening to them, or giving them the respect of knowing what it is doing, it feeds into that undercurrent and denies the public the opportunity to be part of the discussion about what we should be doing.

Last summer's release of the long-hidden "28 pages" from Congress' Joint Inquiry into 9/11 and FBI records obtained by Florida Bulldog amid ongoing FOIA litigation indicate that much about Saudi Arabia's role in supporting the 9/11 hijackers remains classified. If the public knew the role the kingdom played in 9/11, would the United States be selling them $350 billion in sophisticated military equipment?

The Freedom of Information Act is intended to be how classified materials are unearthed. But as it is currently written and has been generally interpreted by the courts, most recently by Miami federal Judge Cecilia Altonaga in Florida Bulldog's lawsuit against the FBI, the frequently trivial concerns of agencies trump the fundamental democratic principle that Americans deserve to know what their government is doing in their name.

The problem is illustrated by Altonaga's June 29 order denying the public access to an FBI PowerPoint titled "Overview of the 9/11 Investigation." The judge agreed with the FBI that much information, including classified pages about who funded the attacks, was exempt from FOIA disclosure because it might disclose law enforcement "techniques and procedures," even though the overview doesn't discuss those techniques and procedures. Altonaga ruled without holding a trial at which agents could be cross-examined in open court on the facts that supported the FBI's claims.

For instance, the FBI withheld a photo taken by a security camera around the time of the attacks in 2001. The FBI argued, and the judge agreed, that the camera's location could be deduced by viewing that photographic evidence. It is a trivialization of FOIA to use its exemptions to protect the location of a security camera 16 years ago.

The "techniques and procedures" exemption should not be used as a rationale for the nondisclosure of the image in the photograph. The camera didn't give the American government information to avoid 9/11. Why are we covering up for this failed system 16 years later?

The classification process today is driven by the agency that's trying to withhold the information. No disinterested third party is involved that would be free from the motivation of burying ineptitude, or worse, by the agency holding the material.

The government hasn't always had such a tightfisted approach to records. During the Civil War, amid Northern discontent as the war grew increasingly bloody, President Abraham Lincoln instituted a policy that every diplomatic message received or sent would regularly be made public. Lincoln believed such extreme openness was needed so people could see how the Union was conducting foreign policy, particularly whether Spain, France or England were going to recognize the Confederacy as a sovereign nation, a potentially crippling blow.

Acting in the face of extreme crisis, Lincoln demonstrated an early belief in the value of open records to keep the public informed and supportive. The president, the FBI and other agencies would be wise to follow President Lincoln's example. Congress would be wise to reform FOIA so it serves its intended purpose.

Bob Graham was chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and co-chairman of Congress's Joint Inquiry into the terrorist attacks. He served as Florida's governor from 1979-87. Dan Christensen is an award-winning investigative reporter and the founder and editor of Florida Bulldog, a nonprofit news organization. They wrote this exclusively for the Tampa Bay Times.

This article was in the paper this morning and I thought it would be interesting for you to read. I may not agree that the US govt blew up the buildings, but I do agree that they are hiding information. Anytime I ask (on the internet) why we are such great pals with the Saudis someone says "oil" but that answer is unsatisfying to me. It's gotta be more than oil!
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on July 14, 2017, 03:13:54 PM
Israel. SCG. Follow the money. Look into the players behind the war on terror and even recently the Saudi Weapons deal.

Between this and Hulsey it's pretty much over guys.
http://yournewswire.com/cia-911-wtc7/
http://www.wtc7evaluation.org/

Quote
79-year-old retired CIA agent, Malcom Howard, has made a series of astonishing claims since being released from hospital in New Jersey on Friday and told he has weeks to live. Mr. Howard claims he was involved in the “controlled demolition” of World Trade Center 7, the third building that was destroyed on 9/11.

Quote
Mr. Howard and his colleagues feared the public would see through the official narrative and rise up against the government, demanding to be told the truth.

“There were so many loose ends, so much evidence left behind. We thought the public would be all over it. We thought there would be a public uprising that the media couldn’t ignore. They’d be funding investigations and demanding to know why they were being lied to. We thought they’d find chemical composites in the area that would prove Building 7 was blown up.

“We thought there would be a revolution. It would go all the way to the top, to President Bush. He’d be dragged out of the White House.

“But none of that happened. Almost nobody questioned anything. The media shot down anyone who dared question anything they were told.”

There's your whistleblower.
Inb4 it's not on CNN.





Most of you have been brainwashed and are taking active steps to protect that brainwashing.

I can't stop you from doing it but you owe it to yourselves to be honest with yourselves.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on July 14, 2017, 03:20:19 PM


Furthermore we finally have a president willing to stand up to the deep state / shadow goverment and institutionalized corruption and 90% of you want him impeached cause he hurts your fee fees. Forgive my resentment. I hope it's at least understandable.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on July 15, 2017, 01:35:03 AM
I think it's you that is brainwashed.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on July 15, 2017, 05:03:35 AM
Quote from: User324 on July 15, 2017, 01:35:03 AM
I think it's you that is brainwashed.

I've not seen any evidence that he has a brain,  washed or otherwise.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on July 15, 2017, 05:58:06 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on July 15, 2017, 05:03:35 AM
I've not seen any evidence that he has a brain,  washed or otherwise.

Typical low-brow insult of a blowhard nobody. Why do all you people act the same? Having to attempt lowering the field because you can't rise to it?

Is there a book passed around at meetings? An FAQ someone I don't know about?

Please examine yourself for your own good
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on July 15, 2017, 09:03:35 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on July 15, 2017, 05:58:06 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on July 15, 2017, 05:03:35 AM
I've not seen any evidence that he has a brain,  washed or otherwise.

Typical low-brow insult of a blowhard nobody. Why do all you people act the same? Having to attempt lowering the field because you can't rise to it?

Is there a book passed around at meetings? An FAQ someone I don't know about?

Please examine yourself for your own good

LOL,   the fake returns,   the engineering PhD who doesn't know what a point load is. 

Are you ever planning to present any of your claimed ten year long unpaid and unpublished research into 911 conspiracy bullshit?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on July 15, 2017, 10:01:13 AM
Pretty sure there is an entire thread about point loads that ended up proving I knew exactly what I am talking about and y'all were the hacks after about 20 pages or so of nonsense.

That was weak, even for you spanky.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on July 15, 2017, 11:36:13 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on July 15, 2017, 10:01:13 AM
Pretty sure there is an entire thread about point loads that ended up proving I knew exactly what I am talking about and y'all were the hacks after about 20 pages or so of nonsense.

That was weak, even for you spanky.

You mean the thread where you failed to even attempt an answer?    Promised to build a test rig,  then did nothing,   and generally made a complete idiot of yourself.

Yes,  I remember that thread.   Not your finest moment.


Now,  what about all that 911 research you claimed to have done?    I call BS.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on July 16, 2017, 12:23:14 AM
Bhs, I still wait for your proof that you are an engineer with a phd
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on July 20, 2017, 04:42:41 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on July 15, 2017, 05:58:06 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on July 15, 2017, 05:03:35 AM
I've not seen any evidence that he has a brain,  washed or otherwise.

Typical low-brow insult of a blowhard nobody. Why do all you people act the same? Having to attempt lowering the field because you can't rise to it?

Is there a book passed around at meetings? An FAQ someone I don't know about?

Please examine yourself for your own good

I've been looking through some documents in my spare time. Rayzor has the updated shilling manual. He does follow their main taking points.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-02-23/1967-he-cia-created-phrase-conspiracy-theorists-and-ways-attack-anyone-who-challenge

You sold your soul Rayzor.

(https://s11.postimg.org/l4z7fkykj/1500262708104.jpg)

At least we can see what we are up against.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on July 20, 2017, 04:48:31 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on July 15, 2017, 11:36:13 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on July 15, 2017, 10:01:13 AM
Pretty sure there is an entire thread about point loads that ended up proving I knew exactly what I am talking about and y'all were the hacks after about 20 pages or so of nonsense.

That was weak, even for you spanky.

You mean the thread where you failed to even attempt an answer?    Promised to build a test rig,  then did nothing,   and generally made a complete idiot of yourself.

Yes,  I remember that thread.   Not your finest moment.


Now,  what about all that 911 research you claimed to have done?    I call BS.

You guys have selective memory.

Here is some research and an embarrassing quote.

https://docs.google.com/uc?id=0B5wOo8veZYC8cmU3aXVZZ2NrS3M&export=download
Warning large file.

Quote from: disputeone on March 17, 2017, 01:00:07 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on March 17, 2017, 12:56:47 AM
And here's a real nightmare, but something very fascinating: It's fucking unsolvable.

You memba how Bhs said this in his first reply addressing the thought experiment?

I memba.

Something something not enough variables.

I never said your calculations wouldn't reflect reality in your original situation Evar.

So, in actuality. It was you that made an ass of himself, Rayzor. At least Evar admitted he was wrong.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on July 20, 2017, 09:44:08 PM
I think disputeone is worse than sandokahn at this point.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on July 20, 2017, 09:44:54 PM
Quote from: User324 on July 20, 2017, 09:44:08 PM
I think disputeone is worse than sandokahn at this point.

(https://s11.postimg.org/l4z7fkykj/1500262708104.jpg)

Do better.

Edit.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/02/x-admitted-false-flag-attacks.html

Quote
There are many documented false flag attacks, where a government carries out a terror attack … and then falsely blames its enemy for political purposes.

In the following 53 instances, officials in the government which carried out the attack (or seriously proposed an attack)admits to it, either orally or in writing:

Also.

Quote
The decision to launch the Iraq war was made before 9/11. Indeed, former CIA director George Tenet said that the White Housewanted to invade Iraq long before 9/11, and inserted “crap” in its justifications for invading Iraq. Former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill – who sat on the National Security Council – alsosays that Bush planned the Iraq war before 9/11. And top British officials say that the U.S. discussed Iraq regime change one month after Bush took office. Dick Cheney apparently even made Iraqi’s oil fields a national security priority before 9/11. And it has now been shown that a handful of people were responsible for willfully ignoring the evidence that Iraq lacked weapons of mass destruction. These facts have only been publicly disclosed recently. Indeed, Tom Brokaw said, “All wars are based on propaganda.” A concerted effort to produce propaganda is a conspiracy
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on July 20, 2017, 10:20:06 PM
How do you feel about spending all your free time (and work time, too?) on the flat earth society and researching conspiracy theories?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on July 20, 2017, 10:37:48 PM
(https://s11.postimg.org/l4z7fkykj/1500262708104.jpg)

Do better.

Quote from: User324 on July 20, 2017, 10:20:06 PM
How do you feel about spending all your free time researching.

Pretty good.

We only really die when we stop learning.

How do you feel about not researching anything?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on July 20, 2017, 11:10:50 PM
Quote from: disputeone on July 20, 2017, 10:37:48 PM
Quote from: User324 on July 20, 2017, 10:20:06 PM
How do you feel about spending all your free time researching.

Pretty good.

We only really die when we stop learning.

How do you feel about not researching anything?
I find it amusing that you believe what you do is research or learning something of value.

Go to an university and learn real shit, not echo-chamber-conspiracy-BS.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on July 20, 2017, 11:20:21 PM
I find it amusing that you find it amusing.

Quote from: User324 on July 20, 2017, 11:10:50 PM
Go to an university and learn real shit,

A university like Fairbanks univeristy Alaska?
http://www.wtc7evaluation.org/

Please do better in the future. You are embarrassing yourself.

Also don't bury Rayzors embarrassment in shitposts. You aren't even a good shitposter
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on July 20, 2017, 11:59:08 PM
Quote from: disputeone on July 20, 2017, 11:20:21 PM
I find it amusing that you find it amusing.

Quote from: User324 on July 20, 2017, 11:10:50 PM
Go to an university and learn real shit,

A university like Fairbanks univeristy Alaska?
http://www.wtc7evaluation.org/

Please do better in the future. You are embarrassing yourself.

Also don't bury Rayzors embarrassment in shitposts. You aren't even a good shitposter
Yeah, feel free to go there instead of brabbling bullshit online. It would be a good start!
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on July 21, 2017, 12:04:32 AM
They do good work.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on July 21, 2017, 12:11:39 AM
Quote from: disputeone on July 21, 2017, 12:04:32 AM
They do good work.
Yeah, but you're still not a student there, are you?
That was the whole point.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on July 21, 2017, 01:00:16 AM
No, I live in Australia. You aren't very bright. Are you?

Here is a post that stands untouched if you are interested in trying to engage it.

Quote from: disputeone on July 05, 2017, 03:19:37 AM
Holy shit I literally summoned it.

Here is the post, for your convenience.

http://israellobby.org/urbanmoving/1169683-001%20---%20303A-NY-C237934-Serial%20325%20---%20Section%201%20(1037758).pdf
(FOI request)

http://www.haaretz.com/odigo-says-workers-were-warned-of-attack-1.70579
Quote
Odigo, the instant messaging service, says that two of its workers received messages two hours before the Twin Towers attack on September 11 predicting the attack would happen, and the company has been cooperating with Israeli and American law enforcement, including the FBI, in trying to find the original sender of the message predicting the attack.

Edit.

CNN and NBC reported wtc 7 as having collapsed before it did, they tried to take the videos down but they didn't count on internets.

[Open]
[Open]

Lucky Larry Silverstein said they "pulled" wtc 7.


Emergency services were told that wtc 7 would collapse although no steel framed high rise has ever collapsed due to fire.

This is the explosion heard by firefighters.
[Open]

Here is a finite element analysis made by three PhD Structural Engineers showing that fires couldn't have brought down wtc 7.

http://www.wtc7evaluation.org/
[Open]

Here is NIST admitting they can't / won't explain how wtc 7 fell in the interests of """public safety."""

(https://s1.postimg.org/klu1d3i8v/Screenshot_20170703-161757.png)

Here is a related FOI request.
https://archive.org/stream/NIST_WTC7_FOIA_11-209/NIST_WTC7_FOIA_11-209/100511rhb%20FOIA%2011-209_djvu.txt

9/11 was a CIA / Mossad false flag.
Seriously what's left to "prove?"
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on July 21, 2017, 01:02:56 AM
Quote from: User324 on July 16, 2017, 12:23:14 AM
Bhs, I still wait for your proof that you are an engineer with a phd

Already posted some time ago on this site, actually posted alot of fun stuff with customized proof asked for by different users. Get with the program. Even posted large cash prizes a while back on this thread alone.

Quote from: User324 on July 20, 2017, 11:10:50 PM
Go to an university and learn real shit, not echo-chamber-conspiracy-BS.

University is the largest echo chamber there is lol.

Damn user, so dense in all angles. Get help

Quote from: disputeone on July 20, 2017, 04:48:31 PM

Quote from: disputeone on March 17, 2017, 01:00:07 AM
Quote from: Master_Evar on March 17, 2017, 12:56:47 AM
And here's a real nightmare, but something very fascinating: It's fucking unsolvable.

You memba how Bhs said this in his first reply addressing the thought experiment?

I memba.

Something something not enough variables.

I never said your calculations wouldn't reflect reality in your original situation Evar.

So, in actuality. It was you that made an ass of himself, Rayzor. At least Evar admitted he was wrong.

Lol at Rayzor.. if you could only win, just once.

I even explained what variables were missing in a detailed fashion, provided equations etc. Plus, I said many times over "The equations work that master presented but have zero bearing in reality"....

Just like on this thread, you can call me any name you want, that won't change the factual information I am saying or shut me up.

There is a moderately sized thread for all to read...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on July 21, 2017, 01:39:22 AM
Quote from: disputeone on July 21, 2017, 01:00:16 AM
No, I live in Australia. You aren't very bright. Are you?

My point still stands:
Quote
Go to an university and learn real shit, not echo-chamber-conspiracy-BS.
Quote
Yeah, but you're still not a student there, are you?




Quote from: BHS
Already posted some time ago on this site, actually posted alot of fun stuff with customized proof asked for by different users. Get with the program. Even posted large cash prizes a while back on this thread alone.
Repost it, I looked for it a while ago, found nothing.

Quote
University is the largest echo chamber there is lol.
Maybe it is in the redneck place where you live, but it's not where I'm from.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on July 21, 2017, 02:13:19 AM
Quote from: User324 on July 21, 2017, 01:39:22 AM
Quote from: disputeone on July 21, 2017, 01:00:16 AM
No, I live in Australia. You aren't very bright. Are you?

My point still stands:
Quote
Go to an university and learn real shit, not echo-chamber-conspiracy-BS.
Quote
Yeah, but you're still not a student there, are you?

Sorry could you please be more clear on the point you are trying to make?

Are you saying that because I am not a student I am unable to have opinions? Please explain.

Furthermore, how does any of this have anything to do with the topic at hand?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on July 21, 2017, 02:19:45 AM
Quote from: disputeone on July 21, 2017, 02:13:19 AM
Sorry could you please be more clear on the point you are trying to make?
Unlike you, I don't like to spam and repost the same stuff 10 times.  So read what I wrote, I'm sure you can do it (not sure about actually understanding it tho, but whatever).
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on July 21, 2017, 02:27:05 AM
If you won't elaborate on your point then that's fine. Please stay on topic in the future.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on July 21, 2017, 02:39:31 AM
Quote from: disputeone on July 21, 2017, 02:27:05 AM
If you won't elaborate on your point then that's fine. Please stay on topic in the future.

Hmm, what was this thread about again?

I got distracted by you spamming the same bullshit (you call it "research") over and over!
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on July 21, 2017, 03:09:20 AM
Well you don't seem to understand. One more time.

(https://s11.postimg.org/l4z7fkykj/1500262708104.jpg)

Do better.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on July 21, 2017, 03:26:05 AM
Quote from: disputeone on July 21, 2017, 03:09:20 AM
Well you don't seem to understand. One more time.

(https://s11.postimg.org/l4z7fkykj/1500262708104.jpg)

Do better.

Nice image you got there. Is it your daily motivation source? Your manual for life?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on July 24, 2017, 01:32:46 AM
Can you tell me which tier argument you are using according to my picture? I thought you might have a look at the picture and try to do better.
Alas.

Here is the post that triggers you all so much.

Quote from: disputeone on July 05, 2017, 03:19:37 AM
http://israellobby.org/urbanmoving/1169683-001%20---%20303A-NY-C237934-Serial%20325%20---%20Section%201%20(1037758).pdf
(FOI request)

http://www.haaretz.com/odigo-says-workers-were-warned-of-attack-1.70579
Quote
Odigo, the instant messaging service, says that two of its workers received messages two hours before the Twin Towers attack on September 11 predicting the attack would happen, and the company has been cooperating with Israeli and American law enforcement, including the FBI, in trying to find the original sender of the message predicting the attack.

Edit.

CNN and NBC reported wtc 7 as having collapsed before it did, they tried to take the videos down but they didn't count on internets.

[Open]
[Open]

Lucky Larry Silverstein said they "pulled" wtc 7.


Emergency services were told that wtc 7 would collapse although no steel framed high rise has ever collapsed due to fire.

This is the explosion heard by firefighters.
[Open]

Here is a finite element analysis made by three PhD Structural Engineers showing that fires couldn't have brought down wtc 7.

http://www.wtc7evaluation.org/
[Open]

Here is NIST admitting they can't / won't explain how wtc 7 fell in the interests of """public safety."""

(https://s1.postimg.org/klu1d3i8v/Screenshot_20170703-161757.png)

Here is a related FOI request.
https://archive.org/stream/NIST_WTC7_FOIA_11-209/NIST_WTC7_FOIA_11-209/100511rhb%20FOIA%2011-209_djvu.txt

Elevator company involved in a modernization project (planting bombs) disappears after 9/11 with no evidence of the comany existing prior to it.

Quote
The words "Ace elevator" or "A.C.E." (herein ACE) are not found anywhere in the PDF files of the 9/11 Commission or NIST reports, although "elevator" appears multiple times. You can check this out for yourself. The names of the security company, "Securacom" (renamed "Stratesec" after 9/11), are not found either.   If the security company cannot be trusted, than there are many ways the explosives could be brought in.  The building owner is also key.  The landlord, Larry Silverstein is only mentioned in the WTC 7 report, as a contributor.http://911Experiments.com/reports.

With the assistance of Frank Lowy, Paul Eisenberg, and Ronald Lauder, Larry the N.Y. Port Authority turned over the management to Silverstein Properties.  He hired the firm Kroll for security.

Kevin Ryan has well researched who had access to the WTC towers in his article.http://911review.com/articles/ryan/demolition_access_p1.html

According to Dennis Cimino, interviewed onDr. James Fetzer's show, there were other fake sounding names on the list of renovation contractors working on the World Trade Center.

This report will focus on ACE.

ACE got the WTC contract, the biggest elevator project in history, There was an article "Drive to the Top" in the trade magazine Elevator World about the ACE project.

Elevator modernization would be the perfect cover for the planting of explosives. Tom Sullivan, who worked for Controlled Demolition Inc., said that the elevator shafts, next to the load bearing columns, would be the perfect place. (can personally confirm)
http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-sectio: n/41-articles/529-tom-sullivan-eso.html

NEOCT supporters may say "people would have seen A.C.E. Elevator planting explosives in the shafts". But building occupants, except for A.C.E. workers and StrateSec security, could not look in the elevator shafts. As an experiment you can do, just try to get permission to look in the shafts. I could not even look in one that I partly own. (I can also personally confirm)


A.C.E. Elevator Company went bankrupt in 2006. How could ACE go bankrupt, if they were skilled enough to get the largest contract in history? Presumably they got paid, because Larry Silverstein was fully insured, received over $4 billion, and there are no records of ACE suing Larry.  This supports the hypothesis that Ace Elevator was a "front company" created for the purpose of planting explosives, with just enough background to sound credible.

Some NEOCT supporters may say: "ACE is still in business. So there is nothing suspicious about them". But that is not true.http://www.nysb.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/115931_152_opinion.pdf

http://aneta.org/911experiments_com/AceElevator/

9/11 was a CIA / Mossad false flag.
Seriously what's left to "prove?"
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on July 24, 2017, 01:38:10 AM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
That's more than enough to justify a new and unbiased investigation into 9/11.

Unless you think that testing our conclusions is somehow unscientific? Because I have sure inferred that from your posts.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on July 24, 2017, 01:48:33 AM
Shut up, nerd.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on July 24, 2017, 01:55:38 AM
Quote from: User324 on July 24, 2017, 01:48:33 AM
Shut up, nerd.

(https://s11.postimg.org/l4z7fkykj/1500262708104.jpg)

Try harder man.

Unless...



Nah.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on July 28, 2017, 09:01:24 AM
Here's a classic bit of fake news.  I'm surprised that "clan idiot" hasn't risen to the bait... 

(https://s17.postimg.org/wz8kqn28v/WTC7_Fake_Confession.jpg)

http://www.snopes.com/cia-agent-confesses-wtc7/

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Sentinel on July 30, 2017, 03:42:10 AM
Yeah, the collapse of 7 WTC was quite something to witness. Perfect demolition job in my eyes.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on August 01, 2017, 11:17:43 PM
Quote from: Sentinel on July 30, 2017, 03:42:10 AM
Yeah, the collapse of 7 WTC was quite something to witness. Perfect demolition job in my eyes.

To any reasonable person.



Lol Rayzor snopes is going out of business because they aren't a trustworthy news source.

http://www.newsweek.com/fake-news-snopes-fact-checker-641500

Like Autumn leaves before a winter storm the fake msm is swept aside with as much concern as straw dogs.

You will need to do better than "muh TV" soon, people are waking up and will expect more evidence than "it was on the news."

Quote
32% say they have "a great deal" or "a fair amount" of trust14% of Republicans express trust, down from 32% last yearConfidence drops among younger and older Americans

http://www.gallup.com/poll/195542/americans-trust-mass-media-sinks-new-low.aspx
http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/04/28/poll-americans-trust-the-white-house-more-than-the-national-media/

"It's our job to tell you what to think"
MSNBC.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on August 01, 2017, 11:21:04 PM
Quote
The conspiracy theory that WTC7 was brought down through a secret controlled demolition (thereby establishing that the 9/11 attacks were a “false flag operation” and/or an “inside job”) have been comprehensively debunked, with the evidence demonstrating that fire alone caused the building’s collapse.
http://www.snopes.com/cia-agent-confesses-wtc7/

^^^Omfg talk about fake news.^^^

www.wtc7evaluation.org

Seems it hasn't been debunked at all.

Lmao, please snopes stop, it's too much winning. ;D.

Quote
WTC 7 Evaluation is a study at the University of Alaska Fairbanks using finite element modeling to evaluate the possible causes of World Trade Center Building 7's collapse. The final report is scheduled for release in August 2017.



Seems we have to win more.





Edit.

I wonder why Snopes just stated that it was """debunked""" without giving any evidence to show the so called """debunking""".

Anyone wanna have a guess?
I could tell you.

They link to a classified report that can't be released in the interests of """public safety"""
Isn't that just so strange?

Snopes
"wtc 7s demolition has been debunked we have evidence"

Reasonable person.
"Can I see the evidence?"

Snopes.
"No"

Reasonable person.
"That's not evidence then is it?"

Snopes
"Yes it is, just trust us."

Reasonable person
"No."

That's how it should go.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on August 01, 2017, 11:42:35 PM
Quote from: disputeone on August 01, 2017, 11:21:04 PM
Seems it hasn't been debunked at all.

meh,  only conspiracy loonies and idiots like you still think people were surprised when it collapsed after 7 hours.

Those alt-right nutcase videos aren't helping your credibility either.   
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on August 02, 2017, 12:04:24 AM
Also over 3000 architects and engineers.
Gaslighting is really the best argument you have isn't it (((Rayzor))).

Snopes 
"wtc 7s demolition has been debunked we have evidence"

Reasonable person.
"Can I see the evidence?"

Snopes.
"No"

Reasonable person.
"That's not evidence then is it?"

Snopes
"Yes it is, just trust us."

Reasonable person
"No."

That's how it should go.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on August 02, 2017, 12:11:23 AM
Quote from: disputeone on August 02, 2017, 12:04:24 AM
Also over 3000 architect's and engineers.
Gaslighting is really the best argument you have isn't it (((Rayzor))).

Why do you choose to ignore the  700,000 or so  architects and engineers who don't agree with those few loonies?

Do I even need to point out that none of their arguments stand even the most cursory critical examination?

It's just your paranoid distrust of authority that's distorting your views.   Get over it.

   
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on August 02, 2017, 12:13:08 AM
Please cite your "700 000". Number thanks. I'd prefer a signed petition.

I'll wait. Here is my citation for over 3000
http://www.ae911truth.org/
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on August 02, 2017, 12:56:33 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on August 02, 2017, 12:11:23 AM
Why do you choose to ignore the  700,000 or so  architects and engineers who don't agree with those few loonies?

Quote from: disputeone on August 02, 2017, 12:13:08 AM
Please cite your "700 000". Number thanks.

Soundofsilence.mp3

So, as I have conclusively demonstrated in this thread multiple times, Rayzor is completely willing to lie cheat and distort the truth to support his narrative. Anyone who wants to pretend that they are honest  (with themselves) has to consider what sort of a person is willing to lie to win?

Furthermore if the facts were truly on his side, why does he have to resort to gaslighting and ad hominems? Does this sound like the actions of an honest poster to you? You don't have to tell me but think about it.

Why has he spent 150 pages trying to discredit the people making the arguments instead of the argument itself? Did any of you guys do debate in highschool?

Here is a quick quote from a bona fide architect (who isn't on the petition of architects and engineers) who I had the pleasure of debating in this very thread. This was what he left us with. I hope he comes back.

Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on March 30, 2017, 04:37:32 AM
I completely understand why people dont think it should have fallen.

Imagine that?
Are you going to call him a loony Rayzor? Go on, I know you want to.

Quote from: Rayzor on August 01, 2017, 11:42:35 PM
only conspiracy loonies and idiots like you still think people were surprised when it collapsed after 7 hours.

Go on then, do your work.


Off topic.
As for your Alt Right nonsense.
We are your enemy, that's what you are told by your TV. Expect us. We are whatever monsters your TV calls us there is no partisanship. We do not forgive, we do not forget.

Far left.
(https://s2.postimg.org/prj17cbsp/images-14.jpg)

Or far right.
http://www.nationalmemo.com/far-right-unites-meme-war-cnn/

We are your enemy, nothing more and nothing less.
Remember that.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on August 02, 2017, 01:05:16 AM
Quote from: disputeone on August 02, 2017, 12:13:08 AM
Please cite your "700 000". Number thanks. I'd prefer a signed petition.

I'll wait. Here is my citation for over 3000
http://www.ae911truth.org/

Bureau of Labour and Statistics https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes170000.htm

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on August 02, 2017, 01:06:41 AM
Quote from: disputeone on August 02, 2017, 12:56:33 AM

So, as I have conclusively demonstrated in this thread multiple times, Rayzor is completely willing to lie cheat and distort the truth to support his narrative. Anyone who wants to pretend that they are honest  (with themselves) has to consider what sort of a person is willing to lie to win?


Show me where you think I've lied.  I challenge you.

PS.  And stop posting your stupid youtube links,  try to think for yourself for a change.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on August 02, 2017, 01:08:54 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on August 02, 2017, 01:05:16 AM
Quote from: disputeone on August 02, 2017, 12:13:08 AM
Please cite your "700 000". Number thanks. I'd prefer a signed petition.

I'll wait. Here is my citation for over 3000
http://www.ae911truth.org/

Bureau of Labour and Statistics https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes170000.htm

That does not say what you claim it to say. That is called a lie. You should be ashamed of your dishonesty.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
What you are doing is called an argument from ignorance which is fitting.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Would you like to admit you can't cite what you claimed? You could save a shred of your integrity...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on August 02, 2017, 01:12:30 AM
Quote from: disputeone on August 02, 2017, 01:08:54 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on August 02, 2017, 01:05:16 AM
Quote from: disputeone on August 02, 2017, 12:13:08 AM
Please cite your "700 000". Number thanks. I'd prefer a signed petition.

I'll wait. Here is my citation for over 3000
http://www.ae911truth.org/

Bureau of Labour and Statistics https://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes170000.htm

That does not say what you claim it to say. That is called a lie. You should be ashamed of your dishonesty.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
What you are doing is called an argument from ignorance which is fitting.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Would you like to admit you can't cite what you claimed? You could save a shred of your integrity...

What planet are you from?   Do you have a different numbering system that pertains only to conspiracies?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on August 02, 2017, 01:14:46 AM
Please cite the 700 000 architects and engineers that you claim support the official story. I am still waiting.

I will remind you again that Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
What you are doing is called an argument from ignorance which is fitting.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Please show us a citation for the 700 000 you claim. If you can't provide a citation I'd ask you to retract it.

Edit.
Screenshot from the website you are trying to use as a source.
(https://s4.postimg.org/c1ik444hp/20170802_161523.png)
Zero results found. That website has nothing to do with 9/11. Please stop lying.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on August 02, 2017, 01:27:00 AM
Quote from: disputeone on August 02, 2017, 01:14:46 AM
Please cite the 700 000 architects and engineers that you claim support the official story. I am still waiting.

(https://s3.postimg.org/pm3m70ppv/dispute_Oneisadickhead.jpg)

Now you can apologize, or not, I don't care either way.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on August 02, 2017, 01:33:08 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on August 02, 2017, 01:27:00 AM
Quote from: disputeone on August 02, 2017, 01:14:46 AM
Please cite the 700 000 architects and engineers that you claim support the official story. I am still waiting.

https://s3.postimg.org/pm3m70ppv/dispute_Oneisadickhead

Now you can apologize, or not, I don't care either way.

I know you are trying to save face but you are demonstrably incorrect. One more time.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
What you are doing is called an argument from ignorance which is fitting.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

You cannot say that all the architects and engineers who haven't publicly came out as truthers support the official story.

Just as I can't claim them as proponents for the controlled demolition hypothesis you can't claim them as proponents for the official story. I can't explain the logical fallacy you are trying to use better. Please read the link provided if you are still unsure.

Stick to namecalling and gaslighting and leave the debates to the big boys please. Otherwise.

Please show us a citation for the 700 000 you claim. If you can't provide a citation I'd ask you to retract it.

Edit here's a quote from the wikipedia page for reference.

Quote
Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four,

true false unknown between true or falsebeing unknowable (among the first three).[1]

In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used in an attempt to shift theburden of proof.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on August 02, 2017, 01:47:24 AM
Quote from: disputeone on August 02, 2017, 01:33:08 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on August 02, 2017, 01:27:00 AM
Quote from: disputeone on August 02, 2017, 01:14:46 AM
Please cite the 700 000 architects and engineers that you claim support the official story. I am still waiting.

https://s3.postimg.org/pm3m70ppv/dispute_Oneisadickhead

Now you can apologize, or not, I don't care either way.

I know you are trying to save face but you are demonstatably incorrect. One more time.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
What you are doing is called an argument from ignorance which is fitting.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

You cannot say that all the architects and engineers who haven't publicly came out as truthers support the official story.

Just as I can't claim them as proponents for the controlled demolition hypothesis you can't claim them as proponents for the official story. I can't explain the logicl fallacy you are trying to use better. Please read the link provided if you are still unsure.

Stick to namecalling and gaslighting and leave the debates to the big boys please.

The fact of the matter is, that  there are many more Architects and Engineers than there are those few on the fringe who support the views of the AE911truthers.   

That said,  this is not a question of which view is more popular,  it's a question of truth,   (read the thread title).   Truth is there is zero supporting evidence for any other view than that it was islamic terrorists.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on August 02, 2017, 01:49:36 AM
Is this you admitting that you can't cite 700 000 architects and engineers?
In that case I would ask you to retract it.

I would also like a citation for this statement.

Quote from: Rayzor on August 02, 2017, 01:47:24 AM
The fact of the matter is, that  there are many more Architects and Engineers than there are those few on the fringe who support the views of the AE911truthers.   

When you are ready.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on August 02, 2017, 01:59:08 AM
Quote from: disputeone on August 02, 2017, 01:49:36 AM
Is this you admitting that you can't cite 700 000 architects and engineers?
In that case I would ask you to retract it.

I would also like a citation for this statement.

Quote from: Rayzor on August 02, 2017, 01:47:24 AM
The fact of the matter is, that  there are many more Architects and Engineers than there are those few on the fringe who support the views of the AE911truthers.   

When you are ready.

I already cited the source,  my claim was that there are 700,000 or so Architects and Engineers who are not supportive of AE911truthers.   That claim stands,

You choose to dismiss the facts because they don't fit your paranoid views.   That's not my problem. 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on August 02, 2017, 02:01:47 AM
Here is your actual quote. Your claim has been shown to be a fallacy, more specifically an argument from ignorance.

Quote from: Rayzor on August 02, 2017, 12:11:23 AM
Why do you choose to ignore the  700,000 or so architects and engineers who don't agree with those few loonies?

You don't know what they think and claiming to know is dishonest in the extreme.

Edit.
Here we are again, it seems.
Quote from: disputeone on August 02, 2017, 12:56:33 AM
So, as I have conclusively demonstrated in this thread multiple times, Rayzor is completely willing to lie cheat and distort the truth to support his narrative. Anyone who wants to pretend that they are honest  (with themselves) has to consider what sort of a person is willing to lie to win?

Furthermore if the facts were truly on his side, why does he have to resort to gaslighting and ad hominems? Does this sound like the actions of an honest poster to you? You don't have to tell me but think about it.

Why has he spent 150 pages trying to discredit the people making the arguments instead of the argument itself? Did any of you guys do debate in highschool?

Here is a quick quote from a bona fide architect (who isn't on the petition of architects and engineers) who I had the pleasure of debating in this very thread. This was what he left us with. I hope he comes back.

Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on March 30, 2017, 04:37:32 AM
I completely understand why people dont think it should have fallen.

Imagine that?
Are you going to call him a loony Rayzor? Go on, I know you want to.

Quote from: Rayzor on August 01, 2017, 11:42:35 PM
only conspiracy loonies and idiots like you still think people were surprised when it collapsed after 7 hours.

Go on then, do your work.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on August 02, 2017, 02:04:21 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on August 02, 2017, 01:47:24 AM
Truth is there is zero supporting evidence for any other view than that it was islamic terrorists.

Lol, see you will never change huh Rayzor? Anyone with the quest for truth in their heart knows this is a bold faced lie....perhaps the truth could be terrorist (99 percent unlikely), but I will leave the slightly plausible option open.

However, claiming there is no conflicting information is disgusting...there are literally thousands of conflicting pieces of information that says the explanations given are incorrect. As well as people in MSM that had obvious scripts to read during the day of the event and after.

This is why real people, who work in related fields, who actually do something with their lives and have things to show for it, who's intelligence dwarfs yours by many fold disagree with the official narrative through a plethora of professions. These are not nobodies yelling from a basement with foil on their head.


As for your 700,000 nonsensical statement...over the past 5-7 years I really haven't ran into people that support the official story anymore in my field. Sure many just want to stay out of it or don't care enough to do anything about it.

I mean hell, it's been an inside joke with engineers for years, when shit doesn't work right and it's bring a cantankerous pain in the ass we say "It needs more jet fuel"...that should tell you something right there.


*Edit...There where quite a few vocal people when I was in college and some years after that fought for the official account. I would suspect mainly from shock, however, those people have slowly either silenced themselves or are vocal against the official narrative.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on August 02, 2017, 02:10:38 AM
Well look at that, another engineer calling B/S on the official story. Imagine my surprise.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on August 02, 2017, 02:04:21 AM
Sure many just want to stay out of it or don't care enough to do anything about it.

Over 9000 times this.
Please see this thread as a prime example of this cowardice. We have one obvious shill and no one else willing to try to defend the O/S.

Isn't that strange?

This is why I believe people like Bhs and Dr Leroy Husley are real life superheros.

Edit.
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on August 02, 2017, 02:04:21 AM
This is why real people, who work in related fields, who actually do something with their lives and have things to show for it, who's intelligence dwarfs yours by many fold disagree with the official narrative through a plethora of professions. These are not nobodies yelling from a basement with foil on their head.

I really enjoyed that. Savage. ;D.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on August 02, 2017, 02:19:47 AM
http://911blogger.com/news/2015-05-16/results-are-overwhelming-majority-aia-delegates-make-political-decision-and-vote-down-resolution-15-6#comments

The vote was 3892 to 160.    So much for the AE911truthers.   

Quote
There are some 911 Truthers that are absolute nutjobs. Guys like Jared Lee Loughner and James von Brunn fit into this category. If you research the way the way they view society and all of the conspiracy theories they believe in it is strange because 95% of the CT loons that I run into think the exact same way. They are all extremely paranoid and certainly have many of the characteristics of the delusional disorder you bring up.

What's weird is that Dr. Judy Wood and Dr. Steven Jones, for instance, are also complete nutjobs in the same sense, albeit ones that must also be pretty damn smart. Jones has a PhD in Physics so he is anything but a dumbass.

I honestly believe that *most* Truthers are genuinely not literally delusional nutcases though. Most of them are just extremely gullible and buy into everything they read on the Internet. They fail to objectively research anything that might contradict or debunk their claims. I call it the "reverse scientific method". It's also an ego thing. They WANT to believe the conspiracy. It gives them a sense of uniqueness and a sense of superiority over the "dumbed down masses" of sheep being subjugated by the all-powerful elite and THEY are exposing them.

I see babybullshit is back,  the quadruple no brainer. 

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on August 02, 2017, 02:22:24 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on August 02, 2017, 02:04:21 AM

However, claiming there is no conflicting information is disgusting...there are literally thousands of conflicting pieces of information that says the explanations given are incorrect. As well as people in MSM that had obvious scripts to read during the day of the event and after.


And yet you have failed to present any of these pieces of information that survive even the most cursory examination.    What does that say about your critical abilities?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on August 02, 2017, 02:29:05 AM
More Ad-hominems with absolutely no substance from Rayzor.

Gaslighting is not a (honest) debate tactic. This is most of the reason I suggested judges. Merely so we could keep to the rules of debate. Unfortunately peoples cowardice and emotional investment to the official story prevented this. Alas.

Any of your "claims" in the last two posts are absolutely nuked by Professor Leroy Hulsey and his PhD research team. He has already comprehensively proven that we at least have every right to be suspicious of the collapse of wtc 7.

You are overplaying your hand unsuccessfully as your superiors are currently doing. Please continue.

Quote from: Rayzor on August 02, 2017, 02:22:24 AM
And yet you have failed to present any of these pieces of information that survive even the most cursory examination.

Here are just a few to get you started. Reminder that you haven't responded to this post yet, you keep sliding it, hence why I am posting it again.

Quote from: disputeone on July 05, 2017, 03:19:37 AM
http://israellobby.org/urbanmoving/1169683-001%20---%20303A-NY-C237934-Serial%20325%20---%20Section%201%20(1037758).pdf
(FOI request)

http://www.haaretz.com/odigo-says-workers-were-warned-of-attack-1.70579
Quote
Odigo, the instant messaging service, says that two of its workers received messages two hours before the Twin Towers attack on September 11 predicting the attack would happen, and the company has been cooperating with Israeli and American law enforcement, including the FBI, in trying to find the original sender of the message predicting the attack.

Edit.

CNN and NBC reported wtc 7 as having collapsed before it did, they tried to take the videos down but they didn't count on internets.

[Open]
[Open]

Lucky Larry Silverstein said they "pulled" wtc 7.


Emergency services were told that wtc 7 would collapse although no steel framed high rise has ever collapsed due to fire.

This is the explosion heard by firefighters.
[Open]

Here is a finite element analysis made by three PhD Structural Engineers showing that fires couldn't have brought down wtc 7.

http://www.wtc7evaluation.org/
[Open]

Here is NIST admitting they can't / won't explain how wtc 7 fell in the interests of """public safety."""

(https://s1.postimg.org/klu1d3i8v/Screenshot_20170703-161757.png)

Here is a related FOI request.
https://archive.org/stream/NIST_WTC7_FOIA_11-209/NIST_WTC7_FOIA_11-209/100511rhb%20FOIA%2011-209_djvu.txt

Elevator company involved in a modernization project (planting bombs) disappears after 9/11 with no evidence of the comany existing prior to it.

Quote
The words "Ace elevator" or "A.C.E." (herein ACE) are not found anywhere in the PDF files of the 9/11 Commission or NIST reports, although "elevator" appears multiple times. You can check this out for yourself. The names of the security company, "Securacom" (renamed "Stratesec" after 9/11), are not found either.   If the security company cannot be trusted, than there are many ways the explosives could be brought in.  The building owner is also key.  The landlord, Larry Silverstein is only mentioned in the WTC 7 report, as a contributor.http://911Experiments.com/reports.

With the assistance of Frank Lowy, Paul Eisenberg, and Ronald Lauder, Larry the N.Y. Port Authority turned over the management to Silverstein Properties.  He hired the firm Kroll for security.

Kevin Ryan has well researched who had access to the WTC towers in his article.http://911review.com/articles/ryan/demolition_access_p1.html

According to Dennis Cimino, interviewed onDr. James Fetzer's show, there were other fake sounding names on the list of renovation contractors working on the World Trade Center.

This report will focus on ACE.

ACE got the WTC contract, the biggest elevator project in history, There was an article "Drive to the Top" in the trade magazine Elevator World about the ACE project.

Elevator modernization would be the perfect cover for the planting of explosives. Tom Sullivan, who worked for Controlled Demolition Inc., said that the elevator shafts, next to the load bearing columns, would be the perfect place. (can personally confirm)
http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-sectio: n/41-articles/529-tom-sullivan-eso.html

NEOCT supporters may say "people would have seen A.C.E. Elevator planting explosives in the shafts". But building occupants, except for A.C.E. workers and StrateSec security, could not look in the elevator shafts. As an experiment you can do, just try to get permission to look in the shafts. I could not even look in one that I partly own. (I can also personally confirm)


A.C.E. Elevator Company went bankrupt in 2006. How could ACE go bankrupt, if they were skilled enough to get the largest contract in history? Presumably they got paid, because Larry Silverstein was fully insured, received over $4 billion, and there are no records of ACE suing Larry.  This supports the hypothesis that Ace Elevator was a "front company" created for the purpose of planting explosives, with just enough background to sound credible.

Some NEOCT supporters may say: "ACE is still in business. So there is nothing suspicious about them". But that is not true.http://www.nysb.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions/115931_152_opinion.pdf

http://aneta.org/911experiments_com/AceElevator/

9/11 was a CIA / Mossad false flag.
Seriously what's left to "prove?"
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on August 02, 2017, 02:35:27 AM
I see you are standing by your earlier claims that it was an Israeli plot.   

Sigh.   I think we are done here,   playing chess with pigeons is not my favourite pastime.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on August 02, 2017, 02:35:50 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on August 02, 2017, 02:19:47 AM
I see babybullshit is back,  the quadruple no brainer.

You can keep saying that, however, pretty sure I am the only one that has proven anything about myself here. Seems like you and those like you have been proven to be the usual blowhards... (If you remember there is still 20k on the table for you to prove shit about yourself, can lay out some more if you really want it  ;) ...50? 100? What do you say princess?? Or can you only name call?)

Unless you want to count a tour of a facility...if that's the case I have specialties in many areas I haven't even mentioned, including being a doctor...come hither, let me operate.

Quote from: Rayzor on August 02, 2017, 02:22:24 AM

And yet you have failed to present any of these pieces of information that survive even the most cursory examination.    What does that say about your critical abilities?


Well considering the people that have came on this thread (and life in general) that actually have experience in the field (not just shit talking blowhard nobodies) agree with the anomalies I have stated...I would say my critical thinking skills are just fine...

Can you say the same? Or is dispute right?? Are you some strange shill peasant here for a unethical purpose? I never really believed in them on the internet, however, you surely would fit the bill unfortunately...so maybe you could be the source of my conversion..
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on August 02, 2017, 02:39:45 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on August 02, 2017, 02:35:27 AM
I see you are standing by your earlier claims that it was an Israeli plot.   

I am, I believe that criminal elements in the US and Israel were behind 9/11. I have evidence, please address my post.

Quote from: Rayzor on August 02, 2017, 02:35:27 AM
playing chess with pigeons is not my favourite pastime.

I'll fly over for a friendly game of chess anytime you like.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on August 02, 2017, 02:44:07 AM
Quote from: disputeone on August 02, 2017, 02:39:45 AM
I have evidence, please address my post.
He will be with you shortly...loading ad hominem list number 43

Quote

I'll fly over for a friendly game of chess anytime you like.

This would make my month...I will fly out there if this happens...all booze on me
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on August 02, 2017, 02:52:12 AM
Quote from: disputeone on August 02, 2017, 02:39:45 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on August 02, 2017, 02:35:27 AM
I see you are standing by your earlier claims that it was an Israeli plot.   

I am, I believe that criminal elements in the US and Israel were behind 9/11. I have evidence, please address my post.

No, all you have is youtube videos.   Show me something that is accepted by the AE911truthers that would stand up in court?

Quote from: disputeone on August 02, 2017, 02:39:45 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on August 02, 2017, 02:35:27 AM
playing chess with pigeons is not my favourite pastime.

I'll fly over for a friendly game of chess anytime you like.

Umm..   it's a figure of speech.   Sorry you didn't know that. 

Playing chess with a pigeon — it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on August 02, 2017, 02:55:44 AM
Just to clarify, you won't address any of the evidence presented?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on August 02, 2017, 02:58:22 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on August 02, 2017, 02:52:12 AM
No, all you have is youtube videos.   Show me something that is accepted by the AE911truthers that would stand up in court?
There is obviously nothing.
Their "evidence" is opinions, which sometimes are based on facts that can be interpreted in multiple ways. So; just worthless trash.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on August 02, 2017, 03:11:40 AM
***For people who don't like links or videos.***
***
Confirmed Israeli agents at the scene on september 11th, trace explosives were found in the truck and the agents were detained and then released.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=123885&page=1

Prior warning of attacks on Odigo, an instant messaging app. Suspicious absences of key people on the day.

Multiple news agencies reported wtc 7 having collapsed before it had collapsed.

Massive amounts of eyewitness testimony for explosives that wasn't included in the official report.

People on the scene were told to expect wtc 7 to collapse although no similar building has ever collapsed due to fire. This just defies any and all logic.

Larry Silverstein said they pulled wtc 7, like it or not pulled is a term used by demolition crews.

Finite element analysis at a respected university led by one of the best structural engineers in the world.
"Zero chance fire caused wtc7s collapse."

NIST not releasing their inputs for their model which looks absolutely nothing like what actually happened tp wtc 7.

Suspicious Elevator company performing modernization work on the elevators prior to 9/11. Company disappears after 9/11.
***
Pretty compelling tbh.

Bill Clinton says the pentagon was bombed.


I can do this all day.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on August 02, 2017, 03:41:01 AM
Quote from: disputeone on August 02, 2017, 03:11:40 AM
I can do this all day.
Spreading bullshit?
no doubt.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on August 02, 2017, 03:50:54 AM
Why not fact check it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on August 02, 2017, 03:54:26 AM
Holy shit!! I have never seen that clip before with Clinton....

"NOTHING TO SEE HERE, LETS MOVE ON"
-rayzor
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on August 02, 2017, 04:19:49 AM
Quote from: disputeone on August 02, 2017, 03:11:40 AM
***For people who don't like links or videos.***
***
Confirmed Israeli agents at the scene on september 11th, trace explosives were found in the truck and the agents were detained and then released.


Fake news.   Show me the evidence that supports your claim that it was Mossad?

While you are at it,  why not trot out your numerology and occult theories on 911,  they are always good for a chuckle..

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on August 02, 2017, 04:28:14 AM
They were israeli nationals, "suspected" of being spies.

Here is the evidence.
http://911research.wikia.com/wiki/Urban_Moving_Systems
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on August 02, 2017, 04:49:35 AM
Quote from: disputeone on August 02, 2017, 04:28:14 AM
They were israeli nationals, "suspected" of being spies.

Here is the evidence.
http://911research.wikia.com/wiki/Urban_Moving_Systems

Evidence of Israeli's  ( Mossad or not)  filming from across the river  is hardly evidence of  anything,  If I was there and had a video camera I'd be filming too. 

But grasping at straws is what you do best, so keep going.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on August 02, 2017, 05:01:10 AM
I'm not grasping at straws at all, there is a lot of solid evidence I have presented.

Quote
Steven Gordon, the attorney for the five Israeli detainees, acknowledged that his clients' actions on Sept. 11 would easily have aroused suspicions. "You got a group of guys that are taking pictures, on top of a roof, of the World Trade Center. They're speaking in a foreign language. They got two passports on 'em. One's got a wad of cash on him, and they got box cutters. Now that's a scary situation."

But Gordon insisted that his clients were just five young men who had come to America for a vacation, ended up working for a moving company, and were taking pictures of the event.

The five Israelis were held at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, ostensibly for overstaying their tourist visas and working in the United States illegally. Two weeks after their arrest, an immigration judge ordered them to be deported. But sources told ABCNEWS that FBI and CIA officials in Washington put a hold on the case.

The five men were held in detention for more than two months. Some of them were placed in solitary confinement for 40 days, and some of them were given as many as seven lie-detector tests.

Plenty of Speculation

Since their arrest, plenty of speculation has swirled about the case, and what the five men were doing that morning. Eventually, The Forward, a respected Jewish newspaper in New York, reported the FBI concluded that two of the men were Israeli intelligence operatives.

Vince Cannistraro, a former chief of operations for counterterrorism with the CIA who is now a consultant for ABCNEWS, said federal authorities' interest in the case was heightened when some of the men's names were found in a search of a national intelligence database.

I can go further and start to link Al-Qaeda  and ISIS to US and Israeli intelligence. I can cite studies saying that ISIS is benificial to Israel and can show mutual interests in the area and coincidences that can't be ignored anymore.

These organizations were trained and supplied by the US, Al-Qaeda being the moderate rebels we backed against Russia in the region (Osama Bin Laden used to be our Ally) ISIS are the moderate rebels we backed against Saddam.

This whole war on terror has been a weapon of criminals in the Wests government to destabilize and control the middle east and has created the massive refugee crisis we have seen caused by it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on August 02, 2017, 05:16:49 AM
Quote from: disputeone on August 02, 2017, 05:01:10 AM
I'm not grasping at straws at all, there is a lot of solid evidence I have presented.

Quote
Steven Gordon, the attorney for the five Israeli detainees, acknowledged that his clients' actions on Sept. 11 would easily have aroused suspicions. "You got a group of guys that are taking pictures, on top of a roof, of the World Trade Center. They're speaking in a foreign language. They got two passports on 'em. One's got a wad of cash on him, and they got box cutters. Now that's a scary situation."

But Gordon insisted that his clients were just five young men who had come to America for a vacation, ended up working for a moving company, and were taking pictures of the event.

The five Israelis were held at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, ostensibly for overstaying their tourist visas and working in the United States illegally. Two weeks after their arrest, an immigration judge ordered them to be deported. But sources told ABCNEWS that FBI and CIA officials in Washington put a hold on the case.

The five men were held in detention for more than two months. Some of them were placed in solitary confinement for 40 days, and some of them were given as many as seven lie-detector tests.

Plenty of Speculation

Since their arrest, plenty of speculation has swirled about the case, and what the five men were doing that morning. Eventually, The Forward, a respected Jewish newspaper in New York, reported the FBI concluded that two of the men were Israeli intelligence operatives.

Vince Cannistraro, a former chief of operations for counterterrorism with the CIA who is now a consultant for ABCNEWS, said federal authorities' interest in the case was heightened when some of the men's names were found in a search of a national intelligence database.

I can go further and start to link Al-Qaeda  and ISIS to US and Israeli intelligence. I can cite studies saying that ISIS is benificial to Israel and can show mutual interests in the area and coincidences that can't be ignored anymore.

These organizations were trained and supplied by the US, Al-Qaeda being the moderate rebels we backed against Russia in the region (Osama Bin Laden used to be our Ally) ISIS are the moderate rebels we backed against Saddam.

This whole war on terror has been a weapon of criminals in the Wests government to destabilize and control the middle east and has created the massive refugee crisis we have seen caused by it.

Evidence,  you need evidence,  FFS how many times do I have to say it.   All the evidence supports the fact that terrorists hijacked planes and flew them into the twin towers, 

You can speculate all you like, but truth is that terrorism is real,  islamic fundamentalism is real.   You can't keep blindly blaming the Jews, sooner or later you have to face reality.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on August 02, 2017, 05:27:52 AM
I know Islamic terrorism is a threat, you don't want a scapegoat that wouldn't have wanted to do it, otherwise the narrative doesn't make sense. Islamic terrorism that we should worry about are the trucks running people down, the acid attacks, the mass shootings and stabbings, not pulling off the biggest attack on America making their security look like nothing. Making Norad stand down, making wtc 7 collapse out of sympathy for wtc 1 and 2. Pulling off in flight maneuvers that professional pilots have admitted they themselves are incapable of.

I'm not "blaming it on the jews" There is evidence to support that Israel had a part to play in 9/11. Not to mention how much they benefited from it. Don't push your strawman on me.

You do have to eventually face reality, 9/11 was an inside job and Santa Claus isn't real. Your parents should have told you.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on August 02, 2017, 08:13:34 AM
Quote from: disputeone on August 02, 2017, 05:27:52 AM
I know Islamic terrorism is a threat, you don't want a scapegoat that wouldn't have wanted to do it, otherwise the narrative doesn't make sense. Islamic terrorism that we should worry about are the trucks running people down, the acid attacks, the mass shootings and stabbings, not pulling off the biggest attack on America making their security look like nothing. Making Norad stand down, making wtc 7 collapse out of sympathy for wtc 1 and 2. Pulling off in flight maneuvers that professional pilots have admitted they themselves are incapable of.

I'm not "blaming it on the jews" There is evidence to support that Israel had a part to play in 9/11. Not to mention how much they benefited from it. Don't push your strawman on me.

You do have to eventually face reality, 9/11 was an inside job and Santa Claus isn't real. Your parents should have told you.

Norad wasn't stood down,  that's just another conspiracy myth.   As for flying ability,  the  retired cessna jockeys at pilots4911truth are full of crap.   

https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2006/08/norad200608

The NEADS response was confused and sometimes misdirected, lack of accurate and timely info from TRACON and FAA seem to be contributing factors,  and to cap it all off there is evidence of a cover up of some aspects of the military response,  they don't like looking incompetent.   As for a stand-down order,  that's not supported by the evidence.

Oh, and I'm pleased to hear you no longer blame Mossad,  that's a step forward.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on August 02, 2017, 08:29:35 AM
Quote from: disputeone on August 02, 2017, 05:27:52 AM
You do have to eventually face reality, 9/11 was an inside job and Santa Claus isn't real. Your parents should have told you.
Your parents told you about 9 11 conspiracy?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on August 02, 2017, 04:09:32 PM
Quote from: User324 on August 02, 2017, 08:29:35 AM
Quote from: disputeone on August 02, 2017, 05:27:52 AM
You do have to eventually face reality, 9/11 was an inside job and Santa Claus isn't real. Your parents should have told you.
Your parents told you about 9 11 conspiracy?

Also santa claus isn't real.

Rayzor I stand by my opinion that Mossad and the CIA were involved. Could you shill any harder? You are overplaying your hand.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on August 03, 2017, 04:34:17 AM
Quote from: disputeone on August 02, 2017, 04:09:32 PM
I stand by my opinion that Mossad and the CIA were involved. Could you shill any harder? You are overplaying your hand.
I'm fine with that. I think rayzor is too.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on August 03, 2017, 04:53:51 AM
The who is an educated guess/opinion...but it is just that, an opinion in the end currently.

However, the fact the buildings could not have fallen from the catalyst the official narrative states is a fact, not an opinion.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on August 03, 2017, 07:27:15 AM
Quote from: disputeone on August 02, 2017, 04:09:32 PM
Quote from: User324 on August 02, 2017, 08:29:35 AM
Quote from: disputeone on August 02, 2017, 05:27:52 AM
You do have to eventually face reality, 9/11 was an inside job and Santa Claus isn't real. Your parents should have told you.
Your parents told you about 9 11 conspiracy?

Also santa claus isn't real.

Rayzor I stand by my opinion that Mossad and the CIA were involved. Could you shill any harder? You are overplaying your hand.

I agree Santa Claus isn't real,  but I wouldn't tell the kids that.   Not so sure about the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy,   maybe the  Sandman is real or not I don't know.  But there are real monsters out there in the world,  we shouldn't forget that the evil conspiracy behind 9/11 is still with us and growing stronger.   I refer of course to Islamic Jihadists.   

And needless to say,  that is the real truth of 9/11.   Not the Jews, not  some shadowy big business tycoons,  not some shadowy secret government department.   


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: DuckDodgers on August 04, 2017, 01:35:22 PM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2056088/Footage-kills-conspiracy-theories-Rare-footage-shows-WTC-7-consumed-fire.html

What do you make of this? It seems to show the exterior of 7 showing signs of buckling prior to falling.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on August 04, 2017, 10:10:02 PM
Quote from: DuckDodgers on August 04, 2017, 01:35:22 PM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2056088/Footage-kills-conspiracy-theories-Rare-footage-shows-WTC-7-consumed-fire.html

What do you make of this? It seems to show the exterior of 7 showing signs of buckling prior to falling.

I couldn't get the video to display,  but if it's the one I'm thinking of,  it closely follows the NIST simulation and conclusions of WTC7's collapse.





Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: DuckDodgers on August 05, 2017, 07:07:46 AM
That video showed some of the same footage, particularly some of the close up shots of the windows.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on August 08, 2017, 09:51:09 PM
Quote from: DuckDodgers on August 05, 2017, 07:07:46 AM
That video showed some of the same footage, particularly some of the close up shots of the windows.

It doesn't explain the 2.25 seconds of symmetrical free-fall of wtc 7.

The headline does say it "kills conspiracy theories" I don't believe it does. Wtc 7 was damaged prior to collapse. The argument is that it wasn't enough damage to cause a 2.25 second free-fall of the whole building.

This kills the official story.
http://www.wtc7evaluation.org/

Any day now and Bhs and other engineers and scientists will be able to peer review Dr Leroy Hulseys model. It's pretty exciting.
The inputs for the NIST model remain classified and the model was never peer reviewed. I hope I don't need to tell you that makes it bunk from a scientific standpoint.

I also know that article is one of the first goolag presents when you goolag for wtc 7 and would ask you to try harder in the future.

(https://s1.postimg.org/6oet6lpn7z/1501813978844.jpg)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on August 08, 2017, 09:56:21 PM
Also if one side was much more damaged than the other.

Shouldn't this cause an asymmetrical collapse?

**crickets...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on August 08, 2017, 11:13:11 PM
Quote from: DuckDodgers on August 05, 2017, 07:07:46 AM
That video showed some of the same footage, particularly some of the close up shots of the windows.

What is a window supposed to prove? If there were a collapse of even an inch the window would shatter. That says something right there.

Nor could the entire building "bow" on the outside with its design..nor is there any sort of an American regulation for the firefighters to measure skeleton "bow" or to make a call to demo a building such as Rayzor claims.

Not to mention the building would have to "bow" on all four sides to get a nice footprint collapse (which is impossible for this to happen with the core design of 7, it differed from 1 and 2). Perhaps to bow to one side maybe, but that would not equal a symmetrical failure.

Not too mention, if all walls were "bowed" then we would see massive glass failure, at least 80 percent. The glass they used was very strong yet very rigid, great at taking floating compression within 5-10thousands and about the same in being twisted. However, any significant bowing that could be measured at ground level (lol at this) would have shattered the glass.

Not to mention, it would be impossible to "bow" at ground level, the building would have collapsed long before this happened.

These explanations I keep hearing for the official story is absolutely nuts...though it would need to be to reconcile the official story with any bit of reality. Like a cat doing anything it can to tell me it's a dog...

Though why is it always the people who have no idea of the subject matter at hand, background etc that make their voice so loud as we should listen to it? Let me stick to my profession and I will let y'all stick to yours (excluding the architect that made an appearance here, he has room to speak. Though funny he reluctantly agreed with me lol)... It is apparent y'all have no idea what you are talking about, it gets frustrating after a while.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on August 08, 2017, 11:26:34 PM
You're doing God's work mate.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on August 09, 2017, 12:24:51 AM
Quote
Though why is it always the people who have no idea of the subject matter at hand, background etc that make their voice so loud as we should listen to it? Let me stick to my profession and I will let y'all stick to yours (excluding the architect that made an appearance here, he has room to speak. Though funny he reluctantly agreed with me lol)... It is apparent y'all have no idea what you are talking about, it gets frustrating after a while.

You're a mechanical engineer (or at least claim to be one). They learn basically nothing about stability of buildings and stuff. Don't try to fool the people here.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on August 09, 2017, 12:27:40 AM
What makes you more qualified user?

Try attacking the argument instead of the person making the argument. Just try it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on August 09, 2017, 12:56:31 AM
Quote from: disputeone on August 09, 2017, 12:27:40 AM
What makes you more qualified user?
Where did I claim I am more qualified?

Quote from: disputeone on August 09, 2017, 12:27:40 AM
Try attacking the argument instead of the person making the argument. Just try it.
Try to read. Just try it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on August 09, 2017, 01:00:57 AM
I read your "argument" you stated that because Bhs is a mechanical engineer and not a structural engineer you don't have to address his (very well reasoned) points.

Speaking of reading, if you'd been doing this you'd know Bhs has quite a bit of experience with Structural Engineering. He even went and did a professional damage assessment on a steel frame building recently.

I also have plenty of structural engineers I can cite that agree with myself and Bhs on this so your point is moot anyway.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on August 09, 2017, 01:22:15 AM
Quote from: disputeone on August 09, 2017, 01:00:57 AM
I read your "argument" you stated that because Bhs is a mechanical engineer and not a structural engineer you don't have to address his (very well reasoned) points.

Speaking of reading, if you'd been doing this you'd know Bhs has quite a bit of experience with Structural Engineering. He even went and did a professional damage assessment on a steel frame building recently.

I also have plenty of structural engineers I can cite that agree with myself and Bhs on this so your point is moot anyway.

Do you think that all structural engineers agree with you?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on August 09, 2017, 01:32:16 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on August 09, 2017, 01:22:15 AM
Do you think that all structural engineers agree with you?

No of course not.

I think looking into wtc 7 with some experience in structural engineering (or just a quest for truth) leads you to think there's suspicion surrounding the official story.

Here's an architect that it happened to right here on this thread.

Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on March 30, 2017, 04:37:32 AM
I completely understand why people dont think it should have fallen.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on August 09, 2017, 01:47:43 AM
Quote from: disputeone on August 09, 2017, 01:32:16 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on August 09, 2017, 01:22:15 AM
Do you think that all structural engineers agree with you?

No of course not.

I think looking into wtc 7 with some experience in structural engineering (or just a quest for truth) leads you to think there's suspicion surrounding the official story.

Here's an architect that it happened to right here on this thread.

Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on March 30, 2017, 04:37:32 AM
I completely understand why people dont think it should have fallen.

We've been around this merry-go-round,  and we ended up in the same place,  there is no question that everyone knew hours before that it was in danger of collapse,  why would anyone be surprised that it did.  And then try and concoct a conspiracy from it.   

NIST  didn't even look at WTC7 in their initial study.   Not even on the radar.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on August 09, 2017, 02:11:27 AM
Quote from: User324 on August 09, 2017, 12:24:51 AM
Quote
Though why is it always the people who have no idea of the subject matter at hand, background etc that make their voice so loud as we should listen to it? Let me stick to my profession and I will let y'all stick to yours (excluding the architect that made an appearance here, he has room to speak. Though funny he reluctantly agreed with me lol)... It is apparent y'all have no idea what you are talking about, it gets frustrating after a while.

You're a mechanical engineer (or at least claim to be one). They learn basically nothing about stability of buildings and stuff. Don't try to fool the people here.

If you have read my company and I also do many projects involving structural related issues (including recently a building heavily damaged by fire, which we had to label unsafe for re-entry even with there possibly being a fatality)as well as some full contract projects...as I have stated many times before, have acquired many extra curricular certifications over the years. You have to stay fluid in order to stay in business and competitive throughout the years. The minute you become stagnant is the minute you sign your pink slip (unless of course you are owned by the government)

Please stay with the class...and don't try the "supposedly" bullshit. I have provided much proof (even some on this thread) while everyone else turns red in the face and says "but but but"....I understand that is all you people have, however, it's a sad song and boring dance.

Let's up the quality of rebuttals please ladies
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on August 09, 2017, 02:32:40 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on August 09, 2017, 01:47:43 AM
Quote from: disputeone on August 09, 2017, 01:32:16 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on August 09, 2017, 01:22:15 AM
Do you think that all structural engineers agree with you?

No of course not.

I think looking into wtc 7 with some experience in structural engineering (or just a quest for truth) leads you to think there's suspicion surrounding the official story.

Here's an architect that it happened to right here on this thread.

Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on March 30, 2017, 04:37:32 AM
I completely understand why people dont think it should have fallen.

We've been around this merry-go-round,  and we ended up in the same place,  there is no question that everyone knew hours before that it was in danger of collapse,  why would anyone be surprised that it did.  And then try and concoct a conspiracy from it.   

NIST  didn't even look at WTC7 in their initial study.   Not even on the radar.

The fact that everyone was told that wtc 7 would collapse is just more evidence of planned demolition.

This is huge.


(https://s1.postimg.org/6oet6lpn7z/1501813978844.jpg)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on August 09, 2017, 02:35:52 AM
Quote from: disputeone on August 09, 2017, 02:32:40 AM
The fact that everyone was told that wtc 7 would collapse is just more evidence of planned demolition.

Yeah, but the fire fighters measured "bowing" , made the call to bring it down, then engineers set it up to come down in a metropolitan city in a couple hours.

You don't know anything dispute...nothing at all.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on August 09, 2017, 02:39:33 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on August 09, 2017, 02:35:52 AM
Quote from: disputeone on August 09, 2017, 02:32:40 AM
The fact that everyone was told that wtc 7 would collapse is just more evidence of planned demolition.

Yeah, but the fire fighters measured "bowing" , made the call to bring it down, then engineers set it up to come down in a metropolitan city in a couple hours.

Seems legit. ::)

(For Rayzor and user I know how you love my memes.)
(https://s2.postimg.org/low3wlit5/1501659005368m.jpg)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on August 09, 2017, 02:45:55 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on August 09, 2017, 02:35:52 AM
Quote from: disputeone on August 09, 2017, 02:32:40 AM
The fact that everyone was told that wtc 7 would collapse is just more evidence of planned demolition.

Yeah, but the fire fighters measured "bowing" , made the call to bring it down, then engineers set it up to come down in a metropolitan city in a couple hours.

You don't know anything dispute...nothing at all.

**sigh**   What a joke.   

You know full well the FDNY measured the bulge and were concerned about the safety of the firefighters doing rescue work.   Who said they made the call to "bring it down"?  That's just something you've invented.   As for getting a demolition setup in a few hours, even you should know better.

Stick to the facts if you want to play in this arena. 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on August 09, 2017, 02:50:57 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on August 09, 2017, 02:45:55 AM
Who said they made the call to "bring it down"? 

You make it too easy.



http://killtown.blogspot.com.au/2006/06/cdi-pull-it-means-pull-it-down_30.html?m=1

Quote
For those who still question what Larry Silverstein meant when he said "pull it" when talking about the collapse of the WTC 7, Jeff from PumpItOut.com called demolition expertsControlled Demolition, Inc (CDI) and asked them what "pull it" means in demolition terms. This is what CDI told him:

Female receptionist: Good afternoon, Loizeaux Company.
Jeff: Um, sorry, do I -- is this Controlled Demolitions?
CDI: Yes it is.
Jeff: Ok, I was wondering if there was someone I could talk to briefly -- just ask a question I had?
CDI: Well what kind of question?
Jeff: Well I just wanted to know what a term meant in demolition terms.
CDI: Ok, what type of term?
Jeff: Well, if you were in the demolition business and you said the, the term "pull it," I was wondering what exactly that would mean?
CDI: "Pull it"?
Jeff: Yeah.
CDI: Hmm? Hold on a minute.
Jeff: Thank you.
CDI: Sir?
Jeff: Yes?
CDI: "Pull it" is when they actually pull it down.
Jeff: Oh, well thank you very much for your time.
CDI: Ok.
Jeff: Bye.
CDI: Bye.


(Remember that Controlled Demolitions, Incwas hired to help with the clean up at ground zero.)


The definition of "pull down":

pull down - To demolish; destroy: pull down an old office building.

pull down 1. To pull down or break up so that reconstruction is impossible: demolish, destroy, dismantle, dynamite, knock down, level, pulverize, raze, tear down, wreck

Edit.

(https://s1.postimg.org/75n6djbn3/1502113589969.gif)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on August 09, 2017, 03:00:55 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on August 09, 2017, 02:11:27 AM
Quote from: User324 on August 09, 2017, 12:24:51 AM
Quote
Though why is it always the people who have no idea of the subject matter at hand, background etc that make their voice so loud as we should listen to it? Let me stick to my profession and I will let y'all stick to yours (excluding the architect that made an appearance here, he has room to speak. Though funny he reluctantly agreed with me lol)... It is apparent y'all have no idea what you are talking about, it gets frustrating after a while.

You're a mechanical engineer (or at least claim to be one). They learn basically nothing about stability of buildings and stuff. Don't try to fool the people here.

If you have read my company and I also do many projects involving structural related issues (including recently a building heavily damaged by fire, which we had to label unsafe for re-entry even with there possibly being a fatality)as well as some full contract projects...as I have stated many times before, have acquired many extra curricular certifications over the years. You have to stay fluid in order to stay in business and competitive throughout the years. The minute you become stagnant is the minute you sign your pink slip (unless of course you are owned by the government)

Please stay with the class...and don't try the "supposedly" bullshit. I have provided much proof (even some on this thread) while everyone else turns red in the face and says "but but but"....I understand that is all you people have, however, it's a sad song and boring dance.

Let's up the quality of rebuttals please ladies
Imaginary project don't count.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on August 09, 2017, 03:05:01 AM
Quote from: disputeone on August 09, 2017, 02:50:57 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on August 09, 2017, 02:45:55 AM
Who said they made the call to "bring it down"? 
You make it too easy.

Bzzt wrong.  seriously if you fell for that conspiracy theory you would believe anything?

Hint:  Larry Silverstein is not a demolition contractor,  and neither is the FDNY fire chief.    What makes you think they are?

Quote

Then we found out, I guess around 3:00 o' clock, that they thought 7 was going to collapse. So, of course, we've got guys all in this pile over here and the main concern was get everybody out, and I guess it took us over an hour and a half, two hours to get everybody out of there...

This whole pile was burning like crazy. Just the heat and the smoke from all the other buildings on fire, you couldnít see anything. So it took us a while and we ended up backing everybody out, and that ís when 7 collapsed.


Firehouse: Chief Nigro said they made a collapse zone and wanted everybody away from number 7— did you have to get all of those people out?
Hayden: Yeah, we had to pull everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn’t want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn’t even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn’t know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o’clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then.

I walked out and I got to Vesey and West, where I reported to Frank. He said, we’re moving the command post over this way, that building’s coming down. At this point, the fire was going virtually on every floor, heavy fire and smoke that really wasn’t bothering us when we were searching because it was being pushed southeast and we were a little bit west of that. I remember standing just where West and Vesey start to rise toward the entrance we were using in the World Financial Center. There were a couple of guys standing with me and a couple of guys right at the intersection, and we were trying to back them up – and here goes 7. It started to come down and now people were starting to run.


But by all means, keep believing your conspiracy crap.   You know you want to.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on August 09, 2017, 03:11:54 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on August 09, 2017, 02:45:55 AM
As for getting a demolition setup in a few hours, even you should know better.

Rayzor knows this was sarcasm. Bhs has said it multiple times in this thread that controlled demolitions usually take months to set up.

Three options that I can see.

1. Rayzor didn't get the sarcasm and has somehow forgot about the dozens of posts made by Bhs about the time it takes to set up.

2. Rayzor is trying to discredit Bhs dishonestly to push his narrative because he feels it to be the right course of action.

3. Rayzor is trying to discredit Bhs dishonestly to push his narrative because it's his job.

I made my choice months ago.

Edit. @Rayzor. You didn't like the evidence in that post, did you, thats why you call it a conspiracy theory and don't engage the evidence presented, isn't it.

Pull it is a demolition term, it means pull it down. Larry Silverstein said they made the decision to pull it and they pulled it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on August 09, 2017, 03:12:46 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on August 09, 2017, 02:45:55 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on August 09, 2017, 02:35:52 AM
Quote from: disputeone on August 09, 2017, 02:32:40 AM
The fact that everyone was told that wtc 7 would collapse is just more evidence of planned demolition.

Yeah, but the fire fighters measured "bowing" , made the call to bring it down, then engineers set it up to come down in a metropolitan city in a couple hours.

You don't know anything dispute...nothing at all.

**sigh**   What a joke.   

You know full well the FDNY measured the bulge and were concerned about the safety of the firefighters doing rescue work.   Who said they made the call to "bring it down"?  That's just something you've invented.   As for getting a demolition setup in a few hours, even you should know better.

Stick to the facts if you want to play in this arena.

Apparently in your Infinite Wisdom you cannot recognize complete and total sarcasm.

As for your supposed bulge myth...number one it would be impossible to measure such a thing on the ground, as if it did bulge on ground level it would have already collapsed.

Let's say they did move mid site on the structure (which they didn't) they would have to have prints to know acceptable variances, which would have taken weeks to pull. Even if they had such prints (which they didn't), fire fighters have no training nor authority to do any such "measuring"... example the building here I was speaking of burned for 3 days (no collapse of course) before we and another team went to inspect to make a call. (Fyi the words of the chief "It looks like it will be ok", we informed otherwise after an evaluation, he said "thank you" and acted accordingly...which really was not a fun call to make with there being a possible fatality. So they drone searched it instead)

This is real world Rayzor.

Quote from: User324 on August 09, 2017, 03:00:55 AM
Imaginary project don't count.

Says the guy who the only thing he has proven on this site is being mentally unfit of even the most basic of thoughts ::)

Though I know this is all you have is shit comments like this.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on August 09, 2017, 03:20:51 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on August 09, 2017, 03:12:46 AM
As for your supposed bulge myth...number one it would be impossible to measure such a thing on the ground, as if it did bulge on ground level it would have already collapsed.

Let's stick to the evidence. 

Quote
Hayden: [...] By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o'clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

Firehouse: Was there heavy fire in there right away?


Hayden: No, not right away, and that's probably why it stood for so long because it took a while for that fire to develop. It was a heavy body of fire in there and then we didn't make any attempt to fight it. That was just one of those wars we were just going to lose. We were concerned about the collapse of a 47-story building there. We were worried about additional collapse there of what was remaining standing of the towers and the Marriott, so we started pulling the people back after a couple of hours of surface removal and searches along the surface of the debris. We started to pull guys back because we were concerned for their safety.
[...]
Firehouse: Chief Nigro said they made a collapse zone and wanted everybody away from number 7 did you have to get all of those people out?


Hayden: Yeah, we had to pull everybody back. It was very difficult. We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn't want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn't even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn't know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o'clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then.


At that point in time, it seemed like a somewhat smaller event, but under any normal circumstances, that's a major event, a 47-story building collapsing. It seemed like a firecracker after the other ones came down, but I mean that's a big building, and when it came down, it was quite an event. But having gone through the other two, it didn't seem so bad. But that's what we were concerned about.

What does "put a transit on it"  mean in your experience?

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on August 09, 2017, 03:25:51 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on August 09, 2017, 03:20:51 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on August 09, 2017, 03:12:46 AM
As for your supposed bulge myth...number one it would be impossible to measure such a thing on the ground, as if it did bulge on ground level it would have already collapsed.

Let's stick to the evidence. official story.

Speaking of merry go rounds.

Put a transit on it means to use a surveying telescope or a theolodite.

Edit. Bolding.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on August 09, 2017, 03:31:59 AM
Can mean multiple things depending on circumstance... usually it is from roof to point of origin, at times it is from the ground, though typically it's too high to reach from the ground on high rises. Though in this situation more than likely just a surveying telescope from ground level, or from an adjacent building.

They can have their opinion, but they have no right to make a call or assess any sort of damage, especially to super structures. They never will either..if fire fighters feel a structure is unsafe, they call a survey team like my company out to make the call for them, especially for superstructures.

They do have the right to make a call for certain small areas of demo to attempt to stop/chase a fire. However, if you have noticed, when there is a serious fire in a skyscraper, they will not chase it and just let it burn...just clear the area and try to keep it from spreading to other buildings.

There is a reason for this...it is more dangerous than a normal house or business, nor do they feel confident in "chasing it" or doing light demo in order to because they have no training on what you can remove or cannot in such structures.

You need to learn the firefighters limits and training...just as I would not try to fight a fire in a building unless I had no choice. Would call...fire fighters, not fellow engineers
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on August 09, 2017, 03:32:17 AM
Quote from: disputeone on August 09, 2017, 03:25:51 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on August 09, 2017, 03:20:51 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on August 09, 2017, 03:12:46 AM
As for your supposed bulge myth...number one it would be impossible to measure such a thing on the ground, as if it did bulge on ground level it would have already collapsed.

Let's stick to the evidence. official story.

Speaking of merry go rounds.

Put a transit on it means to use a surveying telescope or a theolodite.

Edit. Bolding.

I was asking BHS,  since he's the one that said it was impossible to measure the bulge from the ground.   

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on August 09, 2017, 03:38:54 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on August 09, 2017, 03:31:59 AM
Can mean multiple things depending on circumstance... usually it is from roof to point of origin, at times it is from the ground, though typically it's too high to reach from the ground on high rises. Though in this situation more than likely just a surveying telescope from ground level, or from an adjacent building.

They can have their opinion, but they have no right to make a call or assess any sort of damage, especially to super structures. They never will either..if fire fighters feel a structure is unsafe, they call a survey team like my company out to make the call for them, especially for superstructures.

They do have the right to make a call for certain small areas of demo to attempt to stop/chase a fire. However, if you have noticed, when there is a serious fire in a skyscraper, they will not chase it and just let it burn...just clear the area and try to keep it from spreading to other buildings.

There is a reason for this...it is more dangerous than a normal house or business, nor do they feel confident in "chasing it" or doing light demo in order to because they have no training on what you can remove or cannot in such structures.

You need to learn the firefighters limits and training...just as I would not try to fight a fire in a building unless I had no choice. Would call...fire fighters, not fellow engineers

So you agree that measuring the bulge was possible?   

While the fire is in progress the FDNY is in charge,  they called it as unsafe, given the events of earlier in the day, who could blame them,  and  evacuated the area, probably with NYPD assistance.   What's not to understand.




Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on August 09, 2017, 03:40:51 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on August 09, 2017, 03:32:17 AM
I was asking BHS,  since he's the one that said it was impossible to measure the bulge from the ground.   

Accurately yes.. to make a call on a building's structural integrity, absolutely impossible. No competent team would make such a rash call on a building with such a measurement. Especially without possessing schematics.

Also, I said it was impossible to bulge on the ground FYI..
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on August 09, 2017, 03:46:31 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on August 09, 2017, 03:40:51 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on August 09, 2017, 03:32:17 AM
I was asking BHS,  since he's the one that said it was impossible to measure the bulge from the ground.   

Accurately yes.. to make a call on a building's structural integrity, absolutely impossible. No competent team would make such a rash call on a building with such a measurement. Especially without possessing schematics.

Also, I said it was impossible to bulge on the ground FYI..

Who said anything about bulging at ground level,  it was seen bulging between floors 10-13,   you could only make that mistake it you hadn't read the witness statements. 

The Fire Chief has the authority to make that call.   Sorry I'm getting sick of spoon feeding the facts to you. 

And as it happened he was right.  The building collapsed.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on August 09, 2017, 03:48:57 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on August 09, 2017, 03:38:54 AM
So you agree that measuring the bulge was possible?   

While the fire is in progress the FDNY is in charge,  they called it as unsafe, given the events of earlier in the day, who could blame them,  and  evacuated the area, probably with NYPD assistance.   What's not to understand.

I already answered this question. Also, there are no signs of such "bulge" from the building itself. So I find it suspect..

Yes they are in control of the fire while there is one...if you noticed in one of my previous post I said it was 3 days before "they" let us in. Trust me I know the order....it's the fire fighter's (unless the feds step in but that is a special occasion) until they release it. However, they can only speculate, they cannot make a call one way or the other, that is why they call a survey team out to make the call whenever they feel it could be structurally comprised.

They are very good at making calls on buildings they fight fires in regularly, usually a veteran fighter will know in his gut and be right of a building's safety. However, a superstructure like a high rise, this is not a normal to fight a large fire in these...so they really don't know.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on August 09, 2017, 03:49:26 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on August 09, 2017, 03:38:54 AM
What's not to understand.

Everything about the buildings physical collapse.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on August 09, 2017, 03:40:51 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on August 09, 2017, 03:32:17 AM
I was asking BHS,  since he's the one that said it was impossible to measure the bulge from the ground.   

Accurately yes.. to make a call on a building's structural integrity, absolutely impossible. No competent team would make such a rash call on a building with such a measurement. Especially without possessing schematics.

Assuming that measurement was even taken and is not like NIST's 6.25 inches of thermal expansion on the horizontal beam adjacent to column 79. Ignoring the stiffness of the materials involved and the concrete fire-proofing. Lol.

Also Bhs point stands, it's indisputable fireman are not qualified to make a call on a buildings structural integrity.

When this was the first steel high rise to collapse from (very ordinary) office fires that's a huge call to make.

Everyone should have been evacuated from the area as soon as the first plane hit. Of course people were evacuated, that doesn't prove the building was about to collapse.

All of the points raised about the buildings collapse can't be swept away with "they told us it was going to happen and it did so there."
At least not for men like myself.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on August 09, 2017, 03:56:39 AM
Quote from: disputeone on August 09, 2017, 03:49:26 AM
Also Bhs point stands, it's indisputable fireman are not qualified to make a call on a buildings structural integrity.

Nope, he's wrong,  the Fire Chief has the authority to make the call.  It's his men that are in the firing line.

After the fire is out,  the city can call in surveying teams to assess the safety issues, but while the fire is burning it's the Fire Department in charge.

As I already said, as it happens, in this case  the Fire Chief made the right call,  the building collapsed.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on August 09, 2017, 03:58:34 AM
Sure, he's absolutely qualified to make the call not to send his firefighters in, undoubtedly.

He is not, however, qualified to make a call on a buildings structural integrity.

Quote from: Rayzor on August 09, 2017, 03:56:39 AM
In this case  the Fire Chief made the right call,  the building collapsed.

Quote from: disputeone on August 09, 2017, 03:49:26 AM
All of the points raised about the buildings collapse can't be swept away with "they told us it was going to happen and it did so there."
At least not for men like myself.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on August 09, 2017, 04:00:04 AM
Quote from: disputeone on August 09, 2017, 03:49:26 AM
Everyone should have been evacuated from the area as soon as the first plane hit. Of course people were evacuated, that doesn't prove the building was about to collapse.

There were rescue efforts on going from the collapse of WTC1 that had to be abandoned when they decided to pull back from WTC7,  so there were still emergency services in the immediate area that had to be evacuated.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on August 09, 2017, 04:00:50 AM
Quote from: disputeone on August 09, 2017, 03:58:34 AM
Sure, he's absolutely qualified to make the call not to send his men in, undoubtedly.

He is not, however, qualified to make a call on a buildings structural integrity.

In this case he was spot on in his judgement of the buildings stability.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on August 09, 2017, 04:03:36 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on August 09, 2017, 04:00:50 AM
Quote from: disputeone on August 09, 2017, 03:58:34 AM
Sure, he's absolutely qualified to make the call not to send his men in, undoubtedly.

He is not, however, qualified to make a call on a buildings structural integrity.

In this case he was spot on in his judgement of the buildings stability.

0.02 shekels have been deposited into your account.

Quote from: disputeone on August 09, 2017, 03:49:26 AM
All of the points raised about the buildings collapse can't be swept away with "they told us it was going to happen and it did so there."
At least not for men like myself.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on August 09, 2017, 04:07:16 AM
Cordial reminder you are still dodging this post.

Quote from: disputeone on August 09, 2017, 01:32:16 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on August 09, 2017, 01:22:15 AM
Do you think that all structural engineers agree with you?

No of course not.

I think looking into wtc 7 with some experience in structural engineering (or just a quest for truth) leads you to think there's suspicion surrounding the official story.

Here's an architect that it happened to right here on this thread.

Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on March 30, 2017, 04:37:32 AM

The collapse makes a bit more sense to me after having gotten hold of the plans.
That said, it is still a very strange collapse.
I have the manufacturers drawings, I want to look at the joints between the floor beams and the outer columns.
I feel there should have been more support provided from the outer skin.


I completely understand why people dont think it should have fallen.

I will try respond properly after I have gone over some more stuff.
But for now I have to go.


edited because South Africa's lingo is not international


Edit for whole post.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on August 09, 2017, 04:25:48 AM
Quote from: disputeone on August 09, 2017, 04:07:16 AM
Cordial reminder you are still dodging this post.

Quote from: disputeone on August 09, 2017, 01:32:16 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on August 09, 2017, 01:22:15 AM
Do you think that all structural engineers agree with you?

No of course not.

I think looking into wtc 7 with some experience in structural engineering (or just a quest for truth) leads you to think there's suspicion surrounding the official story.

Here's an architect that it happened to right here on this thread.

Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on March 30, 2017, 04:37:32 AM
I completely understand why people dont think it should have fallen.

He can speak for himself,  I thought he was just  trying to be polite.  What is it that you think requires a response?

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on August 09, 2017, 04:46:04 AM
That all the the evidence about the physical building collapse points to a controlled demolition.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on August 10, 2017, 01:57:28 AM
Quote from: disputeone on August 09, 2017, 04:46:04 AM
That all the the evidence about the physical building collapse points to a controlled demolition.

No,  all of the evidence point to fire induced collapse.  None points to controlled demolition.  Get the facts straight. 

http://www.structuremag.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov071.pdf
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on August 10, 2017, 03:49:42 AM
Actually all the evidence about the wtc 7s physical collapse points to a controlled demolition.

Tell us 2+2=5 Rayzor, go on do it again.



Tell us it's an apple.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on August 27, 2017, 04:06:08 PM
Quote
Tune in at 8 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, September 6, 2017, to watch the livestream of Dr. Leroy Hulsey’s presentation from the University of Alaska Fairbanks. There he will present the findings and conclusions of the study detailed in his team’s September 2017 progress report, which will be issued the same day.

A draft report of the study will be released in October or November 2017 and will be open for public comment for a six-week period, allowing for input from the public and the engineering community. A final report will then be published in early 2018.

http://www.wtc7evaluation.org/

http://www.ae911truth.org/
http://ff911truthandunity.org/
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/
http://www.scientistsfor911truth.org/

I'm excited.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on August 27, 2017, 11:23:02 PM
Oh, Dispute has a new profile pic! Coooool  :o
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on August 27, 2017, 11:39:35 PM
Bless my fanclub.

Boots needs a badge mate. Hurry along now.

He also specifically requested a biscuit.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on August 28, 2017, 12:18:35 AM
Quote from: disputeone on August 27, 2017, 11:39:35 PM
He also specifically requested a biscuit.
I want a biscuit, too!
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on August 28, 2017, 12:59:58 AM
Quote from: User324 on August 28, 2017, 12:18:35 AM
Quote from: disputeone on August 27, 2017, 11:39:35 PM
He also specifically requested a biscuit.
I want a biscuit, too!

I'll buy everyone a biscuit when Hulseys model comes out and is peer reviewed.

Biscuits on me!!!

Seriously tho exciting times. A finite element analysis just like NIST "did" except unclassified and open to peer review. I can't wait too see it.

Exciting times indeed. The problem will be that no one is brave enough to consider the full implications of wtc 7 being a demolition job.

What else can we do tho hey?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on August 28, 2017, 04:06:10 AM
I have already written about fe analysis.
It's basically useless because the situation is way too complex for humans to recreate and for computers to calculate.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Heiwa on August 28, 2017, 04:16:40 AM
Quote from: User324 on August 28, 2017, 04:06:10 AM
I have already written about fe analysis.
It's basically useless because the situation is way too complex for humans to recreate and for computers to calculate.

It isn't! https://www.shipjournal.co/index.php/sst/article/view/21/125

Just start with an intact structure and remove elements as they get damaged!
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on August 28, 2017, 05:15:53 AM
Quote from: User324 on August 28, 2017, 04:06:10 AM
I have already written about fe analysis.
It's basically useless because the situation is way too complex for humans to recreate and for computers to calculate.

That's the method NIST used to conclude that it collapsed primarily due to fire. You all put so much faith in NIST'S FEA but will dismiss Hulseys out of hand. I already know. I don't expect this report to cure cowardice.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Heiwa on August 28, 2017, 06:58:21 AM
Quote from: disputeone on August 28, 2017, 05:15:53 AM
Quote from: User324 on August 28, 2017, 04:06:10 AM
I have already written about fe analysis.
It's basically useless because the situation is way too complex for humans to recreate and for computers to calculate.

That's the method NIST used to conclude that it collapsed primarily due to fire. You all put so much faith in NIST'S FEA but will dismiss Hulseys out of hand. I already know. I don't expect this report to cure cowardice.

No, I just did a simple beam analysis - http://heiwaco.com/nist7.htm - and removed completely #79 vertical column between floors 12/13 and disconnected the relevant floor beams and what happened? The load in the column was transmitted to adjacent columns via the floor beams above. No collapse at all. It is called redundancy. Adjacent structural members/connections become higher stressed but do not break, buckle or rupture.

No need to do a detailed FEA of a structure that basically consists of vertical columns and horizontal beams.

The NIST structural engineers are criminals. Look at the NIST report with structural members flying around! A joke!

 I cannot understand why Hulsey has needed so much time for a simple analysis of this kind.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: MicroBeta on August 28, 2017, 02:54:57 PM
Quote from: disputeone on August 28, 2017, 12:59:58 AM
Quote from: User324 on August 28, 2017, 12:18:35 AM
Quote from: disputeone on August 27, 2017, 11:39:35 PM
He also specifically requested a biscuit.
I want a biscuit, too!

I'll buy everyone a biscuit when Hulseys model comes out and is peer reviewed.

Biscuits on me!!!

Seriously tho exciting times. A finite element analysis just like NIST "did" except unclassified and open to peer review. I can't wait too see it.

Exciting times indeed. The problem will be that no one is brave enough to consider the full implications of wtc 7 being a demolition job.

What else can we do tho hey?
By biscuit you mean cookie right?  I love cookies.

Mike
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on August 28, 2017, 03:09:32 PM
Quote from: User324 on August 28, 2017, 04:06:10 AM
I have already written about fe analysis.
It's basically useless because the situation is way too complex for humans to recreate and for computers to calculate.

This shows your complete lack of knowledge on the subject.

User, please allow the adults to handle this...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: MicroBeta on August 28, 2017, 04:13:02 PM
Quote from: User324 on August 28, 2017, 04:06:10 AM
I have already written about fe analysis.
It's basically useless because the situation is way too complex for humans to recreate and for computers to calculate.
Well, that's just plain wrong.

Mike
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on August 28, 2017, 07:22:33 PM
Thanks Mike.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on August 29, 2017, 03:04:37 AM
Point is, all the building suffered unknown damage. Also I'd say it's quite impossible to know what kind of damage the fire exactely caused, since a lot of factors play a role there, including the interior of the rooms.

-->All just speculation, it's not even important whether the government or the conspiracy guys perform a fe-analysis for "proof" (of course in either case the result will be most likely supporting their views).
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on August 29, 2017, 03:22:07 AM
So basically nothing will ever change your mind. What you're told on TV is the absolute truth. That wasn't your point at all you're trying to save face because you look stupid. You are scared and trying to dismiss a professional FEA by a PhD research team out of hand.

We can easily estimate the damage done by the fire. In a week Hulsey will tell you just how much damage the fire caused with the best evidence available. He will then show how much damage a fire had to do to cause the infamous collapse of wtc 7.

Did the fire, and could any fire, cause the simultaneous failure of all the support columns of wtc 7 causing a 2.25 second symmetrical free-fall?

What you also seem to be missing is that if Hulsey can prove that the NIST model was a deliberate forgery we have very strong grounds for a conspiracy case against NIST. If we get people willing and crazy enough to fight for it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Heiwa on August 29, 2017, 03:32:36 AM
Quote from: disputeone on August 29, 2017, 03:22:07 AM
So basically nothing will ever change your mind. What you're told on TV is the absolute truth. That wasn't your point at all you're trying to save face because you look stupid. You are scared and trying to dismiss a professional FEA by a PhD research team out of hand.

We can easily estimate the damage done by the fire. In a week Hulsey will tell you just how much damage the fire caused with the best evidence available. He will then show how much damage a fire had to do to cause the infamous collapse of wtc 7.

Did the fire, and could any fire, cause the simultaneous failure of all the support columns of wtc 7 causing a 2.25 second symmetrical free-fall?

What you also seem to be missing is that if Hulsey can prove that the NIST model was a deliberate forgery we have very strong grounds for a conspiracy case against NIST. If we get people willing and crazy enough to fight for it.

It is much easier and fun to do physical model tests!

http://heiwaco.com/nist1.htm#6

So just build a little steel tower! And put fire to part of it! See what happens to the part above the fire! Does the whole thing suddenly collapse in smoke and dust.

Only twerps believe so. And they are the winners so far. Twerps always win.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on August 29, 2017, 04:04:48 AM
Quote from: disputeone on August 29, 2017, 03:22:07 AM
What you're told on TV is the absolute truth.
Your memory sucks bad. I already told you twice I don't have a TV.

Quote from: disputeone on August 29, 2017, 03:22:07 AM
In a week Hulsey will tell you just how much damage the fire caused with the best evidence available.
Yep, we will see :)

Quote
So just build a little steel tower! And put fire to part of it! See what happens to the part above the fire! Does the whole thing suddenly collapse in smoke and dust.
Get out of this thread, troll.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: hoppy on August 29, 2017, 04:05:41 AM
Quote from: User324 on August 29, 2017, 03:04:37 AM
Point is, all the building suffered unknown damage. Also I'd say it's quite impossible to know what kind of damage the fire exactely caused, since a lot of factors play a role there, including the interior of the rooms.

-->All just speculation, it's not even important whether the government or the conspiracy guys perform a fe-analysis for "proof" (of course in either case the result will be most likely supporting their views).
Shill confirmed.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on August 29, 2017, 07:16:17 PM
Quote from: hoppy on August 29, 2017, 04:05:41 AM
Quote from: User324 on August 29, 2017, 03:04:37 AM
Point is, all the building suffered unknown damage. Also I'd say it's quite impossible to know what kind of damage the fire exactely caused, since a lot of factors play a role there, including the interior of the rooms.

-->All just speculation, it's not even important whether the government or the conspiracy guys perform a fe-analysis for "proof" (of course in either case the result will be most likely supporting their views).
Shill confirmed.

I'm leaning towards that too hoppy. I thought he was just german.

(https://s26.postimg.org/oyel9uad5/images-5.jpg)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bullwinkle on August 29, 2017, 07:44:55 PM
Quote from: Heiwa on August 29, 2017, 03:32:36 AM

So just build a little steel tower! And put fire to part of it! See what happens to the part above the fire! Does the whole thing suddenly collapse in smoke and dust.



Well, you need to fly an R/C plane into it. Dork.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Heiwa on August 29, 2017, 09:20:05 PM
Quote from: Bullwinkle on August 29, 2017, 07:44:55 PM
Quote from: Heiwa on August 29, 2017, 03:32:36 AM

So just build a little steel tower! And put fire to part of it! See what happens to the part above the fire! Does the whole thing suddenly collapse in smoke and dust.



Well, you need to fly an R/C plane into it. Dork.

Hm, the tower was standing after the plane landed on floor #93. Then a fire started for everyone to watch. And then, an hour later, the tower collapsed - top crushing bottom - and the whole thing became smoke and dust. According GWB and Condoleezza it was the fire started by an Arab that destroyed the tower. My model test just shows it is not possible.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on August 29, 2017, 09:53:32 PM
Quote from: Bullwinkle on August 29, 2017, 07:44:55 PM
Quote from: Heiwa on August 29, 2017, 03:32:36 AM

So just build a little steel tower! And put fire to part of it! See what happens to the part above the fire! Does the whole thing suddenly collapse in smoke and dust.



Well, you need to fly an R/C plane into it. Dork.

Not for wtc 7 but I understand what you mean. A scale model wouldn't really be accurate enough to make a prediction. We'd need to build a full size model simulate the damage done to wtc 7 and check the outcome. Even then we've never had a steel framed high rise collapse from fire before wtc 7 or after wtc 7. Even with much larger longer lasting size fires. So I could hazard a guess if it would collapse or not.

This is why we're going down the FEA route. I hope you tune in we need as many smart and critical people as possible to review our model.

(https://s26.postimg.org/7y5cc0t15/WTC7collapse1-1.gif)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on August 30, 2017, 02:40:22 AM
Quote from: disputeone on August 29, 2017, 07:16:17 PM
I'm leaning towards that too hoppy. I thought he was just german.

(https://s26.postimg.org/oyel9uad5/images-5.jpg)

I'm not german. Just because I can speak german doesn't make me a german... you know, in europe people generally speak multiple languages :)

Anyway, how comes you think germany ruins europe?


Quote
Hm, the tower was standing after the plane landed on floor #93. Then a fire started for everyone to watch. And then, an hour later, the tower collapsed - top crushing bottom - and the whole thing became smoke and dust. According GWB and Condoleezza it was the fire started by an Arab that destroyed the tower. My model test just shows it is not possible.
What if I told you arab fires burn way hotter then white, 'murican fires?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on August 30, 2017, 05:19:28 PM
Off topic but I'll bite.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_migrant_crisis





Congrats on being bi-lingual. I am trying to learn a bit of japanese on the weekends. Sick of watching anime with subtitles ;)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on August 31, 2017, 12:50:51 AM
Quote from: disputeone on August 30, 2017, 05:19:28 PM
Off topic but I'll bite.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II
I was not talking about the past, obviously. But thank you, I've never heard of those two wars!


Quote from: disputeone on August 30, 2017, 05:19:28 PM
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_migrant_crisis
Yeah we rather should thank 'murica for that one.
I'm not saying germany handled the situation perfectely, but they sure didn't and don't "destroy europe". Also you would have to define whether you talk about europe (geographically) or europe (european union). In both cases I'd blame other nations than germany.

Quote from: disputeone on August 30, 2017, 05:19:28 PM
Congrats on being bi-lingual.
I speak four languages. But I've already told you that aswell, so most likely you will forget it within few days or hours.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on August 31, 2017, 05:18:09 PM
Quote from: User324 on August 31, 2017, 12:50:51 AM
Yeah we rather should thank 'murica the criminal american shadow government pulling strings everywhere including europe for that one.

Fixed and agreed. Four languages is objectively pretty impressive.



One day come before me with the same eyes as I possess.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Pezevenk on September 01, 2017, 11:01:44 AM
Germany is ruining the EU but not because of its handling of the refugee crisis. I'm puzzled by how these two videos show Europe being ruined.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 01, 2017, 04:06:59 PM


I have not forgotten, I have not forgiven.
It is far too late to expect us.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on September 02, 2017, 01:21:37 AM
Quote from: Definitely Not Official on September 01, 2017, 11:01:44 AM
Germany is ruining the EU but not because of its handling of the refugee crisis.
...but because their economy is too strong?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Pezevenk on September 02, 2017, 06:40:08 AM
Quote from: User324 on September 02, 2017, 01:21:37 AM
Quote from: Definitely Not Official on September 01, 2017, 11:01:44 AM
Germany is ruining the EU but not because of its handling of the refugee crisis.
...but because their economy is too strong?

?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on September 02, 2017, 07:06:30 AM
Why do you think germany ruins the eu?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Pezevenk on September 02, 2017, 09:27:43 AM
Not Germany per se, the way Merkel conducts the EU.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on September 02, 2017, 11:41:33 AM
Wow, so specific. Totally what I wanted to know.

I'm not going to pull every word out of your mouth, so let's move on then.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Pezevenk on September 02, 2017, 11:49:27 AM
The thread isn't about explaining to you Merkel's policy. Do you think it's something I can explain to you in a matter of few words?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on September 02, 2017, 12:02:48 PM
Quote from: Definitely Not Official on September 02, 2017, 11:49:27 AM
The thread isn't about explaining to you Merkel's policy. Do you think it's something I can explain to you in a matter of few words?
I mostly know her policies, so you just had to explain how it, in your opinion, destroys europe.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Pezevenk on September 02, 2017, 12:10:02 PM
I've explained it again some time ago. The EU is becoming less like a union and more like Germany and its sidekicks. That is making it very unappealing to the other members of the EU, the sense of unity and cooperation is lost, and there is talk in almost every member country of exiting the union. Britain already exited it. The handling of the refugee crisis was also a contributing factor in that. Germany is abusing its power in the EU to act like a bad cop. 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 05, 2017, 11:05:14 PM
Quote from: Definitely Not Official on September 02, 2017, 09:27:43 AM
Not Germany per se, the way Merkel conducts the EU.

This.

Tomorrow guys hope you can tune in and watch. I, for one, will be /comfy/ as f*ck.

Quote
Tune in to media.uaf.edu at 8 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday, September 6, 2017, to watch the livestream of Dr. Leroy Hulsey’s presentation from the University of Alaska Fairbanks. There he will present the findings and conclusions of the study detailed in his team’s September 2017 progress report, which will be issued the same day.

A draft report of the study will be released in October or November 2017 and will be open for public comment for a six-week period, allowing for input from the public and the engineering community. A final report will then be published in early 2018.

http://www.wtc7evaluation.org/

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on September 02, 2017, 12:10:02 PM
I've explained it again some time ago. The EU is becoming less like a union and more like Germany and its sidekicks. That is making it very unappealing to the other members of the EU, the sense of unity and cooperation is lost, and there is talk in almost every member country of exiting the union. Britain already exited it. The handling of the refugee crisis was also a contributing factor in that. Germany is abusing its power in the EU to act like a bad cop.

You're too intelligent for your own good.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Wolvaccine on September 05, 2017, 11:23:03 PM
While I don't follow politics in Europe a lot, as a total outsider, I get the 'impression' that EU and Germany are 'one and the same'. Other smaller member states just don't get a say or coverage. It's like what used to be sovereign independent nations are now merely 'states'.  Merkel appears to be calling the shots.

Whether she intends it or not, with the limelight focused 'all about Merkel', 'what does Merkel think about 'x' subject' etc it weakens the standing of everyone else. I can see why leaving could look attractive. There are 28 countries that make up the EU yet all we hear about is Germany, Germany, Germany. Merkel, Merkel, Merkel. I guess the long ago expansionist dreams of old Germany are finally getting realised.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on September 06, 2017, 01:58:44 AM
I recommend you guys to visit the eu parliament and other institutions or at least get informed on how they work. Hint: it's neither a monarchy nor a dictatorship.
If they (other eu nations) let people like merkel more room to talk or let her influence themselves too much, that's their own problem.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 06, 2017, 02:18:09 AM
Take it somewhere else please.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on September 06, 2017, 02:19:39 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 06, 2017, 02:18:09 AM
Take it somewhere else please.
This thread is dead anyways. Everything has been discussed 100 times, so if something that actually is interesting is getting discussed, please just keep quiet.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 06, 2017, 02:20:38 AM
Quote from: User324 on September 06, 2017, 02:19:39 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 06, 2017, 02:18:09 AM
Take it somewhere else please.
This thread is dead anyways. Everything has been discussed 100 times.

And yet, hardly any of it has been "debunked."

Our FEA is due tomorrow.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Pezevenk on September 06, 2017, 02:34:54 AM
Quote from: Shifter on September 05, 2017, 11:23:03 PM
While I don't follow politics in Europe a lot, as a total outsider, I get the 'impression' that EU and Germany are 'one and the same'. Other smaller member states just don't get a say or coverage. It's like what used to be sovereign independent nations are now merely 'states'.  Merkel appears to be calling the shots.

Whether she intends it or not, with the limelight focused 'all about Merkel', 'what does Merkel think about 'x' subject' etc it weakens the standing of everyone else. I can see why leaving could look attractive. There are 28 countries that make up the EU yet all we hear about is Germany, Germany, Germany. Merkel, Merkel, Merkel. I guess the long ago expansionist dreams of old Germany are finally getting realised.

At least it used to be Germany and France. Now it's just Germany. I really hope she at least loses the election this month, although it really doesn't look like it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on September 06, 2017, 02:52:07 AM
Quote from: Definitely Not Official on September 06, 2017, 02:34:54 AM
At least it used to be Germany and France. Now it's just Germany. I really hope she at least loses the election this month, although it really doesn't look like it.
According to polls, she won the debate by quite a bit.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on September 06, 2017, 03:00:11 AM
Quote from: User324 on September 06, 2017, 02:19:39 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 06, 2017, 02:18:09 AM
Take it somewhere else please.
This thread is dead anyways. Everything has been discussed 100 times, so if something that actually is interesting is getting discussed, please just keep quiet.

Where is the "debunking" at?? Would love to address it....

So far have seen name calling, deflections, gas lighting, and nuh uh with no actual rebuttals.

Also, as dispute said, would love to see the FEA modeling coming up. Will be interesting to see how they act, to see if they mirror the models I have ran in the past. Especially, considering the fact his language almost mirrored mine before dispute introduced him to me.

The cool thing with this though, I only either had just myself working on them, or at one time had an interested employee that would help after hours. However, he had an entire college engineering department at his disposal...

Unless you are in the industry, you have no idea how long it takes to prepare an accurate simulation...takes months and months if you are moonlighting it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Pezevenk on September 06, 2017, 03:05:22 AM
Quote from: User324 on September 06, 2017, 02:52:07 AM
Quote from: Definitely Not Official on September 06, 2017, 02:34:54 AM
At least it used to be Germany and France. Now it's just Germany. I really hope she at least loses the election this month, although it really doesn't look like it.
According to polls, she won the debate by quite a bit.

Hence why I said "it really doesn't look like it".
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on September 06, 2017, 03:13:20 AM
Quote from: Definitely Not Official on September 06, 2017, 03:05:22 AM
Quote from: User324 on September 06, 2017, 02:52:07 AM
Quote from: Definitely Not Official on September 06, 2017, 02:34:54 AM
At least it used to be Germany and France. Now it's just Germany. I really hope she at least loses the election this month, although it really doesn't look like it.
According to polls, she won the debate by quite a bit.

Hence why I said "it really doesn't look like it".
Yeah I got that. I was just reinforcing your statement by adding further information. Sorry if it did appear differentely.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 06, 2017, 03:31:30 AM
How long how looong will I slide.
Separate my siiiiiide.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on September 06, 2017, 03:00:11 AM
Quote from: User324 on September 06, 2017, 02:19:39 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 06, 2017, 02:18:09 AM
Take it somewhere else please.
This thread is dead anyways. Everything has been discussed 100 times, so if something that actually is interesting is getting discussed, please just keep quiet.

Where is the "debunking" at?? Would love to address it....

So far have seen name calling, deflections, gas lighting, and nuh uh with no actual rebuttals.

Also, as dispute said, would love to see the FEA modeling coming up. Will be interesting to see how they act, to see if they mirror the models I have ran in the past. Especially, considering the fact his language almost mirrored mine before dispute introduced him to me.

The cool thing with this though, I only either had just myself working on them, or at one time had an interested employee that would help after hours. However, he had an entire college engineering department at his disposal...

Unless you are in the industry, you have no idea how long it takes to prepare an accurate simulation...takes months and months if you are moonlighting it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 06, 2017, 07:48:56 AM
This is a lot like christmas when I was five...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on September 06, 2017, 01:25:04 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 06, 2017, 07:48:56 AM
This is a lot like christmas when I was five...
Take a deep breath, kid.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 06, 2017, 04:54:24 PM
I really should.

Full disclosure if I met Hulsey irl it would be a lot like this.



I guess everyones heros are different. I'm not a huge fan of beiber.

Edit.

Direct link to stream.
https://media.uaf.edu/media/t/0_nglk89c0
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 06, 2017, 05:17:37 PM
We're live
https://media.uaf.edu/media/t/0_nglk89c0
We're live
https://media.uaf.edu/media/t/0_nglk89c0
We're live
https://media.uaf.edu/media/t/0_nglk89c0
We're live
https://media.uaf.edu/media/t/0_nglk89c0
We're live
https://media.uaf.edu/media/t/0_nglk89c0
We're live
https://media.uaf.edu/media/t/0_nglk89c0
We're live
https://media.uaf.edu/media/t/0_nglk89c0
We're live
https://media.uaf.edu/media/t/0_nglk89c0
We're live
https://media.uaf.edu/media/t/0_nglk89c0
We're live
https://media.uaf.edu/media/t/0_nglk89c0
We're live
https://media.uaf.edu/media/t/0_nglk89c0
We're live
https://media.uaf.edu/media/t/0_nglk89c0
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Pezevenk on September 06, 2017, 05:36:06 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 06, 2017, 04:54:24 PM
I really should.

Full disclosure if I met Hulsey irl it would be a lot like this.




You'd be all these girls at once?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 06, 2017, 06:05:40 PM
As excited yeah. NIST is currently getting BTFO, it's worth a watch, after this no one will be able to claim the NIST report on wtc 7 to be valid. Hulseys tearing it to shreds worse than Bhs and Myself have already.

I think we already have grounds for a conspiracy case to cover up the collapse machanism of wtc 7.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on September 06, 2017, 06:05:52 PM
Damn, I am stuck on a project right now and can't watch live. Keep me posted dispute if you don't mind. Will be done in a few hours
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 06, 2017, 06:07:28 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on September 06, 2017, 06:05:52 PM
Damn, I am stuck on a project right now and can't watch live. Keep me posted dispute if you don't mind. Will be done in a few hours

I'm at work, playing it through my radio ;D. I should've taken the day off. Will do, he's currently showing the NIST report to be a forgery.

It's glorious. Simply glorious.
Will watch it a few times this arvo.

Edit.
(https://s26.postimg.org/kgkzeqyrd/Leroy_Chuck_Norris_Hulsey.jpg)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: MicroBeta on September 06, 2017, 06:22:19 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 06, 2017, 06:05:40 PM
As excited yeah. NIST is currently getting BTFO, it's worth a watch, after this no one will be able to claim the NIST report on wtc 7 to be valid. Hulseys tearing it to shreds worse than Bhs and Myself have already.

I think we already have grounds for a conspiracy case to cover up the collapse machanism of wtc 7.
I wasn't able to watch it all but he definitely point out and explains the NIST assumptions very well.  I can't wait to see the whole video and the final FEA. 

Mike
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 06, 2017, 06:26:46 PM
About an hour presentation. He spent most of the hour showing the NIST report to be unscientific and invalid. I was pretty happy with it. Testing and comparing the models will be good.

Edit.

Quote from: MicroBeta on September 06, 2017, 06:22:19 PM
I can't wait to see the whole video and the final FEA. 

Me either mate.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on September 07, 2017, 12:09:41 AM
So in conclusion: Much ado about nothing.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 07, 2017, 12:23:04 AM
Quote from: User324 on September 07, 2017, 12:09:41 AM
So in conclusion: Much ado about nothing.

Well if proving that wtc 7 didn't collapse due to fire as NIST claimed is "Much ado about nothing" to you. Then that's your opinion. One you have the right to have.

For men like myself it's huge.

You are a coward. Be more like Mike.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on September 07, 2017, 12:33:05 AM
Didn't the guy already "proof" this one year ago?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 07, 2017, 12:36:55 AM
Prove*

Not yet. As Mike says we need to wait for the finished FEA.

Edit.

Quote
A draft report of the study will be released in October or November 2017 and will be open for public comment for a six-week period, allowing for input from the public and the engineering community. A final report will then be published in early 2018.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on September 07, 2017, 12:44:26 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 07, 2017, 12:36:55 AM
Prove*

Not yet. As Mike says we need to wait for the finished FEA.
So, basically much ado about nothing.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 07, 2017, 12:44:57 AM
For you.



Edit. It's funny every single architect and engineer on this thread thinks Bhs Hulsey and to a lesser extent myself make good points on wtc 7.

It's only know nothing blowhards that want to dismiss it out of hand.

I understand nothing will change your mind on the events of September the eleventh two thousand and one. It's your right to dismiss evidence out of hand if you see fit.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on September 07, 2017, 01:27:48 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 07, 2017, 12:44:57 AM
It's funny every single architect and engineer on this thread thinks Bhs Hulsey and to a lesser extent myself make good points on wtc 7.

 ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on September 07, 2017, 01:47:12 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 07, 2017, 12:44:57 AM
It's only know nothing blowhards that want to dismiss it out of hand.

This^^^

Or people who have skin in the game
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Heiwa on September 07, 2017, 03:22:18 AM
Well, it is quite easy to show that a building like WTC7 cannot collapse due to one local, structural failure of a beam connected to a pillar. I have done since long - http://heiwaco.com/nist7.htm . Conclusion? NIST is a criminal institution. Not really a surprise.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 07, 2017, 03:47:08 AM
Your conclusion was that the collapse of wtc 7 was cgi.

Kindly f*ck off.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on September 07, 2017, 03:58:58 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 07, 2017, 03:47:08 AM
Your conclusion was that the collapse of wtc 7 was cgi.
Makes more sense than your theory.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Heiwa on September 07, 2017, 03:59:56 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 07, 2017, 03:47:08 AM
Your conclusion was that the collapse of wtc 7 was cgi.

Kindly f*ck off.

No. Just study my web page. WTC7 was simple controlled demolition knocking off supports between floors 6-14, as I understand it. The footage of the building dropping down seems real.

I don't believe in thermal expansion producing one defect that destroys a complete building as per the NIST criminals follies. USA have a problem! I really like A&E911 and Richard Gage for their work.

Why do you always use foul language? Only twerps do.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on September 07, 2017, 04:14:48 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 07, 2017, 03:59:56 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 07, 2017, 03:47:08 AM
Your conclusion was that the collapse of wtc 7 was cgi.

Kindly f*ck off.

No. Just study my web page.
Noone will click on the link to your shitty webpage. Don't even try.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Heiwa on September 07, 2017, 04:21:22 AM
Quote from: User324 on September 07, 2017, 04:14:48 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 07, 2017, 03:59:56 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 07, 2017, 03:47:08 AM
Your conclusion was that the collapse of wtc 7 was cgi.

Kindly f*ck off.

No. Just study my web page.
Noone will click on the link to your shitty webpage. Don't even try.

? It is quite safe. And interesting. Clean fresh info.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 07, 2017, 04:39:42 AM
Quote from: User324 on September 07, 2017, 03:58:58 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 07, 2017, 03:47:08 AM
Your conclusion was that the collapse of wtc 7 was cgi.
Makes more sense than your theory.

That wtc 7s collapse couldn't have been caused by fire?

I am only beginning to realise how small and immature you are.

@Heiwa.
http://archive.is/fos2M
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on September 07, 2017, 04:41:05 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 07, 2017, 04:21:22 AM
Quote from: User324 on September 07, 2017, 04:14:48 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 07, 2017, 03:59:56 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 07, 2017, 03:47:08 AM
Your conclusion was that the collapse of wtc 7 was cgi.

Kindly f*ck off.

No. Just study my web page.
Noone will click on the link to your shitty webpage. Don't even try.

? It is quite safe. And interesting. Clean fresh info.
You sound like a crack dealer in the ghetto that needs money for his next shot of heroin.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Heiwa on September 07, 2017, 08:42:59 AM
Quote from: User324 on September 07, 2017, 04:41:05 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 07, 2017, 04:21:22 AM
Quote from: User324 on September 07, 2017, 04:14:48 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 07, 2017, 03:59:56 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 07, 2017, 03:47:08 AM
Your conclusion was that the collapse of wtc 7 was cgi.

Kindly f*ck off.

No. Just study my web page.
Noone will click on the link to your shitty webpage. Don't even try.

? It is quite safe. And interesting. Clean fresh info.
You sound like a crack dealer in the ghetto that needs money for his next shot of heroin.

No, I only do safety at sea work - http://heiwaco.com - and government fake news analysis.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: MicroBeta on September 07, 2017, 09:25:07 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 07, 2017, 08:42:59 AM
Quote from: User324 on September 07, 2017, 04:41:05 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 07, 2017, 04:21:22 AM
Quote from: User324 on September 07, 2017, 04:14:48 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 07, 2017, 03:59:56 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 07, 2017, 03:47:08 AM
Your conclusion was that the collapse of wtc 7 was cgi.

Kindly f*ck off.

No. Just study my web page.
Noone will click on the link to your shitty webpage. Don't even try.

? It is quite safe. And interesting. Clean fresh info.
You sound like a crack dealer in the ghetto that needs money for his next shot of heroin.

No, I only do safety at sea work - http://heiwaco.com - and government fake news analysis.
These days you're just a crackpot conspiracy theorist.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Heiwa on September 07, 2017, 10:51:18 AM
Quote from: MicroBeta on September 07, 2017, 09:25:07 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 07, 2017, 08:42:59 AM
Quote from: User324 on September 07, 2017, 04:41:05 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 07, 2017, 04:21:22 AM
Quote from: User324 on September 07, 2017, 04:14:48 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 07, 2017, 03:59:56 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 07, 2017, 03:47:08 AM
Your conclusion was that the collapse of wtc 7 was cgi.

Kindly f*ck off.

No. Just study my web page.
Noone will click on the link to your shitty webpage. Don't even try.

? It is quite safe. And interesting. Clean fresh info.
You sound like a crack dealer in the ghetto that needs money for his next shot of heroin.

No, I only do safety at sea work - http://heiwaco.com - and government fake news analysis.
These days you're just a crackpot conspiracy theorist.

I think you are a terrorist.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: MicroBeta on September 07, 2017, 11:52:45 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 07, 2017, 10:51:18 AM
Quote from: MicroBeta on September 07, 2017, 09:25:07 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 07, 2017, 08:42:59 AM
Quote from: User324 on September 07, 2017, 04:41:05 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 07, 2017, 04:21:22 AM
Quote from: User324 on September 07, 2017, 04:14:48 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 07, 2017, 03:59:56 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 07, 2017, 03:47:08 AM
Your conclusion was that the collapse of wtc 7 was cgi.

Kindly f*ck off.

No. Just study my web page.
Noone will click on the link to your shitty webpage. Don't even try.

? It is quite safe. And interesting. Clean fresh info.
You sound like a crack dealer in the ghetto that needs money for his next shot of heroin.

No, I only do safety at sea work - http://heiwaco.com - and government fake news analysis.
These days you're just a crackpot conspiracy theorist.

I think you are a terrorist.
Of course you do. Because you're an idiot.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: MicroBeta on September 07, 2017, 05:19:20 PM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 07, 2017, 10:51:18 AM
Quote from: MicroBeta on September 07, 2017, 09:25:07 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 07, 2017, 08:42:59 AM
Quote from: User324 on September 07, 2017, 04:41:05 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 07, 2017, 04:21:22 AM
Quote from: User324 on September 07, 2017, 04:14:48 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 07, 2017, 03:59:56 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 07, 2017, 03:47:08 AM
Your conclusion was that the collapse of wtc 7 was cgi.

Kindly f*ck off.

No. Just study my web page.
Noone will click on the link to your shitty webpage. Don't even try.

? It is quite safe. And interesting. Clean fresh info.
You sound like a crack dealer in the ghetto that needs money for his next shot of heroin.

No, I only do safety at sea work - http://heiwaco.com - and government fake news analysis.
These days you're just a crackpot conspiracy theorist.

I think you are a terrorist.
I think you’re a disinformation shill.  Your job is to muddy the waters and misdirect truthers from seeing the real story.  You sound like a CIA operative, employing Aктивные Mероприятия.  What else are you hiding?

Mike
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on September 07, 2017, 05:22:09 PM
Quote from: MicroBeta on September 07, 2017, 05:19:20 PM
I think you’re a disinformation shill.  Your job is to muddy the waters

A bot more than likely

I think it has programed responses which is why everything is generic repetitions, even it's attempted stories include all the content on the site rather it makes sense or not, it can never personalize it's content or address any user by name.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 07, 2017, 05:55:13 PM
Ah quickdraw.

I think he's spot on. Heiwa sounds exactly like a disinfo shill. Perhaps a bot overseen by intelligence agencies? Possibly.

@ Mike. We will never walk alone.
Edit.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 07, 2017, 06:26:05 PM
Quote
FBI records show that COINTELPRO resources targeted groups and individuals that the FBI deemed subversive

FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover issued directives governing COINTELPRO, ordering FBI agents to "expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit, neutralize or otherwise eliminate" the activities of these movements and especially their leaders.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO

We can argue whether it's intentional or not, however, he does sound exactly like a disinfo agent.

Compound this with his inability to prove he's a human and we have a strong case to make.

You said it yourself here.
Quote from: MicroBeta on September 05, 2017, 11:14:36 AM
I’ve linked to sites that prove you have zero credibility.  And, I can link to sites where you’ve lied and been caught, where you’ve had your ass handed to you by the other posters, where you’ve been proven wrong, and where you’ve been banned because of your trolling and whack job conspiracy theories.

That’s proof positive that you have zero credibility on any other website, with any other engineers, and certainly not here.  There’s not a site on the web that takes you seriously, including AE911Truth.  Even your peers want nothing to do with you and your crackpot theories.

I’ve proved you’re a liar and you have lost all credibility everywhere you’ve posted.  Not just me either.  Others here have proved it all before I even got here.

You’re a laughing stock and everyone on the web knows it.

Mike
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Heiwa on September 07, 2017, 10:24:27 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 07, 2017, 04:39:42 AM
Quote from: User324 on September 07, 2017, 03:58:58 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 07, 2017, 03:47:08 AM
Your conclusion was that the collapse of wtc 7 was cgi.
Makes more sense than your theory.

That wtc 7s collapse couldn't have been caused by fire?

I am only beginning to realise how small and immature you are.

@Heiwa.
http://archive.is/fos2M

Thanks for linking to my analysis of the WTC7 structural destruction and
(http://heiwaco.com/NISTWTC7.jpg)

Evidently the WTC7 structure cannot collapse when one structural member (a truss?) fails and two columns buckle!

The NIST engineers are simply criminal, suggesting it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 07, 2017, 10:30:45 PM
One day we might see justice.

If you could just prove you are genuine I would lay off you. You claim to be on our side.

I got bogged the other day trying to pull a mate out of the mud. Bastards told me it wasnt that bad. It was. I had to get towed out. This is a funny picture of the night.

(https://s26.postimg.org/qvgqjj1s9/20170823_210254.jpg)

Reverse image search it, it's an original picture. The other headlight is covered in mud.

Edit.

This is the view from where I'm at currently.

(https://s26.postimg.org/kvszfvgzt/20170908_133248.jpg)

Show me you are genuine and human. Everyone is curious. People will start asking questions.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 07, 2017, 10:36:42 PM
I'm 98% sure of what you are but I am always open to new information.

Don't you dare link me to your website.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on September 07, 2017, 10:57:08 PM
You know it cannot​ do that dispute...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Heiwa on September 08, 2017, 12:14:37 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 07, 2017, 10:30:45 PM
One day we might see justice.

If you could just prove you are genuine I would lay off you. You claim to be on our side.


Show me you are genuine and human. Everyone is curious. People will start asking questions.
(http://heiwaco.com/AB8sep2017.gif)
Greetings from sunny southern France! Terrible news from the Caribbean, though.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on September 08, 2017, 12:52:21 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 07, 2017, 10:30:45 PM

This is the view from where I'm at currently.

(https://s26.postimg.org/kvszfvgzt/20170908_133248.jpg)

Show me you are genuine and human. Everyone is curious. People will start asking questions.

Nice view mate. From where I'm currently at I only see the wall of the next building...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on September 08, 2017, 01:10:36 AM
(http://i68.tinypic.com/o0ti7a.jpg)

It's 3:00am at my place right now.

Nice to see you enjoying the sunshine dispute.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: MicroBeta on September 08, 2017, 02:25:40 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 07, 2017, 10:30:45 PM
One day we might see justice.

If you could just prove you are genuine I would lay off you. You claim to be on our side.

I got bogged the other day trying to pull a mate out of the mud. Bastards told me it wasnt that bad. It was. I had to get towed out. This is a funny picture of the night.

(https://s26.postimg.org/qvgqjj1s9/20170823_210254.jpg)

Reverse image search it, it's an original picture. The other headlight is covered in mud.

Edit.

This is the view from where I'm at currently.

(https://s26.postimg.org/kvszfvgzt/20170908_133248.jpg)

Show me you are genuine and human. Everyone is curious. People will start asking questions.
He's not on your side.  Not really.  He claims there were no planes, nobody died, the downtown area was roped off, it was a magic show, and all the news reports were green screen CGI. 

Regardless of how the towers came down, those are just bat shit crazy ideas.  Not to mention he never researched the victims to see if they were real, which IMHO is just disrespectful. 

Mike
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Heiwa on September 08, 2017, 03:18:32 AM
Quote from: MicroBeta on September 08, 2017, 02:25:40 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 07, 2017, 10:30:45 PM
One day we might see justice.

If you could just prove you are genuine I would lay off you. You claim to be on our side.

I got bogged the other day trying to pull a mate out of the mud. Bastards told me it wasnt that bad. It was. I had to get towed out. This is a funny picture of the night.

(https://s26.postimg.org/qvgqjj1s9/20170823_210254.jpg)

Reverse image search it, it's an original picture. The other headlight is covered in mud.

Edit.

This is the view from where I'm at currently.

(https://s26.postimg.org/kvszfvgzt/20170908_133248.jpg)

Show me you are genuine and human. Everyone is curious. People will start asking questions.
He's not on your side.  Not really.  He claims there were no planes, nobody died, the downtown area was roped off, it was a magic show, and all the news reports were green screen CGI. 

Regardless of how the towers came down, those are just bat shit crazy ideas.  Not to mention he never researched the victims to see if they were real, which IMHO is just disrespectful. 

Mike

Only terrorists suggest there were planes, blah, blah, blah. They are paid for it. Disgusting.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 08, 2017, 03:23:52 AM
Thanks Mike you're a top bloke.

I agree he's not on our side. Just pointing out how suspicious he is.

I especially agree that he's disrespectful that's putting it very lightly. A lot of the Truth movement started from families of real victims of 9/11. His dismissal of the people that died makes me sick.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: MicroBeta on September 08, 2017, 03:27:38 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 08, 2017, 03:18:32 AM
Quote from: MicroBeta on September 08, 2017, 02:25:40 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 07, 2017, 10:30:45 PM
One day we might see justice.

If you could just prove you are genuine I would lay off you. You claim to be on our side.

I got bogged the other day trying to pull a mate out of the mud. Bastards told me it wasnt that bad. It was. I had to get towed out. This is a funny picture of the night.

(https://s26.postimg.org/qvgqjj1s9/20170823_210254.jpg)

Reverse image search it, it's an original picture. The other headlight is covered in mud.

Edit.

This is the view from where I'm at currently.

(https://s26.postimg.org/kvszfvgzt/20170908_133248.jpg)

Show me you are genuine and human. Everyone is curious. People will start asking questions.
He's not on your side.  Not really.  He claims there were no planes, nobody died, the downtown area was roped off, it was a magic show, and all the news reports were green screen CGI. 

Regardless of how the towers came down, those are just bat shit crazy ideas.  Not to mention he never researched the victims to see if they were real, which IMHO is just disrespectful. 

Mike

Only terrorists suggest there were planes, blah, blah, blah. They are paid for it. Disgusting.
Only fuckin' idiots say there were no planes without researching it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Heiwa on September 08, 2017, 03:37:46 AM
Quote from: MicroBeta on September 08, 2017, 03:27:38 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 08, 2017, 03:18:32 AM
Quote from: MicroBeta on September 08, 2017, 02:25:40 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 07, 2017, 10:30:45 PM
One day we might see justice.

If you could just prove you are genuine I would lay off you. You claim to be on our side.

I got bogged the other day trying to pull a mate out of the mud. Bastards told me it wasnt that bad. It was. I had to get towed out. This is a funny picture of the night.

(https://s26.postimg.org/qvgqjj1s9/20170823_210254.jpg)

Reverse image search it, it's an original picture. The other headlight is covered in mud.

Edit.

This is the view from where I'm at currently.

(https://s26.postimg.org/kvszfvgzt/20170908_133248.jpg)

Show me you are genuine and human. Everyone is curious. People will start asking questions.
He's not on your side.  Not really.  He claims there were no planes, nobody died, the downtown area was roped off, it was a magic show, and all the news reports were green screen CGI. 

Regardless of how the towers came down, those are just bat shit crazy ideas.  Not to mention he never researched the victims to see if they were real, which IMHO is just disrespectful. 

Mike

Only terrorists suggest there were planes, blah, blah, blah. They are paid for it. Disgusting.
Only fuckin' idiots say there were no planes without researching it.

Only terrorists say so!
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on September 08, 2017, 03:49:06 AM
I am fairly certain something hit them...I only have one account of someone there I can personally trust and that is my uncle. He was a few blocks away in a meeting, and heard the "plane"...though he only heard the second one. Though he is absolutely certain it was not a fan jet engine. He is certain it was a rocket propelled vessel. He would never make a mistake like that. He was in the industry way too long before moving to something else. (Also, for being in the industry myself, there is no way you can mistake the two...the ears as well as the personal feeling you get from the wake in the gut)

He was the reason I went into the profession I did...be was a distant uncle and haven't spoke to him in years and years...but I will never forget the tour he gave me of a facility he managed, blew my mind.. obviously made an impression if it helped mold my career choice.

My whole point...the guy is not an idiot, nor does he possess emotions to it...something hit at least the second one. The first one he said he heard nothing but a bang, he didn't even stop what he was doing.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 08, 2017, 04:27:57 AM
I agree with Bhs. I am fairly certain something hit them. That's all I can really say.

Some of the footage used looks very suspicious to me. That's just my opinion.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on September 08, 2017, 04:34:48 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 08, 2017, 04:27:57 AM
I agree with Bhs. I am fairly certain something hit them. That's all I can really say.

Some of the footage used looks very suspicious to me. That's just my opinion.

Oh the footage is absolute bullshit...that is 100 percent...you don't have to be highly educated or in the industry to know physics just doesn't work that way with the "planes" ramming into the building.... especially when you add in the materials the vessel and buildings were constructed of.

Especially the shots of the plane literally disappearing into the building without a trace or leaving a mark...then that one angle scepti showed which was just nonsensical. Not to mention the camera literally zooming in right where in needed to one second before.

Forget all the "coincidences" of the footage, simply physics don't work that way in our known reality.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on September 08, 2017, 05:03:06 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on September 08, 2017, 04:34:48 AM
Oh the footage is absolute bullshit...that is 100 percent...you don't have to be highly educated or in the industry to know physics just doesn't work that way with the "planes" ramming into the building.... especially when you add in the materials the vessel and buildings were constructed of.

Especially the shots of the plane literally disappearing into the building without a trace or leaving a mark...then that one angle scepti showed which was just nonsensical. Not to mention the camera literally zooming in right where in needed to one second before.

Forget all the "coincidences" of the footage, simply physics don't work that way in our known reality.
Hello Heiwa2.0
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: MicroBeta on September 08, 2017, 05:04:04 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on September 08, 2017, 03:49:06 AM
I am fairly certain something hit them...I only have one account of someone there I can personally trust and that is my uncle. He was a few blocks away in a meeting, and heard the "plane"...though he only heard the second one. Though he is absolutely certain it was not a fan jet engine. He is certain it was a rocket propelled vessel. He would never make a mistake like that. He was in the industry way too long before moving to something else. (Also, for being in the industry myself, there is no way you can mistake the two...the ears as well as the personal feeling you get from the wake in the gut)

He was the reason I went into the profession I did...be was a distant uncle and haven't spoke to him in years and years...but I will never forget the tour he gave me of a facility he managed, blew my mind.. obviously made an impression if it helped mold my career choice.

My whole point...the guy is not an idiot, nor does he possess emotions to it...something hit at least the second one. The first one he said he heard nothing but a bang, he didn't even stop what he was doing.
I have a few people I know that were witnesses that I trust. One is my brother. He was watching from Jersey. He heard the second plane go over head and watched it go over the harbor into the south tower.

I know one of the reporters that Anders implicates on his website. We went to high school together.  I trust his word too. He's in s good portion of the FOIA released video from NIST that was recently uploaded to YouTube.

Heiea never actually researched the planes. He concludes the video he downloaded is fake...without any real video equipment. Only his eyes. He never interviewed anyone. He never looked at anything other than poor quality internet video. Experts would have needed the raw footage and proper video equipment.

Now that the raw video has been released and it's in HD it proves he's wrong.

Mike
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on September 08, 2017, 05:10:45 AM
It is of my opinion the footage was tampered with to show a different vessel than was used. To me that is where the trail leads...

I always have to go to what I do know for fact so I don't get lost in speculation. I know for a fact the buildings could not have collapsed the way we say, in the manner we say with the supposed catalyst...

I also know for a fact the physics of the planes crashing into the buildings is not possible for the metallurgical content of the plane as well as the towers.

Unfortunately after that, speculation takes hold...all you can do is make it as educated as possible.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 08, 2017, 05:20:59 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on September 08, 2017, 04:34:48 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 08, 2017, 04:27:57 AM
I agree with Bhs. I am fairly certain something hit them. That's all I can really say.

Some of the footage used looks very suspicious to me. That's just my opinion.

Oh the footage is absolute bullshit...that is 100 percent...you don't have to be highly educated or in the industry to know physics just doesn't work that way with the "planes" ramming into the building.... especially when you add in the materials the vessel and buildings were constructed of.

Especially the shots of the plane literally disappearing into the building without a trace or leaving a mark...then that one angle scepti showed which was just nonsensical. Not to mention the camera literally zooming in right where in needed to one second before.

Forget all the "coincidences" of the footage, simply physics don't work that way in our known reality.

I agree I think that's the case.

Regardless It will all start with wtc 7, that was a huge mistake. If we can actually start looking into this and hopefully making arrests we can get a bigger picture of what really happened.

Quote from: User324 on September 08, 2017, 05:03:06 AM
Hello Heiwa2.0

Bhs I would encourage you to keep an open mind about who Heiwa is and his innocence and intentions in all of this.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: MicroBeta on September 08, 2017, 05:22:40 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on September 08, 2017, 05:10:45 AM
It is of my opinion the footage was tampered with to show a different vessel than was used. To me that is where the trail leads...

I always have to go to what I do know for fact so I don't get lost in speculation. I know for a fact the buildings could not have collapsed the way we say, in the manner we say with the supposed catalyst...

I also know for a fact the physics of the planes crashing into the buildings is not possible for the metallurgical content of the plane as well as the towers.

Unfortunately after that, speculation takes hold...all you can do is make it as educated as possible.
What do you mean about the metallurgical content?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on September 08, 2017, 05:43:36 AM
Quote from: MicroBeta on September 08, 2017, 05:22:40 AM
What do you mean about the metallurgical content?

The exact content of each metal and it's properties under load/stress/impact. This is something I have dealt with for over a decade now in my profession. What we saw is not the reaction we would see in reality...the plane and building both.

The plane, the exact content of magnesium and other minerals in the metal...it's carbon content etc...its rigidity how this exact aluminum acts under heavy compression to a surface such as the exoskeleton of the towers...the rigidity/thickness/loaded compression level etc of just the outside exoskeleton alone.

Then you add in the vertical floors, their construction, the type metal, concrete used etc...then we get to the Behemoth core..it's exact composition and it's properties.

Then we need to look where the weight comes from in the supposed planes used...how much is from fuel and vapor alone. How kerosene acts under heavy compression, it's ignition point etc etc etc...

This is very cryptic...as I have went into much greater detail in this thread already.

Simply stated, we would have seen at least half the plane shed outside the exoskeleton before it made it to the horizontal floors and it certainly would have not made it through the core. The standing compression alone would have made sure of that.

It certainly would not have made all the way through the building...and 100 percent would not have disappeared into the building like a magic stick of butter without leaving a mark, then suddenly "explode"..

Also, as I have explained in this thread previously...when you pit the type of aluminum used in the plane against the type of steel used in just the exoskeleton, with that amount of standing compression of the building...you will literally reach a point of no return with the aluminum where you can deliver no further energy, it gets dispersed instantly at point of impact. The aluminum literally "shatters"... becomes "Unbonded" in an attempt to save a word salad...

The theory of metallurgy says this alone with person tests...

Simply, what we saw is impossible..
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 08, 2017, 05:48:10 AM
The wings of the planes cutting through the structural support columns in some of the footage really did it for me. I'm a layman so I can't do the maths on the collision physics with the materials involved properly.

Using Newton Galileo and a little bit of logic we can see this probably shouldn't have happened. I am open to being wrong.

(https://s26.postimg.org/lewqwsd2h/Healing_Columns-1.gif)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: MicroBeta on September 08, 2017, 06:15:25 AM
The yield stress of 7000 series aluminum excess 70 ksi.  That's what much of the structural portions of the wings and fuselage is made of. The structural steel in that area is ASTM   A36 with a yield stress of 36ksi.

Other structural members of the plane are 2000 series with a minimum yield stress >50 ksi.

Now I make no assertions as to the subsequent events but it's my professional opinion that at >400 mph, the main body and the largest part of the wings could easily penetrate the columns.

Mike
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 08, 2017, 06:19:47 AM
I respect that.

Do you think it could have penetrated the building in the manner we saw? I feel like parts of the plane should have broken off but I am speculating. It's fine if you don't want to speculate on it.



It's refreshing talking to someone on this thread (Except Bhs) who's honest and educated.

Edit footage.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 08, 2017, 06:34:32 AM
My honest speculation was that they were military jets. The footage had to be cgi to show an american airlines flight hit the tower.

Some eyewitness testimony seems to support this.





Forgive my speculation.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 08, 2017, 03:53:42 PM
Finally AE911 truth uploads Hulseys new video to YouTube. Thanks guys.



http://www.wtc7evaluation.org/
http://cem.uaf.edu/cee/people/leroy-hulsey.aspx

Edit.
(https://s26.postimg.org/kgkzeqyrd/Leroy_Chuck_Norris_Hulsey.jpg)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 08, 2017, 04:57:44 PM
Quote from: MicroBeta on September 08, 2017, 06:15:25 AM
The yield stress of 7000 series aluminum excess 70 ksi.  That's what much of the structural portions of the wings and fuselage is made of. The structural steel in that area is ASTM   A36 with a yield stress of 36ksi.

Other structural members of the plane are 2000 series with a minimum yield stress >50 ksi.

Sorry for the 20 questions but as I said, it's rare and refreshing to discuss this with someone honest and intelligent.

Ok so sure a planes structure could have a higher yield stress than steel. I'd personally (in my unprofessional opinion) think about how brittle the material is.

Quote
A yield strength or yield stress is the material property defined as the stress at which a material begins to deform plastically whereas yield point is the point where nonlinear (elastic + plastic) deformation begins. Prior to the yield point the material will deformelastically and will return to its original shape when the applied stress is removed. Once the yield point is passed, some fraction of the deformation will be permanent and non-reversible.

The yield point determines the limits of performance for mechanical components, since it represents the upper limit to forces that can be applied without permanent deformation. In structural engineering, this is a soft failure mode which does not normally cause catastrophic failure or ultimate failureunless it accelerates buckling.

Yield strength is the critical material property exploited by many fundamental techniques of material-working: to reshape material with pressure (such as forging, rolling, pressing, orhydroforming), to separate material by cutting (such as machining) or shearing, and to join components rigidly with fasteners. Yield load can be taken as the load applied to the centre of a carriage spring to straighten its leaves.

The offset yield point (or proof stress) is the stress at which 0.2% plastic deformation occurs.

Now we all know steel is relatively soft compared to some alloys. No denying that.

I like japanese swords, A katana is specially treated to give a very hard edge with a softer back, this is so the sword doesnt snap and break during cutting and blocking. The edge has a much higher yield stress, however if the whole sword was like that it would be useless under stress.

This is how I feel about the wings of the plane. Sure they have a very high yield stress, however they are quite brittle, perfectly designed for the stresses of flight but never designed to crash into a building.

Also as Bhs has stated it wasn't just the columns but the concrete floors. I will pay that some of the plane should have penetrated the building. I find it hard to justify the wingtips.



I also don't think the left wing vanishing behind the building prior to impact is an optical illusion.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on September 08, 2017, 06:20:41 PM
Quote from: MicroBeta on September 08, 2017, 06:15:25 AM
The yield stress of 7000 series aluminum excess 70 ksi.  That's what much of the structural portions of the wings and fuselage is made of. The structural steel in that area is ASTM   A36 with a yield stress of 36ksi.

Other structural members of the plane are 2000 series with a minimum yield stress >50 ksi.

Now I make no assertions as to the subsequent events but it's my professional opinion that at >400 mph, the main body and the largest part of the wings could easily penetrate the columns.

Mike

I don't know what your professional opinion is, but I have to politely say it is incorrect based on theory and real world testing..

You are looking at one stat... I look at all stats when making an assessment. I have to, it's my job, if I don't I at minimum face lawsuits and possibly lose my business...at worst hurt or kill people.

This causes constant strife here, between this thread and another one where I was literally called an idiot for 20 plus pages for sticking to what I knew was correct by multiple people...for trying to explain how their answer was one dimensional, then finally them realizing their stupidity..of course not a single apology nor was it expected...

So don't look at this one one-dimensionally...I don't know what to do, so I will use metaphors instead of babbling...however, there is more detailed technical information in this thread I have already posted.

If you had an object you were gluing that had constant vibration would you use super glue or rubberized epoxy?? You would use the epoxy, even though the super glue has greater tensile strength... Though it is too rigid, would never hold to even the slightest constant movements..

Same with the towers...if you used aircraft aluminum to construct the frame of the tower, guess how long it would last?? Maybe 10 years if lucky, though I doubt even that...there is a reason fuselages have a shelf life...if you could build them out of the same steel as the towers, you could have a 100 year plane, too bad it would never make it off the ground.

So in attempts to keep this short...when you factor in the construction of the millimeters thick aluminum and its metallurgical contents and properties...and the inches thick steel and it's metallurgical contents and properties you have an impossible formula to rectify what we saw, with the proposed velocity or not....so this leads us to only one possible conclusion, what we saw has been modified some how...

Plus I am surprised you are willing to argue the fact an object can disappear into a structure leaving not a single mark...this seems very common sense to me.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 08, 2017, 07:16:28 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on September 08, 2017, 06:20:41 PM
You are looking at one stat... I look at all stats when making an assessment.

This.

I'm really enjoying this.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: MicroBeta on September 08, 2017, 08:07:12 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 08, 2017, 04:57:44 PM
Quote from: MicroBeta on September 08, 2017, 06:15:25 AM
The yield stress of 7000 series aluminum excess 70 ksi.  That's what much of the structural portions of the wings and fuselage is made of. The structural steel in that area is ASTM   A36 with a yield stress of 36ksi.

Other structural members of the plane are 2000 series with a minimum yield stress >50 ksi.

Sorry for the 20 questions but as I said, it's rare and refreshing to discuss this with someone honest and intelligent.

Ok so sure a planes structure could have a higher yield stress than steel. I'd personally (in my unprofessional opinion) think about how brittle the material is.

Quote
A yield strength or yield stress is the material property defined as the stress at which a material begins to deform plastically whereas yield point is the point where nonlinear (elastic + plastic) deformation begins. Prior to the yield point the material will deformelastically and will return to its original shape when the applied stress is removed. Once the yield point is passed, some fraction of the deformation will be permanent and non-reversible.

The yield point determines the limits of performance for mechanical components, since it represents the upper limit to forces that can be applied without permanent deformation. In structural engineering, this is a soft failure mode which does not normally cause catastrophic failure or ultimate failureunless it accelerates buckling.

Yield strength is the critical material property exploited by many fundamental techniques of material-working: to reshape material with pressure (such as forging, rolling, pressing, orhydroforming), to separate material by cutting (such as machining) or shearing, and to join components rigidly with fasteners. Yield load can be taken as the load applied to the centre of a carriage spring to straighten its leaves.

The offset yield point (or proof stress) is the stress at which 0.2% plastic deformation occurs.

Now we all know steel is relatively soft compared to some alloys. No denying that.

I like japanese swords, A katana is specially treated to give a very hard edge with a softer back, this is so the sword doesnt snap and break during cutting and blocking. The edge has a much higher yield stress, however if the whole sword was like that it would be useless under stress.

This is how I feel about the wings of the plane. Sure they have a very high yield stress, however they are quite brittle, perfectly designed for the stresses of flight but never designed to crash into a building.

Also as Bhs has stated it wasn't just the columns but the concrete floors. I will pay that some of the plane should have penetrated the building. I find it hard to justify the wingtips.



I also don't think the left wing vanishing behind the building prior to impact is an optical illusion.
You are correct that these aluminum alloys are brittle.  The tensile strength of the high strength Al (AKA ultimate strength) is relatively close to its yield strength.  Once you reach yield it’s not far to ultimate.  On the other hand, ASTM A36 steel is much more ductile.  However, the yield strength of 7150 aluminum is as high or higher than the ultimate strength of A36 steel.

The fact is that with the velocity of the plane it would certainly penetrate the columns.

Now for a related story...When I was a kid my friend had an air rifle.  It shot small lead pellets.  We would shoot at steel #10 cans.  Pump it up a couple times and fire.  The little lead pellet would just deform and barley mar the can.  Pump it up as much as we could, fire, and it would go through both sides and the can wouldn’t even move.  If you know someone with an air rifle you can try this out yourself.

Here is another demonstration.  A Mythbusters video where a ping-pong ball is shot at high speed through a ping-pong paddle.



The point is, velocity is everything.  If a three gram ping-pong ball can blast though the paddle and a 4 mm lead pellet can blast through both sides of a steel #10 can, is it such a leap to think a plane could penetrate the outer columns and concrete floors of the towers?  AAMOF, that much mass at that velocity, I'd have no problems believing that even the wing tips would make it through the outer wall.  They're certainly tougher than a ping-pong ball.

The engines would certainly have more penetrating power but I'd guess the fuselage and wings would barely make it to the core. 

Mike
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: MicroBeta on September 08, 2017, 08:39:19 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on September 08, 2017, 06:20:41 PM
Quote from: MicroBeta on September 08, 2017, 06:15:25 AM
The yield stress of 7000 series aluminum excess 70 ksi.  That's what much of the structural portions of the wings and fuselage is made of. The structural steel in that area is ASTM   A36 with a yield stress of 36ksi.

Other structural members of the plane are 2000 series with a minimum yield stress >50 ksi.

Now I make no assertions as to the subsequent events but it's my professional opinion that at >400 mph, the main body and the largest part of the wings could easily penetrate the columns.

Mike

I don't know what your professional opinion is, but I have to politely say it is incorrect based on theory and real world testing..

You are looking at one stat... I look at all stats when making an assessment. I have to, it's my job, if I don't I at minimum face lawsuits and possibly lose my business...at worst hurt or kill people.

This causes constant strife here, between this thread and another one where I was literally called an idiot for 20 plus pages for sticking to what I knew was correct by multiple people...for trying to explain how their answer was one dimensional, then finally them realizing their stupidity..of course not a single apology nor was it expected...

So don't look at this one one-dimensionally...I don't know what to do, so I will use metaphors instead of babbling...however, there is more detailed technical information in this thread I have already posted.

If you had an object you were gluing that had constant vibration would you use super glue or rubberized epoxy?? You would use the epoxy, even though the super glue has greater tensile strength... Though it is too rigid, would never hold to even the slightest constant movements..

Same with the towers...if you used aircraft aluminum to construct the frame of the tower, guess how long it would last?? Maybe 10 years if lucky, though I doubt even that...there is a reason fuselages have a shelf life...if you could build them out of the same steel as the towers, you could have a 100 year plane, too bad it would never make it off the ground.

So in attempts to keep this short...when you factor in the construction of the millimeters thick aluminum and its metallurgical contents and properties...and the inches thick steel and it's metallurgical contents and properties you have an impossible formula to rectify what we saw, with the proposed velocity or not....so this leads us to only one possible conclusion, what we saw has been modified some how...

Plus I am surprised you are willing to argue the fact an object can disappear into a structure leaving not a single mark...this seems very common sense to me.
I don't know what your business is but I respectfully have to disagree with you.  I'm an engineer with 20 years experience in numeric modeling and stress analysis.  This includes static, dynamic, fatigue, and vibrational analyses using both 2D/3D beam models and 3D finite element models.  Additionally, I’ve done shock and fatigue testing on structures, components, and welds.  I work for defense contractor and we design and build submarines for the US Navy.  Since stress analysis is what I do for a living, I feel justified to say it’s in my professional opinion. 

I am not looking at this one dimensionally.  I fully understand the material properties, section properties, and boundary conditions necessary to make a proper assessment of plane hitting building.  I'm looking at it with the full cross-sectional properties in mind.  The fact is that at a high enough velocity almost anything can be made penetrate a much stronger material.  See my previous post for the Mythbusters video where a .4mm thick, 3 gram ping pong ball traveling at a high velocity penetrates completely through a ping pong paddle.  By your description this should be impossible.

Understand that I make no claims about the events that unfolded after the plane impacts but I have absolutely no doubts that those planes had enough strength, mass, and velocity to penetrate the outer columns of the WTC towers.  And, that is my professional opinion.

Please read my reply to disputeone and tell me why you think.

Mike
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on September 08, 2017, 09:18:05 PM
Quote from: microbeta
Since stress analysis is what I do for a living, I feel justified to say it’s in my professional opinion.

If this is your lively hood, then I question how you feel a jumbo jet can disappear into a building without a trace...then explode shortly afterwards.. I know of zero ways to pass an object through another object without making some sort of hole somewhere.

Or how the fiberglass nose cone could pass through the entire structure unscaved and fully intact to then suddenly "explode"... I even proposed a hypothesis in college to attempt to mitigate this. What were saw was actually a super heated ball trapped in the wake current of the jet... basically the jet temporarily turned to a plasma cutter. The math did not work, nor did real world tests of the hypothesis.

This was the only plausible long shot I could think of to reconcile what we saw on television.

Fyi, real world test before my very eyes with the aluminum used verses the steel with a velocity +/-10% did not penetrate the steel. Certainly there were heavy inclusions, about a 20 percent penetration, but it did not slice right through it like butter disappearing to the other side like a hologram...most of the aluminum shed outside the steel as it should.

Remember, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Also, you saying anything can be made to to penetrate anything is also incorrect. Eventually you get to the point of no return..let's say you have a millimeter thick/wide/tall piece of aluminum...you have a magic gun that can shoot this up to 99.9 percent the speed of light...you want this to pierce 5 inches or medium carbon steel.

Eventually you would get where this piece of metal would super heat in the atmosphere and lose its compound..or even just turn to plasma and dissipate completely before even hitting the surface.

So no....you can not penetrate anything with anything...


As for your myth busters video, although I am a fan of them... you cannot compare apples and oranges...a thinly compounded piece of wood cannot be compared here.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 08, 2017, 09:34:08 PM
I think the basic premise of most of the plane penetrating the building to an extent is fine.

The premise of it happening like we saw on television is very suspicious to me for a lot of reasons. Bhs stated a few very good ones.

O/T
When I was a kid a had I had a pump action winchester air rifle as my first gun. :)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on September 08, 2017, 09:37:36 PM
Also mircrobeta..please don't think I am saying the exoskeleton could completely resist an airliner such as what is proposed to have hit the building. This is not what I am saying what so ever...parts of it would have certainly made it into the building. There would certainly be serious damage to the building.

However, I am stating the action reaction we supposedly witnessed is not based in reality therefore false. I am also stating I have an issue with the roadrunner style hole in the building. I could continue with just that subject alone, but don't want to deflect what we are currently discussing.

Also comparing a BB to this is not an appropriate comparison either.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Heiwa on September 09, 2017, 01:24:06 AM
(http://heiwaco.com/wtc2sw.gif)

It is often forgotten that the strongest structural members of a skyscraper to resist a lateral collision by, e.g. a plane, are the horizontal floors (concrete on steel). They act like knives and will slice any plane trying to enter through the windows.

The walls (vertical steel columns) are of course also strong as they carry the weight of the structure (floors/walls) above.

In the case under discussion it seems the plane was tilted and in fact sliced by five or six floors while damaging about twenty wall columns and therefore could not just 'disappear' into the building as seen on many videos.

The structural damages to the WTC2 skyscraper are small and redundancy enormous, i.e. there are no risk of, e.g. collapse. There is no fire seen in the hole!

The photo above is of course, like all videos, photo fakery provided by the terrorists. I really feel sorry for America being governed by terrorists.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 09, 2017, 03:30:59 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on September 08, 2017, 09:18:05 PM
Quote from: microbeta
Since stress analysis is what I do for a living, I feel justified to say it’s in my professional opinion.

If this is your lively hood, then I question how you feel a jumbo jet can disappear into a building without a trace...then explode shortly afterwards.. I know of zero ways to pass an object through another object without making some sort of hole somewhere.

Or how the fiberglass nose cone could pass through the entire structure unscaved and fully intact to then suddenly "explode"... I even proposed a hypothesis in college to attempt to mitigate this. What were saw was actually a super heated ball trapped in the wake current of the jet... basically the jet temporarily turned to a plasma cutter. The math did not work, nor did real world tests of the hypothesis.

This was the only plausible long shot I could think of to reconcile what we saw on television.

Fyi, real world test before my very eyes with the aluminum used verses the steel with a velocity +/-10% did not penetrate the steel. Certainly there were heavy inclusions, about a 20 percent penetration, but it did not slice right through it like butter disappearing to the other side like a hologram...most of the aluminum shed outside the steel as it should.

Remember, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

Also, you saying anything can be made to to penetrate anything is also incorrect. Eventually you get to the point of no return..let's say you have a millimeter thick/wide/tall piece of aluminum...you have a magic gun that can shoot this up to 99.9 percent the speed of light...you want this to pierce 5 inches or medium carbon steel.

Eventually you would get where this piece of metal would super heat in the atmosphere and lose its compound..or even just turn to plasma and dissipate completely before even hitting the surface.

So no....you can not penetrate anything with anything...


As for your myth busters video, although I am a fan of them... you cannot compare apples and oranges...a thinly compounded piece of wood cannot be compared here.

You forgot I disproved your analysis ages ago.   https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/how-the-airplane-wing-cut-through-the-exterior-columns-of-the-world-trade-center-pdf.27041/

But by all means don't let me teach you basic physics.   Here it is again.




Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on September 09, 2017, 03:42:04 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 08, 2017, 04:57:44 PM
Now we all know steel is relatively soft compared to some alloys. No denying that.
I see, we have a professional speaking here!

Quote
Using Newton Galileo and a little bit of logic we can see this probably shouldn't have happened. I am open to being wrong.
Energy is proportional to speed^2, just saying. Maybe that's where your logic fails.


Seriously, you guys thinking that something different flew into the building...that's about as retarded as you can get. Like yeah sure, all those people on those planes and their relatives are fake.
All the people around the WTC that saw the planes are liars.
All the people actually filming the event did already have the pre-processed CGI on their cameras.
Of course, all those developers needed to create the CGI wouldn't ever speak out in public. Let alone the fact that the whole area would have been widely closed of for non-government-shills, because of the risk anyone could see that there were not actually big planes flying into the building...

Very good use of logic you have there, guys! My 5 year old cousin could do better to be honest with you.


Quote
However, I am stating the action reaction we supposedly witnessed is not based in reality therefore false. I am also stating I have an issue with the roadrunner style hole in the building. I could continue with just that subject alone, but don't want to deflect what we are currently discussing.
Very simple: You have no "point of reference" in the real world, because you haven't ever seen something similar. So you EXPECT it to look different, but that's just your imagination. Nothing more.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 09, 2017, 04:25:24 AM
Quote from: User324 on September 09, 2017, 03:42:04 AM
Seriously, you guys thinking that something different flew into the building...that's about as retarded as you can get. Like yeah sure, all those people on those planes and their relatives are fake.

That's not what I said.

Check out the evidence.







@ User Rayzor and Heiwa. Adults are talking.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on September 09, 2017, 04:36:22 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 09, 2017, 04:25:24 AM
Quote from: User324 on September 09, 2017, 03:42:04 AM
Seriously, you guys thinking that something different flew into the building...that's about as retarded as you can get. Like yeah sure, all those people on those planes and their relatives are fake.

That's not what I said.

You sure are some sort of special, aren't you?
I quote you from just one page back:
Quote
My honest speculation was that they were military jets. The footage had to be cgi to show an american airlines flight hit the tower.

So, have you changed your mind? What is your opinion right now?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 09, 2017, 04:37:24 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 09, 2017, 04:25:24 AM
Quote from: User324 on September 09, 2017, 03:42:04 AM
all those people on those planes and their relatives are fake.

That's not what I said.

Check out the evidence.







@ User Rayzor and Heiwa. Adults are talking.

I believe they were military planes.

Edit.

9/11 Survivors and Family Members
Question the 9/11 Commission Report
http://patriotsquestion911.com/survivors.html

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 09, 2017, 04:51:04 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 09, 2017, 03:30:59 AM
Here it is again.



Thanks for showing us what happens when a plane crashes into concrete Rayzor. That's interesting.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on September 09, 2017, 09:14:04 PM
Rayzor

When did you debunk anything? You said things then started insulting as always.

Also, what is your point showing a jet hitting the concrete barrier? It proves my point of how the majority of the vessel would be shed outside of the surface... We saw physics in that video...we saw the opposite but equal reaction to an action.

If the jet would have just vanished into the barrier without shedding a single piece of material from the jet or leaving a mark on the barrier, then I would say you have proven what we saw at 9/11 a reality.

User

Please let the grown ups talk...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 09, 2017, 09:28:03 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on September 09, 2017, 09:14:04 PM
Rayzor

When did you debunk anything? You said things then started insulting as always.

Also, what is your point showing a jet hitting the concrete barrier? It proves my point of how the majority of the vessel would be shed outside of the surface... We saw physics in that video...we saw the opposite but equal reaction to an action.

If the jet would have just vanished into the barrier without shedding a single piece of material from the jet or leaving a mark on the barrier, then I would say you have proven what we saw at 9/11 a reality.

User

Please let the grown ups talk...

Interesting,   I had the feeling you didn't understand the physics,  thanks for confirming it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on September 09, 2017, 09:35:15 PM
Insults as always...you add so much to conversations.

So you are saying things are supposed to vanish into things like magic without a trace?? Well accept for the perfectly preserved passport though...

Guess we should make everything out of paper?

Lol...but I am the one confused on physics ::)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 09, 2017, 09:44:21 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on September 09, 2017, 09:35:15 PM
Insults as always...you add so much to conversations.

So you are saying things are supposed to vanish into things like magic without a trace?? Well accept for the perfectly preserved passport though...

Guess we should make everything out of paper?

Lol...but I am the one confused on physics ::)

Huh?   what insult,  I'm merely stating the obvious,  you haven't got a clue.   

Prove me wrong, tell me why your aluminium bullet failed to penetrate the steel block? 


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 09, 2017, 10:35:03 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 09, 2017, 04:25:24 AM
Check out the evidence.






Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on September 09, 2017, 11:43:23 PM
If diapute is posting the same stuff 3-4 times or more, you know he's having a schizophrenia attack.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 10, 2017, 02:42:18 AM
Its easier to gaslight then consider the evidence isn't it.

What do you think about the eyewitness evidence that supports the idea military planes hit the towers?

What's your honest opinion on it user? I'd like to know.

This is intersting and pretty fresh.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4869516/Saudi-Government-paid-two-citizens-9-11-dry-runs.html
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on September 10, 2017, 02:48:58 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 10, 2017, 02:42:18 AM
What's your honest opinion on it user? I'd like to know.

As I have already said. From a logical approach it's as dumb as you can get.

all those people on those planes and their relatives are fake.
All the people around the WTC that saw the planes are liars.
All the people actually filming the event did already have the pre-processed CGI on their cameras.
Of course, all those developers needed to create the CGI wouldn't ever speak out in public. Let alone the fact that the whole area would have been widely closed of for non-government-shills, because of the risk anyone could see that there were not actually big planes flying into the building...

And that was not even taking into account the government people who would have to shut their mouth. And I also didn't mention the whole rest of the theory, where workers would have been installing explosives in the buildings (without anyone noticing, without them ever talking about it in public). Also, lot's of engineers would have been needed for planning the event.
Just imagine the scenario, it's so ridicouls "hey mr. engineer, could you please help us calculating how to destroy the WTC? And yeah, pls don't ever let anyone know we asked you, because we're going to blame muslim terrorists lol".
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 10, 2017, 02:57:09 AM
No, what is your honest opinion on the eyewitness evidence that supports the idea of military planes hitting the towers?

Your entire post is a strawman.

What is your honest opinion on the eyewitness evidence that supports the idea of military planes hitting the towers?

The victims are very real. A lot of witnesses saw a military plane. One victim tells her husband "it's a frame." You are the one currently calling people liars.

The explosives in the towers are easily explained here. Please consider the evidence.

http://aneta.org/911experiments_com/AceElevator/
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on September 10, 2017, 03:01:27 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 10, 2017, 02:57:09 AM
No, what is your honest opinion on the eyewitness evidence that supports the idea of military planes hitting the towers?
Pretty sure there are just a very, very, very, few people claiming those were military jets. Considering the above-average speed of the plane the confusion with a military jet doesn't seem that unlikely.
But yeah, probably you would find some people claiming it was a jumbo jet. Maybe a few would claim it was a rocket, some even an ufo. It doesn't matter too much, the vast majority reported exactely what is visible on the images/videos that you can find online.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 10, 2017, 03:07:12 AM
Lots of people on the scene said they didn't look like commercial planes. No one has to be lying. The jets could've looked a lot like 767s, at least in shape.



Lots of the amatuer footage shows a black plane.

What do you think of the woman telling her husband, "it's a frame."?

I think it's stupid to only consider the evidence you are comfortable with.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on September 10, 2017, 03:17:45 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 10, 2017, 03:07:12 AM
Lots of people on the scene said they didn't look like commercial planes. No one has to be lying. The jets could've looked a lot like 767s, at least in shape.

True, because of the speed of the planes, the bright blue sky (=plane looks dark) the people might very well have confused the plane with a military jet. I'm not sure but I think if the engines were running on (close to) max throttle it might also sound different from what people are used to with a 767.


But yeah, those very few people thinking it was a jet do in no way answer all the lacks of logic which I have mentioned.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 10, 2017, 03:21:30 AM
Thanks for considering the evidence. It could certainly be observational error on the part of the witnesses.

Isn't that better than gaslighting?
What do you think of the woman who told her husband "it's a frame."?

What do you think about this confirmed crisis actor?


This is also very interesting.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4869516/Saudi-Government-paid-two-citizens-9-11-dry-runs.html
Quote
Saudi government 'paid two citizens to pose as students in US and perform dry runs for 9/11', lawsuit claims

New evidence claims Saudi Arabia funded 9/11 'dry run' just two years before 

The complaint was filed on behalf of more that 1,400 family members

In 1999, both men reportedly tried multiple times to gain access to the cockpit of an America West flight to Washington

The plane was forced to land, and they were arrested by the FBI

They were later released, however, and no charges were brought against them

The plaintiffs also say that the two men trained with some of the hijackers at an Al Qaeda training facility in Afghanistan
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 10, 2017, 03:38:01 AM
If we can implicate Saudi Arabia, we are on the way towards implicating Israel and America and by extension the alphabet soup agencies. Hi friends :).

We can learn the last 16 years have been based on lie, after lie, after lie. We can finally have justice. We can finally work towards freeing the people.

A lot is happening now these are interesting times.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on September 10, 2017, 04:27:31 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 10, 2017, 03:38:01 AM
If we can implicate Saudi Arabia, we are on the way towards implicating Israel and America and by extension the alphabet soup agencies. Hi friends :).

We can learn the last 16 years have been based on lie, after lie, after lie. We can finally have justice. We can finally work towards freeing the people.

A lot is happening now these are interesting times.
For the sake of argument, let's assume what you're saying was true.
So now, which kind of freedom could you give the people? How can you "free" them? In which kind of prison do you think they are? How would they benefit?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 10, 2017, 05:03:47 AM
Very good.

1. Freedom from more pointless wars, freedom from a tyrannical shadow governemt.

2. No more pointless wars, dismantle the corrupt alphabet agencies and the corrupt central banks and federal reserve. Massive gain to human life and liberty.

3. The sort of prison where all the media and all the banks are owned by the same select people, nearly all the information we are presented as official is molded to suit a narrative.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 10, 2017, 07:22:28 AM
Here is one just for you Rayzor. I know it is your favourite. Help us get them justice. It's never too late.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/09/saudi-embassy-funded-911-dry-run-report-170909223532351.html

(https://s26.postimg.org/h0n9padax/d503ac7d40ac4af09834c945b96a8559_18.jpg)

It's funny how the fbi kept this covered up for sixteen years hey?

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/02/donald-trump-suggests-the-saudis-did-911.html
Quote
Who blew up the World Trade Center? It wasn’t the Iraqis, it was Saudi — take a look at Saudi Arabia, open the documents,” Trumptold the gang at Fox & Friends Wednesday morning, after defending his bizarre theory

Bizzare indeed.

Tell me again why you hate Trump so much?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 10, 2017, 07:47:56 AM


Soon we will be able to sue NIST directly for conspiracy to cover up the collapse mechanism of wtc 7.

When this model is peer reviewed we can show NIST lied to us obstructed justice and willfully hid their findings.

There is nowhere to hide. Do the right thing Rayzor. Listen to your conscience.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 10, 2017, 05:38:34 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 10, 2017, 07:22:28 AM
Here is one just for you Rayzor. I know it is your favourite. Help us get them justice. It's never too late.

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2017/09/saudi-embassy-funded-911-dry-run-report-170909223532351.html

(https://s26.postimg.org/h0n9padax/d503ac7d40ac4af09834c945b96a8559_18.jpg)

It's funny how the fbi kept this covered up for sixteen years hey?

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/02/donald-trump-suggests-the-saudis-did-911.html
Quote
Who blew up the World Trade Center? It wasn’t the Iraqis, it was Saudi — take a look at Saudi Arabia, open the documents,” Trumptold the gang at Fox & Friends Wednesday morning, after defending his bizarre theory

Bizzare indeed.

Tell me again why you hate Trump so much?

Not news to anyone who has done the research,   Al Qaeda has/had plenty of support within the Saudi society.   Are you the only one who didn't know this?   

The problem is that successive administrations value oil over justice.  Again this is not news.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 10, 2017, 05:43:14 PM
No new information you say?

Let's tick off the list together friends.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/conspiracy-theory-foundations-of-a-weaponized-term/5319708

Quote
No significant new evidence has emerged which the [Warren] Commission did not consider.

Critics usually overvalue particular items and ignore others.

Conspiracy on the large scale often suggested would be impossible to conceal in the United States.

Critics have often been enticed by a form of intellectual pride: they light on some theory and fall in love with it.

Oswald would not have been any sensible person’s choice for a co-conspirator.

Such vague accusations as that “more than ten people have died mysteriously” [during the Warren Commission’s inquiry] can always be explained in some natural way e.g.: the individuals concerned have for the most part died of natural causes.

Haven't you got the updated script Rayzor?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 10, 2017, 05:47:20 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 10, 2017, 05:38:34 PM
The problem is that successive administrations value oil over justice.  Again this is not news.

So help us fight them. Help us fight for justice. I believe it isn't too late for you to help.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 10, 2017, 05:51:14 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 10, 2017, 05:43:14 PM
No new information you say?
Haven't you got the updated script Rayzor?

You mean to say you didn't know Osama Bin Laden was a Saudi,   that  15 out of the 19 hijackers held Saudi passports,  some were known to belong to Al Qaeda,  this lawsuit has been in the news for months.   What rock have you been hiding under?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/5-ways-saudi-arabia-allegedly-helped-terrorists-9-11-attacks-article-1.3003684

There were lots of Saudi's insulted by the presence of US Troops in Saudi during the Gulf war,  something about infidel boots on holy ground. 

Sorry you are so far out of touch.   Try to catch up.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 10, 2017, 05:56:50 PM
No new information you say...

I've ticked off all of them, how are you guys going playing along at home?

Speaking of assisting Bin Laden.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_CIA_assistance_to_Osama_bin_Laden
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 10, 2017, 05:59:54 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 10, 2017, 05:56:50 PM
No new information you say...

I imagine that the  news that  Saudi members of Al Qaeda, were responsible for hijacking planes on 9/11 and flying into the World Trade Center is actually new to you.

I shouldn't be surprised that you didn't know that,   I bet you don't even know about the Bush cover up?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 10, 2017, 06:02:36 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 10, 2017, 05:56:50 PM
No new information you say...

I've ticked off all of them, how are you guys going playing along at home?

Speaking of assisting Bin Laden.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_CIA_assistance_to_Osama_bin_Laden

Again,  this is old.  Did you ever watch that film Charlies War?   http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0472062/

Osama Bin Laden was trained armed and funded by the CIA,   man,  are you really that ignorant?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 10, 2017, 06:05:51 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 10, 2017, 05:59:54 PM
I bet you don't even know about the Bush cover up?

I am quite aware Bush covered up who and what was involved on 9/11. I've been fighting for justice for 10+ years. Please help us. Listen to your conscience.

The difference is now people are actually suing the Saudi Government. Wouldn't you agree this is a step towards the truth?

Obama certainly didn't want to help the families get justice.
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/09/24/us/politics/obama-veto-saudi-arabia-9-11.html

Again speaking of cia assistance.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_CIA_assistance_to_Osama_bin_Laden

Help us get the familes justice.

Quote from: Rayzor on September 10, 2017, 06:02:36 PM
Osama Bin Laden was trained armed and funded by the CIA,   man,  are you really that ignorant?

If you know then help us fight. You know Bin Laden was a cia asset help us fight them. Help us fight for humanity.

Here is some real new evidence. With better audio than ae911 truth provided us.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 10, 2017, 06:20:54 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 10, 2017, 06:05:51 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 10, 2017, 06:02:36 PM
Osama Bin Laden was trained armed and funded by the CIA,   man,  are you really that ignorant?

If you know then help us fight. You know Bin Laden was a cia asset help us fight them. Help us fight for humanity.

Ok so you don't know the full history.   Here are a few of the players,   Mujahideen,   Taliban,   Pakistani Secret Service,  CIA Connect the dots and see where it leads.

Did the CIA have any control over their creation?    That's what you have to find out.


Oh, and that ae911 truth bullshit is just a money spinner for Gage.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 10, 2017, 06:24:25 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 10, 2017, 06:20:54 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 10, 2017, 06:05:51 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 10, 2017, 06:02:36 PM
Osama Bin Laden was trained armed and funded by the CIA,   man,  are you really that ignorant?

If you know then help us fight. You know Bin Laden was a cia asset help us fight them. Help us fight for humanity.

Ok so you don't know the full history.   Here are a few of the players,   Mujahideen,   Taliban,   Pakistani Secret Service,  CIA Connect the dots and see where it leads.

Did the CIA have any control over their creation?    That's what you have to find out.

Oh my yes.



Quote from: Rayzor on September 10, 2017, 06:20:54 PM
Oh, and that ae911 truth bullshit is just a money spinner for Gage.

Ask your handlers for better arguments. We've destroyed the NIST analysis. It's bunk. There is a clear conspiracy case against NIST and everyone involved.

You often say much more than you mean. It's never too late Rayzor.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 11, 2017, 12:47:37 AM


Best description of collapse of WTC7
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 11, 2017, 12:49:41 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 11, 2017, 12:47:37 AM


Best description of collapse of WTC7

Rotflmfao.

Absolutely destroyed here.



Your cartoon is worthless, no, it has the worth of a cartoon.

Soon you will all face justice. I believe it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 11, 2017, 12:58:03 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 11, 2017, 12:49:41 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 11, 2017, 12:47:37 AM

Best description of collapse of WTC7

Rotflmfao.

Absolutely destroyed here.


Your cartoon is worthless, no, it has the worth of a cartoon.

Soon you will all face justice. I believe it.

Just two questions about WTC7 for you.

1.  Why bother demolishing it, it was teetering on the verge of collapse all afternoon?
2.  If it was a controlled demolition why wait 7 hours anyway?

You have no answer, because your theory makes no sense.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 11, 2017, 12:59:17 AM
Science is science. All you have is speculation and strawmen.

1. We've been through this lie over and over again. You don't know the structural condition of wtc 7 prior to collapse. Please stop lying.

2. We've been through this over and over again.
"Muh 7 hours."
Physics > Incredulity.
I'm sorry.

Edit.

Imagine Newton laying out principia and a guy like Rayzor saying.  Why does the earth take 365 days to orbit the sun?? It makes no sense!! Haha looks like I win again Newton.

Actually there were plenty of them weren't there.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Heiwa on September 11, 2017, 01:43:51 AM
(http://heiwaco.com/WTC7PP.jpg)
The NIST explanation of the WTC7 collapse is very simple (and impossible). A fire burnt on floor #12 for several hours and some floor girder bolted connections to internal pillar #79 failed due to heat at floor #13. They expanded. Then pillar #79 buckled between floors #12 and 14 due to lack of support and the floors above sagged down around pillar #79.
The weight on pillar #79 above floor #12 was transmitted to the other internal pillars #58-81 that all failed for unknown reasons and all floors strangely disconnected from the outside walls and dropped down to ground. Magic! Only the external four walls were still standing - all internal structure was gone - and as they had no support the four walls buckled at floor #12 so that the roof above floor #47 could drop down as seen on all footage of the incident.
Why the above NIST theory/findings are complete nonsense is explained at http://heiwaco.com/nist7.htm .
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 11, 2017, 01:51:58 AM
I'm about to watch Hulseys progress report for the third time and I'll type out our main problems  with the NIST model for those that don't want to watch the video for whatever reason.

Quote from: Heiwa on September 11, 2017, 01:43:51 AM
Then pillar #79 buckled between floors #12 and 14 due to lack of support and the floors above sagged down around pillar #79.
The weight on pillar #79 above floor #12 was transmitted to the other internal pillars #58-81 that all failed for unknown reasons and all floors strangely disconnected from the outside walls and dropped down to ground. Magic!

Tfw Heiwa makes a really good point.

Damnit, Heiwa...

As I say this is available to anyone willing to research it. NIST's model is a clear forgery. An obvious first step is the arrest of Shyam Sunder (https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2008/09/nist-releases-wtc-7-investigation-report-public-comment) and his team. A good look into the funding and parties involved will lead to more arrests and eventually the truth.

This will get ugly but it's a fight worth having. I just hope Trump really is as crazy as you guys keep telling me he is. We can't rely on the criminals arresting themselves.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on September 11, 2017, 02:08:11 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 09, 2017, 09:44:21 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on September 09, 2017, 09:35:15 PM
Insults as always...you add so much to conversations.

So you are saying things are supposed to vanish into things like magic without a trace?? Well accept for the perfectly preserved passport though...

Guess we should make everything out of paper?

Lol...but I am the one confused on physics ::)

Huh?   what insult,  I'm merely stating the obvious,  you haven't got a clue.   

Prove me wrong, tell me why your aluminium bullet failed to penetrate the steel block?

So you don't see a problem with objects disappearing into another object like butter, literally not leaving a single mark? I don't understand how you can argue that while attempting to stay in reality?

Also remember, we are not just talking a certain type of steel and thickness...the compression load on the steel is very important as well, this changes the action/reaction considerably.

As for "bullet going through a steel block" that is not the test we performed...we used a piece of the exact steel used in the exoskeleton and put it in a press. I don't remember how much load we used in the press, I think it was 10 tons, I will need to check the video.

I then fabricated a bracket to bolt on an electric motor I had. 3 corners were counterweights , the other corner was a two feet aluminum wing to simulate the tip. Bolted the motor/assembly on a track borrowed from another shop. Lined them up, set the steel, ran the motor to 3200rpm and ran the track. Made a mess, but the results were clear.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Heiwa on September 11, 2017, 02:29:32 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 11, 2017, 01:51:58 AM
I'm about to watch Hulseys progress report for the third time and I'll type out our main problems  with the NIST model for those that don't want to watch the video for whatever reason.

Quote from: Heiwa on September 11, 2017, 01:43:51 AM
Then pillar #79 buckled between floors #12 and 14 due to lack of support and the floors above sagged down around pillar #79.
The weight on pillar #79 above floor #12 was transmitted to the other internal pillars #58-81 that all failed for unknown reasons and all floors strangely disconnected from the outside walls and dropped down to ground. Magic!

Tfw Heiwa makes a really good point.

Damnit, Heiwa...

As I say this is available to anyone willing to research it. NIST's model is a clear forgery. An obvious first step is the arrest of Shyam Sunder (https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2008/09/nist-releases-wtc-7-investigation-report-public-comment) and his team. A good look into the funding and parties involved will lead to more arrests and eventually the truth.

This will get ugly but it's a fight worth having. I just hope Trump really is as crazy as you guys keep telling me he is. We can't rely on the criminals arresting themselves.

Thanks. Arresting Shyam Sunder & Co to produce false structural damage analysises to cover up terrorist crimes in USA is a good start to move forward.
There are plenty, real footage on the Internet of Shyam Sunder lying about his work. I cannot understand why FBI doesn't arrest him and his criminal friends.
I actually asked FBI to do it many years ago ... no reply ... in spite of many reminders.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 11, 2017, 02:57:36 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 11, 2017, 02:29:32 AM
I cannot understand why FBI doesn't arrest him and his criminal friends.

Surely you understand why.

The FBI is corrupt to the core and ran by the same people as all of the US intelligence agencies.

It's quite well laid out here.


Or here.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 11, 2017, 05:14:03 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on September 11, 2017, 02:08:11 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 09, 2017, 09:44:21 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on September 09, 2017, 09:35:15 PM
Insults as always...you add so much to conversations.

So you are saying things are supposed to vanish into things like magic without a trace?? Well accept for the perfectly preserved passport though...

Guess we should make everything out of paper?

Lol...but I am the one confused on physics ::)

Huh?   what insult,  I'm merely stating the obvious,  you haven't got a clue.   

Prove me wrong, tell me why your aluminium bullet failed to penetrate the steel block?

So you don't see a problem with objects disappearing into another object like butter, literally not leaving a single mark? I don't understand how you can argue that while attempting to stay in reality?

Also remember, we are not just talking a certain type of steel and thickness...the compression load on the steel is very important as well, this changes the action/reaction considerably.

As for "bullet going through a steel block" that is not the test we performed...we used a piece of the exact steel used in the exoskeleton and put it in a press. I don't remember how much load we used in the press, I think it was 10 tons, I will need to check the video.

I then fabricated a bracket to bolt on an electric motor I had. 3 corners were counterweights , the other corner was a two feet aluminum wing to simulate the tip. Bolted the motor/assembly on a track borrowed from another shop. Lined them up, set the steel, ran the motor to 3200rpm and ran the track. Made a mess, but the results were clear.

You are still missing the point,  impact physics is all about kinetic energy and momentum.   This is at least the third time I've posted a link to this paper.

https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/how-the-airplane-wing-cut-through-the-exterior-columns-of-the-world-trade-center-pdf.27041/

Only a fraction of the kinetic energy was absorbed by the outer columns.   

I could understand how you might have missed it with all the crap that dispute keeps cluttering the thread with..
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 11, 2017, 07:27:56 AM
You are missing the point Rayzor.
Papa is right you really should be in jail.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on September 11, 2017, 05:31:12 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 11, 2017, 05:14:03 AM
You are still missing the point,  impact physics is all about kinetic energy and momentum.   This is at least the third time I've posted a link to this paper.

https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/how-the-airplane-wing-cut-through-the-exterior-columns-of-the-world-trade-center-pdf.27041/

Only a fraction of the kinetic energy was absorbed by the outer columns.   

I could understand how you might have missed it with all the crap that dispute keeps cluttering the thread with..

Ok, I looked at the link, the comparison is not similar. They are comparing hollow pieces of steel, where the second plane hit, they were not hollow. Nor is their dimensions/metallurgy/or thickness is correct for the wing in question. It's a nice think tank paper, however, it is not close enough to the needed details.

You are defending an object literally disappearing into another object without leaving a mark...as far as I know, no matter velocity or anything other factor, this is not possible in this reality.

Let me also ask you this...why did the wing in my experiment moons ago not slice through the steel like butter? It was going +/-10% of the proposed speed of the airline, the simulated two foot wing tip was an exact replica of the tip. Why did it literally "explode" when contact was made? Why did it not cut the beam in half with ease, instead or defeating the wingtip with ease, only leaving incisions and a nasty mess? Why did this test, plus others, even test plane accidents show what we would expect from an equal and opposite reaction?


*Edit...please excuse any weirdness with my posts, as whatever changes Davis made has made mobile damn near impossible to see, and impossible to edit ::)

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 11, 2017, 05:39:32 PM
I KNOW RIGHT!! Damnit Davis some of us like to post on the go. I use forums like this like normies use facebook.

Edit. @ Bhs are these experiments public information?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: deadsirius on September 11, 2017, 06:26:15 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on September 11, 2017, 05:31:12 PM

...without leaving a mark...


I have to ask--because I keep seeing this line of argument and it confuses me--are you looking for some other "mark" besides the giant smoking plane-shaped one?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 11, 2017, 06:34:56 PM
A mark on the plane.

Even Rayzors paper admits it should have looked different.

(https://s26.postimg.org/yrfrlsceh/20170911_223003.png)



If you are interested in the truth and I am not convinced you are. I recommend going over Leroy Hulseys work.

www.wtc7evaluation.org

The nose of the plane penetrated straight through the building keeping its shape deadsirius.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on September 11, 2017, 06:38:50 PM
Quote from: deadsirius on September 11, 2017, 06:26:15 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on September 11, 2017, 05:31:12 PM

...without leaving a mark...


I have to ask--because I keep seeing this line of argument and it confuses me--are you looking for some other "mark" besides the giant smoking plane-shaped one?

Watch the video from multiple angles, slow motion, freeze frame etc etc...the plane passes into the building as the building were a hologram. (Also don't mind the fiberglass nose cone passing through both sides and the core completely intact..the just vanishing)

The cartoon like airplane impression did not appear until after the mysterious explosion.


*Dispute...Yes, I will post a few up, need to have my friend edit them first. My company name and my personal name is on them, as well as the company name on the wall behind it. We originally did them for the first movement I was part of. Shouldn't take long
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 11, 2017, 06:40:12 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on September 11, 2017, 06:38:50 PM
*dispute...Yes, I will post a few up, need to have my friend edit them first. My company name and my personal name is on them, as well as the company name on the wall behind it. We originally did them for the first movement I was part of. Shouldn't take long

You're a true hero mate. We appreciate your hard work and effort more than you will ever understand. Thank you.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: deadsirius on September 11, 2017, 06:49:41 PM
I'm going to agree with you guys on one thing here.  After all this time, it is still difficult to watch these videos.  Ultimately we are all watching hundreds of people die in an instant and we all know that is nothing to take lightly.

Beyond that, I see nothing out of place in these clips, and the second one is far too blurry to see--let alone positively identify--a nosecone.  But it is pretty clear that the plane enters the building, leaving the sort of hole that you would expect, given that this is a pretty unique occurrence and we don't exactly have a whole lot of points of reference for airliners entering skyscrapers.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on September 11, 2017, 07:02:40 PM
Thanks for looking...

Though I have to 100 percent politely disagree with your assessment. This isn't based off of guessing, but experience and real world experiments/theory.

If I could have severed steel with aluminum in such a way with real world experiments...and been able to find other examples of controlled plane crashes emulate what was seen I would drop it. As I don't even need the towers, building 7 has always been the end game...it's the slam dunk which is why they never want to discuss it.

However, my real world tests along with others tells a much different story. So the anomalies with the crashing airliner is just another straw on the camels already broken back.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 11, 2017, 07:07:34 PM
Quote from: deadsirius on September 11, 2017, 06:49:41 PM
I'm going to agree with you guys on one thing here.  After all this time, it is still difficult to watch these videos.  Ultimately we are all watching hundreds of people die in an instant and we all know that is nothing to take lightly.

Beyond that, I see nothing out of place in these clips, and the second one is far too blurry to see--let alone positively identify--a nosecone.  But it is pretty clear that the plane enters the building, leaving the sort of hole that you would expect, given that this is a pretty unique occurrence and we don't exactly have a whole lot of points of reference for airliners entering skyscrapers.

Incredulity is a fine argument to make on this issue so far. Things might change soon.

I'll say it again.
If you are interested in the truth and I am not convinced you are. I recommend going over Leroy Hulseys work. No incredulity required.

www.wtc7evaluation.org
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 11, 2017, 07:09:50 PM
Quote from: deadsirius on September 11, 2017, 06:49:41 PM
I'm going to agree with you guys on one thing here.  After all this time, it is still difficult to watch these videos.  Ultimately we are all watching hundreds of people die in an instant and we all know that is nothing to take lightly.

If you believe this then help us fight. Master your fear and help us fight for justice. It has still not been served even according to your TV now.

http://www.news.com.au/world/north-america/saudi-arabian-government-may-have-funded-dry-run-for-911-hijackings/news-story/5dffa93062f44cb9c3d02c489c1d0288

Help us help them.

Quote
The New York Post reports two years before the airliner attacks, the Saudi Embassy paid for two Saudi nationals, living undercover in the US as students, to fly from Phoenix to Washington “in a dry run for the 9/11 attacks,” alleges the amended complaint filed on behalf of the families of some 1,400 victims who died in the terrorist attacks 16 years ago.

The court filing provides new details that paint “a pattern of both financial and operational support” for the 9/11 conspiracy from official Saudi sources, lawyers for the plaintiffs say.

Edit.

Quote from: Rayzor on September 10, 2017, 05:38:34 PM
successive administrations value oil over justice. this is not news.

Rayzor knows. Help us Rayzor, help us fight for justice. It's never too late.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on September 11, 2017, 07:02:40 PM
building 7 has always been the end game...it's the slam dunk which is why they never want to discuss it.

Edit. Quote.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Wolvaccine on September 11, 2017, 07:41:55 PM
Whatever you think happened on 9/11 that day, whether the physics stack up or not with planes hitting the buildings like they did there is one thing to ponder...

WTC7

Now if everything was completely innocent then WHY was their report so ridiculously full of holes and shit. These were 'experts' after all

Just ask yourself what the motivation could possibly be to lie to us. Why are they covering anything up at all? Just think about that.

Just for a moment, pull the wool from over your eyes and ask yourself questions. Stop accepting everything you're told by corrupt, greedy, power hungry politicians and conglomerates because you can be damn sure they do NOT have your overall best interest at heart.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on September 11, 2017, 07:49:31 PM
Just remember this was from under 300 mph....

(http://i64.tinypic.com/2kognk.jpg)

Quote from: Shifter on September 11, 2017, 07:41:55 PM
you can be damn sure they do NOT have your overall best interest at heart.

Never forget this either.

Also, never forget, if these people actually had to face a real trial and was not above the law...they would be convicted 100 percent and sentenced to death by firing squad.

There has been people sentenced to death for just 5 percent of the evidence there is for the lies of 9/11 when you consider physical evidence, circumstantial evidence, and motive....not to mention all the actions afterwards...in a real case, the defense would not be looking to defend or go to court, they would be looking for plea deals to avoid the firing squad.

Could you imagine you or I going to court saying..."well the building magically vaporized, so did the plane, but we found this perfectly preserved magic passport...so it definitely wasn't me"

The defense would say..."uh no, you certainly are not taking the stance, let us do the taking"

Then add the 1099 other tidbits....the defense would do everything possible to keep it from going to trial and a sure ticket to your death bed.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 11, 2017, 08:03:02 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on September 11, 2017, 05:31:12 PM

Ok, I looked at the link, the comparison is not similar. They are comparing hollow pieces of steel, where the second plane hit, they were not hollow. Nor is their dimensions/metallurgy/or thickness is correct for the wing in question. It's a nice think tank paper, however, it is not close enough to the needed details.

You are defending an object literally disappearing into another object without leaving a mark...as far as I know, no matter velocity or anything other factor, this is not possible in this reality.

Let me also ask you this...why did the wing in my experiment moons ago not slice through the steel like butter? It was going +/-10% of the proposed speed of the airline, the simulated two foot wing tip was an exact replica of the tip. Why did it literally "explode" when contact was made? Why did it not cut the beam in half with ease, instead or defeating the wingtip with ease, only leaving incisions and a nasty mess? Why did this test, plus others, even test plane accidents show what we would expect from an equal and opposite reaction?


*Edit...please excuse any weirdness with my posts, as whatever changes Davis made has made mobile damn near impossible to see, and impossible to edit ::)

Why do you keep saying one object disappeared into another without leaving a mark? 

I can't comment on your experiment without much more detail.   Is it published somewhere?  Was there a peer review of the physics?

You might be interested to know that had the plane hit lower down where it was stronger construction the WTC towers might not have collapsed.

I already posted a paper on that much earlier.  Did you read it?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 11, 2017, 08:09:41 PM
Quote from: deadsirius on September 11, 2017, 06:49:41 PM
I'm going to agree with you guys on one thing here.  After all this time, it is still difficult to watch these videos.  Ultimately we are all watching hundreds of people die in an instant and we all know that is nothing to take lightly.

Beyond that, I see nothing out of place in these clips, and the second one is far too blurry to see--let alone positively identify--a nosecone.  But it is pretty clear that the plane enters the building, leaving the sort of hole that you would expect, given that this is a pretty unique occurrence and we don't exactly have a whole lot of points of reference for airliners entering skyscrapers.

That nose cone theory keeps popping up,  it's been debunked so many times.   It even has it's own name, it's called the "nose out fallacy".

http://debunkingnoplanes.blogspot.com.au/2014/05/the-nose-out-fallacy.html
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 11, 2017, 08:10:16 PM
Quote from: Shifter on September 11, 2017, 07:41:55 PM
Whatever you think happened on 9/11 that day, whether the physics stack up or not with planes hitting the buildings like they did there is one thing to ponder...

WTC7

Now if everything was completely innocent then WHY was their report so ridiculously full of holes and shit. These were 'experts' after all

Just ask yourself what the motivation could possibly be to lie to us. Why are they covering anything up at all? Just think about that.

Just for a moment, pull the wool from over your eyes and ask yourself questions. Stop accepting everything you're told by corrupt, greedy, power hungry politicians and conglomerates because you can be damn sure they do NOT have your overall best interest at heart.

It makes us so happy to know there are already heros fighting for us. Your bravery is an inspiration.

The NIST models inputs were classified by NIST in the interests of "public safety". Hulseys model has shown wtc 7 didn't and couldn't have collapsed the way NIST claims.

Expect all of us.
#Operationmetal.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 11, 2017, 08:15:18 PM
Quote from: Shifter on September 11, 2017, 07:41:55 PM
Whatever you think happened on 9/11 that day, whether the physics stack up or not with planes hitting the buildings like they did there is one thing to ponder...

WTC7

Now if everything was completely innocent then WHY was their report so ridiculously full of holes and shit. These were 'experts' after all

Just ask yourself what the motivation could possibly be to lie to us. Why are they covering anything up at all? Just think about that.

Just for a moment, pull the wool from over your eyes and ask yourself questions. Stop accepting everything you're told by corrupt, greedy, power hungry politicians and conglomerates because you can be damn sure they do NOT have your overall best interest at heart.

Since it's pretty obvious you haven't read the report,  here you go.    http://ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610

Tell me what specific items you think they got wrong?

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 11, 2017, 08:16:51 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 11, 2017, 08:15:18 PM
Tell me what specific items you think they got wrong?

I'll let a team of PhD structural engineers take that question if its alright with you.



We believe in the hero inside you Rayzor. Help us fight for humanity.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 11, 2017, 08:19:22 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 11, 2017, 12:59:17 AM
Science is science. All you have is speculation and strawmen.

I have eye witness accounts from numerous sources, and video evidence,   what evidence do you have for demolition?

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 11, 2017, 08:20:17 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 11, 2017, 08:19:22 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 11, 2017, 12:59:17 AM
Science is science. All you have is speculation and strawmen.

I have eye witness accounts from numerous sources, and video evidence,   what evidence do you have for demolition?

Physics. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 11, 2017, 08:20:50 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 11, 2017, 08:16:51 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 11, 2017, 08:15:18 PM
Tell me what specific items you think they got wrong?

I'll let a team of PhD structural engineers take that question if its alright with you.


I was asking shifter to make up his own mind,  not be spoon fed by the whacko "troofers"

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 11, 2017, 08:21:51 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 11, 2017, 08:20:17 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 11, 2017, 08:19:22 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 11, 2017, 12:59:17 AM
Science is science. All you have is speculation and strawmen.

I have eye witness accounts from numerous sources, and video evidence,   what evidence do you have for demolition?

Physics.

Which is the one subject you repeatedly fail to understand.   LOL 


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 11, 2017, 08:22:45 PM
Are PhD Structural engineers using finite element analysis to make conclusions "whacko troofers". Rayzor.

It's fine if you want to push this but honest posters will see your shilling even if they don't want to say it out loud.

Mike is a structural engineer. Let's ask him what he thinks.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 11, 2017, 08:28:43 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 11, 2017, 08:22:45 PM
Are PhD Structural engineers using finite element analysis to make conclusions "whacko troofers". Rayzor.

It's fine if you want to push this but honest posters will see your shilling even if they don't want to say it out loud.

Mike is a structural engineer. Let's ask him what he thinks.

I was referring to you.   Sorry you missed it.    My aim is way off today for some reason. 

Incidentally there was a Nat Geo documentary screened  yesterday,  called  Inside 9/11  did anyone see it?   

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inside_9/11

One thing I was going to find out was when exactly did Clinton issue the order to the CIA to kill Bin Laden?


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 11, 2017, 08:32:16 PM
Well then. I will repeat.

Quote from: disputeone on September 11, 2017, 08:16:51 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 11, 2017, 08:15:18 PM
Tell me what specific items you think they got wrong?

I'll let a team of PhD structural engineers take that question if its alright with you.



We believe in the hero inside you Rayzor. Help us fight for humanity.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 11, 2017, 08:55:05 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 11, 2017, 08:32:16 PM
Well then. I will repeat.

Please don't.   

BTW all your youtube videos are just showing up as black squares?

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 11, 2017, 09:01:31 PM
John's fault. Thanks for letting me know. Links from the youtube app embed on a mobile format. Are you on a PC? I am having luch at work.

I always used to use the www. format because youtu.be didnt embed, seems like it does now but only on the mobile format.

We need all of you. Imagine with us for a second a world of heros.





Imagine the world we could build together. A world of peace love and unity with Truth as our highest value.

You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one. I hope one day you'll join us, and the world will live as one.

I still have a dream.

This is the greatest Op I've ever been a part of. :).

Edit. Format.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 11, 2017, 09:12:03 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 11, 2017, 09:01:31 PM
John's fault. Thanks for letting me know. Links from the youtube app embed on a mobile format. Are you on a PC? I am having luch at work.

It looks to be browser dependant.   At a quick check.   
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 11, 2017, 09:13:29 PM
Cool thanks. Look at us working together to fix a problem ;). It's really never to late.

#operationmetal
Expect all of us.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Wolvaccine on September 11, 2017, 09:54:50 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 11, 2017, 08:20:50 PM

I was asking shifter to make up his own mind,  not be spoon fed by the whacko "troofers"


I'm saying, not to take what the government says at face value....

Also I will trust independent experts in the field over a government paid and sponsored report. How much weight should I lend to the government who had 28 pages redacted from their initial report? What possible reason would I have to trust what they say when they want to classify everything that is not only in the public interest, but the public has a right to access and know.

Governments are there to serve the public. They are there to protect us. Not to keep secrets from us and certainly not to endanger us.

Theres an old axiom

Every hero needs a villain. Well the US certainly invented a villain in the 'War on Terror'. It's term so broad it can apply to almost anything for as long as they want.

Do I believe George W Bush knew and signed off on these hideous atrocities and conspiracy against the American people and the wider world? I'm guessing he was never let in on it. Firstly to protect the President (plausible deniability) and secondly, because he wasn't the sharpest knife in the drawer, they certainly wouldn't entrust him to such damaging and criminal goings on of the worst kind in history. If he has any knowledge, it was most likely given after the events. Like disputeone has shown, there has long been a shadow government working behind the scenes.

George Bush, just like all the Presidents before (except a handful like JFK) just played the game and kept the status quo. (and we know what happened to JFK). The American presidents for a long time have been merely puppets of wealthy oil conglomerates and sponsors that extend far beyond America. It has long lost being a democracy. Its an Oligarchy and the guy you vote for doesn't take his direction from YOU. But to a handful of people who helped put him there with the billions they invested. You people go along your daily lives as mindless as ants in a collective never knowing your lives and much of what you see and hear is carefully orchestrated to manipulate your thinking.

The argument that the conspiracy is fake because it would involve many thousands of people is nonsense. In reality, it takes just a handful to pull off what we see happening. I bet most politicians would be kept in the dark.

Think about this as an example. The makers of the drug Vioxx falsified the data to make the drug look far more safe and effective than what it really was. You had doctors recommending it. The doctors had no idea - they were merely pawns relying on the research given to them by drug manufacturer. The people compiling the reports could even be left in the dark. As a lab/animal technician in my younger days I would compile and generate data on drugs used in research. What my boss than submitted and used was up to her. It would be very easy to cherry pick the data to manipulate the result to get something that would look very promising and despite being the author of the data results, I had no idea what was submitted to her backers. All I know is, if she wanted to keep her job and continue getting funding, she needed results.

So we had Vioxx, a drug recommended by doctors however killed up to 38,000 people and injured 160,000 more

https://www.drugwatch.com/vioxx/litigation/

I doubt doctors were in on the scheme. It was nothing but a handful of people up the top, motivated by greed and probably pressure to satisfy shareholders in the stock market. No large conspiracy here. Likewise, the 9/11 attacks didn't need 'thousands of people to pull off'. I bet most people working in FBI or CIA, NSA etc probably don't need to know everything either. Each one working on a piece of a very complex puzzle. There is a hell of a lot more to what we have been told about what happened on 9/11. If you are happy being left in the dark then you are part of the problem




Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on September 11, 2017, 10:04:26 PM
Quote
Governments are there to serve the public. They are there to protect us. Not to keep secrets from us

Keeping the people safe and having some secrets may sometimes go hand in hand.
I don't know any single government that has NO classified data and is actually working. So I'd assume secrets are a part of a working government.
But of course still enough people (with a good moral compass) should have access to such data to prevent abuse of the system (and that's most likely not the case in the us (not particulary talking about 9/11)).
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 11, 2017, 10:07:54 PM
Quote from: Shifter on September 11, 2017, 09:54:50 PM

As is apparent. You should have expected us.

Quote from: User324 on September 11, 2017, 10:04:26 PM
Quote
Governments are there to serve the public. They are there to protect us. Not to keep secrets from us

Keeping the people safe and having some secrets may sometimes go hand in hand.
I don't know any single government that has NO classified data and is actually working. So I'd assume secrets are a part of a working government.
But of course still enough people (with a good moral compass) should have access to such data to prevent abuse of the system (and that's most likely not the case in the us (not particulary talking about 9/11)).

User let's hear about this issue from JFK.

https://www.jfklibrary.org/Research/Research-Aids/JFK-Speeches/American-Newspaper-Publishers-Association_19610427.aspx

Quote
The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 11, 2017, 10:21:53 PM
Quote from: Shifter on September 11, 2017, 09:54:50 PM
There is a hell of a lot more to what we have been told about what happened on 9/11. If you are happy being left in the dark then you are part of the problem

Evidence,  not speculation,  not cherry picking,  not brain dead youtube videos,  but real evidence that 9/11 was something other than a jihadist plot organized by Al Qaeda.   

Guess what.   there isn't any.   

It is true that the CIA trained and armed Osama Bin Laden,  at least via the Pakistani ISI,  to fight the Russians.   And is is true that the intelligence agencies failed to cooperate to avoid the 9/11 plot, the CIA and Military Intelligence had tracked and identified the 4 pilots,  but  defence department lawyers refused to pass the intel to the FBI for action.

It's also true that the Bush white house obstructed the 9/11 investigation.   The intelligence community failed.

All this "9/11 was an inside job" crap,  is just a corrosive evil conspiracy, in some sense actually worse than the real tragedy. 

Show me evidence otherwise and I might be convinced.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 11, 2017, 10:29:00 PM
Here's conclusive proof the official NIST finite element analysis for wtc 7 is a deliberate forgery.

www.wtc7evaluation.org

(https://s26.postimg.org/kwoengurt/20170909_115539.png)

Expect us, Patrick Gallagher.

It's never too late Rayzor, we will never stop extending our hand.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 11, 2017, 10:40:46 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 11, 2017, 10:29:00 PM
Here's conclusive proof the official NIST finite element analysis for wtc 7 is a deliberate forgery.

*** sigh! ***   

How does that prove deliberate forgery?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Crouton on September 11, 2017, 10:42:25 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 11, 2017, 10:29:00 PM
Here's conclusive proof the official NIST finite element analysis for wtc 7 is a deliberate forgery.

www.wtc7evaluation.org


Expect us, Patrick Gallagher.

It's never too late Rayzor, we will never stop extending our hand.

Time out just a second here.  Your self awareness is a little haywire right now.  So please consider my warning here.  Throughout the last several pages here you sound like you're threatening government agents and members of the press with terrorist attacks. 

If you want to press it and end up on a list.  That's a choice I guess.  If it were me I'd tone it down just a little.  Maybe try to get your message across without threats of violence.

Anyways,  carry on.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 11, 2017, 10:46:30 PM
It proves that NIST forged their model to get the results they wanted. Hulsey has shown the NIST collapse initiation sequence to be an impossibility. They then classified the inputs so we couldn't check their conclusions.

That's called a forgery.

Did I mention I have scientific proof the earth is flat, no, you can't see the scientific proof, just trust me, k?

@Xrutonius

I've been on a list for 10+ years. So has Bhs. If you dont have anything to contribute but implied threats then please don't post.

I am threatening Patrick Gallagher with justice. A lot is about to come out with Hulseys report Crutonius. I will also directly threaten Shyam Sunder with justice. Hopefully they serve a life sentence in jail. Please quote the "threat of violence" you are currently lying about.

If you came here to help Rayzor gaslight us then please leave.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 11, 2017, 10:53:36 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 11, 2017, 10:46:30 PM
It proves that NIST forged their model to get the results they wanted. Hulsey has shown the NIST collapse initiation sequence to be an impossibility. They then classified the inputs so we couldn't check their conclusions.

That's called a forgery.

How does not releasing the model inputs prove that the results were forged?   



We can get to Hulsey later,  leave him out of it for now. 

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 11, 2017, 10:55:10 PM
Quote from: crutonius on September 11, 2017, 10:42:25 PM
threats of violence.

Quote from: disputeone on September 11, 2017, 10:46:30 PM
Please quote the "threat of violence" you are currently lying about.

Or apologise. Either or mate. At the very least you owe me that much. anything less is clear cowardice.

Quote from: Rayzor on September 11, 2017, 10:53:36 PM
We can get to Hulsey later,  leave him out of it for now. 

No, wtc 7 is and has always been our smoking gun.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Crouton on September 11, 2017, 10:55:38 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 11, 2017, 10:46:30 PM
It proves that NIST forged their model to get the results they wanted. Hulsey has shown the NIST collapse initiation sequence to be an impossibility. They then classified the inputs so we couldn't check their conclusions.

That's called a forgery.

Did I mention I have scientific proof the earth is flat, no, you can't see the scientific proof, just trust me, k?

@Xrutonius

I've been on a list for 10+ years. So has Bhs. If you dont have anything to contribute but implied threats then please don't post.

I am threatening Patrick Gallagher with justice. A lot is about to come out with Hulseys report Crutonius. I will also directly threaten Shyam Sunder with justice. Hopefully they serve a life sentence in jail. Please quote the "threat of violence" you are currently lying about.

If you came here to help Rayzor gaslight us then please leave.

Bro.  I'm having a very hard time telling if you're serious or you're joking.  Nevermind all that stuff in the past.  I'm worried about you here.  You can't threaten people and you're not nearly as anonymous as you think.

If you don't tone this down then I'm going to first start by reporting you to the mods.  It's for your own good and ours.  I don't want my name associated with the forum that an aspiring terrorist hangs out.

Hate me all you want.  In the end you'll thank me.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 11, 2017, 10:57:07 PM
Quote from: crutonius on September 11, 2017, 10:55:38 PM
If you don't tone this down then I'm going to first start by reporting you to the mods.  It's for your own good and ours.  I don't want my name associated with the forum that an aspiring terrorist hangs out.

Quote from: disputeone on September 11, 2017, 10:55:10 PM
Quote from: crutonius on September 11, 2017, 10:42:25 PM
threats of violence.

Quote from: disputeone on September 11, 2017, 10:46:30 PM
Please quote the "threat of violence" you are currently lying about.

Or apologise. Either or mate. At the very least you owe me that much. anything less is clear cowardice.

Report me all you want. I won't stop fighting for justice.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Crouton on September 11, 2017, 10:59:11 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 11, 2017, 10:57:07 PM
Quote from: crutonius on September 11, 2017, 10:55:38 PM
If you don't tone this down then I'm going to first start by reporting you to the mods.  It's for your own good and ours.  I don't want my name associated with the forum that an aspiring terrorist hangs out.

Quote from: disputeone on September 11, 2017, 10:55:10 PM
Quote from: crutonius on September 11, 2017, 10:42:25 PM
threats of violence.

Quote from: disputeone on September 11, 2017, 10:46:30 PM
Please quote the "threat of violence" you are currently lying about.

Or apologise. Either or mate. At the very least you owe me that much. anything less is clear cowardice.

Your opinions on my courage or lack thereof mean exactly nothing to me. 

This is a nice place.  Please try to solve your problems with words.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 11, 2017, 10:59:45 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 11, 2017, 10:55:10 PM
Quote from: crutonius on September 11, 2017, 10:42:25 PM
threats of violence.

Quote from: disputeone on September 11, 2017, 10:46:30 PM
Please quote the "threat of violence" you are currently lying about.

Please. If no such quote exists then apologise.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 11, 2017, 11:00:22 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 11, 2017, 10:55:10 PM
No, wtc 7 is and has always been our smoking gun.

WTC7 is a red herring.    You should be looking instead at Able Danger.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 11, 2017, 11:02:19 PM
I'm still waiting crutonius. You don't get to lie about me to discredit my ideas.

Quote from: disputeone on September 11, 2017, 10:59:45 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 11, 2017, 10:55:10 PM
Quote from: crutonius on September 11, 2017, 10:42:25 PM
threats of violence.

Quote from: disputeone on September 11, 2017, 10:46:30 PM
Please quote the "threat of violence" you are currently lying about.

Please. If no such quote exists then apologise.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 11, 2017, 11:04:57 PM
Well everyone who will research sees your lies Crutonius.

That's enough. Your lies may influence some people but the truth is objective.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 11, 2017, 11:09:21 PM
Is this really the content of your character Crutonius?

I expected more.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Crouton on September 11, 2017, 11:11:28 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 11, 2017, 10:46:30 PM
It proves that NIST forged their model to get the results they wanted. Hulsey has shown the NIST collapse initiation sequence to be an impossibility. They then classified the inputs so we couldn't check their conclusions.

That's called a forgery.

Did I mention I have scientific proof the earth is flat, no, you can't see the scientific proof, just trust me, k?

@Xrutonius

I've been on a list for 10+ years. So has Bhs. If you dont have anything to contribute but implied threats then please don't post.

I am threatening Patrick Gallagher with justice. A lot is about to come out with Hulseys report Crutonius. I will also directly threaten Shyam Sunder with justice. Hopefully they serve a life sentence in jail. Please quote the "threat of violence" you are currently lying about.

If you came here to help Rayzor gaslight us then please leave.

Quote from: disputeone on September 11, 2017, 10:29:00 PM
Here's conclusive proof the official NIST finite element analysis for wtc 7 is a deliberate forgery.

www.wtc7evaluation.org

(https://s26.postimg.org/kwoengurt/20170909_115539.png)

Expect us, Patrick Gallagher.

It's never too late Rayzor, we will never stop extending our hand.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Crouton on September 11, 2017, 11:13:48 PM
These two things alone would make someone clear minded very uneasy.  Your writings are getting more and more erratic.  I'm worrying about you.

I see you're pissed at me.  That's fine.  Get it out of your system.

But after you calm down think about what I said.  Just think about it is all I'm asking.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 11, 2017, 11:14:17 PM
You've broken US law.

To clarify. We don't condone violence. We never have and never will. Anyone who justifies violence doesn't understand the idea.

We do want the corrupt criminals who haven't faced justice yet to feel "uneasy". They should feel uneasy. The same way a murderer feels uneasy before he is caught and prosecuted.

I am not sure what you were trying to do but it seems you were willing to violate the law to do it.

Pretty similar to NIST actually...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 11, 2017, 11:45:53 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 11, 2017, 11:14:17 PM
You've broken US law.

How has Crutonius broken US law?   

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 11, 2017, 11:47:54 PM
Quote
Definition. Libel is a method of defamation expressed by print, writing, pictures, signs, effigies, or any communication embodied in physical form that is injurious to a person's reputation, exposes a person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule, or injures a person in his/her business or profession.

Quote
Under common law, to constitute defamation, a claim must generally be false and must have been made to someone other than the person defamed. Some common law jurisdictions also distinguish between spoken defamation, called slander, and defamation in other media such as printed words or images, called libel.

Clear defamation case. Crutonius has just under 24 hours before my lawyer starts writing letters.

I'll let a bit go but the direct lie about me threatening violence is easily harmful enough to sue.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 11, 2017, 11:57:17 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 11, 2017, 11:47:54 PM
Quote
Definition. Libel is a method of defamation expressed by print, writing, pictures, signs, effigies, or any communication embodied in physical form that is injurious to a person's reputation, exposes a person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule, or injures a person in his/her business or profession.

Quote
Under common law, to constitute defamation, a claim must generally be false and must have been made to someone other than the person defamed. Some common law jurisdictions also distinguish between spoken defamation, called slander, and defamation in other media such as printed words or images, called libel.

Clear defamation case. Crutonius has just under 24 hours before my lawyer starts writing letters.

I'll let a bit go but the direct lie about me threatening violence is easily harmful enough to sue.

Umm,  you got it all backwards,   he was politely warning you about threatening violence.   That's hardly libellous,  in any event if you start threatening legal action against people for perceived defamation,  you'll be busy for a while.  Especially around internet forums. 

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 11, 2017, 11:59:04 PM
I won't accept lies. In case this isn't clear to anyone yet.

Crutonius lied about me on a public forum. It's quite clear cut, my lawyer has a link to the page and post.

I've given him multiple chances to correct his lie.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 12, 2017, 12:07:50 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 11, 2017, 11:59:04 PM
I won't accept lies. In case this isn't clear to anyone yet.

Crutonius lied about me on a public forum. It's quite clear cut, my lawyer has a link to the page and post.

I've given him multiple chances to correct his lie.

That's complete bullshit, and you know it,  everone who reads the crap you write knows it.  I fear you've crossed the line.  I'd suggest you take a rest from the forum.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 12, 2017, 12:09:18 AM
Well he can either admit he lied or I will sue him. /issue.

Back to wtc 7.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 12, 2017, 12:17:46 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 12, 2017, 12:09:18 AM
Well he can either admit he lied or I will sue him. /issue.

Back to wtc 7.

Well can I sue you for repeatedly saying I should be in jail because I don't agree with your addle brained analysis of 9/11?

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 12, 2017, 12:19:25 AM
If you proved you weren't an alphabet soup intelligence agent that probably would be the case.

Do it.

Even then Hulseys FEA is a strong defense. My opinion that you should be in jail isn't illegal.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 12, 2017, 12:22:23 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 12, 2017, 12:19:25 AM
If you proved you weren't an alphabet soup intelligence agent that probably would be the case.

Do it.

No way,  they might stop paying me.   Then I'd have to go back to being a lowly shit kicker lift mech-elec.   

 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 12, 2017, 12:22:49 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 12, 2017, 12:22:23 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 12, 2017, 12:19:25 AM
If you proved you weren't an alphabet soup intelligence agent that probably would be the case.

Do it.

No way,  they might stop paying me.

Well then you have no case.

/issue.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 12, 2017, 12:29:44 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 12, 2017, 12:22:49 AM

Well then you have no case.

/issue.

And ipso facto neither do you,  so stop being an asshole about it.

Did you read up on Able Danger yet?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on September 12, 2017, 12:34:43 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 11, 2017, 08:03:02 PM
Why do you keep saying one object disappeared into another without leaving a mark? 

Because they did! Like the damn tower was a hologram...there was no "equal and opposite reaction" as it should have been in reality..you don't need a PhD or high end equipment to test this. Just take a model plane made of aluminum, tie a string to it and start swinging it around your head like a lasso as fast as you can...then slam it against the wall..there is a bit of reality...you will see equal and opposite reaction..hit it against sheet rock, I don't care, you will still see the reaction.

Quote
I can't comment on your experiment without much more detail.   Is it published somewhere?  Was there a peer review of the physics?

You might be interested to know that had the plane hit lower down where it was stronger construction the WTC towers might not have collapsed.

I already posted a paper on that much earlier.  Did you read it?

This one was simple, I already explained it to you...no it was not peer reviewed, the only thing that could be reviewed would be the steel type, the aluminum type, and if the motor was really doing 3200 rpm.

I am very familiar with the construction of the towers, as I have corrected you many times on them. There wasn't much difference between mid sections and upper sections besides a thinner less cross braced core, and the exoskeleton becoming hollow...not the lower floors when you started to get in the 20s and 30s, that got pretty nuts.

Almost 11 inch thick steel solid just in the exoskeleton alone...the core was even more ridiculous, then came the cross sectioning and bracing...there was barely room for the elevator shafts..

Though it doesn't matter a whole lot, as asymmetrical damage in under 5 percent of the total area of a structure cannot cause the total symmetrical collapse AND pulverization if a structure with the mass if any of the towers. This is at any spot on the tower, rather base or its peak...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 12, 2017, 12:52:12 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on September 12, 2017, 12:34:43 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 11, 2017, 08:03:02 PM
Why do you keep saying one object disappeared into another without leaving a mark? 

Because they did! Like the damn tower was a hologram...there was no "equal and opposite reaction" as it should have been in reality..you don't need a PhD or high end equipment to test this. Just take a model plane made of aluminum, tie a string to it and start swinging it around your head like a lasso as fast as you can...then slam it against the wall..there is a bit of reality...you will see equal and opposite reaction..hit it against sheet rock, I don't care, you will still see the reaction.

Quote
I can't comment on your experiment without much more detail.   Is it published somewhere?  Was there a peer review of the physics?

You might be interested to know that had the plane hit lower down where it was stronger construction the WTC towers might not have collapsed.

I already posted a paper on that much earlier.  Did you read it?

This one was simple, I already explained it to you...no it was not peer reviewed, the only thing that could be reviewed would be the steel type, the aluminum type, and if the motor was really doing 3200 rpm.

I am very familiar with the construction of the towers, as I have corrected you many times on them. There wasn't much difference between mid sections and upper sections besides a thinner less cross braced core, and the exoskeleton becoming hollow...not the lower floors when you started to get in the 20s and 30s, that got pretty nuts.

Almost 11 inch thick steel solid just in the exoskeleton alone...the core was even more ridiculous, then came the cross sectioning and bracing...there was barely room for the elevator shafts..

Though it doesn't matter a whole lot, as asymmetrical damage in under 5 percent of the total area of a structure cannot cause the total symmetrical collapse AND pulverization if a structure with the mass if any of the towers. This is at any spot on the tower, rather base or its peak...

I recall your claim about holograms, and your failure to produce the video evidence you claimed,  the damage is clearly visible in every video I've seen. 

Taking your first point about equal and opposite reactions,  the building did sway on impact,  but that just deals with momentum transfer, you also need to deal with the kinetic energy, that's the part you keep missing.   

The rough estimate of the sway is 6-8 feet.



What do you think was the column steel thickness on the 77th floor?   I can tell you it wasn't 11 inches.  

The collapse of WTC2 wasn't symmetrical,  it tilted as it collapsed.  What's more the collapse mechanism is no longer a mystery.   

Refer at first to Greenings paper on the collapse timing and energy transfer.  http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf

Note in particular the fact that WTC2 collapsed not only earlier,  but faster than WTC1.   

Does this look familiar?











Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 12, 2017, 12:53:48 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 12, 2017, 12:29:44 AM
Did you read up on Able Danger yet?

Trying to bring criminals to justice through information campaigns is not terrorism. It's the duty of all citizens.

Also this.
https://www.awm.gov.au/articles/event/afghanistan

This new thing that only Americans can care about Americas illegal wars that kill Australian citizens is weird tbh.

I wonder why Crutonius came here to desperately and illegally change the subject from www.wtc7evaluation.org then leave. I hate coincidences.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on September 12, 2017, 01:04:12 AM
Rayzor, I was attempting to have a normal conversation with you. The same mistake I have made here on this thread many times...as well as once in the political forum.

I clearly said
Quote
not the lower floors when you started to get in the 20s and 30s, that got pretty nuts.

Almost 11 inch thick steel solid just in the exoskeleton alone

I was clearly not speaking for the 77th floor...(if you actually care, which I doubt you do, it was between 6-8 inches depending on what area of the exoskeleton you are talking about, as in if it's corner or center...this was still solid..as it went higher, the size stayed the same but became hollow)

I also am clearly not sticking up for any sort of hologram conspiracy...I clearly said like a hologram...as a metaphor..

If you would like to discuss honestly then we can..if you are going to attempt to misquote me, attempt to deflect with semantics, add context that does not exist or many other tactics that you have attempted many times in the past don't waste my time..

I am not discussing anything further with you until I receive an answer.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 12, 2017, 01:27:11 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on September 12, 2017, 01:04:12 AM
Rayzor, I was attempting to have a normal conversation with you. The same mistake I have made here on this thread many times...as well as once in the political forum.

I clearly said
Quote
not the lower floors when you started to get in the 20s and 30s, that got pretty nuts.

Almost 11 inch thick steel solid just in the exoskeleton alone

I was clearly not speaking for the 77th floor...(if you actually care, which I doubt you do, it was between 6-8 inches depending on what area of the exoskeleton you are talking about, as in if it's corner or center...this was still solid..as it went higher, the size stayed the same but became hollow)

I also am clearly not sticking up for any sort of hologram conspiracy...I clearly said like a hologram...as a metaphor..

If you would like to discuss honestly then we can..if you are going to attempt to misquote me, attempt to deflect with semantics, add context that does not exist or many other tactics that you have attempted many times in the past don't waste my time..

I am not discussing anything further with you until I receive an answer.

Ok,  so you mentioned holograms, and not leaving a mark because?   

You mention 11" thick steel because it's not relevant to the aircraft impact...   ok whatever.

I recommend that you read up on the basics before you continue.
https://www.nist.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2017/04/28/2Gayle.pdf

And I think you are way off on the thickness of the steel on the 77th floor,  more like 1.5"  for the external box columns where UA175 hit.

I agree with you, in that had the plane hit further down the story would have been totally different.




Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on September 12, 2017, 01:51:50 AM
So are you going to discuss honestly? You did not answer...

As I said, as the exoskeleton got higher, it became hollow, I already said that. It's thickness stayed the same..yes that still was about 1.5 inches thick, but being in a box form made it appear six to eight inches thick. The floors on the 70s had not yet transferred completely to the boxed form, there were still solid pieces.

I don't need a power point from some random, I spent too much time trying to decode the 1976 specs from the port authority, those are horrendous but the best info you can get on the towers. Though, there are some things about the construction we will never be able to prove on paper, as well as the exact metallurgical qualities of some of the skeleton/core material.

Also, why are you bring up the Verinage method?? This is a demo technique...do you have any idea how much mass is removed for this to happen successfully? How much structural modifications are do for this to happen?? This is like comparing an apple with a power saw...

As for the sway, I have little concern for the sway, nor did I see 6 feet...I have seen more in Japan from earth quakes, and those high rises take constant beatings..very impressive

*Typo
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 12, 2017, 02:12:56 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on September 12, 2017, 01:51:50 AM
So are you going to discuss honestly? You did not answer...

By asking that question you are implying that I was being dishonest,  so I just ignored it.  For future reference,  repeating what you wrote is not being dishonest.


Quote from: Babyhighspeed on September 12, 2017, 01:51:50 AM
As I said, as the exoskeleton got higher, it became hollow, I already said that. It's thickness stayed the same..yes that still was about 1.5 inches thick, but being in a box form made it appear six to eight inches thick. The floors on the 70s had not yet transferred completely to the boxed form, there were still solid pieces.

As I understand it the exterior vertical columns were never solid at any level,  the wall thickness varied from 4" thick walls at ground level to 1/4" thick near the top. 

The impact would be totally different if it hit lower down where the extra strength comes in. 

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on September 12, 2017, 01:51:50 AM
I don't need a power point from some random, I spent too much time trying to decode the 1976 specs from the port authority, those are horrendous but the best info you can get on the towers. Though, there are some things about the construction we will never be able to prove on paper, as well as the exact metallurgical qualities of some of the skeleton/core material.
Ok so you don't read documentation,  yes they did the analysis,  partly to confirm that it was built to specification and secondly to validate the inputs to the FEA models


Quote from: Babyhighspeed on September 12, 2017, 01:51:50 AM
Also, why are you bring up the Verinage method?? This is a demo technique...do you have any idea how much mass is removed for this to happen successfully? How much structural modifications are do for this to happen?? This is like comparing an apple with a power saw...
About the same amount of mechanical damage as might be caused by direct hit from a commercial aircraft at high speed.

Did you read the Greening paper on energy transfer,  that describes the collapse mechanism?   

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on September 12, 2017, 01:51:50 AM
As for the sway, I have little concern for the sway, nor did I see 6 feet...I have seen more in Japan from earth quakes, and those high rises take constant beatings..very impressive

You claimed there was no reaction,  I simply pointed out that you were wrong.  The 6-8 ft number comes from the accompanying youtube description. 

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 12, 2017, 02:23:41 AM
I'm not sure why you play his games Bhs.

Next Crutonius will be threatening to go after your engineering licence for wanting the truth...

People aren't open to honest discussion on this issue. It's too scary. Thats why we only have one shill shilling.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on September 12, 2017, 02:28:20 AM
No, they were 100 percent solid at the base and visibly larger (though to be honest I don't remember, I will have to check)...then they got visibly smaller but stayed solid..then stayed the same visibly but became hollow.

However, this is little concern as you have spawned an idea I never thought of and I am shocked as well as a little embarrassed.

If I could get an actual amount of sway from the building, I could possibly work up a model and maybe even figure out how much kinetic energy whatever hit the building had. Maybe be able to figure out if it was an airliner they said it was....

Though that still doesn't rule out a military 767, however, it would rule out a missile and other vessels.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 12, 2017, 02:49:46 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on September 12, 2017, 02:28:20 AM
No, they were 100 percent solid at the base and visibly larger (though to be honest I don't remember, I will have to check)...then they got visibly smaller but stayed solid..then stayed the same visibly but became hollow.

However, this is little concern as you have spawned an idea I never thought of and I am shocked as well as a little embarrassed.

If I could get an actual amount of sway from the building, I could possibly work up a model and maybe even figure out how much kinetic energy whatever hit the building had. Maybe be able to figure out if it was an airliner they said it was....

Though that still doesn't rule out a military 767, however, it would rule out a missile and other vessels.

Quote from: disputeone on August 29, 2017, 07:41:50 PM
Predicted and actual sway off the towers under lateral wind loads compared to the actual sway of the towers as the planes hit.

I am just posting this to remind myself to do some proper research. I haven't seen it tackled from this angle. Surely we could calculate how far we expect the towers to sway as the plane hit using simple newtonian equations.

I'll post more on this later. I had an epiphany while on the toilet.

Quote from: disputeone on August 30, 2017, 06:24:40 PM
Seems like there was an impact which fits with my views, something hit the towers. Probably aircraft of some sort.



Not totally satisfied yet it's hard to measure the sway.

 ;)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 12, 2017, 02:53:55 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on September 12, 2017, 02:28:20 AM
No, they were 100 percent solid at the base and visibly larger (though to be honest I don't remember, I will have to check)...then they got visibly smaller but stayed solid..then stayed the same visibly but became hollow.

From what I can make out  the external columns were welded box sections with differing material grades and thicknesses.  The thickest being 3" plate.  None of them solid.   Maybe you were thinking of the core columns?   

Quote
The first major structural subsystem was the exterior framing, which was a vertical
square tube that consisted of 236 narrow columns, 59 on each face from the 10th floor to the
107th floor (Figure 3). There were fewer, wider-spaced columns below the 7th floor to
accommodate doorways. There were also columns on alternate stories at each of the beveled
corners, but these did not carry gravity loads. Each column on floor 10 to 107 was fabricated by
welding four steel plates to form a tall box, nominally 0.36 m (14 in) on a side. The space
between the steel columns was 0.66 m (26 in), with a framed plate glass window in each gap.
Adjacent columns were connected at each floor by steel spandrel plates, 1.3 m (52 in) high. The
upper parts of the buildings had less wind load and building mass to support. Thus, on higher
floors, the thickness of the steel plates making up the columns decreased, becoming as thin as 6
mm (¼ in) near the top down from as thick as 76 mm (3 in) at the lower floors. There were 10
grades of steel used for the columns and spandrels, with yield strengths ranging from 248 MPa
(36 ksi) to 690 MPa (100 ksi). The grade of steel used in each location was dictated by the
calculated stresses due to the gravity and wind loads. All the exterior columns and spandrels
were prefabricated into welded panels, three stories tall and three columns wide. The panels,
each numbered to identify its location in the tower, were then bolted to adjacent units to form the
walls (Figure 4). Field panels were staggered so that every third panel was spliced at each floor
level. The use of identically shaped prefabricated elements was an innovation that enabled rapid
construction.



Quote from: Babyhighspeed on September 12, 2017, 02:28:20 AM
However, this is little concern as you have spawned an idea I never thought of and I am shocked as well as a little embarrassed.

If I could get an actual amount of sway from the building, I could possibly work up a model and maybe even figure out how much kinetic energy whatever hit the building had. Maybe be able to figure out if it was an airliner they said it was....

Though that still doesn't rule out a military 767, however, it would rule out a missile and other vessels.

I'd be interested to see how the numbers stack up.  Maybe start with some basic stiffness numbers from the wind loading calculations.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Heiwa on September 12, 2017, 03:18:16 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 12, 2017, 02:53:55 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on September 12, 2017, 02:28:20 AM
No, they were 100 percent solid at the base and visibly larger (though to be honest I don't remember, I will have to check)...then they got visibly smaller but stayed solid..then stayed the same visibly but became hollow.

From what I can make out  the external columns were welded box sections with differing material grades and thicknesses.  The thickest being 3" plate.  None of them solid.   Maybe you were thinking of the core columns?   


Well, I think a 3 inches steel plate of an H beam wall column is pretty solid. It is 8 mm. What was the width? Anyway, when an airplane hits a skyscraper, it is the nose and fore body of the plane forward of the wings that get damaged first. Say that the plane has speed 300 m/s (almost speed of sound) and that the fore body/nose is 30 m long. Then the fore body/nose is destroyed and slowed down during this brutal 0.1 second encounter, before anything else happens. And I think the fore body/nose is also sliced horizontally by the floors of the skyscraper, while the aft body and the wings with fuel are still intact.
But I didn’t see the plane slowing down.
So what happens then? The fore body is destroyed.
Do the wings with fuel then slice the skyscraper floors and walls and continue into the building? I don’t think so.  I think they should simply have bounced against the floors/wall and spilt the fuel outside. No internal fire ball.
I know the US government, experts & Co think that Arabs were flying the planes trying to land inside the skyscrapers, but they forgot that there were at least five, six floors to land on. Shit happens.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 12, 2017, 04:04:30 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 12, 2017, 03:18:16 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 12, 2017, 02:53:55 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on September 12, 2017, 02:28:20 AM
No, they were 100 percent solid at the base and visibly larger (though to be honest I don't remember, I will have to check)...then they got visibly smaller but stayed solid..then stayed the same visibly but became hollow.

From what I can make out  the external columns were welded box sections with differing material grades and thicknesses.  The thickest being 3" plate.  None of them solid.   Maybe you were thinking of the core columns?   


Well, I think a 3 inches steel plate of an H beam wall column is pretty solid. It is 8 mm. What was the width? Anyway, when an airplane hits a skyscraper, it is the nose and fore body of the plane forward of the wings that get damaged first. Say that the plane has speed 300 m/s (almost speed of sound) and that the fore body/nose is 30 m long. Then the fore body/nose is destroyed and slowed down during this brutal 0.1 second encounter, before anything else happens. And I think the fore body/nose is also sliced horizontally by the floors of the skyscraper, while the aft body and the wings with fuel are still intact.
But I didn’t see the plane slowing down.
So what happens then? The fore body is destroyed.
Do the wings with fuel then slice the skyscraper floors and walls and continue into the building? I don’t think so.  I think they should simply have bounced against the floors/wall and spilt the fuel outside. No internal fire ball.
I know the US government, experts & Co think that Arabs were flying the planes trying to land inside the skyscrapers, but they forgot that there were at least five, six floors to land on. Shit happens.

Where UA175 hit on the 77-85 th floor of WTC2 the box section plates were about  1.5" thick and the side length remains at 14",  then you have the fireproofing and aluminium cladding outside that.

On WTC1 where the plane hit much higher the plate thickness would have been much less.

https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/how-the-airplane-wing-cut-through-the-exterior-columns-of-the-world-trade-center-pdf.27041/



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on September 12, 2017, 04:11:15 AM
Dispute.... interesting...I am slightly buzzed, but to be honest I have glanced over sway for the most part..

Rayzor
Yes, the core on the upper floors went to a boxed hollow design as well, though if I remember correctly the smallest in actual depth of the metal was 3 inches.

Everything of the PATH records show the exoskeleton was solid until the upper floors as I described.

I cannot do a "airline crash" on my fea software, however, I could do a concentrated wind shear in a certain area. This sounds like an interesting project.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Heiwa on September 12, 2017, 04:11:41 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 12, 2017, 04:04:30 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 12, 2017, 03:18:16 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 12, 2017, 02:53:55 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on September 12, 2017, 02:28:20 AM
No, they were 100 percent solid at the base and visibly larger (though to be honest I don't remember, I will have to check)...then they got visibly smaller but stayed solid..then stayed the same visibly but became hollow.

From what I can make out  the external columns were welded box sections with differing material grades and thicknesses.  The thickest being 3" plate.  None of them solid.   Maybe you were thinking of the core columns?   


Well, I think a 3 inches steel plate of an H beam wall column is pretty solid. It is 8 mm. What was the width? Anyway, when an airplane hits a skyscraper, it is the nose and fore body of the plane forward of the wings that get damaged first. Say that the plane has speed 300 m/s (almost speed of sound) and that the fore body/nose is 30 m long. Then the fore body/nose is destroyed and slowed down during this brutal 0.1 second encounter, before anything else happens. And I think the fore body/nose is also sliced horizontally by the floors of the skyscraper, while the aft body and the wings with fuel are still intact.
But I didn’t see the plane slowing down.
So what happens then? The fore body is destroyed.
Do the wings with fuel then slice the skyscraper floors and walls and continue into the building? I don’t think so.  I think they should simply have bounced against the floors/wall and spilt the fuel outside. No internal fire ball.
I know the US government, experts & Co think that Arabs were flying the planes trying to land inside the skyscrapers, but they forgot that there were at least five, six floors to land on. Shit happens.

Where UA175 hit on the 77-85 th floor of WTC2 the box section plates were about  1.5" thick and the side length remains at 14",  then you have the fireproofing and aluminium cladding outside that.

On WTC1 where the plane hit much higher the plate thickness would have been much less.

https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/how-the-airplane-wing-cut-through-the-exterior-columns-of-the-world-trade-center-pdf.27041/

Thanks,

in neither case was it possible that the weak tops on fire could later crush the strong, intact bottom parts, not on fire, into dust and smoke by a top-down gravity collapse driven http://heiwaco.com/tower.htm

All such footage shown live on TV 911 is B-class, Hollywood nonsense.

How could US TV companies broadcast it?

Aha, they were paid by the terrorists.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 12, 2017, 04:24:56 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 12, 2017, 04:11:41 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 12, 2017, 04:04:30 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 12, 2017, 03:18:16 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 12, 2017, 02:53:55 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on September 12, 2017, 02:28:20 AM
No, they were 100 percent solid at the base and visibly larger (though to be honest I don't remember, I will have to check)...then they got visibly smaller but stayed solid..then stayed the same visibly but became hollow.

From what I can make out  the external columns were welded box sections with differing material grades and thicknesses.  The thickest being 3" plate.  None of them solid.   Maybe you were thinking of the core columns?   


Well, I think a 3 inches steel plate of an H beam wall column is pretty solid. It is 8 mm. What was the width? Anyway, when an airplane hits a skyscraper, it is the nose and fore body of the plane forward of the wings that get damaged first. Say that the plane has speed 300 m/s (almost speed of sound) and that the fore body/nose is 30 m long. Then the fore body/nose is destroyed and slowed down during this brutal 0.1 second encounter, before anything else happens. And I think the fore body/nose is also sliced horizontally by the floors of the skyscraper, while the aft body and the wings with fuel are still intact.
But I didn’t see the plane slowing down.
So what happens then? The fore body is destroyed.
Do the wings with fuel then slice the skyscraper floors and walls and continue into the building? I don’t think so.  I think they should simply have bounced against the floors/wall and spilt the fuel outside. No internal fire ball.
I know the US government, experts & Co think that Arabs were flying the planes trying to land inside the skyscrapers, but they forgot that there were at least five, six floors to land on. Shit happens.

Where UA175 hit on the 77-85 th floor of WTC2 the box section plates were about  1.5" thick and the side length remains at 14",  then you have the fireproofing and aluminium cladding outside that.

On WTC1 where the plane hit much higher the plate thickness would have been much less.

https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/how-the-airplane-wing-cut-through-the-exterior-columns-of-the-world-trade-center-pdf.27041/

Thanks,

in neither case was it possible that the weak tops on fire could later crush the strong, intact bottom parts, not on fire, into dust and smoke by a top-down gravity collapse driven. http//:heiwaco.com/tower.htm


Actually this is not true,  you only have to consider the momentum and energy transfer to explain the collapse mechanism in detail.  Greening got the analysis right in his paper  http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Heiwa on September 12, 2017, 05:02:17 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 12, 2017, 04:24:56 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 12, 2017, 04:11:41 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 12, 2017, 04:04:30 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 12, 2017, 03:18:16 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 12, 2017, 02:53:55 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on September 12, 2017, 02:28:20 AM
No, they were 100 percent solid at the base and visibly larger (though to be honest I don't remember, I will have to check)...then they got visibly smaller but stayed solid..then stayed the same visibly but became hollow.

From what I can make out  the external columns were welded box sections with differing material grades and thicknesses.  The thickest being 3" plate.  None of them solid.   Maybe you were thinking of the core columns?   


Well, I think a 3 inches steel plate of an H beam wall column is pretty solid. It is 8 mm. What was the width? Anyway, when an airplane hits a skyscraper, it is the nose and fore body of the plane forward of the wings that get damaged first. Say that the plane has speed 300 m/s (almost speed of sound) and that the fore body/nose is 30 m long. Then the fore body/nose is destroyed and slowed down during this brutal 0.1 second encounter, before anything else happens. And I think the fore body/nose is also sliced horizontally by the floors of the skyscraper, while the aft body and the wings with fuel are still intact.
But I didn’t see the plane slowing down.
So what happens then? The fore body is destroyed.
Do the wings with fuel then slice the skyscraper floors and walls and continue into the building? I don’t think so.  I think they should simply have bounced against the floors/wall and spilt the fuel outside. No internal fire ball.
I know the US government, experts & Co think that Arabs were flying the planes trying to land inside the skyscrapers, but they forgot that there were at least five, six floors to land on. Shit happens.

Where UA175 hit on the 77-85 th floor of WTC2 the box section plates were about  1.5" thick and the side length remains at 14",  then you have the fireproofing and aluminium cladding outside that.

On WTC1 where the plane hit much higher the plate thickness would have been much less.

https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/how-the-airplane-wing-cut-through-the-exterior-columns-of-the-world-trade-center-pdf.27041/

Thanks,

in neither case was it possible that the weak tops on fire could later crush the strong, intact bottom parts, not on fire, into dust and smoke by a top-down gravity collapse driven. http//:heiwaco.com/tower.htm


Actually this is not true,  you only have to consider the momentum and energy transfer to explain the collapse mechanism in detail.  Greening got the analysis right in his paper  http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf
LOL. Greening is just a terrorist! Study http://heiwaco.com/blgb.htm .

Why do you link to terrorists?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 12, 2017, 05:20:07 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 12, 2017, 05:02:17 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 12, 2017, 04:24:56 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 12, 2017, 04:11:41 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 12, 2017, 04:04:30 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 12, 2017, 03:18:16 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 12, 2017, 02:53:55 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on September 12, 2017, 02:28:20 AM
No, they were 100 percent solid at the base and visibly larger (though to be honest I don't remember, I will have to check)...then they got visibly smaller but stayed solid..then stayed the same visibly but became hollow.

From what I can make out  the external columns were welded box sections with differing material grades and thicknesses.  The thickest being 3" plate.  None of them solid.   Maybe you were thinking of the core columns?   


Well, I think a 3 inches steel plate of an H beam wall column is pretty solid. It is 8 mm. What was the width? Anyway, when an airplane hits a skyscraper, it is the nose and fore body of the plane forward of the wings that get damaged first. Say that the plane has speed 300 m/s (almost speed of sound) and that the fore body/nose is 30 m long. Then the fore body/nose is destroyed and slowed down during this brutal 0.1 second encounter, before anything else happens. And I think the fore body/nose is also sliced horizontally by the floors of the skyscraper, while the aft body and the wings with fuel are still intact.
But I didn’t see the plane slowing down.
So what happens then? The fore body is destroyed.
Do the wings with fuel then slice the skyscraper floors and walls and continue into the building? I don’t think so.  I think they should simply have bounced against the floors/wall and spilt the fuel outside. No internal fire ball.
I know the US government, experts & Co think that Arabs were flying the planes trying to land inside the skyscrapers, but they forgot that there were at least five, six floors to land on. Shit happens.

Where UA175 hit on the 77-85 th floor of WTC2 the box section plates were about  1.5" thick and the side length remains at 14",  then you have the fireproofing and aluminium cladding outside that.

On WTC1 where the plane hit much higher the plate thickness would have been much less.

https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/how-the-airplane-wing-cut-through-the-exterior-columns-of-the-world-trade-center-pdf.27041/

Thanks,

in neither case was it possible that the weak tops on fire could later crush the strong, intact bottom parts, not on fire, into dust and smoke by a top-down gravity collapse driven. http//:heiwaco.com/tower.htm


Actually this is not true,  you only have to consider the momentum and energy transfer to explain the collapse mechanism in detail.  Greening got the analysis right in his paper  http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf
LOL. Greening is just a terrorist! Study http://heiwaco.com/blgb.htm .

Why do you link to terrorists?

Have you ever heard of a high rise demolition technique called vérinage?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Heiwa on September 12, 2017, 06:10:44 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 12, 2017, 05:20:07 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 12, 2017, 05:02:17 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 12, 2017, 04:24:56 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 12, 2017, 04:11:41 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 12, 2017, 04:04:30 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 12, 2017, 03:18:16 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 12, 2017, 02:53:55 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on September 12, 2017, 02:28:20 AM
No, they were 100 percent solid at the base and visibly larger (though to be honest I don't remember, I will have to check)...then they got visibly smaller but stayed solid..then stayed the same visibly but became hollow.

From what I can make out  the external columns were welded box sections with differing material grades and thicknesses.  The thickest being 3" plate.  None of them solid.   Maybe you were thinking of the core columns?   


Well, I think a 3 inches steel plate of an H beam wall column is pretty solid. It is 8 mm. What was the width? Anyway, when an airplane hits a skyscraper, it is the nose and fore body of the plane forward of the wings that get damaged first. Say that the plane has speed 300 m/s (almost speed of sound) and that the fore body/nose is 30 m long. Then the fore body/nose is destroyed and slowed down during this brutal 0.1 second encounter, before anything else happens. And I think the fore body/nose is also sliced horizontally by the floors of the skyscraper, while the aft body and the wings with fuel are still intact.
But I didn’t see the plane slowing down.
So what happens then? The fore body is destroyed.
Do the wings with fuel then slice the skyscraper floors and walls and continue into the building? I don’t think so.  I think they should simply have bounced against the floors/wall and spilt the fuel outside. No internal fire ball.
I know the US government, experts & Co think that Arabs were flying the planes trying to land inside the skyscrapers, but they forgot that there were at least five, six floors to land on. Shit happens.

Where UA175 hit on the 77-85 th floor of WTC2 the box section plates were about  1.5" thick and the side length remains at 14",  then you have the fireproofing and aluminium cladding outside that.

On WTC1 where the plane hit much higher the plate thickness would have been much less.

https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/how-the-airplane-wing-cut-through-the-exterior-columns-of-the-world-trade-center-pdf.27041/

Thanks,

in neither case was it possible that the weak tops on fire could later crush the strong, intact bottom parts, not on fire, into dust and smoke by a top-down gravity collapse driven. http//:heiwaco.com/tower.htm


Actually this is not true,  you only have to consider the momentum and energy transfer to explain the collapse mechanism in detail.  Greening got the analysis right in his paper  http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf
LOL. Greening is just a terrorist! Study http://heiwaco.com/blgb.htm .

Why do you link to terrorists?

Have you ever heard of a high rise demolition technique called vérinage?
Yes, old French system to tear down buildings. Just knock off the supports at the bottom and the big top drops down and the little bottom/big top crush themselves. Has nothing to do with WTC1/2 and funny planes hitting the tops. WTC7 could have been vérinage. I describe it at http://heiwaco.com/nist7.htm
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 12, 2017, 06:26:08 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 12, 2017, 06:10:44 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 12, 2017, 05:20:07 AM
Have you ever heard of a high rise demolition technique called vérinage?
Yes, old French system to tear down buildings. Just knock off the supports at the bottom and the big top drops down and the little bottom/big top crush themselves. Has nothing to do with WTC1/2 and funny planes hitting the tops. WTC7 could have been vérinage. I describe it at http://heiwaco.com/nist7.htm

No it's a type of top down collapse,  the sort that you claim is impossible.   What's more interesting is that it not only proves you wrong,  but you don't mention it at all on your website.



If you go to about 3:30 in the video you can see a demolition where the top three floors easily crush the lower 9 or 10 floors.

It is almost exactly what Bazant and Greeening describe,  and in fact you offfered a million dollars euros if you are proved wrong.   

Quote from: heiwa.com
A small, weak top part of any man made structure cannot destroy due to gravity a much bigger, stronger part below of same and stronger structure keeping it up in the first place. Especially not from above! And from above down! Anybody suggesting that a structure A can be destroyed by a small part C of A from above + gravity is a terrorist! You can win € 1 000 000:- proving me wrong! Just visit here. The Challenge has been open for many years ... and nobody, including terrorists like NIST or Bazant has even tried to win it!

Guess what.   

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Heiwa on September 12, 2017, 10:45:32 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 12, 2017, 06:26:08 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 12, 2017, 06:10:44 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 12, 2017, 05:20:07 AM
Have you ever heard of a high rise demolition technique called vérinage?
Yes, old French system to tear down buildings. Just knock off the supports at the bottom and the big top drops down and the little bottom/big top crush themselves. Has nothing to do with WTC1/2 and funny planes hitting the tops. WTC7 could have been vérinage. I describe it at http://heiwaco.com/nist7.htm

No it's a type of top down collapse,  the sort that you claim is impossible.   What's more interesting is that it not only proves you wrong,  but you don't mention it at all on your website.



If you go to about 3:30 in the video you can see a demolition where the top three floors easily crush the lower 9 or 10 floors.

It is almost exactly what Bazant and Greeening describe,  and in fact you offfered a million dollars euros if you are proved wrong.   

Quote from: heiwa.com
A small, weak top part of any man made structure cannot destroy due to gravity a much bigger, stronger part below of same and stronger structure keeping it up in the first place. Especially not from above! And from above down! Anybody suggesting that a structure A can be destroyed by a small part C of A from above + gravity is a terrorist! You can win € 1 000 000:- proving me wrong! Just visit here. The Challenge has been open for many years ... and nobody, including terrorists like NIST or Bazant has even tried to win it!

Guess what.

Sorry but vérinage is a French controlled demolition method of concrete buildings where you suddenly destroy the load bearing walls over a couple of floors at the bottom using external force/energy. The very big upper part then drops down and crushes the bottom and itself.

What Bazant and Greening describe I have written about at http://heiwaco.com/blgb.htm . My scientific paper was published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics July 2010. Bazant and Greening finally replied and you can read about it at http://heiwaco.com/blgbclose.htm .

I have of course invited Bazant and Greening to win my €1M Challenge but I have not heard from them. I think they support terrorism!
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 12, 2017, 04:53:20 PM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 12, 2017, 10:45:32 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 12, 2017, 06:26:08 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 12, 2017, 06:10:44 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 12, 2017, 05:20:07 AM
Have you ever heard of a high rise demolition technique called vérinage?
Yes, old French system to tear down buildings. Just knock off the supports at the bottom and the big top drops down and the little bottom/big top crush themselves. Has nothing to do with WTC1/2 and funny planes hitting the tops. WTC7 could have been vérinage. I describe it at http://heiwaco.com/nist7.htm

No it's a type of top down collapse,  the sort that you claim is impossible.   What's more interesting is that it not only proves you wrong,  but you don't mention it at all on your website.



If you go to about 3:30 in the video you can see a demolition where the top three floors easily crush the lower 9 or 10 floors.

It is almost exactly what Bazant and Greeening describe,  and in fact you offfered a million dollars euros if you are proved wrong.   

Quote from: heiwa.com
A small, weak top part of any man made structure cannot destroy due to gravity a much bigger, stronger part below of same and stronger structure keeping it up in the first place. Especially not from above! And from above down! Anybody suggesting that a structure A can be destroyed by a small part C of A from above + gravity is a terrorist! You can win € 1 000 000:- proving me wrong! Just visit here. The Challenge has been open for many years ... and nobody, including terrorists like NIST or Bazant has even tried to win it!

Guess what.

Sorry but vérinage is a French controlled demolition method of concrete buildings where you suddenly destroy the load bearing walls over a couple of floors at the bottom using external force/energy. The very big upper part then drops down and crushes the bottom and itself.

What Bazant and Greening describe I have written about at http://heiwaco.com/blgb.htm . My scientific paper was published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics July 2010. Bazant and Greening finally replied and you can read about it at http://heiwaco.com/blgbclose.htm .

I have of course invited Bazant and Greening to win my €1M Challenge but I have not heard from them. I think they support terrorism!

Interesting, now i'm curious, did you actually watch the video?   It shows exactly what you claim is impossible.   

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Heiwa on September 12, 2017, 06:39:02 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 12, 2017, 04:53:20 PM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 12, 2017, 10:45:32 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 12, 2017, 06:26:08 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 12, 2017, 06:10:44 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 12, 2017, 05:20:07 AM
Have you ever heard of a high rise demolition technique called vérinage?
Yes, old French system to tear down buildings. Just knock off the supports at the bottom and the big top drops down and the little bottom/big top crush themselves. Has nothing to do with WTC1/2 and funny planes hitting the tops. WTC7 could have been vérinage. I describe it at http://heiwaco.com/nist7.htm

No it's a type of top down collapse,  the sort that you claim is impossible.   What's more interesting is that it not only proves you wrong,  but you don't mention it at all on your website.



If you go to about 3:30 in the video you can see a demolition where the top three floors easily crush the lower 9 or 10 floors.

It is almost exactly what Bazant and Greeening describe,  and in fact you offfered a million dollars euros if you are proved wrong.   

Quote from: heiwa.com
A small, weak top part of any man made structure cannot destroy due to gravity a much bigger, stronger part below of same and stronger structure keeping it up in the first place. Especially not from above! And from above down! Anybody suggesting that a structure A can be destroyed by a small part C of A from above + gravity is a terrorist! You can win € 1 000 000:- proving me wrong! Just visit here. The Challenge has been open for many years ... and nobody, including terrorists like NIST or Bazant has even tried to win it!

Guess what.

Sorry but vérinage is a French controlled demolition method of concrete buildings where you suddenly destroy the load bearing walls over a couple of floors at the bottom using external force/energy. The very big upper part then drops down and crushes the bottom and itself.

What Bazant and Greening describe I have written about at http://heiwaco.com/blgb.htm . My scientific paper was published in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics July 2010. Bazant and Greening finally replied and you can read about it at http://heiwaco.com/blgbclose.htm .

I have of course invited Bazant and Greening to win my €1M Challenge but I have not heard from them. I think they support terrorism!

Interesting, now i'm curious, did you actually watch the video?   It shows exactly what you claim is impossible.

No, you have not understood what I claim. Did you read the links I provided?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 12, 2017, 06:53:02 PM
Good men are starting to see the light.

(https://s26.postimg.org/qmlul9uyh/1505266426390m.jpg)

This will all come out soon. The only decision is will you stand with the Truth or the established narrative.

To all those who would cover up the truth.

Expect justice.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 12, 2017, 06:56:11 PM
Quickly on wtc 1 and 2. Concrete and steel turned to dust. In mid air. This is impossible via a gravity driven collapse.



Debunk that alpabet soups.

To all those that would blow the whistle and stand with Truth. We forgive you, we understand past transgressions are in the past it's how we approach the future that matters.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 12, 2017, 07:03:40 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 12, 2017, 06:26:08 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 12, 2017, 06:10:44 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 12, 2017, 05:20:07 AM
Have you ever heard of a high rise demolition technique called vérinage?
Yes, old French system to tear down buildings. Just knock off the supports at the bottom and the big top drops down and the little bottom/big top crush themselves. Has nothing to do with WTC1/2 and funny planes hitting the tops. WTC7 could have been vérinage. I describe it at http://heiwaco.com/nist7.htm

No it's a type of top down collapse,  the sort that you claim is impossible.   What's more interesting is that it not only proves you wrong,  but you don't mention it at all on your website.

No, to be fair I thought I also thought I had won the challenge. The challenge does state 1/10th of an object crushing 9/10ths of an object. It's impossible to win. Verinage is very different to what happened to wtc 1 and 2. No demolition company would tell you verinage was possible in wtc 1 and 2.

Lets consider the evidence.



Does a verinage cause concrete and steel to turn to dust in mid air? Would any gravity driven collapse?

No, it doesn't.

Edit.
http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/11/health/911-dust-children-cholesterol-study/index.html

This we cannot forgive. These children never deserved this.

http://gawker.com/donald-trump-you-will-find-out-who-really-knocked-dow-1760001430
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 12, 2017, 07:31:03 PM
Here are some rare photos of the empty office blocks in wtc 1 and 2. Please share and spread this information. We can win this.

(https://s26.postimg.org/rmc5gza49/1505266648646.jpg)

(https://s26.postimg.org/f93wnt9tl/1505266782096.jpg)

(https://s26.postimg.org/5d2to641l/1505267068556m.jpg)

(https://s26.postimg.org/vnxu0drsp/1505268156944m.jpg)

As has been stated before. There were a lot of ghost companies in the wtc complex. The towers were no where near filled to capacity.

Add this to Ace Elevator company and we can see how easily demolition charges could have been planted.

http://aneta.org/911experiments_com/AceElevator/

Information is free.
(https://s26.postimg.org/x49ciiupl/anonymous_logo_with_slogan_transparent_by_anonde.png)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 12, 2017, 07:37:31 PM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 12, 2017, 06:39:02 PM
No, you have not understood what I claim. Did you read the links I provided?

Yes, I read the links and I showed already how you are mistaken about the collapse mechanism.

But,  so that there is no confusion. 

Let's restate your central claim.

Quote from: Anders Bjorkman
No structure of any size and kind can be crushed by an upper part of itself from top down by gravity.

And yet the video ( at 3:30)  I linked to of the verinage demolition method shows the top 3 floors of a building collapsing from the top down crushing all 9-10 floors underneath,  just through gravity alone.

So do you still stand by your claim?

Quote
No structure of any size and kind can be crushed by an upper part of itself from top down by gravity.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 12, 2017, 07:51:27 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 12, 2017, 07:03:40 PM
Does a verinage cause concrete and steel to turn to dust in mid air? Would any gravity driven collapse?
No, it doesn't.

I assume you noticed that the steel was largely intact after collapse, so I'll ignore that, and instead assume you refer to the concrete, the answer is..

Actually yes it does,  if you want to verify the calculation, go to the paper I already linked to.



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 12, 2017, 07:56:49 PM
We can clearly see the steel column disintegrate and turn into dust with our own eyes.



Now Rayzor

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 12, 2017, 08:12:57 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 12, 2017, 07:56:49 PM
We can clearly see the steel column disintegrate and turn into dust with our own eyes.

So in your analysis of the collapse what percentage of the steel do you think was disintegrated into dust?   
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 12, 2017, 08:21:43 PM
What is shown in this video could not have been caused by a gravity driven collapse. There is nothing above it to crush it and it quite literally turns to dust.



Steel does not disintegrate into dust caused only by gravity and fires.

Q.E.D.

Confess.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 12, 2017, 08:24:31 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 12, 2017, 08:21:43 PM
What is shown in this video could not have been caused by a gravity driven collapse. There ia nothing above it to crush it and it quite literally turns to dust.



Steel does not disintegrate into dust caused only by gravity and fires.

Q.E.D.

Confess.

You didn't answer the question,  and I think know why.

As far as steel being pulverized into dust in mid air,  I don't see anyone claiming that happened.  So stop being a jerk.

https://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/911NutPhysics1.HTM


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 12, 2017, 08:28:42 PM
I am not a structural engineer. I havent made a FEA model for wtc 1 and 2. Here is a link to a FEA on wtc 7.

www.wtc7evaluation.org

This video clearly shows steel quite literally disintegrating into dust.



How do you think the steel "vaporized" in a gravity driven collapse?

Confess.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 12, 2017, 08:43:29 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 12, 2017, 08:28:42 PM
How do you think the steel "vaporized" in a gravity driven collapse?

The kinetic energy of the collapsing structure pulverized large amounts of concrete,  maybe some amount of steel, but most of the steel was still there after the collapse.   

Do I really need to go and find pictures of the hundreds of thousands of tons of steel recovered?

Quote from: disputeone on September 12, 2017, 08:28:42 PM
Confess.

This is weird, even by your standards,  what are you expecting me to confess to? 

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 12, 2017, 08:51:45 PM
(https://s26.postimg.org/9idqa31tl/shill_monopoly.jpg)

Watch this video, use your eyes, watch the steel disintegrate.



Now, how did that steel disintegrate assuming a gravity driven collapse?

I've been talking to a lot of your mates. Good Men and Women who were misguided. A lot know the jig is up. It took us long enough but here we are.

(https://s26.postimg.org/qmlul9uyh/1505266426390m.jpg)
(I believe he showed genuine remorse.)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4867124/9-11-conspiracy-theories-persist-16-years-atrocity.html

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/victim-blown-out-911-tower-11147645

https://sputniknews.com/us/201709111057276843-us-9-11-crimes/

It's over Rayzor, we won.
Confess.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 12, 2017, 09:05:54 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 12, 2017, 08:51:45 PM
(https://s26.postimg.org/9idqa31tl/shill_monopoly.jpg)

Watch this video, use your eyes, watch the steel disintegrate.



Now, how did that steel disintegrate assuming a gravity driven collapse?

I've been talking to a lot of your mates. Good Men and Women who were misguided. A lot know the jig is up. It took us long enough but here we are.

(https://s26.postimg.org/qmlul9uyh/1505266426390m.jpg)
(I believe he showed genuine remorse.)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4867124/9-11-conspiracy-theories-persist-16-years-atrocity.html

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/victim-blown-out-911-tower-11147645

https://sputniknews.com/us/201709111057276843-us-9-11-crimes/

It's over Rayzor, we won.
Confess.

That's interesting,  you think someone posting on 4chan with an Airforce Logo is real.    You might be more gullible than even I thought.

As a point of reference,  people who don't subscribe to your distorted world view aren't shills.  So stop making an idiot of yourself and accusing me of being a shill.

Cool set of resources you linked to dailymail,  the mirror and sputnik,  you almost got the tabloid quadrella.   Why didn't you include the National Enquirer?

No steel doesn't spontaneously disintegrate.   ( I can't believe I'm even bothering to say that )


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 12, 2017, 09:25:23 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 12, 2017, 09:05:54 PM
No steel doesn't spontaneously disintegrate.   ( I can't believe I'm even bothering to say that )

So, why did it spontaneously disintegrate here?



Well?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 12, 2017, 09:29:59 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 12, 2017, 09:25:23 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 12, 2017, 09:05:54 PM
No steel doesn't spontaneously disintegrate.   ( I can't believe I'm even bothering to say that )

So, why did it spontaneously disintegrate here?

It didn't.   

( well maybe some small amount in a especially high impact area might have, but not any significant amount,  a fair enough amount of the concrete on the other hand did get pulverized )

Here's a tip,  youtube video titles aren't a reliable source of data.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: hoppy on September 12, 2017, 09:36:33 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 12, 2017, 08:12:57 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 12, 2017, 07:56:49 PM
We can clearly see the steel column disintegrate and turn into dust with our own eyes.

So in your analysis of the collapse what percentage of the steel do you think was disintegrated into dust?
Over one hundred floors of it, sorry it is not in percentage terms.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 12, 2017, 09:49:25 PM
Quote from: hoppy on September 12, 2017, 09:36:33 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 12, 2017, 08:12:57 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 12, 2017, 07:56:49 PM
We can clearly see the steel column disintegrate and turn into dust with our own eyes.

So in your analysis of the collapse what percentage of the steel do you think was disintegrated into dust?
Over one hundred floors of it, sorry it is not in percentage terms.

Nope.  Most ended up here.   Some was separated for storage and analysis at JFK. 

(https://s26.postimg.org/kpwqngrl5/wtc_debris.jpg)

Of the 1.5 million tonnes, about 1/4 to 1/3 was steel.

(https://s26.postimg.org/a4cvbgl9l/wtc_debris2.jpg)

https://www.nist.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2017/04/28/2Gayle.pdf

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 12, 2017, 09:51:45 PM
Two hundred and twenty floors worth of steel disintegrated.

Source.

http://www.ae911truth.org/gallery/evidence.html
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 12, 2017, 09:55:13 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 12, 2017, 09:51:45 PM
Two hundred and twenty floors worth of steel disintegrated.

Source.

http://www.ae911truth.org/gallery/evidence.html

Can you point out exactly where that reference claims two hundred and twenty floors of steel were disintegrated into dust like you are claiming.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 12, 2017, 09:57:57 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 12, 2017, 09:55:13 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 12, 2017, 09:51:45 PM
Two hundred and twenty floors worth of steel disintegrated.

Source.

http://www.ae911truth.org/gallery/evidence.html

Can you point out exactly where that reference claims two hundred and twenty floors of steel were disintegrated into dust like you are claiming.

Quote
Total destruction and dismemberment of all three buildings, with 220 floors each an acre in size missing from the Twin Towers’ debris pile

Here is visual evidence of steel turning into dust.



Quote from: disputeone on September 12, 2017, 06:56:11 PM
Concrete and steel turned to dust. In mid air. This is impossible via a gravity driven collapse.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 12, 2017, 10:07:51 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 12, 2017, 09:57:57 PM
Quote
Total destruction and dismemberment of all three buildings, with 220 floors each an acre in size missing from the Twin Towers’ debris pile

Ok,  I see where you went wrong,  you took the claim that 220 floors of debris was missing and assumed that to be true, and then you leapt to the false conclusion must have been converted to dust.   

Firstly the claim that 220 floors of debris was missing is blatantly wrong,  and in fact easily disproven.  Just do the numbers.

https://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/911NutPhysics1.HTM

Try and be more analytical in your thought processes, these sort of stupid mistakes can lead you astray.   Oh wait....


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 12, 2017, 10:15:54 PM
Why did the steel disintegrate Rayzor?

In these videos, why did the steel core disintegrate?





Oh and fyi any report that tries to gaslight its userbase in its url isn't cool with me.

If we were wrong you could just prove us wrong with science.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 12, 2017, 10:19:14 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 12, 2017, 10:15:54 PM
Why did the steel disintegrate Rauzor?

In these videos, why did the steel core disintegrate?


It didn't. 

(https://s26.postimg.org/kpwqngrl5/wtc_debris.jpg)


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 12, 2017, 10:25:12 PM
What happened to the steel column in this video?



Remember: honest posters are reading this. I know what you are and you know what I am but your mask is slipping my old friend.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 12, 2017, 10:35:53 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 12, 2017, 10:25:12 PM
What happened to the steel column in this video?

Remember: honest posters are reading this. I know what you are and you know what I am but your mask is slipping my old friend.

It ended up in the debris pile. 

Just an idle question,  are you one of those space beam theorists?    I thought that had been solidly rejected by the troofers as completely nuts.

Otherwise why would you link to a Dr Judy Woods presentation,  she claims that it was a secret directed energy weapon beamed from outer space.
Funny she can't explain the 1.5 million tonnes of debris.

Quote from: disputeone on September 12, 2017, 10:25:12 PM
Remember: honest posters are reading this. I know what you are and you know what I am but your mask is slipping my old friend.

What mask?   and  just who do you think I am?    If you are making a threat of some kind,  don't beat around the bush with vague slights,  don't be a chickenshit wimp just come out and say it.   

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 12, 2017, 10:51:07 PM
Why does this video clearly show the steel core disintegrating?



Judy Woods video is a good visual reference.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 12, 2017, 11:15:12 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 12, 2017, 10:51:07 PM
Why does this video clearly show the steel core disintegrating?

Judy Woods video is a good visual reference.

Ok.  one last time it doesn't show anything of the sort, and, seriously Judy Wood is not someone who you should be using as a reference.

Here is what the 911 troofers think of Judy Wood

Quote
The “Space Beam” theory is completely absurd and is a hoax to discredit the entire truth movement. I have gone through Dr Judy Woods’ presentation point by point, only to realize that it’s very manipulating, deceiving and lacks any scientific evidence. The Directed Energy Weapon (DEW) theory does not focus on evidence at all but rather speculates on unimportant things that have simple explanations and are easily refuted. Judy Wood raises more questions than she has answers and she bases her theory on speculation and assumptions rather than facts and scientific evidence. This leads me to believe that there is no credibility to Dr Judy Wood and her cult of “Space beamers”. I also notice that many “Space Beamers” I come across are also no plane “Hologrammers”. Either these people believe every conspiracy theory out there or they are agents with a hidden agenda. Stop being a useful idiot to the perps. There is no evidence at all that supports the theory that Directed Energy Weapons brought down the Towers. This claim not only discredits the 9/11 Truth Movement by association but also causes pointless division.

If and when Judy Wood can show strong evidence that supports her theory and until she stops spreading false information, I will continue to believe that Judy Wood is a disinfo agent.

Judy Wood = Disinfo agent.

My opinion is that she's completely nuts. 

(https://kendoc911.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/jwnosteel.jpg)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 12, 2017, 11:25:19 PM
Gaslighting doesn't answer this.



What happened to this steel column, why does it appear to disintegrate?



Thanks traitoranon, good tip. You were right. They won't talk about this. ;) Absolutely redeemed.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 12, 2017, 11:31:15 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 12, 2017, 11:25:19 PM
Gaslighting doesn't answer this.



What happened to this steel column, why does it appear to disintegrate?



Thanks traitoranon, good tip. You were right. They won't talk about this. ;) Absolutely redeemed.

Ok, you got me,  it was a directed energy weapon from a secret satellite.  The debris was shipped in under cover of darkness to hide the fact that the twin towers were vapourized and keep the weapon secret.

Oh, and the planes  were all holograms,  again projected from a secret satellite,  what everybody saw was a hallucination caused by a special 9/11 chemtrail program.


Don't believe me.... 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 12, 2017, 11:34:22 PM
You still haven't answered my question.

Why does the video I have posted show a steel column turn into dust?

You said yourself this shouldn't have happened.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 12, 2017, 11:41:46 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 12, 2017, 11:34:22 PM
You still haven't answered my question.

Why does the video I have posted show a steel column turn into dust?

You said yourself this shouldn't have happened.

Ok,  one last time, then I'm finished with you,  it doesn't specifically show a steel column turning into dust.   You do understand the difference between concrete and steel don't you?

If it's the video title that's confusing you,  then try not assuming the video title is a literal description.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 12, 2017, 11:46:36 PM
I'll post screenshots when I get home. Maybe individual frames will help you as a visual aid. People don't like being told what they see with their own eyes Rayzor.

As I said, your mask is slipping, it's nearly time to throw in the towel.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 12, 2017, 11:51:52 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 12, 2017, 11:46:36 PM
I'll post screenshots when I get home. Maybe individual frames will help you as a visual aid. People don't like being told what they see with their own eyes Rayzor.

As I said, your mask is slipping, it's nearly time to throw in the towel.

Whatever you think or do is fine by me.  As I said I'm done trying.   

At least with Heiwa there is the semblance of logic and reason, with you it's like talking to the village idiot.   

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 12, 2017, 11:54:16 PM
Wow 5000 posts.   
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 13, 2017, 12:04:32 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 12, 2017, 11:51:52 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 12, 2017, 11:46:36 PM
I'll post screenshots when I get home. Maybe individual frames will help you as a visual aid. People don't like being told what they see with their own eyes Rayzor.

As I said, your mask is slipping, it's nearly time to throw in the towel.

Whatever you think or do is fine by me.  As I said I'm done trying.   

Ok.

Quote from: Rayzor on September 12, 2017, 11:54:16 PM
Wow 5000 posts.   

Will the NSA give you a bonus?
(https://s26.postimg.org/xffbexjp5/1505262613461.png)

I'm writing up a summary of Hulseys presentation which I'll also post here. Hopefully tonight or tomorrow.

We see you.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on September 13, 2017, 12:50:17 AM
Seriously dispute, on this one rayzor is obviously right and you should be able to admit that.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 13, 2017, 12:54:25 AM
Have you watched the video user?



What do you think happens to the steel column?

Edit. @ 15 seconds.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on September 13, 2017, 01:10:26 AM
Bending and breaking.
It just seems to become dust because you do not see where it goes and only the lower parts are breaking and bending while the upper part stays mostly intact.

Also, you can see some dust in the air. That's the dust that did stick to the steel after the main collapse and is now getting blown away by air (because the steel column is moving downwards).
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 13, 2017, 01:11:33 AM
Can you show me at what point it "bends and breaks." Wouldn't that lead to it falling over and not through itself?

Bear in mind the core column left was much higher than wtc 7.

Thanks for the answer. Thats all I wanted Rayzor.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on September 13, 2017, 01:38:39 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 13, 2017, 01:11:33 AM
Can you show me at what point it "bends and breaks." Wouldn't that lead to it falling over and not through itself?
As I said, the breaking and bending would take part in the lower parts only (where the stress is the highest) and thus you can't see it. Also, the resolution of the video is really bad so it makes it hard to actually see anything.

Quote from: disputeone on September 13, 2017, 01:11:33 AM
Bear in mind the core column left was much higher than wtc 7.
I think that's the point: If it were only a few meter high column, it would just tip over (actually if you watch closely, it started to tip over but few columns "crashed" into each other and thus supporting themselfes). But as it is so high, inertia plays a important part too.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 13, 2017, 01:49:18 AM
Quote from: User324 on September 13, 2017, 01:38:39 AM
I think that's the point: If it were only a few meter high column, it would just tip over (actually if you watch closely, it started to tip over but few columns "crashed" into each other and thus supporting themselfes). But as it is so high, inertia plays a important part too.

Well, inertia in terms of momentum transfer,  and of course the amount of kinetic energy available to crush the lower structure. 

here is the paper that I was referring to earlier  http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 13, 2017, 01:50:04 AM
Thats not how steel columns work. They don't fall through themselves.

Thanks for the answers man I appreciate it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on September 13, 2017, 01:53:38 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 13, 2017, 01:50:04 AM
Thats not how steel columns work. They don't fall through themselves.
What do you mean? Noone claimed they fall thorugh themselves?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Noblerabbit on September 13, 2017, 05:19:05 AM
Are we really arguing about 9/11?? there's no debate to be had on this subject.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 13, 2017, 06:45:50 AM
Quote from: Noblerabbit on September 13, 2017, 05:19:05 AM
Are we really arguing about 9/11?? there's no debate to be had on this subject.

After 5000 posts in this thread alone,  you'd be excused for thinking otherwise.   

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Noblerabbit on September 13, 2017, 06:46:54 AM
Yeah that was my point.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 13, 2017, 07:09:31 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 12, 2017, 06:39:02 PM
No, you have not understood what I claim. Did you read the links I provided?

Yes, I read your links carefully,  and I showed already how you are mistaken about the collapse mechanism.

But,  so that there is no confusion. 

Let's restate your central claim.

Quote from: Anders Bjorkman
No structure of any size and kind can be crushed by an upper part of itself from top down by gravity.

And yet the video ( at 3:30)  I linked to of the verinage demolition method shows the top 3 floors of a building collapsing from the top down crushing all 9-10 floors underneath,  just through gravity alone.

So do you still stand by your claim?


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: MicroBeta on September 13, 2017, 07:44:21 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 13, 2017, 07:09:31 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 12, 2017, 06:39:02 PM
No, you have not understood what I claim. Did you read the links I provided?

Yes, I read your links carefully,  and I showed already how you are mistaken about the collapse mechanism.

But,  so that there is no confusion. 

Let's restate your central claim.

Quote from: Anders Bjorkman
No structure of any size and kind can be crushed by an upper part of itself from top down by gravity.

And yet the video ( at 3:30)  I linked to of the verinage demolition method shows the top 3 floors of a building collapsing from the top down crushing all 9-10 floors underneath,  just through gravity alone.

So do you still stand by your claim?


He's already been given a link to a French company who got a European patent for to down demo without having to pre-weaken the structure.

He refuses to believe it and still says it's impossible...even though it's a French company and he could verify it himself.

When faced with incontrovertible proof that he's wrong he won't budge. He's closed minded, does very, even nonexistent research, and has poor engineering skills.

He doesn't have the balls to admit when he's wrong.

Mike
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Heiwa on September 13, 2017, 08:02:07 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 13, 2017, 07:09:31 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 12, 2017, 06:39:02 PM
No, you have not understood what I claim. Did you read the links I provided?

Yes, I read your links carefully,  and I showed already how you are mistaken about the collapse mechanism.

But,  so that there is no confusion. 

Let's restate your central claim.

Quote from: Anders Bjorkman
No structure of any size and kind can be crushed by an upper part of itself from top down by gravity.

And yet the video ( at 3:30)  I linked to of the verinage demolition method shows the top 3 floors of a building collapsing from the top down crushing all 9-10 floors underneath,  just through gravity alone.

So do you still stand by your claim?



Yes, but quote me correctly. Of course, if you destroy a great part the bottom of a structure by outside means, so the part above can drop down and collide with the part below, both parts are damaged at the collision interface and the whole thing may be demolished after a while. Actually on the video shown a big part of the bottom is still intact below the rubble.

The 911 conspiracy theory is that a small top part becomes rigid and crushes the intact 10 times greater bottom part by gravity, when the top starts to move. It cannot happen in the real world. I think that both WTCs were destroyed by explosives fitted in the elevator shafts. The explosives were arranged to go off from top to bottom to create fountains of debris as seen on various footage. I explain more at my website http://heiwaco.com/nist.htm .

Of course no Arabs landed planes in the towers 911. They would just bounce against the solid floors/walls of the skyscrapers.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 14, 2017, 03:03:24 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 13, 2017, 08:02:07 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 13, 2017, 07:09:31 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 12, 2017, 06:39:02 PM
No, you have not understood what I claim. Did you read the links I provided?

Yes, I read your links carefully,  and I showed already how you are mistaken about the collapse mechanism.

But,  so that there is no confusion. 

Let's restate your central claim.

Quote from: Anders Bjorkman
No structure of any size and kind can be crushed by an upper part of itself from top down by gravity.

And yet the video ( at 3:30)  I linked to of the verinage demolition method shows the top 3 floors of a building collapsing from the top down crushing all 9-10 floors underneath,  just through gravity alone.

So do you still stand by your claim?


Yes, but quote me correctly. Of course, if you destroy a great part the bottom of a structure by outside means, so the part above can drop down and collide with the part below, both parts are damaged at the collision interface and the whole thing may be demolished after a while. Actually on the video shown a big part of the bottom is still intact below the rubble.

The 911 conspiracy theory is that a small top part becomes rigid and crushes the intact 10 times greater bottom part by gravity, when the top starts to move. It cannot happen in the real world. I think that both WTCs were destroyed by explosives fitted in the elevator shafts. The explosives were arranged to go off from top to bottom to create fountains of debris as seen on various footage. I explain more at my website http://heiwaco.com/nist.htm .

Of course no Arabs landed planes in the towers 911. They would just bounce against the solid floors/walls of the skyscrapers.

Of course I quoted you correctly,  here is the proof from your famous web site.

(https://s26.postimg.org/upo0fwnu1/heiwaco_mistake.jpg)

Not the underlined text that I quoted above highlighted in red.

Of course we have already shown that the top 3 floors of a building can collapse 9 or more lower floors.  This is actually harder that the tube in tube WTC construction.

Am I interested in your million euro prize for proving you wrong,  not at all,   Do I expect you to admit your mistake,  not really.  But, who knows, if I don't point out your mistake, gullible people might try and shift the blame for one of the most evil crimes of the century from the islamic jihadists who are the real criminals.

The verinage technique is the nail in the conspiracy coffin. 

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Heiwa on September 14, 2017, 03:40:12 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 14, 2017, 03:03:24 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 13, 2017, 08:02:07 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 13, 2017, 07:09:31 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 12, 2017, 06:39:02 PM
No, you have not understood what I claim. Did you read the links I provided?

Yes, I read your links carefully,  and I showed already how you are mistaken about the collapse mechanism.

But,  so that there is no confusion. 

Let's restate your central claim.

Quote from: Anders Bjorkman
No structure of any size and kind can be crushed by an upper part of itself from top down by gravity.

And yet the video ( at 3:30)  I linked to of the verinage demolition method shows the top 3 floors of a building collapsing from the top down crushing all 9-10 floors underneath,  just through gravity alone.

So do you still stand by your claim?


Yes, but quote me correctly. Of course, if you destroy a great part the bottom of a structure by outside means, so the part above can drop down and collide with the part below, both parts are damaged at the collision interface and the whole thing may be demolished after a while. Actually on the video shown a big part of the bottom is still intact below the rubble.

The 911 conspiracy theory is that a small top part becomes rigid and crushes the intact 10 times greater bottom part by gravity, when the top starts to move. It cannot happen in the real world. I think that both WTCs were destroyed by explosives fitted in the elevator shafts. The explosives were arranged to go off from top to bottom to create fountains of debris as seen on various footage. I explain more at my website http://heiwaco.com/nist.htm .

Of course no Arabs landed planes in the towers 911. They would just bounce against the solid floors/walls of the skyscrapers.

Of course I quoted you correctly,  here is the proof from your famous web site.

(https://s26.postimg.org/upo0fwnu1/heiwaco_mistake.jpg)

Not the underlined text that I quoted above highlighted in red.

Of course we have already shown that the top 3 floors of a building can collapse 9 or more lower floors.  This is actually harder that the tube in tube WTC construction.

Am I interested in your million euro prize for proving you wrong,  not at all,   Do I expect you to admit your mistake,  not really.  But, who knows, if I don't point out your mistake, gullible people might try and shift the blame for one of the most evil crimes of the century from the islamic jihadists who are the real criminals.

The verinage technique is the nail in the conspiracy coffin.

Thanks for visiting my website.

Vérinage is just a simple method to tear down buildings by destroying supporting structural members down in the structure by external energy/forces, so that the top part, when it then drops down on the bottom part, is destroyed from bottom up by the intact bottom part.
 
Just study all vérinage videos. The bottom part is intact below the rubble of the top part.  To finish the job you have to destroy the bottom part below the rubble.

That is why vérinage is not very cost effective. It looks spectacular but it is pretty stupid.

As I always say - no small weak top part C of a structure can destroy the intact bottom part A by gravity, when dropping C on A.

Bottom A always destroys top C from bottom up.

Only terrorists believe otherwise. You sound like a terrorist. But don't worry. USA is run by terrorists.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 14, 2017, 04:07:00 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 14, 2017, 03:40:12 AM
Thanks for visiting my website.

Vérinage is just a simple method to tear down buildings by destroying supporting structural members down in the structure by external energy/forces, so that the top part, when it then drops down on the bottom part, is destroyed from bottom up by the intact bottom part.
 
Just study all vérinage videos. The bottom part is intact below the rubble of the top part.  To finish the job you have to destroy the bottom part below the rubble.

That is why vérinage is not very cost effective. It looks spectacular but it is pretty stupid.

As I always say - no small weak top part C of a structure can destroy the intact bottom part A by gravity, when dropping C on A.

Bottom A always destroys top C from bottom up.

Only terrorists believe otherwise. You sound like a terrorist. But don't worry. USA is run by terrorists.

I have heard that claim before about Verinage, but it's not true,  the only part of the structure that's weakened is the floor that is to be collapsed.  Also the lower part is mostly rubble after the collapse. 

I note with interest you don't discuss verinage on your web site.  I feel this is an oversight you should correct.

(https://s26.postimg.org/y6cqx0zop/heiwa_verinage_search.jpg)

You could elaborate on your rebuttal of the technique.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 14, 2017, 04:36:52 AM
(https://s26.postimg.org/j5gqp5s5l/20170914_193329.png)

Expect all of us, we will forgive but we will never forget. Never forget we have and will always be the last boss of the internet.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Heiwa on September 14, 2017, 04:50:55 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 14, 2017, 04:07:00 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 14, 2017, 03:40:12 AM
Thanks for visiting my website.

Vérinage is just a simple method to tear down buildings by destroying supporting structural members down in the structure by external energy/forces, so that the top part, when it then drops down on the bottom part, is destroyed from bottom up by the intact bottom part.
 
Just study all vérinage videos. The bottom part is intact below the rubble of the top part.  To finish the job you have to destroy the bottom part below the rubble.

That is why vérinage is not very cost effective. It looks spectacular but it is pretty stupid.

As I always say - no small weak top part C of a structure can destroy the intact bottom part A by gravity, when dropping C on A.

Bottom A always destroys top C from bottom up.

Only terrorists believe otherwise. You sound like a terrorist. But don't worry. USA is run by terrorists.

I have heard that claim before about Verinage, but it's not true,  the only part of the structure that's weakened is the floor that is to be collapsed.  Also the lower part is mostly rubble after the collapse. 

I note with interest you don't discuss verinage on your web site.  I feel this is an oversight you should correct.

(https://s26.postimg.org/y6cqx0zop/heiwa_verinage_search.jpg)

You could elaborate on your rebuttal of the technique.

Vérinage is a French method to weaken several levels of a structure by outside means, so that the structure above can drop down and be damaged from bottom up by the structure below. It has nothing to do with my popular website http://heiwaco.com and my famous Axiome.

My site is about safety at sea and how governments and terrorists lye about various things and create myths based on pseudoscience. I am just a peaceful, nice, intelligent, goodlooking person doing my best to ... just carry on. Yes, school starts next Tuesday and I have to prepare myself.

Yes, I go to school. Every Tuesday. Great fun! If you don't know your homework you have to shape up.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 14, 2017, 05:02:32 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 13, 2017, 10:49:57 PM
Fall acceleration of building 7.

You are going to end this a jibbering mess of failed insults and logic.

But you asked for it.

Mods can we move to tech and alt please. ty.

I deserve this one.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 14, 2017, 05:08:47 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 14, 2017, 04:50:55 AM
Vérinage is a French method to weaken several levels of a structure by outside means, so that the structure above can drop down and be damaged from bottom up by the structure below. It has nothing to do with my popular website http://heiwaco.com and my famous Axiome.

The only thing relevant to your website about top down demolition techniques is that the existence of the technique debunks your theory about 9/11 top down collapse being impossible.

I can understand why you might not want to include it.



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 14, 2017, 05:10:17 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 14, 2017, 05:02:32 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 13, 2017, 10:49:57 PM
Fall acceleration of building 7.

You are going to end this a jibbering mess of failed insults and logic.

But you asked for it.

Mods can we move to tech and alt please. ty.

I deserve this one.

Did you research "Able Danger" yet? 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 14, 2017, 05:11:59 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 14, 2017, 05:10:17 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 14, 2017, 05:02:32 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 13, 2017, 10:49:57 PM
Fall acceleration of building 7.

You are going to end this a jibbering mess of failed insults and logic.

But you asked for it.

Mods can we move to tech and alt please. ty.

I deserve this one.

Did you research "Able Danger" yet?

Tell your boss. Tell them I am defending The American constitution and liberty. Have me arrested. I am not afraid.

Edit.

Nothing I have done is illegal. I am presenting evidence freely available on the internet. I am not a whistleblower nor have I hacked anything.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 14, 2017, 05:16:10 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 14, 2017, 05:11:59 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 14, 2017, 05:10:17 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 14, 2017, 05:02:32 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 13, 2017, 10:49:57 PM
Fall acceleration of building 7.

You are going to end this a jibbering mess of failed insults and logic.

But you asked for it.

Mods can we move to tech and alt please. ty.

I deserve this one.

Did you research "Able Danger" yet?

Tell your boss. Tell them I am defending The American constitution and liberty. Have me arrested. I am not afraid.

The boss is watching TV,  I'll pass your message on to her later,  when I get around to making a cup of tea.    I don't think she will want to see you arrested, so you can relax.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 14, 2017, 05:23:13 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 14, 2017, 05:16:10 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 14, 2017, 05:11:59 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 14, 2017, 05:10:17 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 14, 2017, 05:02:32 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 13, 2017, 10:49:57 PM
Fall acceleration of building 7.

You are going to end this a jibbering mess of failed insults and logic.

But you asked for it.

Mods can we move to tech and alt please. ty.

I deserve this one.

Did you research "Able Danger" yet?

Tell your boss. Tell them I am defending The American constitution and liberty. Have me arrested. I am not afraid.

The boss is watching TV,  I'll pass your message on to her later,  when I get around to making a cup of tea.    I don't think she will want to see you arrested, so you can relax.

Quote from: Rayzor on September 14, 2017, 05:10:17 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 14, 2017, 05:02:32 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 13, 2017, 10:49:57 PM
Fall acceleration of building 7.

You are going to end this a jibbering mess of failed insults and logic.

But you asked for it.

Mods can we move to tech and alt please. ty.

I deserve this one.

Did you research "Able Danger" yet? 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Danger
Quote
Able Danger was a classified military planning effort led by the U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) and the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA). It was created as a result of a directive from the Joint Chiefs of Staff in early October 1999 by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Hugh Shelton, to develop an information operations campaign planagainst transnational terrorism.

According to statements by Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer and those of four others, Able Danger had identified 2 of 3 Al Qaeda cells active in the 9/11 attacks; the 'Brooklyn cell' linked to "Blind Sheik" Omar Abdel-Rahman, including September 11 attacks leader Mohamed Atta, and three of the 9/11 plot's other 19 hijackers

Honest posters see the implied threat. See.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_Act

The laws passed after 9/11. You have taken the freedom and liberty away from the American people and are seeking to expand your sphere of influence.

We will stand in your way.

Again, I have done nothing illegal. I am not afraid.

(https://s26.postimg.org/7paty17ex/o-_ANONYMOUS-facebook.jpg)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 14, 2017, 05:36:05 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 14, 2017, 05:23:13 AM
(https://s26.postimg.org/7paty17ex/o-_ANONYMOUS-facebook.jpg)

Your IQ?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 14, 2017, 05:38:41 AM
We see the hero in you. We ask the public to see themselves as what they can be, not as they are.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Heiwa on September 14, 2017, 08:05:17 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 14, 2017, 05:08:47 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 14, 2017, 04:50:55 AM
Vérinage is a French method to weaken several levels of a structure by outside means, so that the structure above can drop down and be damaged from bottom up by the structure below. It has nothing to do with my popular website http://heiwaco.com and my famous Axiome.

The only thing relevant to your website about top down demolition techniques is that the existence of the technique debunks your theory about 9/11 top down collapse being impossible.

I can understand why you might not want to include it.

Hm, vérinage is a bottom up house tearing down method. You destroy all the supporting members at the bottom using external energy/force and the house top above drops down and is destroyed from bottom up by the bottom part, that remains intact.

Only terrorists suggest that any top crushes the bottom, when it is the bottom that crushes the top.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 14, 2017, 08:10:37 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 14, 2017, 08:05:17 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 14, 2017, 05:08:47 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 14, 2017, 04:50:55 AM
Vérinage is a French method to weaken several levels of a structure by outside means, so that the structure above can drop down and be damaged from bottom up by the structure below. It has nothing to do with my popular website http://heiwaco.com and my famous Axiome.

The only thing relevant to your website about top down demolition techniques is that the existence of the technique debunks your theory about 9/11 top down collapse being impossible.

I can understand why you might not want to include it.

Hm, vérinage is a bottom up house tearing down method. You destroy all the supporting members at the bottom using external energy/force and the house top above drops down and is destroyed from bottom up by the bottom part, that remains intact.

Only terrorists suggest that any top crushes the bottom, when it is the bottom that crushes the top.

Of course you are correct,  those videos showing the opposite must be faked.  Maybe you should warn people not to trust things they can prove with their own eyes.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sokarul on September 14, 2017, 09:05:28 AM
If I need to bring down a building full of Americans, where do I look to hire a company to do this? Will they have good yelp reviews?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Heiwa on September 14, 2017, 09:17:11 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 14, 2017, 08:10:37 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 14, 2017, 08:05:17 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 14, 2017, 05:08:47 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 14, 2017, 04:50:55 AM
Vérinage is a French method to weaken several levels of a structure by outside means, so that the structure above can drop down and be damaged from bottom up by the structure below. It has nothing to do with my popular website http://heiwaco.com and my famous Axiome.

The only thing relevant to your website about top down demolition techniques is that the existence of the technique debunks your theory about 9/11 top down collapse being impossible.

I can understand why you might not want to include it.

Hm, vérinage is a bottom up house tearing down method. You destroy all the supporting members at the bottom using external energy/force and the house top above drops down and is destroyed from bottom up by the bottom part, that remains intact.

Only terrorists suggest that any top crushes the bottom, when it is the bottom that crushes the top.

Of course you are correct,  those videos showing the opposite must be faked.  Maybe you should warn people not to trust things they can prove with their own eyes.

Thanks.

Most vérinage videos only show an intact building, then BOOM the lower part is destroyed and the top comes down and there is plenty dust and smoke. It is not shown later that most of the lower part is intact covered by the rubble of the top and there is plenty work to remove that rubble and the intact lower part. The top has been destroyed from bottom up in contact with the lower part, that remains intact.

Re the footage of the collapses of WTC1/2 it is clear, if you believe the footage, that the towers are destroyed from top down using explosives. First the whole top is blown apart and then, floor by floor from top down the towers are blown apart. No intact, rigid top is crushing anything below. Suggest you study the footage again.

You sound like a terrorist suggesting that Arabs destroyed the whole WTC complex. Only twerps believe such crazy ideas.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 14, 2017, 02:23:28 PM
Quote from: sokarul on September 14, 2017, 09:05:28 AM
If I need to bring down a building full of Americans, where do I look to hire a company to do this? Will they have good yelp reviews?

Here.

https://www.cia.gov/index.html
https://www.mossad.gov.il/eng/pages/encontactus.aspx

I give them 9/11.

(https://s26.postimg.org/j5gqp5s5l/20170914_193329.png)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 14, 2017, 09:08:50 PM
Quote from: sokarul on September 14, 2017, 09:05:28 AM
If I need to bring down a building full of Americans, where do I look to hire a company to do this? Will they have good yelp reviews?

It seems that the prevailing view is that it didn't happen,  there were no planes,  the buildings were empty, and it was a death ray from outer space that caused the collapse.

All other evidence to the contrary is faked.   

So, sorry I can't help unless you have the ability to contact the alien reptiles on the moon,  you are fresh out of luck.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 14, 2017, 10:01:14 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 14, 2017, 09:08:50 PM
Quote from: sokarul on September 14, 2017, 09:05:28 AM
If I need to bring down a building full of Americans, where do I look to hire a company to do this? Will they have good yelp reviews?

It seems that the prevailing view is that it didn't happen,  there were no planes,  the buildings were empty, and it was a death ray from outer space that caused the collapse.

All other evidence to the contrary is faked.   

So, sorry I can't help unless you have the ability to contact the alien reptiles on the moon,  you are fresh out of luck.


(https://s26.postimg.org/i9vu14yx5/images-32.jpg)

Please pay special attention to the Psyop Shill working with the CoIntelPro Shill. They play both sides.

@Heiwa. It's never too late to confess, it's never too late to tell the truth.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 15, 2017, 12:16:51 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 14, 2017, 10:01:14 PM
Please pay special attention to the Psyop Shill working with the CoIntelPro Shill. They play both sides.

@Heiwa. It's never too late to confess, it's never too late to tell the truth.

Which one am I supposed to be again?   I keep forgetting.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 15, 2017, 12:42:31 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 15, 2017, 12:16:51 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 14, 2017, 10:01:14 PM
Please pay special attention to the Psyop Shill working with the CoIntelPro Shill. They play both sides.

@Heiwa. It's never too late to confess, it's never too late to tell the truth.

Which one am I supposed to be again?   I keep forgetting.

You tell me mate.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_Operations_(United_States)
Quote
Psychological operations (PSYOP) are planned operations to convey selected information and indicators to audiences to influence their emotions, motives, and objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of governments, organizations, groups, and individuals.

The purpose of United States psychological operations is to induce or reinforce behavior favorable to U.S. objectives. They are an important part of the range of diplomatic, informational, military and economic activities available to the U.S. They can be utilized during both peacetime and conflict. There are three main types: strategic, operational and tactical. Strategic PSYOP include informational activities conducted by the U.S. government agencies outside of the military arena, though many utilize Department of Defense (DOD) assets. Operational PSYOP are conducted across the range of military operations, including during peacetime, in a defined operational area to promote the effectiveness of the joint force commander's (JFC) campaigns and strategies. TacticalPSYOP are conducted in the area assigned to a tactical commander across the range of military operations to support the tactical mission against opposing forces.

PSYOP can encourage popular discontent with the opposition's leadership and by combining persuasion with a credible threat, degrade an adversary's ability to conduct or sustain military operations. They can also disrupt, confuse, and protract the adversary's decision-making process, undermining command and control.[1] When properly employed, PSYOP have the potential to save the lives of friendly or enemy forces by reducing the adversary's will to fight. By lowering the adversary's morale and then its efficiency, PSYOP can also discourage aggressive actions by creating disaffection within their ranks, ultimately leading to surrender.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO
Quote
COINTELPRO (a portmanteau derived from COunter INTELligence PROgram) was a series of covert, and often illegal,[1][2] projects conducted by the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) aimed at surveilling, infiltrating, discrediting, and disrupting American political organizations.[3]

FBI records show that COINTELPRO resources targeted groups and individuals that the FBI deemed subversive,[4] including anti-Vietnam War organizers, activists of the Civil Rights Movement or Black Power movement (e.g., Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Black Panther Party), feministorganizations, independence movements (such as Puerto Rican independence groups like the Young Lords), and a variety of organizations that were part of the broader New Left.

FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover issued directives governing COINTELPRO, ordering FBI agents to "expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit, neutralize or otherwise eliminate" the activities of these movements and especially their leaders.[5][6] Under Hoover, the agent in charge of COINTELPRO was William C. Sullivan.[7] Attorney General Robert F. Kennedypersonally authorized some of the programs.[8] Although Kennedy only gave written approval for limited wiretapping of Martin Luther King's phones "on a trial basis, for a month or so",[9] Hoover extended the clearance so his men were "unshackled" to look for evidence in any areas of King's life they deemed worthy.[10]

It's never too late to confess, it's never too late to tell the truth.

Is this your first time face to face with a realanon? Certainly seems like it. My mask is off, yours has nearly fallen.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 15, 2017, 01:16:10 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 15, 2017, 12:42:31 AM
Is this your first time face to face with a realanon? Certainly seems like it. My mask is off, yours has nearly fallen.

Why do you think a mask helps?   Don't you know how to assume another identity?  No mask.

As far as whether I am A or B,  aren't you forgetting that there might be some other possibilities?   Some you have never even heard of?

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 15, 2017, 01:18:51 AM
At the moment you are posting as Rayzor. That's a mask in and of itself.

You could be any sort of alphabet soup asset. Psychological operations just describes what you do here perfectly.

Quote from: Rayzor on September 14, 2017, 09:08:50 PM
It seems that the prevailing view is that it didn't happen,  there were no planes,  the buildings were empty, and it was a death ray from outer space that caused the collapse.

All other evidence to the contrary is faked.   

So, sorry I can't help unless you have the ability to contact the alien reptiles on the moon,  you are fresh out of luck.


Quote from: Heiwa on September 14, 2017, 09:17:11 AM
Most vérinage videos only show an intact building, then BOOM the lower part is destroyed and the top comes down and there is plenty dust and smoke. It is not shown later that most of the lower part is intact covered by the rubble of the top and there is plenty work to remove that rubble and the intact lower part. The top has been destroyed from bottom up in contact with the lower part, that remains intact.

Re the footage of the collapses of WTC1/2 it is clear, if you believe the footage, that the towers are destroyed from top down using explosives. First the whole top is blown apart and then, floor by floor from top down the towers are blown apart. No intact, rigid top is crushing anything below. Suggest you study the footage again.

You sound like a terrorist suggesting that Arabs destroyed the whole WTC complex. Only twerps believe such crazy ideas.

Look at you two arguing whether or not verinage demolition works. How cute. Spoiler, it does.

Typo.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 15, 2017, 01:22:50 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 15, 2017, 01:18:51 AM
At the moment you are posting as Rayzor. That's a mask in and of itself.

You could be any sort of alphabet soup asset. Psychological operations just describes what you do here perfectly.

Is it possible that I am just me and no more? 

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 15, 2017, 01:42:37 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 15, 2017, 01:22:50 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 15, 2017, 01:18:51 AM
At the moment you are posting as Rayzor. That's a mask in and of itself.

You could be any sort of alphabet soup asset. Psychological operations just describes what you do here perfectly.

Is it possible that I am just me and no more? 



I give it about a 0.1% possibility.

Master Evar was genuine.
Totes is genuine just always had his mind made up and I think a personal problem with me didn't let him consider the evidence.
User is genuine he's just young and hasn't done any research on this topic.
You are a psyop shill, you get paid per line, that's why you consistently leave two free lines under each one of your posts. You admitted to being in the Airforce a long time ago, you were never good enough to fly, you were assigned to shill a flat earth forum. You are quite good at your job.

The name and the identity here gave you weapons I wasn't used to countering. All of you know that we know the truth about 9/11. Your attempts at infiltration and subversion have been unsuccessful. Anonymity takes away your ability to gaslight.

You and your kind know you have broken the US constitution, you know you have subverted and influenced the American people illegally. You know you have shilled against the standing president of the United States illegally. You know you should have stopped shilling after Trump got in power.

You feel the weight of every lie you have ever told crushing down on your shoulders currently, you are starting to realise that we were always going to win the information war. You know you never should have given us the internet.

You are still a human being and still hold the love of humanity in your heart. It's never too late to tell the truth. We will forgive you. Even if the people you serve did win you, and all of humanity would lose.

You have to get up very early to get one past me.

After what I have done to you I find it hard to fathom why you are still being paid.

This is the power of anonymous.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 15, 2017, 01:56:44 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 15, 2017, 01:42:37 AM

You have to get up very early to get one past me.

After what I have done to you I find it hard to fathom why you are still being paid.

This is the power of anonymous.

So if i was what you think I am,  ( some kind of agent ) it appears I'm not very good at it, since I haven't fooled you.   So who would be a good agent?  Someone who has managed to gain your trust, and perhaps has some of your personal details?   The one you least suspect.

Can you think of anyone that fits that profile?

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 15, 2017, 02:02:00 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 15, 2017, 01:56:44 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 15, 2017, 01:42:37 AM

You have to get up very early to get one past me.

After what I have done to you I find it hard to fathom why you are still being paid.

This is the power of anonymous.

So if i was what you think I am,  ( some kind of agent ) it appears I'm not very good at it, since I haven't fooled you.   So who would be a good agent?  Someone who has managed to gain your trust, and perhaps has some of your personal details?   The one you least suspect.

Can you think of anyone that fits that profile?

Babyhighspeed.

My heart wants to trust him so I do.

I've known what this site is for a while now.

Your implied threats are meaningless. I have done nothing illegal you have nothing to threaten me with. I am not using a vpn I know you know who I am. I am not afraid.

We are anonymous, we are legion, we will forgive but we will never forget, it is too late to expect us.

We have weapons you cannot wield, honesty, integrity and truth.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 15, 2017, 02:04:11 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 15, 2017, 02:02:00 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 15, 2017, 01:56:44 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 15, 2017, 01:42:37 AM

You have to get up very early to get one past me.

After what I have done to you I find it hard to fathom why you are still being paid.

This is the power of anonymous.

So if i was what you think I am,  ( some kind of agent ) it appears I'm not very good at it, since I haven't fooled you.   So who would be a good agent?  Someone who has managed to gain your trust, and perhaps has some of your personal details?   The one you least suspect.

Can you think of anyone that fits that profile?

Babyhighspeed.

My heart wants to trust him so I do.

I've known what this site is for a while now.

Your implied threats are meaningless. I have done nothing illegal you have nothing to threaten me with. I am not using a vpn I know you know who I am. I am not afraid.

We are anonymous, we are legion, we will forgive but we will never forget, it is too late to expect us.

BHS seems genuine to me,  I disagree with his psycho conspiracy ideas,  but,  I think he is what he says he is.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on September 15, 2017, 02:05:13 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 15, 2017, 01:56:44 AM
So if i was what you think I am,  ( some kind of agent ) it appears I'm not very good at it, since I haven't fooled you.   So who would be a good agent?  Someone who has managed to gain your trust, and perhaps has some of your personal details?   The one you least suspect.
That's exactely what a shill agent that has been caught would say  ;D
Anyway, if bhs was an agent, he basically would be the most useless one to ever exist. Since I'm anyway 100% sure that the fbi/nsa easily could identify anyone in this forum, it'd be useless to send an agent after anyone in here. Especiall after a normal user like dispute...


Quote
You are a psyop shill, you get paid per line, that's why you consistently leave two free lines under each one of your posts. You admitted to being in the Airforce a long time ago, you were never good enough to fly, you were assigned to shill a flat earth forum. You are quite good at your job.
I don't think anyone would ever pay someone to post on the FES.
I mean, noone takes the flatties seriously anyway, so it would be kind of a waste of money. If it were on facebook, a big newspaper or something similair, shilling might be a real thing in a very few cases. But here?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 15, 2017, 02:05:32 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 15, 2017, 02:04:11 AM
BHS seems genuine

I agree.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 15, 2017, 02:05:50 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 15, 2017, 02:02:00 AM
We have weapons you cannot wield, honesty, integrity and truth.

Sadly for you,  you are being decieved.  honesty, integrity and truth is on the other side to where you currently stand.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 15, 2017, 02:09:22 AM
Quote from: User324 on September 15, 2017, 02:05:13 AM
I don't think anyone would ever pay someone to post on the FES.
I mean, noone takes the flatties seriously anyway, so it would be kind of a waste of money. If it were on facebook, a big newspaper or something similair, shilling might be a real thing in a very few cases. But here?

That's part of their game user. They use forums like this to tie ideas like the flat earth and fake space to discredit real conspiracies like JFK and 9/11.

You would be surprised how well it works. Consider the atmosphere here, all the flat earthers are pointed at and laughed at, anyone who mentions any sort of conspiracy is then lumped in with the flat earthers and laughed at with them.

I can only offer the truth, nothing more nothing less and only to those that will listen.

Edit for evidence.

Quote from: Rayzor on February 13, 2017, 11:06:09 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 13, 2017, 10:59:41 PM
It doesn't have anything to do with a flat earth, general is the wrong place for it.

Tech and alt is a more suitable home, don't worry, I only know because I made the same mistake.

What if  911 was just a smokescreen to  hide the truth about the flat earth?   You never know what might be revealed.

We see you Rayzor.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on September 15, 2017, 02:16:54 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 15, 2017, 02:09:22 AM
Quote from: User324 on September 15, 2017, 02:05:13 AM
I don't think anyone would ever pay someone to post on the FES.
I mean, noone takes the flatties seriously anyway, so it would be kind of a waste of money. If it were on facebook, a big newspaper or something similair, shilling might be a real thing in a very few cases. But here?

That's part of their game user. They use forums like this to tie ideas like the flat earth and fake space to discredit real conspiracies like JFK and 9/11.

You would be surprised how well it works. Consider the atmosphere here, all the flat earthers are pointed at and laughed at, anyone who mentions any sort of conspiracy is then lumped in with the flat earthers and laughed at with them.

I can only offer the truth, nothing more nothing less and only to those that will listen.
I guess that's true because I always suspected the space cow is a nsa agent  ;D ;)

No, seriously dispute. There are like 57 Guests and 12 Users online now. That's just way too few to really get anything going. Even the hobbyist-forums I visit have currently like 700 people (forum 1) and 300 (forum 2) online. And they are non-english forums.
The one I sometimes visit which is in english has nearly 10k people online at the moment. Just to put the size of this forum in perspective.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 15, 2017, 02:24:00 AM
Quote from: User324 on September 15, 2017, 02:16:54 AM
No, seriously dispute. There are like 57 Guests and 12 Users online now. That's just way too few to really get anything going. Even the hobbyist-forums I visit have currently like 700 people (forum 1) and 300 (forum 2) online. And they are non-english forums.
The one I sometimes visit which is in english has nearly 10k people online at the moment. Just to put the size of this forum in perspective.

I agree this is small fish. You should research where the modern flat earth movement came from, how it just sprung up overnight and how suddenly we had celebrity scientists giving it airtime.

A coincidence?

How many of the longstanding posters on this forum have a background in the military, is it a high percentage?

Is that another coincidence?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on September 15, 2017, 02:29:30 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 15, 2017, 02:24:00 AM
You should research where the modern flat earth movement came from, how it just sprung up overnight and how suddenly we had celebrity scientists giving it airtime.

A coincidence?
Stupid people support stupid ideas. Stupid people are everywhere.

Quote
How many of the longstanding posters on this forum have a background in the military, is it a high percentage?
Is that another coincidence?
I don't think it's an especially high percentage. I mean, a lot of people have a military background, myself too (although only for a short time).
It depends on the country, but in some going to military still is a legal requirement, so a rather high number is nothing unexpected.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 15, 2017, 02:30:35 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 15, 2017, 01:22:50 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 15, 2017, 01:18:51 AM
At the moment you are posting as Rayzor. That's a mask in and of itself.

You could be any sort of alphabet soup asset. Psychological operations just describes what you do here perfectly.

Is it possible that I am just me and no more?

User check it out he went back and edited out the spaces under his post.

 ;D ;D ;D

I won, Rayzor.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 15, 2017, 02:33:13 AM


You are not justice Rayzor, never forget we the people hold the power.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on September 15, 2017, 02:35:24 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 15, 2017, 02:30:35 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 15, 2017, 01:22:50 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 15, 2017, 01:18:51 AM
At the moment you are posting as Rayzor. That's a mask in and of itself.

You could be any sort of alphabet soup asset. Psychological operations just describes what you do here perfectly.

Is it possible that I am just me and no more?

User check it out he went back and edited out the spaces under his post.

 ;D ;D ;D

I won, Rayzor.
Yeah, but only on the last two posts, lol. I admit, that's sort of funny  ;D
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 15, 2017, 02:36:05 AM
Good times my old friend. Good times indeed.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Swartz
That was for you mate.
We will never forget you.

Edit @ Rayzor.
Quote from: disputeone on September 15, 2017, 12:42:31 AM
Is this your first time face to face with a realanon? Certainly seems like it. My mask is off, yours has nearly fallen.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 15, 2017, 02:50:20 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 15, 2017, 02:30:35 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 15, 2017, 01:22:50 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 15, 2017, 01:18:51 AM
At the moment you are posting as Rayzor. That's a mask in and of itself.

You could be any sort of alphabet soup asset. Psychological operations just describes what you do here perfectly.

Is it possible that I am just me and no more?

User check it out he went back and edited out the spaces under his post.

 ;D ;D ;D

I won, Rayzor.

LOL,  you are indeed too clever for me,  your skills are going to be of great benefit to Anon in the battles to come.   

PS,  have fun camping this weekend....   keep alert.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 15, 2017, 02:54:42 AM
It's never too late to confess and come forward and tell the truth.

edit
P.S pro tip, next time dont use NSA tools to edit your post. Observant posters will notice there is no edit, and yet your post was edited....

Stay alert.
I am not afraid of you.

@Rayzors Boss, can we have a new one?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 15, 2017, 03:06:48 AM
Operation metal,
Phase one,
Success.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 15, 2017, 03:18:22 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 15, 2017, 02:54:42 AM
It's never too late to confess and come forward and tell the truth.

edit
P.S pro tip, next time dont use NSA tools to edit your post. Observant posters will notice there is no edit, and yet your post was edited....

Stay alert.
I am not afraid of you.

@Rayzors Boss, can we have a new one?

Except I didn't edit it.   You are slipping.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 15, 2017, 03:23:01 AM
If that's what you say I guess I'll believe it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on September 15, 2017, 04:38:22 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 15, 2017, 03:18:22 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 15, 2017, 02:54:42 AM
It's never too late to confess and come forward and tell the truth.

edit
P.S pro tip, next time dont use NSA tools to edit your post. Observant posters will notice there is no edit, and yet your post was edited....

Stay alert.
I am not afraid of you.

@Rayzors Boss, can we have a new one?

Except I didn't edit it.   You are slipping.
But why'd you stop doing it right after dispute calls you out for it?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 15, 2017, 04:40:31 AM
Archive of previous two pages.
http://archive.is/ClvUR
http://archive.is/Qh8xw
http://archive.is/3QJGx

Edit. Three.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 15, 2017, 06:21:13 AM


Edit.
Did anyone else notice that Rayzors post in question is now back to my original quote of it? Still lacking an edit tag? Like my post has now?

Operation metal
Phase two
Engaged.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Heiwa on September 15, 2017, 09:40:38 AM
It seems nobody could clarify my post #4837:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1952212#msg1952212
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Pezevenk on September 15, 2017, 02:51:28 PM
Wait.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 15, 2017, 05:56:13 PM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 15, 2017, 09:40:38 AM
It seems nobody could clarify my post #4837:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1952212#msg1952212

I did already,  you must have missed it 

https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/how-the-airplane-wing-cut-through-the-exterior-columns-of-the-world-trade-center-pdf.27041/

For someone who studies accidents you appear to know very little impact physics.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 15, 2017, 08:30:15 PM
Quote from: Definitely Not Official on September 15, 2017, 02:51:28 PM
Wait.

Sup DNO.

See?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: hoppy on September 15, 2017, 10:24:22 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 14, 2017, 05:16:10 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 14, 2017, 05:11:59 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 14, 2017, 05:10:17 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 14, 2017, 05:02:32 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 13, 2017, 10:49:57 PM
Fall acceleration of building 7.

You are going to end this a jibbering mess of failed insults and logic.

But you asked for it.

Mods can we move to tech and alt please. ty.

I deserve this one.

Did you research "Able Danger" yet?

Tell your boss. Tell them I am defending The American constitution and liberty. Have me arrested. I am not afraid.

The boss is watching TV,  I'll pass your message on to her later,  when I get around to making a cup of tea.    I don't think she will want to see you arrested, so you can relax.
Lol, this is exactly what a shill would say.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 15, 2017, 10:35:20 PM
Quote from: hoppy on September 15, 2017, 10:24:22 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 14, 2017, 05:16:10 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 14, 2017, 05:11:59 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 14, 2017, 05:10:17 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 14, 2017, 05:02:32 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 13, 2017, 10:49:57 PM
Fall acceleration of building 7.

You are going to end this a jibbering mess of failed insults and logic.

But you asked for it.

Mods can we move to tech and alt please. ty.

I deserve this one.

Did you research "Able Danger" yet?

Tell your boss. Tell them I am defending The American constitution and liberty. Have me arrested. I am not afraid.

The boss is watching TV,  I'll pass your message on to her later,  when I get around to making a cup of tea.    I don't think she will want to see you arrested, so you can relax.
Lol, this is exactly what a shill would say.

I'll tell her you said that,  no cake for you.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Heiwa on September 15, 2017, 11:06:51 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 15, 2017, 05:56:13 PM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 15, 2017, 09:40:38 AM
It seems nobody could clarify my post #4837:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1952212#msg1952212

I did already,  you must have missed it 

https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/how-the-airplane-wing-cut-through-the-exterior-columns-of-the-world-trade-center-pdf.27041/

For someone who studies accidents you appear to know very little impact physics.

The article does not mention the many floors slicing the airplane horizontally, so that the wings drop off prior touching the wall.
It is like ships colliding. If the foreship extends forward above waterline (no bulbous bow), it is the upper side above waterline of the other ship that is damaged first. Statistics confirm it! 80% of collision damages at sea are located only above waterline, which is <20% of the side.
USCG, a division of US Dep. of Homeland Security, thinks that 100% of the side down to the bilge is sliced open in every collision, which is not very clever.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on September 15, 2017, 11:29:56 PM
He keeps posting that freaking article, I keep explaining the flaws in it yet he continues to post it still.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 15, 2017, 11:41:59 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on September 15, 2017, 11:29:56 PM
He keeps posting that freaking article, I keep explaining the flaws in it yet he continues to post it still.

I keep hoping that you'll eventually understand it.   Seems increasingly unlikely you'll ever understand what happens in high energy impacts. 


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Heiwa on September 15, 2017, 11:50:34 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 15, 2017, 11:41:59 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on September 15, 2017, 11:29:56 PM
He keeps posting that freaking article, I keep explaining the flaws in it yet he continues to post it still.

I keep hoping that you'll eventually understand it.   Seems increasingly unlikely you'll ever understand what happens in high energy impacts.

Well, before the wings even touch the wall 50 meters of airplane forebody must penetrate the wall and the floors ... and my opinion is that the wings drop off during that initial, high energy impact, and bounces off the wall.

Remember that it is the foremost part that gets damaged first in a collision.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on September 16, 2017, 12:29:03 AM
Holy shit, you seem to have not yet discovered inertia, or have you?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Heiwa on September 16, 2017, 02:47:20 AM
Have you ever played ball? Kicked a ball against a wall? Normally it bounces, because such balls are full of air. Like an airplane. It is also mostly full of air.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bullwinkle on September 16, 2017, 03:09:30 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 16, 2017, 02:47:20 AM
Have you ever played ball?

No, What are the rules?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on September 16, 2017, 03:11:12 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 16, 2017, 02:47:20 AM
Have you ever played ball? Kicked a ball against a wall? Normally it bounces, because such balls are full of air. Like an airplane. It is also mostly full of air.
Holy shit, you're right. How couldn't I think of that myself!
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Heiwa on September 16, 2017, 05:38:43 AM
Quote from: User324 on September 16, 2017, 03:11:12 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 16, 2017, 02:47:20 AM
Have you ever played ball? Kicked a ball against a wall? Normally it bounces, because such balls are full of air. Like an airplane. It is also mostly full of air.
Holy shit, you're right. How couldn't I think of that myself!
Thanks! Of course I am right. Sorry if you maybe have some handicap not to follow at once?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on September 16, 2017, 06:19:01 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 16, 2017, 05:38:43 AM
Quote from: User324 on September 16, 2017, 03:11:12 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 16, 2017, 02:47:20 AM
Have you ever played ball? Kicked a ball against a wall? Normally it bounces, because such balls are full of air. Like an airplane. It is also mostly full of air.
Holy shit, you're right. How couldn't I think of that myself!
Thanks! Of course I am right. Sorry if you maybe have some handicap not to follow at once?
Yeah, I'm a bit mentally retarded so I sometimes fail to immediately follow your brilliant logic!
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Heiwa on September 16, 2017, 08:36:04 AM
Quote from: Bullwinkle on September 16, 2017, 03:09:30 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 16, 2017, 02:47:20 AM
Have you ever played ball?

No, What are the rules?

Easy, join a ball club and you'll find out.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: MicroBeta on September 16, 2017, 08:42:15 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on September 08, 2017, 09:37:36 PM
Also mircrobeta..please don't think I am saying the exoskeleton could completely resist an airliner such as what is proposed to have hit the building. This is not what I am saying what so ever...parts of it would have certainly made it into the building. There would certainly be serious damage to the building.

However, I am stating the action reaction we supposedly witnessed is not based in reality therefore false. I am also stating I have an issue with the roadrunner style hole in the building. I could continue with just that subject alone, but don't want to deflect what we are currently discussing.

Also comparing a BB to this is not an appropriate comparison either.
The pellet gun and the ping-pong ball are relevant as a demonstration of the effect of velocity and items of dissimilar strengths.   

Both the ball and rubber sheet have a significant coefficient of restitution absorbing a lot of energy at impact.  Additionally, the paddle is made of plywood which is significantly stronger the same cross section of solid wood.  Yet, as seen in the high-speed video below, while the ball completely fractures on impact the mass of the ball still punches through the paddle.   

The plywood ping-pong paddle has section modulus several orders of magnitude higher than the ball.  The strength difference between celluloid and wood is huge...also by orders of magnitude.  Given enough velocity, the 2.7 g ball passes completely through the paddle and we’re left with a ping pong ball sized hole and all debris passing through the paddle.

It is my opinion, FWIW, that this is an appropriate comparison.  It is a demonstration of the physics of kinetic energy.  At lesser speeds the ball would bounce off or collapse without damaging the paddle.  However, given enough speed it will destroy the paddle even as it is itself destroyed.  This would not change with scale. 

Mike
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: MicroBeta on September 16, 2017, 08:46:47 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 16, 2017, 02:47:20 AM
Have you ever played ball? Kicked a ball against a wall? Normally it bounces, because such balls are full of air. Like an airplane. It is also mostly full of air.
What does the air have to with anything?  Did you take into account that the 2324 & 7150 aluminum alloys have higher yield strength than ASTM A36 steel?

Mike
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 16, 2017, 09:11:24 AM
Quote from: User324 on September 16, 2017, 06:19:01 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 16, 2017, 05:38:43 AM
Quote from: User324 on September 16, 2017, 03:11:12 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 16, 2017, 02:47:20 AM
Have you ever played ball? Kicked a ball against a wall? Normally it bounces, because such balls are full of air. Like an airplane. It is also mostly full of air.
Holy shit, you're right. How couldn't I think of that myself!
Thanks! Of course I am right. Sorry if you maybe have some handicap not to follow at once?
Yeah, I'm a bit mentally retarded so I sometimes fail to immediately follow your brilliant logic!

You're not and I think you should know by now it isn't worth playing his games.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on September 16, 2017, 09:35:54 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 16, 2017, 09:11:24 AM
Quote from: User324 on September 16, 2017, 06:19:01 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 16, 2017, 05:38:43 AM
Quote from: User324 on September 16, 2017, 03:11:12 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 16, 2017, 02:47:20 AM
Have you ever played ball? Kicked a ball against a wall? Normally it bounces, because such balls are full of air. Like an airplane. It is also mostly full of air.
Holy shit, you're right. How couldn't I think of that myself!
Thanks! Of course I am right. Sorry if you maybe have some handicap not to follow at once?
Yeah, I'm a bit mentally retarded so I sometimes fail to immediately follow your brilliant logic!

You're not and I think you should know by now it isn't worth playing his games.
It's actually the first time I play his games, so it's fine :D

@heiwa: Can you please elaborate your sophisticated idea with the pingpong ball and airplane? I didn't yet grasp the whole physics behind it!
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Heiwa on September 16, 2017, 09:46:20 AM
Quote from: User324 on September 16, 2017, 09:35:54 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 16, 2017, 09:11:24 AM
Quote from: User324 on September 16, 2017, 06:19:01 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 16, 2017, 05:38:43 AM
Quote from: User324 on September 16, 2017, 03:11:12 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 16, 2017, 02:47:20 AM
Have you ever played ball? Kicked a ball against a wall? Normally it bounces, because such balls are full of air. Like an airplane. It is also mostly full of air.
Holy shit, you're right. How couldn't I think of that myself!
Thanks! Of course I am right. Sorry if you maybe have some handicap not to follow at once?
Yeah, I'm a bit mentally retarded so I sometimes fail to immediately follow your brilliant logic!

You're not and I think you should know by now it isn't worth playing his games.
It's actually the first time I play his games, so it's fine :D

@heiwa: Can you please elaborate your sophisticated idea with the pingpong ball and airplane? I didn't yet grasp the whole physics behind it!

Thanks for asking. Read my scientific paper at http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm and tell me what you think.

It is about dropping a piece C of steel structure by gravity on a much greater piece A of steel structure and what happens then.

US experts and terrorists are convinced that C will destroy A - A becomes smoke and dust! - while I suggest that C just bounces on A and the A stops C! Of course there are some damages in interface C/A at contact, but that's all that happens.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 16, 2017, 06:15:01 PM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 16, 2017, 09:46:20 AM
Quote from: User324 on September 16, 2017, 09:35:54 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 16, 2017, 09:11:24 AM
Quote from: User324 on September 16, 2017, 06:19:01 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 16, 2017, 05:38:43 AM
Quote from: User324 on September 16, 2017, 03:11:12 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 16, 2017, 02:47:20 AM
Have you ever played ball? Kicked a ball against a wall? Normally it bounces, because such balls are full of air. Like an airplane. It is also mostly full of air.
Holy shit, you're right. How couldn't I think of that myself!
Thanks! Of course I am right. Sorry if you maybe have some handicap not to follow at once?
Yeah, I'm a bit mentally retarded so I sometimes fail to immediately follow your brilliant logic!

You're not and I think you should know by now it isn't worth playing his games.
It's actually the first time I play his games, so it's fine :D

@heiwa: Can you please elaborate your sophisticated idea with the pingpong ball and airplane? I didn't yet grasp the whole physics behind it!

Thanks for asking. Read my scientific paper at http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm and tell me what you think.

It is about dropping a piece C of steel structure by gravity on a much greater piece A of steel structure and what happens then.

US experts and terrorists are convinced that C will destroy A - A becomes smoke and dust! - while I suggest that C just bounces on A and the A stops C! Of course there are some damages in interface C/A at contact, but that's all that happens.

LOL, you are getting funnier by the minute,  just a simple question,  do you have that reply on cut and paste or do you type it out each time.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Heiwa on September 16, 2017, 06:22:22 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 16, 2017, 06:15:01 PM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 16, 2017, 09:46:20 AM
Quote from: User324 on September 16, 2017, 09:35:54 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 16, 2017, 09:11:24 AM
Quote from: User324 on September 16, 2017, 06:19:01 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 16, 2017, 05:38:43 AM
Quote from: User324 on September 16, 2017, 03:11:12 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 16, 2017, 02:47:20 AM
Have you ever played ball? Kicked a ball against a wall? Normally it bounces, because such balls are full of air. Like an airplane. It is also mostly full of air.
Holy shit, you're right. How couldn't I think of that myself!
Thanks! Of course I am right. Sorry if you maybe have some handicap not to follow at once?
Yeah, I'm a bit mentally retarded so I sometimes fail to immediately follow your brilliant logic!

You're not and I think you should know by now it isn't worth playing his games.
It's actually the first time I play his games, so it's fine :D

@heiwa: Can you please elaborate your sophisticated idea with the pingpong ball and airplane? I didn't yet grasp the whole physics behind it!

Thanks for asking. Read my scientific paper at http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm and tell me what you think.

It is about dropping a piece C of steel structure by gravity on a much greater piece A of steel structure and what happens then.

US experts and terrorists are convinced that C will destroy A - A becomes smoke and dust! - while I suggest that C just bounces on A and the A stops C! Of course there are some damages in interface C/A at contact, but that's all that happens.

LOL, you are getting funnier by the minute,  just a simple question,  do you have that reply on cut and paste or do you type it out each time.

I typed it. So what do you think of http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm ? Isn't it a great paper?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 16, 2017, 06:36:09 PM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 16, 2017, 06:22:22 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 16, 2017, 06:15:01 PM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 16, 2017, 09:46:20 AM
Quote from: User324 on September 16, 2017, 09:35:54 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 16, 2017, 09:11:24 AM
Quote from: User324 on September 16, 2017, 06:19:01 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 16, 2017, 05:38:43 AM
Quote from: User324 on September 16, 2017, 03:11:12 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 16, 2017, 02:47:20 AM
Have you ever played ball? Kicked a ball against a wall? Normally it bounces, because such balls are full of air. Like an airplane. It is also mostly full of air.
Holy shit, you're right. How couldn't I think of that myself!
Thanks! Of course I am right. Sorry if you maybe have some handicap not to follow at once?
Yeah, I'm a bit mentally retarded so I sometimes fail to immediately follow your brilliant logic!

You're not and I think you should know by now it isn't worth playing his games.
It's actually the first time I play his games, so it's fine :D

@heiwa: Can you please elaborate your sophisticated idea with the pingpong ball and airplane? I didn't yet grasp the whole physics behind it!

Thanks for asking. Read my scientific paper at http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm and tell me what you think.

It is about dropping a piece C of steel structure by gravity on a much greater piece A of steel structure and what happens then.

US experts and terrorists are convinced that C will destroy A - A becomes smoke and dust! - while I suggest that C just bounces on A and the A stops C! Of course there are some damages in interface C/A at contact, but that's all that happens.

LOL, you are getting funnier by the minute,  just a simple question,  do you have that reply on cut and paste or do you type it out each time.

I typed it. So what do you think of http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm ? Isn't it a great paper?

You don't make it clear, are you a supporter of the Directed Energy Weapon hypothesis?   Have you read  Judy Wood's book?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Heiwa on September 16, 2017, 06:42:32 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 16, 2017, 06:36:09 PM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 16, 2017, 06:22:22 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 16, 2017, 06:15:01 PM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 16, 2017, 09:46:20 AM
Quote from: User324 on September 16, 2017, 09:35:54 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 16, 2017, 09:11:24 AM
Quote from: User324 on September 16, 2017, 06:19:01 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 16, 2017, 05:38:43 AM
Quote from: User324 on September 16, 2017, 03:11:12 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 16, 2017, 02:47:20 AM
Have you ever played ball? Kicked a ball against a wall? Normally it bounces, because such balls are full of air. Like an airplane. It is also mostly full of air.
Holy shit, you're right. How couldn't I think of that myself!
Thanks! Of course I am right. Sorry if you maybe have some handicap not to follow at once?
Yeah, I'm a bit mentally retarded so I sometimes fail to immediately follow your brilliant logic!

You're not and I think you should know by now it isn't worth playing his games.
It's actually the first time I play his games, so it's fine :D

@heiwa: Can you please elaborate your sophisticated idea with the pingpong ball and airplane? I didn't yet grasp the whole physics behind it!

Thanks for asking. Read my scientific paper at http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm and tell me what you think.

It is about dropping a piece C of steel structure by gravity on a much greater piece A of steel structure and what happens then.

US experts and terrorists are convinced that C will destroy A - A becomes smoke and dust! - while I suggest that C just bounces on A and the A stops C! Of course there are some damages in interface C/A at contact, but that's all that happens.

LOL, you are getting funnier by the minute,  just a simple question,  do you have that reply on cut and paste or do you type it out each time.

I typed it. So what do you think of http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm ? Isn't it a great paper?

You don't make it clear, are you a supporter of the Directed Energy Weapon hypothesis?   Have you read  Judy Wood's book?

Not really. The 911 destruction at NY was controlled demolition of some sort. No planes, no Arabs. The footage is fake! CGI, etc, etc. A great show. Plenty disaster actors in action on the ground. It shows how corrupt USA is.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 16, 2017, 06:50:14 PM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 16, 2017, 06:42:32 PM
Not really. The 911 destruction at NY was controlled demolition of some sort. No planes, no Arabs. The footage is fake! CGI, etc, etc. A great show. Plenty disaster actors in action on the ground. It shows how corrupt USA is.

As far as you are aware, was there ever any conclusive evidence of controlled demolition found?   

I was going to ask how come the collapse started on the exact floors that the planes hit,  but if it was all video fakery then that question is moot.

Fooling  tens of thousands watching live, and millions watching around the world in real time, that's an impressive feat of video fakery, especially since no-one has ever found any flaws in the coverage.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on September 16, 2017, 07:05:19 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 16, 2017, 06:50:14 PM
especially since no-one has ever found any flaws in the coverage.

This is an incorrect statement
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Heiwa on September 16, 2017, 07:07:55 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 16, 2017, 06:50:14 PM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 16, 2017, 06:42:32 PM
Not really. The 911 destruction at NY was controlled demolition of some sort. No planes, no Arabs. The footage is fake! CGI, etc, etc. A great show. Plenty disaster actors in action on the ground. It shows how corrupt USA is.

As far as you are aware, was there ever any conclusive evidence of controlled demolition found?   

I was going to ask how come the collapse started on the exact floors that the planes hit,  but if it was all video fakery then that question is moot.

Fooling  tens of thousands watching live, and millions watching around the world in real time, that's an impressive feat of video fakery, especially since no-one has ever found any flaws in the coverage.

Well, it seems traces of explosives have been found. And the footage? 100% prefabricated and broadcasted live on TV. A great show. It has been done before. I explain it at my website. It is called propaganda and disinformation. All US TV stations use it.
In Sweden people believe that bow visors fall off ships without anyone noticing.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 16, 2017, 07:20:46 PM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 16, 2017, 07:07:55 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 16, 2017, 06:50:14 PM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 16, 2017, 06:42:32 PM
Not really. The 911 destruction at NY was controlled demolition of some sort. No planes, no Arabs. The footage is fake! CGI, etc, etc. A great show. Plenty disaster actors in action on the ground. It shows how corrupt USA is.

As far as you are aware, was there ever any conclusive evidence of controlled demolition found?   

I was going to ask how come the collapse started on the exact floors that the planes hit,  but if it was all video fakery then that question is moot.

Fooling  tens of thousands watching live, and millions watching around the world in real time, that's an impressive feat of video fakery, especially since no-one has ever found any flaws in the coverage.

Well, it seems traces of explosives have been found. And the footage? 100% prefabricated and broadcasted live on TV. A great show. It has been done before. I explain it at my website. It is called propaganda and disinformation. All US TV stations use it.
In Sweden people believe that bow visors fall off ships without anyone noticing.

Do you have details of the explosive traces that have been found on your website?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 16, 2017, 07:23:12 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on September 16, 2017, 07:05:19 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 16, 2017, 06:50:14 PM
especially since no-one has ever found any flaws in the coverage.

This is an incorrect statement

Ok,  I'll rephrase,  no unexplained flaws in the coverage has ever been found.  I'm aware of the misinformation and manufactured cgi lies spread by the various 9/11 troofer factions.  They don't count.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Heiwa on September 16, 2017, 11:11:34 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 16, 2017, 07:20:46 PM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 16, 2017, 07:07:55 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 16, 2017, 06:50:14 PM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 16, 2017, 06:42:32 PM
Not really. The 911 destruction at NY was controlled demolition of some sort. No planes, no Arabs. The footage is fake! CGI, etc, etc. A great show. Plenty disaster actors in action on the ground. It shows how corrupt USA is.

As far as you are aware, was there ever any conclusive evidence of controlled demolition found?   

I was going to ask how come the collapse started on the exact floors that the planes hit,  but if it was all video fakery then that question is moot.

Fooling  tens of thousands watching live, and millions watching around the world in real time, that's an impressive feat of video fakery, especially since no-one has ever found any flaws in the coverage.

Well, it seems traces of explosives have been found. And the footage? 100% prefabricated and broadcasted live on TV. A great show. It has been done before. I explain it at my website. It is called propaganda and disinformation. All US TV stations use it.
In Sweden people believe that bow visors fall off ships without anyone noticing.

Do you have details of the explosive traces that have been found on your website?
The explosive traces are nanothermite explosives that Google has 42 400 links to. Maybe I mention is somewhere but my website is more about dynamic structural damage analysis - structural safety - and not about controlled demolitions.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 17, 2017, 01:30:08 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 16, 2017, 11:11:34 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 16, 2017, 07:20:46 PM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 16, 2017, 07:07:55 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 16, 2017, 06:50:14 PM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 16, 2017, 06:42:32 PM
Not really. The 911 destruction at NY was controlled demolition of some sort. No planes, no Arabs. The footage is fake! CGI, etc, etc. A great show. Plenty disaster actors in action on the ground. It shows how corrupt USA is.

As far as you are aware, was there ever any conclusive evidence of controlled demolition found?   

I was going to ask how come the collapse started on the exact floors that the planes hit,  but if it was all video fakery then that question is moot.

Fooling  tens of thousands watching live, and millions watching around the world in real time, that's an impressive feat of video fakery, especially since no-one has ever found any flaws in the coverage.

Well, it seems traces of explosives have been found. And the footage? 100% prefabricated and broadcasted live on TV. A great show. It has been done before. I explain it at my website. It is called propaganda and disinformation. All US TV stations use it.
In Sweden people believe that bow visors fall off ships without anyone noticing.

Do you have details of the explosive traces that have been found on your website?
The explosive traces are nanothermite explosives that Google has 42 400 links to. Maybe I mention is somewhere but my website is more about dynamic structural damage analysis - structural safety - and not about controlled demolitions.

I know about the nano thermite claims,  it was proven to be red-oxide primer paint chips.   Are you aware of any other claims to have found traces of explosives?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Heiwa on September 17, 2017, 02:47:12 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 17, 2017, 01:30:08 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 16, 2017, 11:11:34 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 16, 2017, 07:20:46 PM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 16, 2017, 07:07:55 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 16, 2017, 06:50:14 PM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 16, 2017, 06:42:32 PM
Not really. The 911 destruction at NY was controlled demolition of some sort. No planes, no Arabs. The footage is fake! CGI, etc, etc. A great show. Plenty disaster actors in action on the ground. It shows how corrupt USA is.

As far as you are aware, was there ever any conclusive evidence of controlled demolition found?   

I was going to ask how come the collapse started on the exact floors that the planes hit,  but if it was all video fakery then that question is moot.

Fooling  tens of thousands watching live, and millions watching around the world in real time, that's an impressive feat of video fakery, especially since no-one has ever found any flaws in the coverage.

Well, it seems traces of explosives have been found. And the footage? 100% prefabricated and broadcasted live on TV. A great show. It has been done before. I explain it at my website. It is called propaganda and disinformation. All US TV stations use it.
In Sweden people believe that bow visors fall off ships without anyone noticing.

Do you have details of the explosive traces that have been found on your website?
The explosive traces are nanothermite explosives that Google has 42 400 links to. Maybe I mention is somewhere but my website is more about dynamic structural damage analysis - structural safety - and not about controlled demolitions.

I know about the nano thermite claims,  it was proven to be red-oxide primer paint chips.   Are you aware of any other claims to have found traces of explosives?

I know about red-oxide primer paint and its application in shipbuilding. A very thin, temporary coating applied before the real anticorrosive and antifouling paints are applied. It has nothing to do with nano thermite. Only disinformers mix it up with anti-rust paint.

It seems the nano thermite particles found in the WTC 911 dust was aluminium iron based and could only have been manufactured by a few producers apart from the US military.

I happened then to live in a nano hub for many years - Freiberg i. Sa., Germany and its technical university; the Bergakademie - and one week there was this conference about nano materials just across the street from my house. Of course I invited myself and got to know a little about nano thermite. Quite easy to manufacture and perfect to destroy WTC 1/2 from top down when installed in the elevator shafts. But as I say. Terrorism is not my biz.

Why are you so curious?

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 17, 2017, 03:07:54 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 17, 2017, 02:47:12 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 17, 2017, 01:30:08 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 16, 2017, 11:11:34 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 16, 2017, 07:20:46 PM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 16, 2017, 07:07:55 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 16, 2017, 06:50:14 PM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 16, 2017, 06:42:32 PM
Not really. The 911 destruction at NY was controlled demolition of some sort. No planes, no Arabs. The footage is fake! CGI, etc, etc. A great show. Plenty disaster actors in action on the ground. It shows how corrupt USA is.

As far as you are aware, was there ever any conclusive evidence of controlled demolition found?   

I was going to ask how come the collapse started on the exact floors that the planes hit,  but if it was all video fakery then that question is moot.

Fooling  tens of thousands watching live, and millions watching around the world in real time, that's an impressive feat of video fakery, especially since no-one has ever found any flaws in the coverage.

Well, it seems traces of explosives have been found. And the footage? 100% prefabricated and broadcasted live on TV. A great show. It has been done before. I explain it at my website. It is called propaganda and disinformation. All US TV stations use it.
In Sweden people believe that bow visors fall off ships without anyone noticing.

Do you have details of the explosive traces that have been found on your website?
The explosive traces are nanothermite explosives that Google has 42 400 links to. Maybe I mention is somewhere but my website is more about dynamic structural damage analysis - structural safety - and not about controlled demolitions.

I know about the nano thermite claims,  it was proven to be red-oxide primer paint chips.   Are you aware of any other claims to have found traces of explosives?

I know about red-oxide primer paint and its application in shipbuilding. A very thin, temporary coating applied before the real anticorrosive and antifouling paints are applied. It has nothing to do with nano thermite. Only disinformers mix it up with anti-rust paint.

It seems the nano thermite particles found in the WTC 911 dust was aluminium iron based and could only have been manufactured by a few producers apart from the US military.

I happened then to live in a nano hub for many years - Freiberg i. Sa., Germany and its technical university; the Bergakademie - and one week there was this conference about nano materials just across the street from my house. Of course I invited myself and got to know a little about nano thermite. Quite easy to manufacture and perfect to destroy WTC 1/2 from top down when installed in the elevator shafts. But as I say. Terrorism is not my biz.

Why are you so curious?

Analysis of the supposed nano thermite particles reveals a different story to what you suggest.  The particles are in fact red oxide primer.

So if you are unaware of any other evidence of explosive traces, we must conclude that in fact there was none found.


Quote
The composition of the four samples of dust chosen for study were consistent with WTC dust previously published 2,3 (Appendix A).

Red/gray chips that had the same morphology and appearance as those reported by Harrit et al.1, and fitting the criteria of being attracted by a magnet and having the SEM-EDS x-ray elemental spectra described in their paper (Gray: Fe, Red: C,O, Al, Si, Fe) were found in the WTC dust from all four locations examined. The red layers were in the range of 15 to 30 micrometers thick. The gray layers were in the range of 10 to
50 micrometers thick (Appendix B).

The FTIR spectra of the red layer were consistent with reference spectra of an epoxy resin and kaolin clay (Figure 8) (Appendix C).

The SEM-EDS and backscattered electron (BE) analysis of the cross-sections of the gray layer in the red/gray chip showed it to be primarily iron consistent with a carbon steel. The cross-sections of the red layer showed the presence of equant-shaped particles of iron consistent with iron oxide pigment and plates of aluminum/silicon consistent with reference samples of kaolin. The thinnest kaolin plates were on the order of 6 nm with many sets of plates less than 1 micrometer thick. Small x-ray peaks of other elements were sometimes present. The particles were in a carbon-based matrix (Figures 9 through 14) (Appendix D).

TEM-SAED-EDS analysis of the residue after low temperature ashing showed equant-shaped particles of iron consistent with iron oxide pigment and plates of kaolin clay. Small numbers of titanium oxide particles consistent with titanium dioxide pigment were also found (Figure 15) (Appendix E).


PLM analysis of the residue from red/gray chips after muffle furnace ashing at 400oC for 1 hour showed very fine red particles consistent with synthetic hematite (iron oxide) pigment particles (Figure 16). PLM also found possible clay present based on a micro-chemical clay-stain test. TEM-SAED-EDS analysis of another portion of the same muffle furnace residue showed equant-shaped particles of iron consistent with iron oxide pigment, plates of kaolin clay and some aciniform aggregates of carbon soot consistent with incomplete ashing of a carbon-based binder (Figure 17). The SAED pattern of the kaolin particles (Figure 18) matched the kaolin pattern shown in the McCrone Particle Atlas8 (Appendix E). The values for the d-spacings determined for the diffraction patterns matched those produced by reference kaolin samples.

TEM-SAED-EDS analysis of a thin section of the red layer showed equant-shaped particles of iron consistent with iron oxide pigments and plates of kaolin clay (Figures 19 and 20). The matrix material of the red coating layer was carbon-based. Small numbers of titanium oxide particles consistent with titanium dioxide pigment and some calcium particles were also found (Appendix F).

The solvents had no effect on the gray iron/steel layer. Although the solvents softened the red layers on the chips, none of the solvents tested dissolved the epoxy resin and released the particles within. SEM-EDS phase mapping (using multivariate statistical analysis) of the red layer after exposure to MEK for 55 hours did not show evidence of individual aluminum particles (Appendix G).

In summary, red/gray chips with the same morphological characteristics, elemental spectra and magnetic attraction as those shown in Harrit et al.1 were found in WTC dust samples from four different locations than those examined by Harrit, et al.1 The gray side is consistent with carbon steel. The red side contains the elements: C, O, Al, Si, and Fe with small amounts of other elements such as Ti and Ca. Based on the infrared absorption (FTIR) data, the C/O matrix material is an epoxy resin. Based on the optical and electron microscopy data, the Fe/O particles are an iron oxide pigment consisting of crystalline grains in the 100-200 nm range and the Al/Si particles are kaolin clay plates that are less than a micrometer thick. There is no evidence of individual elemental aluminum particles detected by PLM, SEM-EDS, or TEM-SAED-EDS, during the analyses of the red layers in their original form or after sample preparation by ashing, thin sectioning or following MEK treatment.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Heiwa on September 17, 2017, 06:37:05 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 17, 2017, 03:07:54 AM

Analysis of the supposed nano thermite particles reveals a different story to what you suggest.  The particles are in fact red oxide primer.


Yes, and all that thin, 30 years old (dead) red oxid primer paint fell off during the collapses and were collected as dust on window sills all over Manhattan.
I really wonder who made that dust analysis. Any ideas?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 17, 2017, 07:13:17 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 17, 2017, 06:37:05 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 17, 2017, 03:07:54 AM

Analysis of the supposed nano thermite particles reveals a different story to what you suggest.  The particles are in fact red oxide primer.


Yes, and all that thin, 30 years old (dead) red oxid primer paint fell off during the collapses and were collected as dust on window sills all over Manhattan.
I really wonder who made that dust analysis. Any ideas?

If you are interested I have a pdf I can perhaps upload somewhere,   or try to remember  where I downloaded it originally.   

The company that did the analysis was MVA http://www.mvascientificconsultants.com/

Ok here's some light reading for you.   http://static.blog4ever.com/2011/12/582183/9119ProgressReport022912_rev1_030112web.pdf

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Heiwa on September 17, 2017, 07:24:56 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 17, 2017, 07:13:17 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 17, 2017, 06:37:05 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 17, 2017, 03:07:54 AM

Analysis of the supposed nano thermite particles reveals a different story to what you suggest.  The particles are in fact red oxide primer.


Yes, and all that thin, 30 years old (dead) red oxid primer paint fell off during the collapses and were collected as dust on window sills all over Manhattan.
I really wonder who made that dust analysis. Any ideas?

If you are interested I have a pdf I can perhaps upload somewhere,   or try to remember  where I downloaded it originally.   

The company that did the analysis was MVA http://www.mvascientificconsultants.com/

Ok here's some light reading for you.   http://static.blog4ever.com/2011/12/582183/9119ProgressReport022912_rev1_030112web.pdf

No, I am not really interested in your stuff. Any XYZ org can fake it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 17, 2017, 07:32:01 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 17, 2017, 07:24:56 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 17, 2017, 07:13:17 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 17, 2017, 06:37:05 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 17, 2017, 03:07:54 AM

Analysis of the supposed nano thermite particles reveals a different story to what you suggest.  The particles are in fact red oxide primer.


Yes, and all that thin, 30 years old (dead) red oxid primer paint fell off during the collapses and were collected as dust on window sills all over Manhattan.
I really wonder who made that dust analysis. Any ideas?

If you are interested I have a pdf I can perhaps upload somewhere,   or try to remember  where I downloaded it originally.   

The company that did the analysis was MVA http://www.mvascientificconsultants.com/

Ok here's some light reading for you.   http://static.blog4ever.com/2011/12/582183/9119ProgressReport022912_rev1_030112web.pdf

No, I am not really interested in your stuff. Any XYZ org can fake it.

You might think it's easy to fake analysis,  but no it's not.  If you know how to read and understand the analysis, it's clearly not nano thermite, they also do comparison with real nano thermite supplied by Lawrence Livermore.   

So, to save you from having to read the analysis,  I can summarize for you.  No nano thermite.    So your demolition theory is not supported by the evidence.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Heiwa on September 17, 2017, 07:58:11 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 17, 2017, 07:32:01 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 17, 2017, 07:24:56 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 17, 2017, 07:13:17 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 17, 2017, 06:37:05 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 17, 2017, 03:07:54 AM

Analysis of the supposed nano thermite particles reveals a different story to what you suggest.  The particles are in fact red oxide primer.


Yes, and all that thin, 30 years old (dead) red oxid primer paint fell off during the collapses and were collected as dust on window sills all over Manhattan.
I really wonder who made that dust analysis. Any ideas?

If you are interested I have a pdf I can perhaps upload somewhere,   or try to remember  where I downloaded it originally.   

The company that did the analysis was MVA http://www.mvascientificconsultants.com/

Ok here's some light reading for you.   http://static.blog4ever.com/2011/12/582183/9119ProgressReport022912_rev1_030112web.pdf

No, I am not really interested in your stuff. Any XYZ org can fake it.

You might think it's easy to fake analysis,  but no it's not.  If you know how to read and understand the analysis, it's clearly not nano thermite, they also do comparison with real nano thermite supplied by Lawrence Livermore.   

So, to save you from having to read the analysis,  I can summarize for you.  No nano thermite.    So your demolition theory is not supported by the evidence.

Well, I trust my friend professor Niels Harrit & associates who think it is real nano thermite.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 17, 2017, 08:02:51 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 17, 2017, 07:58:11 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 17, 2017, 07:32:01 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 17, 2017, 07:24:56 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 17, 2017, 07:13:17 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 17, 2017, 06:37:05 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 17, 2017, 03:07:54 AM

Analysis of the supposed nano thermite particles reveals a different story to what you suggest.  The particles are in fact red oxide primer.


Yes, and all that thin, 30 years old (dead) red oxid primer paint fell off during the collapses and were collected as dust on window sills all over Manhattan.
I really wonder who made that dust analysis. Any ideas?

If you are interested I have a pdf I can perhaps upload somewhere,   or try to remember  where I downloaded it originally.   

The company that did the analysis was MVA http://www.mvascientificconsultants.com/

Ok here's some light reading for you.   http://static.blog4ever.com/2011/12/582183/9119ProgressReport022912_rev1_030112web.pdf

No, I am not really interested in your stuff. Any XYZ org can fake it.

You might think it's easy to fake analysis,  but no it's not.  If you know how to read and understand the analysis, it's clearly not nano thermite, they also do comparison with real nano thermite supplied by Lawrence Livermore.   

So, to save you from having to read the analysis,  I can summarize for you.  No nano thermite.    So your demolition theory is not supported by the evidence.

Well, I trust my friend professor Niels Harrit & associates who think it is real nano thermite.

LOL,  That's the guy who sued a Danish Newspaper that called him a 9/11 crackpot?     You have funny friends.

Oh, he lost the case. 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Heiwa on September 17, 2017, 08:04:58 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 17, 2017, 08:02:51 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 17, 2017, 07:58:11 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 17, 2017, 07:32:01 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 17, 2017, 07:24:56 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 17, 2017, 07:13:17 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 17, 2017, 06:37:05 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 17, 2017, 03:07:54 AM

Analysis of the supposed nano thermite particles reveals a different story to what you suggest.  The particles are in fact red oxide primer.


Yes, and all that thin, 30 years old (dead) red oxid primer paint fell off during the collapses and were collected as dust on window sills all over Manhattan.
I really wonder who made that dust analysis. Any ideas?

If you are interested I have a pdf I can perhaps upload somewhere,   or try to remember  where I downloaded it originally.   

The company that did the analysis was MVA http://www.mvascientificconsultants.com/

Ok here's some light reading for you.   http://static.blog4ever.com/2011/12/582183/9119ProgressReport022912_rev1_030112web.pdf

No, I am not really interested in your stuff. Any XYZ org can fake it.

You might think it's easy to fake analysis,  but no it's not.  If you know how to read and understand the analysis, it's clearly not nano thermite, they also do comparison with real nano thermite supplied by Lawrence Livermore.   

So, to save you from having to read the analysis,  I can summarize for you.  No nano thermite.    So your demolition theory is not supported by the evidence.

Well, I trust my friend professor Niels Harrit & associates who think it is real nano thermite.

LOL,  That's the guy who sued a Danish Newspaper that called him a 9/11 crackpot? You have funny friends.

Well, Niels is a retired Danish university professor or lecturer in chemistry and I like him. He is quite serious!

I have been called a lot of things by Swedish civil servants and newspapers, e.g."an unscientific, unintelligent and unreasonable querulant that spreads rumours and untruths (lies) as the worst creator of conspiracy theories" . Doesn't bother me, but my mother got upset about it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 17, 2017, 08:17:04 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 17, 2017, 08:04:58 AM
I have been called a lot of things by Swedish civil servants and newspapers, e.g."an unscientific, unintelligent and unreasonable querulant that spreads rumours and untruths (lies) as the worst creator of conspiracy theories" . Doesn't bother me, but my mother got upset about it.

That can be unfair on family members.  But I think it happens more than it should.   

The 9/11 debate can be fairly heated, and people get  stuck in their entrenched conspiracy view points.   After a while they seem to stop thinking, instead of seeing and accepting what the evidence actually says.



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Heiwa on September 17, 2017, 08:35:30 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 17, 2017, 08:17:04 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 17, 2017, 08:04:58 AM
I have been called a lot of things by Swedish civil servants and newspapers, e.g."an unscientific, unintelligent and unreasonable querulant that spreads rumours and untruths (lies) as the worst creator of conspiracy theories" . Doesn't bother me, but my mother got upset about it.

That can be unfair on family members.  But I think it happens more than it should.   

The 9/11 debate can be fairly heated, and people get  stuck in their entrenched conspiracy view points.   After a while they seem to stop thinking, instead of seeing and accepting what the evidence actually says.

I forgot to mention that Niels Harriet, like me, was accused by supporters of the GWB 911 CT (Arabs, planes, etc) of being a Holocaust denier! It really upset him and that was why he sued the newspaper. I recommended to ignore these crazy people and any court of law.

Evidence? It seems a poor person/prisoner at the US Guantanamo koncentration camp has admitted everything about 911, i.e. how he & Co planned it and executed the job. Of course it was under CIA/GWB approved torture. I would also admit it under torture. You sound like a supporter of torture. Question is if a US court of law will approve such admissions.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 17, 2017, 03:39:50 PM
Soon.

(https://s26.postimg.org/7ou7qkaa1/20170918_063643.png)

911911911
Check em.
(https://s26.postimg.org/7j3y3k0zt/downloadfile.png)

Even chaos knows it's over. We will have the truth. It really does feel so good. Your opinion control on forums such as this will fail.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_magic

9/11 will bring down your entire house of cards.

Also to the mods at cluesforum. It's too late to expect us.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 17, 2017, 03:47:16 PM
Notice the damage control done by Heiwa and Rayzor after their exposure here. No amount of sliding will stop what is happening. The truth will come out.

Typo.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 17, 2017, 04:20:22 PM
I really am sorry 9/11 was an inside job. You wouldn't believe how sorry about that I am guys. I've done everything I can in my power to try and rectify it. I never did any of it for peoples thanks.

I understand the truth will be messy and unpleasant for nearly everyone. The only way we can heal as a species is through the truth. Nothing else can fix what is broken except the truth, and the whole truth.

I believe that and am willing to hurt some feelings to accomplish that, no regrets. This will all be worth it in the end.

I'll come back when the MSM has accepted they have to report it. I won't brag. I'll ask all of you once again to work together as humans to make the word a better place.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 17, 2017, 04:37:22 PM
Just some publicly available information.

http://ine.uaf.edu/projects/wtc7/
Quote
A Structural Reevaluation of the Collapse of World Trade Center 7

Project InfoLead Researcher(s)J. Leroy HulseyProject TeamDr. Feng Xiao, Post-doctoral ResearcherZhili Quan, Ph.D. studentProject Dates

May 1, 2015 - April 30, 2018

Funding

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
Project Budget: $316,153

Presentations

Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7presentation by Dr. Leroy Hulsey on September 6, 2017 at the University of Alaska Fairbanks.

Reports

WTC7 Progress Report (September 2017)

Project Summary

This is a study of the collapse of the 47-story World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC7) at 5:20 P.M. on September 11, 2001. This building was a steel-frame office building located north of Vesey Street in the World Trade Center Complex in New York City’s Financial District. The World Trade Center Complex opened on April 4, 1973, and, at the time of completion, the featured Twin Towers (WTC 1 and WTC 2) were the tallest buildings in the world. WTC 7 was later completed in 1987. Other buildings in the complex included the Marriott World Trade Center (3 WTC), 4 WTC, 5 WTC, and 6 WTC.

Consider that on the morning of September 11, 2001, two jets were flown into WTC 1 and WTC 2 in a coordinated act of terrorism. At 8:46 A.M. Eastern Time, American Airlines Flight 11 crashed into the north face of WTC 1. At 9:03 A.M., United Airlines Flight 175 crashed into the south face of WTC 2. Soon after, these two buildings collapsed, WTC 2 at 9:59 A.M. and WTC 1 at 10:28 A.M. These attacks killed 2,753 people. It is reported that falling debris produced structural damage to the remaining buildings in the World Trade Center Complex. It is also reported that falling debris from the collapse of WTC 1 caused damage to WTC 7 and that fires ignited by debris from WTC 1 burned for nearly 7 hours in the building. At 5:20 P.M., this 47-story building also collapsed.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) opened an investigation into the collapses of WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 in August 2002. NIST released its final report on WTC 7 in 2008, finding that the fires that were ignited by falling debris from WTC 1 caused the collapse of WTC 7. Independent researchers, however, have assembled evidence that has raised profound questions regarding the notion that WTC 7 collapsed because of fire.

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth provided funding to the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) to evaluate if fire caused the collapse of WTC 7 and to examine what may have occurred at 5:20 P.M. on September 11, 2001. Therefore, the UAF research team evaluated the structural response due to the reported fire. A structural framing virtual model of WTC 7 was used to conduct the study. The reported failure was simulated using three-dimensional finite element computer models of the building. The research team studied the building’s response using two finite element programs, ABAQUS and SAP2000 version 18. At the micro level, three types of evaluations were performed. In plan-view, the research team evaluated: 1) the planar response of the structural elements to the fire(s) using wire elements; 2) the building’s response using the NIST’s approach with solid elements; and 3) the validity of NIST’s findings using solid elements. At the macro-level, progressive collapse, i.e., the structural system’s response to local failures, is being studied using SAP2000 with wire elements, as well as with ABAQUS, and it is near completion. The findings thus far are that fire did not bring down this building. Building failure simulations show that, to match observation, the entire inner core of this building failed nearly simultaneously.

Quote from: disputeone on February 13, 2017, 10:49:57 PM
Fall acceleration of building 7.

This thread was over since the first post. There never was a debate. Just the debate of what we should do about it and how to go about the future. I know what it's like to go through the shock of realization. I'm sorry you're all going to go through it too. I promise you beyond the despair lies the truth.

Edit.

I myself personally and all realanons will be here to help you through this. We know how hard this is to think about and that it's even harder to accept the truth.

We promise the truth will make things better. We promise exposing 9/11 will lead to real justice and the repeal of the Orwellian anti terror laws that dominate our lives.

We'll never be far away. Myself personally and all of us. Anytime any of you need to talk I'll be available.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Copper Knickers on September 17, 2017, 05:26:52 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 17, 2017, 04:37:22 PM
I myself personally and all realanons will be here to help you through this. We know how hard this is to think about and that it's even harder to accept the truth.

We promise the truth will make things better. We promise exposing 9/11 will lead to real justice and the repeal of the Orwellian anti terror laws that dominate our lives.

We'll never be far away. Myself personally and all of us. Anytime any of you need to talk I'll be available.

How will you feel if things don't pan out the way you're expecting? Will you allow others to help you?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 17, 2017, 05:33:21 PM
Quote from: Copper Knickers on September 17, 2017, 05:26:52 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 17, 2017, 04:37:22 PM
I myself personally and all realanons will be here to help you through this. We know how hard this is to think about and that it's even harder to accept the truth.

We promise the truth will make things better. We promise exposing 9/11 will lead to real justice and the repeal of the Orwellian anti terror laws that dominate our lives.

We'll never be far away. Myself personally and all of us. Anytime any of you need to talk I'll be available.

How will you feel if things don't pan out the way you're expecting? Will you allow others to help you?

Of course I would welcome your help.

In the meantime perhaps you could explain how fire and minor external damage caused the simultaneous failure of all internal vertical support columns on wtc 7?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Copper Knickers on September 17, 2017, 05:47:43 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 17, 2017, 05:33:21 PM
Quote from: Copper Knickers on September 17, 2017, 05:26:52 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 17, 2017, 04:37:22 PM
I myself personally and all realanons will be here to help you through this. We know how hard this is to think about and that it's even harder to accept the truth.

We promise the truth will make things better. We promise exposing 9/11 will lead to real justice and the repeal of the Orwellian anti terror laws that dominate our lives.

We'll never be far away. Myself personally and all of us. Anytime any of you need to talk I'll be available.

How will you feel if things don't pan out the way you're expecting? Will you allow others to help you?

Of course I would welcome your help.

In the meantime perhaps you could explain how fire and minor external damage caused the simultaneous failure of all internal vertical support columns on wtc 7?

What I meant was there's a good chance that Hulsey won't change anything. It's good if you're prepared for that and keep an open mind.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 17, 2017, 05:51:54 PM
Quote from: Copper Knickers on September 17, 2017, 05:47:43 PM
What I meant was there's a good chance that Hulsey won't change anything. It's good if you're prepared for that and keep an open mind.

Hulseys report will change things because of men like myself and others that will risk everything for the truth.

I implore you to also do your own research and fight for what you believe.

Peer reviewed publicly available experiment and conclusion VS non peer reviewed and classifed experiment and conclusion.

It's not a hard choice for me.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 17, 2017, 06:01:25 PM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 17, 2017, 08:35:30 AM

I forgot to mention that Niels Harriet, like me, was accused by supporters of the GWB 911 CT (Arabs, planes, etc) of being a Holocaust denier! It really upset him and that was why he sued the newspaper. I recommended to ignore these crazy people and any court of law.

Evidence? It seems a poor person/prisoner at the US Guantanamo koncentration camp has admitted everything about 911, i.e. how he & Co planned it and executed the job. Of course it was under CIA/GWB approved torture. I would also admit it under torture. You sound like a supporter of torture. Question is if a US court of law will approve such admissions.

That happens,  conspiracy theorist tend to get all put in the one box,  9/11 truthers, get lumped in with holocaust deniers and flat earthers. 

I don't think I've ever seen the results of any Guantanamo interrogations, but it's generally the case that people will say whatever they think the torturer wants to hear.  So it has dubious evidentary value.    I'd put more weight on the mountain of evidence gained directly from intelligence intercepts.   I'd put less weight on the public statements of Osama Bin Laden.  Terrorists have a long history of claiming to have done things they didn't.  That's not the situation in this case however.

I feel sorry for Disputeone, he's pinned his hopes on the false assumption that people will take any notice of Hulsey's report.   I predict he will have some frustration to deal with.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 17, 2017, 06:02:20 PM
Notice how Rayzor and Heiwa will only engage each other after I exposed their shilling?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 17, 2017, 06:05:53 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 17, 2017, 06:01:25 PM
That happens,  conspiracy theorist tend to get all put in the one box,  9/11 truthers, get lumped in with holocaust deniers and flat earthers.

I already called you out for this. Honest posters see you don't have any other tricks. You can't debunk wtc 7 so you debunk the flat earth and claim it debunks wtc 7.

Quote from: Rayzor on September 17, 2017, 06:01:25 PM
I feel sorry for Disputeone, he's pinned his hopes on the false assumption that people will take any notice of Hulsey's report.   I predict he will have some frustration to deal with.

We will take notice. All of us. The criminals won't arrest themselves. You and your psyop buddies will be there to say that it's fine to ignore science that we don't like.

You should be in jail.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 17, 2017, 06:24:23 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 17, 2017, 06:05:53 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 17, 2017, 06:01:25 PM
That happens,  conspiracy theorist tend to get all put in the one box,  9/11 truthers, get lumped in with holocaust deniers and flat earthers.

I already called you out for this. Honest posters see you don't have any other tricks. You can't debunk wtc 7 so you debunk the flat earth and claim it debunks wtc 7.

I was referring to the unfair treatment Anders and his friend got in the Danish Media by being called Holocaust deniers.    Don't you ever understand what you are reading?

This reading comprehension problem of yours seems to be a recurring theme in your life.

Quote from: disputeone on September 17, 2017, 06:05:53 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 17, 2017, 06:01:25 PM
I feel sorry for Disputeone, he's pinned his hopes on the false assumption that people will take any notice of Hulsey's report.   I predict he will have some frustration to deal with.

We will take notice. All of us. The criminals won't arrest themselves. You and your psyop buddies will be there to say that it's fine to ignore science that we don't like.

You should be in jail.

Why do you think I should be in jail?    For that matter how do you suppose that might happen?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 17, 2017, 06:30:35 PM
For shilling illegally against the American / Western people.

Hulseys model will be peer reviewed. We'll see the only hypothesis that fits observation for wtc 7 is a controlled demolition. The NIST team will go to jail. We then start charging the intelligence agencies for their hand in it. We remove the corrupt Israeli / Saudi influence from the US (shadow) government. We start arresting big players in the shadow goverment and intelligence agencies. Eventually the shills who illegally shilled against their own people allies and president will go to jail.

The people are finally freed from oppression and tyranny, We can start moving forward together with the truth.

I have a dream.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sokarul on September 17, 2017, 06:38:24 PM
If models were 100 percent accurate research wouldn't exist. Models come before research.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 17, 2017, 06:38:29 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 17, 2017, 06:30:35 PM
For shilling illegally against the American / Western people.

Hulseys model will be peer reviewed. We'll see the only hypothesis that fits observation for wtc 7 is a controlled demolition. The NIST team will go to jail. We then start charging the intelligence agencies for their hand in it. We remove the corrupt Israeli / Saudi influence from the US (shadow) government. We start arresting big players in the shadow goverment and intelligence agencies. Eventually the shills who illegally shilled against their own people and allies will go to jail.

The people are finally freed from oppression and tyranny, We can start moving forward together with the truth.

I have a dream.

"For shilling illegally against the American / Western People" 

Ok, lets play your game,  how am I a shill,  prove it.   

Second,  what if I'm telling the truth,  where does that place you?   

Are you going to jail for falsely trying to shift the blame from the real criminals behind 9/11,  the islamic jihadists, 

Sorry to bust your little bubble,  but your "dream" is built on a psychotic fantasy.   I fear that when you discover that truth, you will psychically implode.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 17, 2017, 06:44:00 PM
I can't prove your a shill. I've given enough evidence for people to make up their own mind.

You edited your post twice in a longer timeframe than is possible to avoid an edit tag. First you tried to claim this happened within the grace window for editing, when this was shown to be impossible you changed your story to that you never edited it. Even though the evidence shows otherwise and even user234 noticed. You tried to go back and edit out your free lines under your post. A lot of shills are given a bonus per line. You are most likely gaming the system for extra dollars.

You need better weapons than gaslighting, try honesty integrity and truth.

If what you are saying and have been pushing is correct then you will have no problem answering this.

""perhaps you could explain how fire and minor external damage caused the simultaneous failure of all internal vertical support columns on wtc 7?""

And maybe why we should trust NIST?

""Peer reviewed publicly available experiment and conclusion VS non peer reviewed and classifed experiment and conclusion.""

Tell us why classified experiments are more trustworthy than peer reviwed experiments.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 17, 2017, 06:47:31 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 17, 2017, 06:38:29 PM
I fear that when you discover that truth, you will psychically implode.

This may happen to a lot of people when the truth finally comes out but all of us will be here to help you through it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 17, 2017, 06:52:21 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 17, 2017, 06:44:00 PM
I can't prove your a shill. I've given enough evidence for people to make up their own mind.

You edited your post twice in a longer timeframe than is possible to avoid an edit tag. First you tried to claim this happened within the grace window for editing, when this was shown to be impossible you changed your story to that you never edited it. You tried to go back and edit out your free lines under your post. A lot of shills are given a bonus per line. You are most likely gaming the system for extra dollars.


That seems to have had an interesting effect on you, hasn't it.  Maybe my secret NSA toolkit includes other stuff you don't yet know about.  You must watch everything closely in future, you never know what trick I might try next.

If I was being paid per line, I'd probably make my posts longer,  maybe get into a cut and paste battle with Sandokhan,  I'd be a millionaire by now.

Seriously, do you ever take a step back and listen to yourself?

Quote from: sokarul on September 17, 2017, 06:38:24 PM
If models were 100 percent accurate research wouldn't exist. Models come before research.

Ain't that the truth.   Hulsey didn't even model the fires, or the damage,  so I think we can dismiss his AE911troofer funded report as fatally flawed from the start.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 17, 2017, 07:02:39 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 17, 2017, 06:52:21 PM
Ain't that the truth.   Hulsey didn't even model the fires, or the damage,  so I think we can dismiss his AE911troofer funded report as fatally flawed from the start.

You're wrong. The fires and damage were modelled and taken into account. They've tested what happens when the fires and damage are more intense than NIST states. They included structural components NIST deliberately left out.

Maybe you could tell us why a classified experiments conclusion is worth more than a peer reviewed experiments conclusion.

Answer honestly, if you can.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 17, 2017, 07:06:52 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 17, 2017, 07:02:39 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 17, 2017, 06:52:21 PM
Ain't that the truth.   Hulsey didn't even model the fires, or the damage,  so I think we can dismiss his AE911troofer funded report as fatally flawed from the start.

You're wrong. The fires and damage were modelled and taken into account. They've tested what happens when the fires and damage are more intense than NIST states. They included structural components NIST deliberately left out.

Maybe you could tell us why a classified experiments conclusion is worth more than a peer reviewed experiments conclusion.

Answer honestly, if you can.

Maybe you could answer two simple questions about WTC7.

1.  Why bother demolishing a building that was already in danger of collapsing?
2.  Why wait 7 hours before demolition?   

Think carefully before you answer.   Try and make your argument based on verifiable evidence.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 17, 2017, 07:09:34 PM
Those questions do not debunk physics. We are quite good at prediciting mechanical processes now. Newton showed us how.

Quote
1.  Why bother demolishing a building that was already in danger of collapsing?

Destroy evidence linking the CIA and Mossad to 9/11.

Quote
2.  Why wait 7 hours before demolition?

Same reason it wasn't mentioned on the official commission report. Try and limit peoples knowlege of wtc 7s collapse.

Now please answer my question.

Maybe you could tell us why a classified experiments conclusion is worth more than a peer reviewed experiments conclusion.

Answer honestly, if you can.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 17, 2017, 07:19:45 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 17, 2017, 06:38:29 PM
Sorry to bust your little bubble,  but your "dream" is built on a psychotic fantasy.

Get a new script alphabet friends.
[Youtube][/youtube]

Gaslighting doesn't debunk evidence. It can't hurt ideas.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 17, 2017, 07:24:41 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 17, 2017, 07:02:39 PM
Maybe you could tell us why a classified experiments conclusion is worth more than a peer reviewed experiments conclusion.

Well, firstly, the NIST report wasn't an experiment, it is a detailed study of the collapse of WTC7,  and since I'm pretty sure you haven't actually read it in spite of your obsession, here is a link
http://ws680.nist.gov/publication/get_pdf.cfm?pub_id=861610

Here is the NIST investigation team leaders.
S. Shyam Sunder, Sc.D. (NIST) Lead Investigator
Richard G. Gann, Ph.D. (NIST) Final Report Editor; Project Leader, Project 5: Reconstruction of Thermal and Tenability Environment
William L. Grosshandler, Ph.D. (NIST) Associate Lead Investigator; Project Leader, Project 4: Investigation of Active Fire Protection Systems
H.S. Lew, Ph.D., P.E. (NIST) Co-Project Leader, Project 1: Analysis of Building and Fire Codes and Practices
Richard W. Bukowski, P.E. (NIST) Co-Project Leader, Project 1: Analysis of Building and Fire Codes and Practices
Fahim Sadek, Ph.D. (NIST) Project Leader, Project 2: Baseline Structural Performance and Aircraft Impact Damage Analysis
Frank W. Gayle, Ph.D. (NIST) Project Leader, Project 3: Mechanical and Metallurgical Analysis of Structural Steel
John L. Gross, Ph.D., P.E. (NIST) Co-Project Leader, Project 6: Structural Fire Response and Collapse Analysis
Therese P. McAllister, Ph.D., P.E. (NIST) Co-Project Leader, Project 6: Structural Fire Response and Collapse Analysis
Jason D. Averill (NIST) Project Leader, Project 7: Occupant Behavior, Egress, and Emergency Communications
J. Randall Lawson (NIST) Project Leader, Project 8: Fire Service Technologies and Guidelines
Harold E. Nelson, P.E. Fire Protection Engineering Expert
Stephen A. Cauffman (NIST) Program Manager

CONTRIBUTORS TO THE INVESTIGATION OF WTC 7  NIST TECHNICAL S TAFF
Mohsen Altafi
Elisa Baker
Dilip Banarjee
Stephen Banovic
Howard Baum
Carlos Beauchamp
Dale Bentz
Charles Bouldin
Paul Brand
Lori Brassell
Kathryn Butler
Sandy Clagett
Ishmael Conteh
Matthew Covin
David Dayan
Stuart Dols
Michelle Donnelly
Dat Duthinh
David Evans
Richard Fields
Tim Foecke
Glenn Forney
William Fritz
Anthony Hamins
Dave Kelley
Erica Kuligowski
William Luecke
Joseph Main
David McColskey
Chris McCowan
Kevin McGrattan
George Mulholland
Lakeshia Murray
Joshua Novosel
Thomas Ohlemiller
Victor Ontiveros
Richard Peacock
Lisa Petersen
Long Phan
William Pitts Rochelle Plummer
Kuldeep Prasad
Natalia Ramirez
Ronald Rehm
Paul Reneke
Lonn Rodine
Schuyler Ruitberg
Jose Sanchez
Raymond Santoyo
Steven Sekellick
Michael Selepak
Thomas Siewert
Emil Simiu
Laura Sugden
Robert Vettori
Brendan Williams
Maureen Williams
Jiann Yang
Robert Zarr
Jim Harris
Steven Hill
John Hodgens
Valentine Junker Kevin Malley
Shankar Nair
J. Keith Nelson


NIST EXPERTS AND CONSULTANTS
Najib Abboud
William Baker
Gene Corley
Vincent Dunn

Contributors to the Investigation
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND NIST INSTITUTIONAL SUPPORT
Fred Kopatich
Kenneth Lechter
Melissa Lieberman
Darren Lowe
Romena Moy
Michael E. Newman
Karen Perry
Gail Porter
Sharon Rinehart
Michael Rubin John Sanderson
Joan Smith
Jack Snell
Nancy Snyder
Ben Stein
Kelly Talbott
Michael R. Rubin
Steven Kirkpatrick
Charles Needham
Robert A. MacNeill Brian D. Peterson
Lee Ann Young
Rolf Jensen & Associates, Inc.
Ed Armm
Tom Brown Ray Grill
Duane Johnson Bob Keough
Joseph Razz
Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc
Ömer O. Erbay Andrew T. Sarawit Mehdi Zarghamee
Tomara Arrington
Kellie Beall
Tara Brown
Craig Burkhardt
Deborah Cramer
Gail Crum
Jane Dana
Matthew Heyman
James Hill
Nuala O’Connor Kelly
NIST C ONTRACTORS
Applied Research Associates, Inc.
Michael Anderson
Robert T. Bocchieri
Joseph Crepeau
Gilsanz Murray Steficek, LLP
Ramon Gilsanz
HeiTech Services, Inc.
Sonya D. Wilson
Koffel Associates, Inc.
William Koffel
Loizeaux Group International
Mark Loizeaux
Thornton Engineering Associates, LLC
William Thornton


COOPERATING ORGANIZATIONS
ABC
Tony Brackett
Joel Kanoff Sanja Karabegovic
Vladimir Tokarev American Express
Peter Kane Carol Schwartz AP
Brad Barkett
David Beatrice Mike Le Tourneau
Kevin O'Sullivan Sean Thompson
James Wood
Larry Mendillo
Roger Raiford James Turner
Ana Villanueva
AP
Mike LeTourneau
APTN
Fulvia Cassarino
Tom Giovan
Bernstein Associates Photographers
Neal Lehrer
CBS
Joseph Alessi
Margery Baker
Steve Bikofsky
Roy Carubia
Barbara Casey
Jessica Cooper
Hillary Dann Daniel Di Pierro
William Felling
Ann Fotiades
Laura Galli
Mary Gera
Michael Hernandez
Andrew Heyward Mark Laganga
Linda Mason
Kathy Mosolino
Tony St. Pierre
Jean Stevenson
Cheryl Williams
CNN
Kathy Christensen
Moira Danehy
Tiffany Dumas
Felicia Dunston Dina Gunderson
Eason Jordan
Bill Schneider
James Seward David Sheehan
James Tzetzo
David Vigilante
Citigroup, Inc.
James Goddard

Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP
Karen Bekker
Christopher Moore
Adam Itzkowitz
Rahul Mukhi
Thomas Moloney
Kimberly Spiering
John VanSickle
Clifford Law Offices
Timothy S. Tomasik
Con Edison
Martin Heslin
Corbis
Amy Bizjak
Ted Ciuzio
Candice Luz
Rachel Wright
FEMA
Audrey Massa
Bruce Swiren
Fire Department of the City of New York
Amy Adelman
Alexandra Fischer
John Tsanas
Flemming, Zulack, Williamson, Zauderer, LLP
Gregg Kanter
Fox News
Christopher J. Silvestri
Friedman Kaplan Seiler and Adelman
Kent Anker
G&S Technologies
Jay Spector
General Services Administration
Mary Guida
Gogick, Byrne & O’Neill, LLP
Kevin J. O’Neill
Here is New York Stephen P. Schreckinger
Paul Constantine Ruth Sergel

InvestigationContributors to the Investigation
Keegan Werlin LLP
Richard B. Kirby
Ryan T. Parsons (paralegal)
Lower Manhattan Development Corporation
Irene Chang
David Ridley
Magnum
Michael Shulman
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States
Madeline Blot
George L. Delgrosso
Sam M. W. Casperson
Daniel Marcus
NBC
Nancy Cole
James Miller
Catherine S. Taylor
Billy Ray
New York City Department of Design and Construction (DDC)
David J. Varoli
New York City Law Department
Ken Becker
Jay L. Cohen
Lawrence S. Kahn
Jessie Levine
Faye Lubinof
Gary Shaffer
New York City Police Department
Edward Alexander
Michael Healey
New York City Transit Authority
Kavita Bhatt
Veronica Hakim
Paul Fleuranges
George Miller
Katherine Winningham
Sophia Sifneos
Leonard Wiggin
The Hartford Insurance Co.
Mary Chepovsky
The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey
James Begley
Jeffrey Gertier
Saroj Bhol
Frank Lombardi
Alan Reiss
Timothy Stickelman
Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi
Margo Brownell
NIST NCSTAR 1-9, WTC Investigation
ixContributors to the Investigation
Schiff Harden
Beth Jacob
Siemens
John Farrington Robert Salamone
Silverstein Properties
Dara McQuillan
Steven Nathan Larry Silverstein
Walter Weems
Steven Shamash
Simpson, Thacher & Bartlett LLP
Jamie Gamble
SOM
Sharyn Fitter
Jeffrey Goldsmith
Testwell Craig
Richard Bridglal
Tribeca Towers
Chris Bricker
Brendan Farrell
Edwin Ginario
Raine Phillips
Turner Construction Company
Bernadette Forte
UHY Advisors FLVS, Inc.
Jonathan L. Newcomb
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
Al Basile
Ray Ferrari
Robert DeLeonardus
Richard Lee
WABC
Kenny Plotnik Hector Montalvo
Wachtel, Lipton, Rosen & Katz
Ian Botchko
Andrew Cheun Gina Iannello
Mark Wolinsky

InvestigationContributors to the Investigation
WCBS
Richard Bamberger
Jennifer Bennett
Vince Dementri
Nadine Kerr
Stephen Sanchez
Marc Smith
Erika Vasconcellos
Weidlinger Associates Inc.
Najib N. Abboud
WNBC
Daniel Forman
Burton Kravitz
Thomas O'Brien
Dennis Swanson
WNJU
Hugo Balta
Bill Mierisch Migdalia Perez
Jim Clayton
Deborah Doft Ron Magocsi
Scott Matthews Kai Simonsen
WPIX
Melinda Murphy
Edith Rivera Ray Rivera
Karen Scott Chet Wilson
W.R. Grace
Robert J. Bettacchi Michael B. Cohan Mark A. Shmorhun
WNYW
Zetlin & DeChiara
David Abramovitz

OTHER CONTRIBUTORS
Noah Bast
Douglas Campbell
Michael Chan
Nicolas Cianca
William Cirone
Jay Comella
Michael Davis
Frank Didik
Alexandra Fisher
David Fitzpatrick
Kevin Flynn
Erik Freeland
Archie Galarza
James Glanz
Jack Glass
Michael Heller
Valerie Hodgson
Shawn Hutchinson

Keith V. Johnson
Lance Karp
Steve Mayer
Steve McCurry
Susan Meiselas
Jeroen Morrien
Jennifer Olsen
Richard Peskin
Roberto Rabanne
Courtenay Redis
Tracey Reilly
Mark Roddenberry
Marcel Saba
Terry Schmidt
Jim Scott
Greg Semendinger
Shepard Sherbell
Bruce Shiller
Scott Sleeper
Steve Spak
Amanda Steinberger
Virginia Stewart
Robert Stolarik
Allan Tannenbaum
Walter Taylor
Chris Thaler
Courtney Thaler
Tim Tobiasen
Mark Walsh
Cynthia Weil
Abe Weinberg
Charles Wisniewski
Aman Zafar
Paul Zucker

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is the University of Alaska team
Leon Hulsey Professor, Ph.D., P. E., S.E., Civil Engineering
Dr. Feng Xiao, Post-doctoral Researcher
Zhili Quan, Ph.D. student

I should note that none of Hulsey's "team" were full time. 

Secondly,  the NIST report wasn't classified,  never has been,  and quite the reverse, public hearings were held to discuss the reports findings.
Leon Hulsey's work is being funded by AE911troofers,  draw your own conclusions.

Yeah,  my money is on NIST.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 17, 2017, 07:29:08 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 17, 2017, 06:52:21 PM

If I was being paid per line, I'd probably make my posts longer,  maybe get into a cut and paste battle.

Lol.

Why is a classified, non peer reviewed studies conclusion worth more than a peer reviewed open studies conclusion.

Answer honestly, if you can.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 17, 2017, 07:33:53 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 17, 2017, 07:29:08 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 17, 2017, 06:52:21 PM

If I was being paid per line, I'd probably make my posts longer,  maybe get into a cut and paste battle.

Lol.

Why is a classified, non peer reviewed studies conclusion worth more than a peer reviewed open studies conclusion.

Answer honestly, if you can.

The NIST report isn't classified,  never has been,  also it's been peer reviewed, and involved extensive public consultation and involvement,  so why would you choose a tinpot study by a little university over a comprehensive detailed report by a well funded and respected agency.


No comparison. 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 17, 2017, 07:35:52 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 17, 2017, 07:24:41 PM
Secondly,  the NIST report wasn't classified,  never has been,  and quite the reverse.

Quote from: Rayzor on September 17, 2017, 07:33:53 PM
The NIST report isn't classified,  never has been,  also it's been peer reviewed, and involved extensive public consultation and involvement.

Not this again. Here is the evidence you are ignoring / lying about. Please admit the public doesn't have access to the inputs needed to test the NIST conslusions and model.

(https://s26.postimg.org/sqqitwo3t/20170909_115539.png)

So one more time.

Why is a classified, non peer reviewed studies conclusion worth more than a peer reviewed open studies conclusion.

Answer honestly, if you can.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 17, 2017, 07:41:36 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 17, 2017, 07:35:52 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 17, 2017, 07:24:41 PM
Secondly,  the NIST report wasn't classified,  never has been,  and quite the reverse.

Quote from: Rayzor on September 17, 2017, 07:33:53 PM
The NIST report isn't classified,  never has been,  also it's been peer reviewed, and involved extensive public consultation and involvement.

Not this again. Here is the evidence you are ignoring / lying about. Please admit the public doesn't have access to the inputs needed to test the NIST conslusions and model.

So one more time.

Why is a classified, non peer reviewed studies conclusion worth more than a peer reviewed open studies conclusion.

Answer honestly, if you can.

I've already answered twice,  my money is on NIST.   You choose to fill your head with lies and half truths that's fine by me.   Just be prepared to be disappointed.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 17, 2017, 07:42:39 PM
Why did you lie about the classification of the inputs of the wtc 7 model?

Quote from: disputeone on September 17, 2017, 07:35:52 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 17, 2017, 07:24:41 PM
Secondly,  the NIST report wasn't classified,  never has been,  and quite the reverse.

Quote from: Rayzor on September 17, 2017, 07:33:53 PM
The NIST report isn't classified,  never has been,  also it's been peer reviewed, and involved extensive public consultation and involvement.

Not this again. Here is the evidence you are ignoring / lying about. Please admit the public doesn't have access to the inputs needed to test the NIST conslusions and model.

(https://s26.postimg.org/sqqitwo3t/20170909_115539.png)

Edit.
Definition.

Quote
classified

adjective

1.

arranged in classes or categories.

"a classified catalogue of books"

2.

(of information or documents) designated as officially secret and accessible only to authorized people.

"classified information on nuclear experiments"
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 17, 2017, 07:57:31 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 17, 2017, 07:42:39 PM
Why did you lie about the classification of the inputs of the wtc 7 model?

Why do you think I lied?    I think your comprehension filter is broken.   The report is not classified,  never has been. 

They clearly state their investigation methodology, assumptions and evidence in their report.   Model inputs aren't required to understand or support their conclusions.

You appear to have a problem with comprehension in general. Not just reading.





Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 17, 2017, 07:58:54 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 17, 2017, 07:57:31 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 17, 2017, 07:42:39 PM
Why did you lie about the classification of the inputs of the wtc 7 model?

Why do you think I lied?

Here.


Quote from: disputeone on September 17, 2017, 07:35:52 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 17, 2017, 07:24:41 PM
Secondly,  the NIST report wasn't classified,  never has been,  and quite the reverse.

Quote from: Rayzor on September 17, 2017, 07:33:53 PM
The NIST report isn't classified,  never has been,  also it's been peer reviewed, and involved extensive public consultation and involvement.

(https://s26.postimg.org/sqqitwo3t/20170909_115539.png)

Quote
classified

adjective

1.

arranged in classes or categories.

"a classified catalogue of books"

2.

(of information or documents) designated as officially secret and accessible only to authorized people.

"classified information on nuclear experiments"
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 17, 2017, 08:05:41 PM
Ok, so you just proved to everyone don't understand the difference between a report and computer model inputs.   I guess I shouldn't be surprised at your lack of comprehension.

Since you are so fond of video's



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 17, 2017, 08:06:27 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 17, 2017, 07:57:31 PM
Model inputs aren't required to understand or support their conclusions. (Made in their model)

That's just wrong Rayzor and I think you know. It would be the same as Einstein not giving us the maths behind GR and telling us to just believe it.

Now.

Please admit the public doesn't have access to the inputs needed to test the NIST conslusions made from the official model.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 17, 2017, 08:14:04 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 17, 2017, 08:06:27 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 17, 2017, 07:57:31 PM
Model inputs aren't required to understand or support their conclusions. (Made in their model)

That's just wrong Rayzor and I think you know. It would be the same as Einstein not giving us the maths behind GR and telling us to just believe it.

Now.

Please admit the public doesn't have access to the inputs needed to test the NIST conslusions made from the official model.

If I gave you the files and software what would you do with it?   Let's assume that their collapse simulation is in fact correct.  What model inputs would you look at and why?

They do in fact describe in detail, all their assumptions and modelling,  you just don't want to accept that your world view is wrong.   

I likened arguing with 9/11 conspiracy theorists to arguing with flat earthers,  no matter what you say or what evidence you show them,  nothing will ever convince them.

You are going to go bat shit crazy when Hulsey's report changes nothing.   Sorry, but you need to prepare to be disappointed.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 17, 2017, 08:16:45 PM
I would dump the model inputs everywhere so all engineeranons could test the model. All we want is transparency it's all we've ever wanted.

If there was nothing to hide then why hide it?

I agree people who believe that all the core columns of wtc 7 failed simultaneously allowing a 2.25 second symmetrical free-fall are as stubborn as flat earthers.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 17, 2017, 08:18:15 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 17, 2017, 08:14:04 PM
I likened arguing with 9/11 conspiracy theorists to arguing with flat earthers,  no matter what you say or what evidence you show them,  nothing will ever convince them.

Quote from: disputeone on September 17, 2017, 06:05:53 PM
I already called you out for this. Honest posters see you don't have any other tricks. You can't debunk wtc 7 so you debunk the flat earth and claim it debunks wtc 7.

Also this, still. If you are allowed to.

Please admit the public doesn't have access to the inputs needed to test the NIST conclusions made from the official model.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 17, 2017, 08:43:39 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 17, 2017, 08:18:15 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 17, 2017, 08:14:04 PM
I likened arguing with 9/11 conspiracy theorists to arguing with flat earthers,  no matter what you say or what evidence you show them,  nothing will ever convince them.

Quote from: disputeone on September 17, 2017, 06:05:53 PM
I already called you out for this. Honest posters see you don't have any other tricks. You can't debunk wtc 7 so you debunk the flat earth and claim it debunks wtc 7.


Once again you display your lack of comprehension for all to see.   Debunking 9/11 has nothing whatsoever to do with flat earth.   I'm talking about the mindset  that's common to a lot of conspiracies. 

I've said it before, conspiracy theories are a mind trap,  once you fall for it, it's hard to escape.  You are a perfect example of a vulnerable mind that's fallen into the trap.  Your obsession with Anonymous is just another instance of the same weak minded gullibility.


Quote from: disputeone on September 17, 2017, 08:18:15 PM
Also this, still. If you are allowed to.

Please admit the public doesn't have access to the inputs needed to test the NIST conclusions made from the official model.

I don't need the inputs and neither does anyone else to understand the logic and methodology they used.   I wouldn't have the software to run the models even if I did.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 17, 2017, 08:45:21 PM
Are you allowed to answer this?

It's objectively true. People can research this and find out the truth for themselves.

Are you allowed to answer?

Please admit the public doesn't have access to the inputs needed to test the NIST conclusions made from the official model. Alternatively please provide the NIST inputs for their FEA model.

(https://s26.postimg.org/sqqitwo3t/20170909_115539.png)


Quote from: Rayzor on September 17, 2017, 08:14:04 PM
You are going to go bat shit crazy when Hulsey's report changes nothing.   Sorry, but you need to prepare to be disappointed.

Lets both prepare. I feel like you have a lot more to lose than I do.

Anonymous was always 100% behind the truth movement. We always will be.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: hoppy on September 17, 2017, 09:15:56 PM
WTF is wrong with you D1? Rayzor is a confirmed shill, the general public is brainwashed to believe their TV and the government. Why do you make such a big deal about this? The new report won't change anybodies mind. Stop thinking that it will.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 17, 2017, 09:18:24 PM
Thanks hoppy. I'm glad you saw what happened. I agree. There's a few guys here I still want to help.

Sorry about causing so much drama on your site. Believing we can't change things won't help us make things better.

I saw this and was inspired.
Quote from: anonymous
(https://s26.postimg.org/p2f2j0z61/1505615907422.jpg)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 17, 2017, 09:21:31 PM
If I leave this thread it's just gonna go back to a back and forth between Rayzor and Heiwa. I suppose it's not that bad. I really do think we're ready for the truth and ready to start fixing things.

http://rethink911.org/news/new-poll-finds-most-americans-open-to-alternative-911-theories/

Quote
On the 12th anniversary of 9/11, a new national survey by the polling firm YouGov reveals that one in two Americans have doubts about the government’s account of 9/11, and after viewing video footage of World Trade Center Building 7’s collapse, 46% suspect that it was caused by a controlled demolition. Building 7, a 47-story skyscraper, collapsed into its own footprint late in the afternoon on 9/11.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sokarul on September 17, 2017, 10:33:59 PM
Where was the sound of explosives? Who planted them and when? Why did the inside collapse first?

Once again, models are models, not experiments. 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 17, 2017, 10:51:01 PM
Quote from: sokarul on September 17, 2017, 10:33:59 PM
Where was the sound of explosives?

[youtube][/youtube]

[youtube][/youtube]

Quote from: sokarul on September 17, 2017, 10:33:59 PM
Who planted them and when?


http://aneta.org/911experiments_com/AceElevator/

Quote from: sokarul on September 17, 2017, 10:33:59 PM
Why did the inside collapse first?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demolition

You have to destroy the core first to demolish a building.

Edit for sokarul.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 18, 2017, 12:04:53 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 17, 2017, 10:51:01 PM
Quote from: sokarul on September 17, 2017, 10:33:59 PM
Where was the sound of explosives?

[youtube][/youtube]

[youtube][/youtube]

[youtube][/youtube]

Quote from: sokarul on September 17, 2017, 10:33:59 PM
Who planted them and when?


http://aneta.org/911experiments_com/AceElevator/

Quote from: sokarul on September 17, 2017, 10:33:59 PM
Why did the inside collapse first?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demolition

You have to destroy the core first to demolish a building.

You never heard of Edward Current it seems?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 18, 2017, 12:08:31 AM
Are you allowed to answer or respond to this?

Please admit the public doesn't have access to the inputs needed to test the NIST conclusions made from the official model. Alternatively please provide the NIST inputs for their FEA model.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 18, 2017, 12:09:09 AM
Edward Current is a youtube prankster,  I notice you linking to his hoax videos.   This makes you look like a idiot....  oh wait.





Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 18, 2017, 12:10:05 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 18, 2017, 12:08:31 AM
Are you allowed to answer or respond to this?

Please admit the public doesn't have access to the inputs needed to test the NIST conclusions made from the official model. Alternatively please provide the NIST inputs for their FEA model.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 18, 2017, 12:14:52 AM
Why do you think Rayzor won't respond to this post? Do you think he knows it hurts his argument so he's being dishonest? Or do you think he's not allowed to? Why do you guys think he wont acknowledge facts that don't suit his narrative?

Please admit the public doesn't have access to the inputs needed to test the NIST conclusions made from the official model. Alternatively please provide the NIST inputs for their FEA model.

Seems like a genuine poster could just admit it. It's nearly like there's things he's not allowed to engage with?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 18, 2017, 12:15:45 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 18, 2017, 12:10:05 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 18, 2017, 12:08:31 AM
Are you allowed to answer or respond to this?

Please admit the public doesn't have access to the inputs needed to test the NIST conclusions made from the official model. Alternatively please provide the NIST inputs for their FEA model.

LOL Fuck off, I already answered,  got any more hoax videos to post that got you sucked in, like the good little anon truther that you are.



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 18, 2017, 12:16:56 AM
You haven't responded or answered. You aren't allowed to, anyone who looks can see.

Please admit the public doesn't have access to the inputs needed to test the NIST conclusions made from the official model. Alternatively please provide the NIST inputs for their FEA model.

(https://s26.postimg.org/sqqitwo3t/20170909_115539.png)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 18, 2017, 12:20:54 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 18, 2017, 12:16:56 AM
You haven't responded or answered. You aren't allowed to, anyone who looks can see.

Haha your response tells me that you didn't know they were hoax videos, did you...   go on admit it,  I won't tell anyone. 

Now GTFO.  dipshit. go play with your anon buddies on 4chan.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 18, 2017, 12:24:37 AM
Is it the UFO video? Honestly I just grabbed it from youtube at work. My apologies sokarul please just consider just the top and bottom videos.

Rayzor, drop the ad hominems. People will start to wonder why you won't respond to this post. It's objectively true. Why aren't you allowed to admit it?

Please admit the public doesn't have access to the inputs needed to test the NIST conclusions made from the official model. Alternatively please provide the NIST inputs for their FEA model.
(https://s26.postimg.org/sqqitwo3t/20170909_115539.png)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bullwinkle on September 18, 2017, 12:39:23 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 17, 2017, 09:18:24 PM

I saw this and was inspired.
Quote from: anonymous
(https://s26.postimg.org/p2f2j0z61/1505615907422.jpg)


You are inspired by little boys who use spray paint to express
what they wish they had the balls to do?

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 18, 2017, 12:40:32 AM
It's an inspirational quote.

Quote from: disputeone on September 18, 2017, 12:24:37 AM
Rayzor, drop the ad hominems. People will start to wonder why you won't respond to this post. It's objectively true. Why aren't you allowed to admit it?

Please admit the public doesn't have access to the inputs needed to test the NIST conclusions made from the official model. Alternatively please provide the NIST inputs for their FEA model.
(https://s26.postimg.org/sqqitwo3t/20170909_115539.png)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Opticon on September 18, 2017, 01:33:17 AM
This thread is the gift that keeps on giving.  I'm glad you decided to stay disputeone even after many posts saying or alluding to you leaving.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sokarul on September 18, 2017, 05:47:50 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 17, 2017, 10:51:01 PM
Quote from: sokarul on September 17, 2017, 10:33:59 PM
Where was the sound of explosives?

[youtube][/youtube]

[youtube][/youtube]

Quote from: sokarul on September 17, 2017, 10:33:59 PM
Who planted them and when?


http://aneta.org/911experiments_com/AceElevator/

Quote from: sokarul on September 17, 2017, 10:33:59 PM
Why did the inside collapse first?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demolition

You have to destroy the core first to demolish a building.

Edit for sokarul.
Wait, you really think people were next to WTC7 7 hours after the towers fell to make phone calls?

As for the explosive leak, I expected actual evidence. I was disappointed.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on September 18, 2017, 04:55:30 PM
Friendly reminder that the full Hulsey report hasn't been released OR peer reviewed yet. Only progress reports have been made.

Touting the veracity of a report that has yet to be released or peer reviewed is strong evidence of bias.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 18, 2017, 06:10:53 PM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on September 18, 2017, 04:55:30 PM
Friendly reminder that the full Hulsey report hasn't been released OR peer reviewed yet. Only progress reports have been made.

Touting the veracity of a report that has yet to be released or peer reviewed is strong evidence of bias.

Friendly reminder the NIST report was never released, never peer reviewed and is still classified in the interest of public safety.

Quote from: sokarul on September 18, 2017, 05:47:50 AM
Wait, you really think people were next to WTC7 7 hours after the towers fell to make phone calls?

The firemen were. That's the video I presented.

Too spicy not to share.
(https://s26.postimg.org/71zryt48p/1505782854022m.jpg)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on September 18, 2017, 06:30:08 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 18, 2017, 06:10:53 PM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on September 18, 2017, 04:55:30 PM
Friendly reminder that the full Hulsey report hasn't been released OR peer reviewed yet. Only progress reports have been made.

Touting the veracity of a report that has yet to be released or peer reviewed is strong evidence of bias.

Friendly reminder the NIST report was never released and is still classified in the interest of public safety.

As usual, you are being misleading. The report was released. The model was not (as far as I know).

This is beside the point though. Hulsey has not released his model or final report. Once it is released, we can discuss it. But for now, your claims about the veracity of an unreleased report is nothing but bullshit.

Please stop with the bullshit. It makes you look extremely hypocritical, considering your constant claims of promoting truth and honesty.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 18, 2017, 06:31:34 PM
Are you able to admit this Totes?

Quote from: disputeone on September 18, 2017, 12:24:37 AM
Please admit the public doesn't have access to the inputs needed to test the NIST conclusions made from the official model. Alternatively please provide the NIST inputs for their FEA model.
(https://s26.postimg.org/sqqitwo3t/20170909_115539.png)

Why does the NIST model hold any weight?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Wolvaccine on September 18, 2017, 06:38:36 PM
How the hell do they expect to people to take serious a report without the modelling that was used to draw the conclusions. Sure, release the report. Great! But without the modelling, what's to say the report is nothing more than creative word play? No one can peer review or test it. You just have to take 'their word' for it? Give me a break.

People have every right to question and doubt the report especially when it lacks critical elements designed to understand it.

You also have to wonder why such important information is being supressed. Is it for 'public interest' or the governments?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on September 18, 2017, 06:47:27 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 18, 2017, 06:31:34 PM
Are you able to admit this Totes?

Sure. See my previous post, where I do just that. (Edit: Also, for the love of all that is holy, please please please actually read posts in their entirety before responding to them.)

Quote
Why does the NIST model hold any weight?

It doesn't have to hold any weight. Your claims are:

1. The NIST report is wrong.
2. It is wrong intentionally as part of a criminal coverup.

Maybe the NIST report is wrong, maybe it isn't. I don't have access to the model, so I can't tell you if it is wrong or not.
Maybe the Hulsey report is wrong, maybe it isn't. I don't have access to the model, so I can't tell you if it is wrong or not.
And even if the NIST report is indeed wrong, that doesn't mean it is part of an intentional coverup. FEA is a lot better now than it was 10+ years ago.

Your insistence that the Hulsey report is right and the NIST report is wrong is not based on an analysis of the respective models. Stop being a blowhard.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 18, 2017, 06:54:31 PM
NIST deliberately left out key structural components and fireproofing. They ended their model at the point that it would become an apparent forgery. We don't have access to the NIST inputs to test the conclusions in their model they try to push as "truth."
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 18, 2017, 06:55:16 PM
Quote from: Shifter on September 18, 2017, 06:38:36 PM
How the hell do they expect to people to take serious a report without the modelling that was used to draw the conclusions. Sure, release the report. Great! But without the modelling, what's to say the report is nothing more than creative word play? No one can peer review or test it. You just have to take 'their word' for it? Give me a break.

People have every right to question and doubt the report especially when it lacks critical elements designed to understand it.

You also have to wonder why such important information is being supressed. Is it for 'public interest' or the governments?

This. All we've ever wanted was transparency.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on September 18, 2017, 06:56:16 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 18, 2017, 06:54:31 PM
NIST deliberately left out key structural components and fireproofing. They ended their model at the point that it would become an apparent forgery. We don't have access to the NIST inputs to test the conclusions in their model they try to push as "truth."

Whatever. This has nothing to do with my previous posts. My point stands. Stop spreading bullshit.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 18, 2017, 07:01:54 PM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on September 18, 2017, 06:56:16 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 18, 2017, 06:54:31 PM
NIST deliberately left out key structural components and fireproofing. They ended their model at the point that it would become an apparent forgery. We don't have access to the NIST inputs to test the conclusions in their model they try to push as "truth."

Whatever. This has nothing to do with my previous posts. My point stands. Stop spreading bullshit.

Yes it does. Also your point was debunked. Already Hulseys report has more scientific validity than the NIST report. I'm sorry about all of this. It's not my fault 9/11 was an inside job.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sokarul on September 18, 2017, 07:02:28 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 18, 2017, 06:10:53 PM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on September 18, 2017, 04:55:30 PM
Friendly reminder that the full Hulsey report hasn't been released OR peer reviewed yet. Only progress reports have been made.

Touting the veracity of a report that has yet to be released or peer reviewed is strong evidence of bias.

Friendly reminder the NIST report was never released, never peer reviewed and is still classified in the interest of public safety.

Quote from: sokarul on September 18, 2017, 05:47:50 AM
Wait, you really think people were next to WTC7 7 hours after the towers fell to make phone calls?

The firemen were. That's the video I presented.
You presented a video of a sound while a guy is on a pay phone saying he is ok. SO he is a block from where the towers fell, 7 hours later?  Get real. You just aren't smart enough to see the video is mislabeled.

Quote
Too spicy not to share.
(https://s26.postimg.org/71zryt48p/1505782854022m.jpg)
Really? Do you want to get whooped again? Steel doesn't need to melt to lose structural support.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 18, 2017, 07:05:13 PM
Steel beams did melt on 9/11. That's just an unpleasant fact.

(https://s26.postimg.org/o5pgql2yh/images-52.jpg)

Again, I am sorry about this.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sokarul on September 18, 2017, 07:06:40 PM
So what is your point other than to not actually address my post?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 18, 2017, 07:10:12 PM
Quote from: sokarul on September 18, 2017, 07:06:40 PM
So what is your point other than to not actually address my post?

My point is jet fuel doesn't melt steel beams. Therefore something else did.

(https://s26.postimg.org/65g9m7ard/2017-09-19-10-07-40-.jpg)

I can't see a point you've made tbth.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on September 18, 2017, 07:10:53 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 18, 2017, 07:01:54 PM
Already Hulseys report has more scientific validity than the NIST report. I'm sorry about all of this. It's not my fault 9/11 was an inside job.

This conclusion is premature, since the Hulsey report hasn't even been released yet. Stop spreading bullshit.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 18, 2017, 07:11:55 PM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on September 18, 2017, 07:10:53 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 18, 2017, 07:01:54 PM
Already Hulseys report has more scientific validity than the NIST report. I'm sorry about all of this. It's not my fault 9/11 was an inside job.

This conclusion is premature, since the Hulsey report hasn't even been released yet. Stop spreading bullshit.

The NIST reports model and inputs are classified. It has all the scientific validity of a rock.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on September 18, 2017, 07:13:13 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 18, 2017, 07:10:12 PM
Quote from: sokarul on September 18, 2017, 07:06:40 PM
So what is your point other than to not actually address my post?

My point is jet fuel doesn't melt steel beams. Therefore something else did.

(https://s26.postimg.org/65g9m7ard/2017-09-19-10-07-40-.jpg)

I can't see a point you've made tbth.

Honestly, this is why I left this thread for so long. You rarely seem to catch the point of any post. It's like arguing with a random word generator.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 18, 2017, 07:14:39 PM
How did the steel melt?

You want me to stop posting things you can't debunk. You all do.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on September 18, 2017, 07:21:26 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 18, 2017, 07:14:39 PM
How did the steel melt?

You want me to stop posting things you can't debunk. You all do.

I have addressed that in the past, but I don't feel like revisiting it. Why are you trying to change the subject?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 18, 2017, 07:23:26 PM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on September 18, 2017, 07:21:26 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 18, 2017, 07:14:39 PM
How did the steel melt?

You want me to stop posting things you can't debunk. You all do.

I have addressed that in the past, but I don't feel like revisiting it. Why are you trying to change the subject?

It's not Aluminum. Aluminium glows silver in direct sunlight. Contaminated aluminium isn't that uniform color.

The only hypothesis that matches observation is that it's molten steel.

Considering the fires didn't burn hot enough to melt steel. What do you think caused the steel to melt?

As for changing the subject. The NIST report is unscientific by definition. I'm sorry about this.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on September 18, 2017, 07:24:17 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 18, 2017, 07:23:26 PM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on September 18, 2017, 07:21:26 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 18, 2017, 07:14:39 PM
How did the steel melt?

You want me to stop posting things you can't debunk. You all do.

I have addressed that in the past, but I don't feel like revisiting it. Why are you trying to change the subject?

It's not aluminum. Aluminium glows silver in direct sunlight. Contaminated aluminium isn't that uniform color.

The only hypothesis that matches observation is that it's molten steel.

Considering the fires didn't burn hot enough to melt steel. What do you think caused the steel to melt?

Why are you trying to change the subject?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 18, 2017, 07:26:30 PM
Ok lets talk about the NIST report.

How can a report be scientifically valid when the model they used to draw conclusions is classified?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on September 18, 2017, 07:27:47 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 18, 2017, 07:26:30 PM
Ok lets talk about the NIST report.

How can a report be scientifically valid when the model they used to draw conclusions is classified?

Nice try, but no, that is still a subject change. Why are you trying to change the subject?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 18, 2017, 07:29:09 PM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on September 18, 2017, 07:27:47 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 18, 2017, 07:26:30 PM
Ok lets talk about the NIST report.

How can a report be scientifically valid when the model they used to draw conclusions is classified?

Nice try, but no, that is still a subject change. Why are you trying to change the subject?

Tell me what you feel comfortable talking about and I'll work with you mate.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on September 18, 2017, 07:35:51 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 18, 2017, 07:29:09 PM
Quote from: TotesReptilian on September 18, 2017, 07:27:47 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 18, 2017, 07:26:30 PM
Ok lets talk about the NIST report.

How can a report be scientifically valid when the model they used to draw conclusions is classified?

Nice try, but no, that is still a subject change. Why are you trying to change the subject?

Tell me what you feel comfortable talking about and I'll work with you mate.

Excellent. My point is simple.

1. The Hulsey report has not been released. The model has not been released. It has not been peer reviewed.
2. The NIST model has not been released. It has not been peer reviewed.

Claiming that the Hulsey report disproves the NIST report is absurd. You have no way of knowing that. It hasn't even been released. Stop spreading bullshit.

Now it is your turn to say:

"Ok. Sorry. I'll stop spreading bullshit."

Then I'll say:

"Excellent. Have a nice day."
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 18, 2017, 07:38:18 PM
I'm not spreading bullshit. I don't need Hulseys report to prove wtc 7 didn't collapse due to fire. A single column failure won't lead to the symmetrical 2.25 second free fall of the entire building.

Hulseys report is just the icing on the cake.

How about this then? I wont cite Hulseys report until it is released and peer-reviewed and you guys can't cite the NIST report until it is released and peer reviewed?

Deal?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on September 18, 2017, 07:54:55 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 18, 2017, 07:38:18 PM
I'm not spreading bullshit. I don't need Hulseys report to prove wtc 7 didn't collapse due to fire. A single column failure won't lead to the symmetrical 2.25 second free fall of the entire building.

Hulseys report is just the icing on the cake.

Once again, you are missing the point. Here is a metaphor to help you understand:

Pretend I am trying to convince you that broccoli comes from a plant. I present two arguments to back up this statement:

1. Broccoli is green. Plants are green. Therefore, broccoli comes from plants. (A weak argument, but somewhat valid.)
2. My farts smell like oregano. Therefore, broccoli comes from plants.

The validity of argument 1 doesn't lessen the absurdity of argument 2.

Quote
How about this then? I wont cite Hulseys report until it is released and peer-reviewed and you guys can't cite the NIST report until it is released and peer reviewed?

Deal?

You are the one making definitive claims that the NIST report is criminally wrong. I'm not sure how to discuss those claims without referring to the report in question. Just try to keep in mind the limitations of both the reports. Neither one disproves the other. Yet. I am interested in looking at the report when it comes out. But until then, stop spreading bullshit. It undermines your credibility.

Now it is your turn to say:

"Ok. Sorry. I'll stop spreading bullshit."

Then I'll say:

"Excellent. Have a nice day."
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 18, 2017, 07:56:59 PM
No. I'm not spreading bullshit. You are annoyed you can't debunk my posts so you want to get a small victory to convince yourself the 9/11 commission report is the truth. Seek comfort and blue pills elsewhere.

I can prove the NIST report on wtc 7 to be fraudulent without Hulseys report. I have in this thread.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: TotesReptilian on September 18, 2017, 08:02:18 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 18, 2017, 07:56:59 PM
No. I'm not spreading bullshit. You are annoyed you can't debunk my posts so you want to get a small victory to convince yourself the 9/11 commission report is the truth. Seek comfort and blue pills elsewhere.

I can prove the NIST report on wtc 7 to be fraudulent without Hulseys report. I have in this thread.

*whoooooosh*

Oh well, I tried. Have a nice day.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 18, 2017, 08:02:58 PM
You too mate.

Quote from: TotesReptilian on September 18, 2017, 07:54:55 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 18, 2017, 07:38:18 PM
A single column failure won't lead to the symmetrical 2.25 second free fall of the entire building.
My farts smell like oregano. Therefore, broccoli comes from plants.

Sadly, for those following along, this has been the best attempt so far to "debunk" this argument.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 18, 2017, 08:22:59 PM
Totes you're smart enough to use your own brain and come to your own conclusions. It seems like you prefer to wait and be told what and how to think about things.

I did get frustrated with you because I thought we could have an honest debate / discussion on this topic but you're too invested in the official story.

I can explain in my own words how and why a failure at column 79 couldn't have caused the collapse we saw. I don't need anyones report or FEA.

I'm happy to discuss it with anyone but no one wants to talk about it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 01:11:43 AM
Paste dump.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clean_Break:_A_New_Strategy_for_Securing_the_Realm
>A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm (commonly known as the "Clean Break" report) is a policy document that was prepared in 1996 by a study group led by Richard Perle for Benjamin Netanyahu, the then Prime Minister of Israel.[1] The report explained a new approach to solving Israel's security problems in the Middle East with an emphasis on "Western values." It has since been criticized for advocating an aggressive new policy including the removal of Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and the containment of Syria by engaging in proxy warfare and highlighting its possession of "weapons of mass destruction".
>1996

[youtube] [Open]
>"If you take out Saddam, Saddam's regime, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region." -- Netanyahu, 2002[/youtube]

>Netanyahu Says 9/11 Terror Attacks Good for Israel
http://haaretz.com/news/report-netanyahu-says-9-11-terror-attacks-good-for-israel-1.244044

http://www.haaretz.com/sharon-says-u-s-should-also-disarm-iran-libya-and-syria-1.18707
>Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said yesterday that Iran, Libya and Syria should be stripped of weapons of mass destruction after Iraq. "These are irresponsible states, which must be disarmed of weapons mass destruction, and a successful American move in Iraq as a model will make that easier to achieve," Sharon said to a visiting delegation of American congressmen.

http://www.iraqwatch.org/perspectives/rumsfeld-openletter.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act
>Iraq Liberation Act was signed by Bill Clinton in 1998 to topple Saddam Hussein, as a response to pressure and open letter by Jewish neocons and Israel

[youtube][/youtube]
>General Wesley Clark, NATO General: Wars Were Planned - Seven Countries In Five Years, before 9/11
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 01:13:44 AM
>Mossad agents caught recording the first plane striking the tower then dancing and celebrating the attack. later arrested in a van with traces of explosives
[youtube][/youtube]

>Israel celebrates successful 9/11 operation on Purim holiday
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/03/01/291462/israel-celebrates-successful-911attacks/

>9-11 Mossad 'Mural Van' - NYPD Radio Transmission
[youtube][/youtube]

>9-11 Cop Who Arrested Dancing Israelis Speaks
[youtube][/youtube]

>The Zionist Jews Who Were Caught Celebrating 911 Attacks As While Occuring Are Caught Confessing 911 On Israeli TV
[youtube][/youtube]

>Netanyahu Bragged He Has America Wrapped Around His Finge
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/tricky-bibi-1.302053


https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/26/world/middleeast/kerry-reminds-congress-netanyahu-advised-us-to-invade-iraq.html?_r=0
>Kerry Reminds Congress Netanyahu Advised U.S. to Invade Iraq
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 01:15:42 AM
ABC News - Israelis Detained on 9/11 Spies
>http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=123885

FBI report - Israelis caught with bombs on 9/11
>http://www.scribd.com/collections/4010452/9-11-The-Dancing-Israelis-FBI-report

Christopher Bollyn 2014 (60 min lecture)
“Israel Is Behind the 9/11 Attacks and Iraq Wars”
[youtube][/youtube]

FOX News - The Israeli 9/11 Connection ep.1
[youtube][/youtube]

RT News and Press TV journalist Ryan Dawson - War By Deception 2013
[YouTube][/youtube]

BBC journalist Alan Hart on Israel and 9/11
[youtube][/youtube]

RT News - Was 9/11 an Inside Job
[youtube][/youtube]

As I said.
We really do know.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 02:32:39 AM
Huh,   I was expecting Leroy Hulsley and his all singing and dancing engineers and architects for 9/11 truth,  what do i get?   Faked articles and dancing israelis.   Cheapskate.

Keep up the push for world peace and harmony,  can't trust those jews eh?

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 03:35:07 AM
You can't trust Mossad, or the CIA. I think you know they're pretty much the same thing. Nothing against Jews in general, they're just people.

Reminder you still refuse to acknowlege this.

Quote from: disputeone on September 18, 2017, 12:24:37 AM
Rayzor, drop the ad hominems. People will start to wonder why you won't respond to this post. It's objectively true. Why aren't you allowed to admit it?

Please admit the public doesn't have access to the inputs needed to test the NIST conclusions made from the official model. Alternatively please provide the NIST inputs for their FEA model.
(https://s26.postimg.org/sqqitwo3t/20170909_115539.png)

Also this is where I'm happy to leave Hulseys report for now.

Quote from: disputeone on September 18, 2017, 07:38:18 PM
How about this then? I wont cite Hulseys report until it is released and peer-reviewed and you guys can't cite the NIST report until it is released and peer reviewed?

Deal?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 03:51:40 AM
How can anyone, even for a second, not think you are an intelligence asset when you won't admit the official NIST inputs are classified in the interests of ""public safety.""?

Some people might notice.

Just for fun and interest.
[youtube][/youtube]
Also gives you the chance to call me names some more instead of ""debate.""

You know the people you serve don't care about you Rayzor, they don't want what's best for you, or any of us.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 04:11:53 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 03:51:40 AM
You know the people you serve don't care about you Rayzor, they don't want what's best for you, or any of us.

LOL at the moment she's got the flue,  so you might be right for once. 

Reminder:  You are still posting the same debunked crap.  Try to get something original, preferably not from a fake source.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 04:14:03 AM
Are you claiming this document is a fake?

(https://s26.postimg.org/sqqitwo3t/20170909_115539.png)

And this has been debunked?

Quote
Please admit the public doesn't have access to the inputs needed to test the NIST conclusions made from the official model. Alternatively please provide the NIST inputs for their FEA model.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 04:15:50 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 04:14:03 AM
Are you claiming this document is a fake?

(https://s26.postimg.org/sqqitwo3t/20170909_115539.png)
[/quote]

No, but I'm pretty sure I've seen it before.   Have you posted it previously?

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 04:17:31 AM
Because you have still not acknowledged this.

Please admit the public doesn't have access to the inputs needed to test the NIST conclusions made from the official model. Alternatively please provide the NIST inputs for their FEA model.

When you acknowledge this is the case I will stop pressing you.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 04:23:38 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 04:17:31 AM
Because you have still not acknowledged this.

Please admit the public doesn't have access to the inputs needed to test the NIST conclusions made from the official model. Alternatively please provide the NIST inputs for their FEA model.

When you acknowledge this is the case I will stop pressing you.

Here you go,  but I'm sure I've posted this before.     

https://www.nist.gov/publications/final-report-collapse-world-trade-center-building-7-federal-building-and-fire-safety-0?pub_id=861610

Maybe this time you'll actually read it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 04:26:25 AM
That's over 9000 keks.
They are not the inputs son.

You aren't allowed to admit it, are you?Don't they have protocol on this or something? Surely when you're in a corner they give you a tiny bit of wiggle room? I noticed I can chase you away with that simple quote every time.

On the topic of the people you serve.

Check out all the cool shit we could have and do if we just stood up to our corrupt goverments. There's no limits on humanity except the ones we place on ourselves and others.
[Youtube][/youtube]
This is simply declassified no "conspiracy" involved. It's quite old news now.

Like we've had that since '94 man, Everyone thinks the em drive was so cool. We've had this and more for so long. It's kept locked away in black budget alphabet soup programs to use as weapons against humanity instead of the betterment. We could be so much more if we just opened our eyes to the groups and systems controlling us.

All we have ever wanted is transparency and a free exchange of information and ideas.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 04:30:13 AM
I think Leroy Hulsey just shot himself in the foot.

Quote from: http://ine.uaf.edu/wtc7
The findings thus far are that fire did not bring down this building. Building failure simulations show that, to match observation, the entire inner core of this building failed nearly simultaneously.

The observations are that inner core didn't fail simultaneously, it failed progressively left to right,  so if his failure simulation shows simultaneous failure of the inner core. He's wrong.

Whoops.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 04:32:31 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 04:26:25 AM
That's over 9000 keks.
They are not the inputs son.

bzzzt.  wrong,  please name any assumptions or inputs  that were not included and discussed in the project report I linked to.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 04:35:19 AM
The entire remaining core numnuts.

Even the NIST """model""" shows a large section of the core intact as the roofline first starts to collapse.

[Youtube][/youtube]

[youtube][/youtube]

http://rethink911.org/news/new-poll-finds-most-americans-open-to-alternative-911-theories/

http://reinvestigate911.org/content/911-opinion-poll-majority-doubt-official-911-story

You really are a terrible shill.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 04:36:18 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 04:32:31 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 04:26:25 AM
That's over 9000 keks.
They are not the inputs son.

bzzzt.  wrong,  please name any assumptions or inputs  that were not included and discussed in the project report I linked to.

These ones.

(https://s26.postimg.org/sqqitwo3t/20170909_115539.png)

You really are a terrible shill.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 04:44:14 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 04:35:19 AM
The entire remaining core numnuts.

Even the NIST """model""" shows a large section of the core intact as the roofline first starts to collapse.

LOL,  FFS, do you realise you just agreed with what I'm saying and contradicted the Leroy Hulsey report?

Quote from: Leroy Hulsey
Building failure simulations show that, to match observation, the entire inner core of this building failed nearly simultaneously

Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 04:35:19 AM
You really are a terrible shill.
Maybe I'm not a shill.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 04:50:22 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 04:44:14 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 04:35:19 AM
The entire remaining core numnuts.

Even the NIST """model""" shows a large section of the core intact as the roofline first starts to collapse.

LOL,  FFS, do you realise you just agreed with what I'm saying and contradicted the Leroy Hulsey report?

In order for a 2.25 second period of symmetrical free-fall. The building had to have no structural support, following this logic it had to have no structural support columns. Therefore, just prior to the period of freefall nearly all the core columns failed simultaneously.

If this was not the case the collapse of wtc 7 might have looked something like this? Assymmetrical and without a period of freefall, hmm?
[youtube][/youtube]

You are trying to sell people a fairy tale with the only consolation being big brother will take care of them. That is a disgusting and unforgivable lie.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 05:00:04 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 04:50:22 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 04:44:14 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 04:35:19 AM
The entire remaining core numnuts.

Even the NIST """model""" shows a large section of the core intact as the roofline first starts to collapse.

LOL,  FFS, do you realise you just agreed with what I'm saying and contradicted the Leroy Hulsey report?

In order for a 2.25 second period of symmetrical free-fall. The building had to have no structural support, following this logic it had to have no structural support columns. Therefore, just prior to the period of freefall nearly all the core columns failed simultaneously.

That's my point, the observations show clearly progressive left to right collapse,  not simultaneous.

[ video snipped ]

Actually that simulation matches the video evidence pretty well.  I think there was one from a different angle that is more closely aligned with the video viewpoint.

Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 04:50:22 AM
You are trying to sell people a fairy tale with the only consolation being big brother will take care of them. That is a disgusting and unforgivable lie.

Are you trying to shift the blame for one of the most evil crimes of the century away from the islamic terrorists, onto innocent people.
That's the sickest thing I've ever heard of, and you should be ashamed to be associated with such an evil corrosive movement.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 05:04:37 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 05:00:04 AM
[youtube][/youtube]

Actually that simulation matches the video evidence pretty well.  I think there was one from a different angle that is more closely aligned with the video viewpoint.

That's just a lie.

Just in case anyone isn't totally sure of what Rayzor is by now.

[youtube][/youtube]

[youtube][/youtube]
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 05:15:33 AM
Here you go


Try to catch up.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 05:20:10 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 05:15:33 AM
Here you go


Try to catch up.

That's not the NIST model Rayzor. You are lying about the NIST model looking anything like what happened. I don't like lies. They didn't even let us see the actual collapse in their model because it would have looked nothing like what happened even with their classified inputs.

You are a terrible shill.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 05:21:27 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 05:00:04 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 04:50:22 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 04:44:14 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 04:35:19 AM
The entire remaining core numnuts.

Even the NIST """model""" shows a large section of the core intact as the roofline first starts to collapse.

LOL,  FFS, do you realise you just agreed with what I'm saying and contradicted the Leroy Hulsey report?

In order for a 2.25 second period of symmetrical free-fall. The building had to have no structural support, following this logic it had to have no structural support columns. Therefore, just prior to the period of freefall nearly all the core columns failed simultaneously.

That's my point, the observations show clearly progressive left to right collapse,  not simultaneous.

Yes.
Quote from: dispute
the remaining core columns numnuts.

Wtc 7 had at least 18 vertical support columns remaining at the point of the roof line collapse. That's just an unpleasant fact.

(https://s26.postimg.org/iegp2ilix/images-43.jpg)


Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 04:50:22 AM
You are trying to sell people a fairy tale with the only consolation being big brother will take care of them. That is a disgusting and unforgivable lie.
Quote from: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 05:00:04 AM
Are you trying to shift the blame for one of the most evil crimes of the century away from the islamic terrorists, onto the people who actually committed them?
That's the sickest thing I've ever heard of, and you should be ashamed to be associated with such an evil corrosive movement.

Yes.
(https://s26.postimg.org/clb8foz95/internet.jpg)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 05:24:22 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 05:20:10 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 05:15:33 AM
Here you go


Try to catch up.

That's not the NIST model Rayzor. You are lying about the NIST model looking anything like what happened. I don't like lies. They didn't even let us see the actual collapse in their model because it would have looked nothing like what happened even with their classified inputs.

You are a terrible shill.

That is in fact the NIST model,  watch 4:21 onwards,  I've posted that NIST simulation before so it should be nothing new to a diligent researcher like yourself.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 05:28:14 AM
Let's just consider the NIST model.
[youtube][/youtube]

Compared to reality.
[youtube][/youtube]

Do you stand by your claim that the NIST model looks like the collapse?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Opticon on September 19, 2017, 05:33:53 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 05:20:10 AM
I don't like lies.

If I wanted a forum signature, I think that could be it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 05:40:02 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 05:28:14 AM
Do you stand by your claim that the NIST model looks like the collapse?

Yes,  skip to 1:30 or thereabouts.



The video simulation you keep posting doesn't continue to the next stage,  but is accurate as far as it goes in the timeline.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 05:43:37 AM
Let me repeat..

I think Leroy Hulsey just shot himself in the foot.

Quote from: http://ine.uaf.edu/wtc7
The findings thus far are that fire did not bring down this building. Building failure simulations show that, to match observation, the entire inner core of this building failed nearly simultaneously.

The observations are that inner core didn't fail simultaneously, it failed progressively left to right,  so if his failure simulation shows simultaneous failure of the inner core. He's wrong.

Whoops.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 05:43:53 AM
There is a clear and distinct difference between the roofline and failing structure on the NIST model compared to reality.

You are lying to everyone on this site. You psychologically manipulate them with your buddies you project your disgust with yourself onto me.

Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 05:28:14 AM
Let's just consider the NIST model.
[youtube][/youtube]

Compared to reality.
[youtube][/youtube]

Do you stand by your claim that the NIST model looks like the collapse?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 05:46:01 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 05:43:37 AM
Let me repeat..

I think Leroy Hulsey just shot himself in the foot.

Quote from: http://ine.uaf.edu/wtc7
The findings thus far are that fire did not bring down this building. Building failure simulations show that, to match observation, the entire inner core of this building failed nearly simultaneously.

The observations are that inner core didn't fail simultaneously, it failed progressively left to right,  so if his failure simulation shows simultaneous failure of the inner core. He's wrong.

Whoops.

Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 05:21:27 AM
Wtc 7 had at least 18 vertical support columns remaining at the point of the roof line collapse. That's just an unpleasant fact.

(https://s26.postimg.org/iegp2ilix/images-43.jpg)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 05:52:27 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 05:43:53 AM
There is a clear and distinct difference between the roofline and failing structure on the NIST model compared to reality.

Not really.  The progression looks the same.

Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 05:43:53 AM
Do you stand by your claim that the NIST model looks like the collapse?
Yes,  do you stand by Leroy Hulsey's claim that the interior collapsed simultaneously?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 05:54:25 AM
The inner core did fail nearly simultaneously. All video evidence confirms this.

[youtube][/youtube]
Edit. @24

As soon as the main penthouse fails the whole building comes down. You are getting desperate mate.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 06:00:11 AM
See how I can be honest?
It's a really good feeling man.

Quote from: Kevin Shipp
I'm a recovering CIA agent, we take 24 step programs, the first twelve steps are learning how to tell the truth again.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 06:08:40 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 05:54:25 AM
As soon as the main penthouse fails the whole building comes down. You are getting desperate mate.

Agreed,  but the penthouse fails progressively left to right,  the whole inner core has gone by the time the penthouse completely collapses.

A number of videos confirm this by the fact that you can see daylight through the top windows,  it's not clear why you can't see it.   


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 06:10:30 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 06:00:11 AM
See how I can be honest?
It's a really good feeling man.

You mean to say you aren't normally honest?    Oh, that's right you like to play games and deception tactics.  I forgot. 

Yes try being honest for a change,  you'll feel better.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 06:12:02 AM
We have the failure of column 79, this is not a core column. I'd actually think all three (79, 80, 81) collapsed when we saw the initial failure. Again. These are not core columns

(https://s26.postimg.org/iegp2ilix/images-43.jpg)

Then, the entire core fails nearly simultaneously and causes a 2.25 second symmetrical free-fall.

[youtube][/youtube] @24

So many of you are going to jail.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 06:20:55 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 06:12:02 AM
We have the failure of column 79, this is not a core column. I'd actually think all three (79, 80, 81) collapsed when we saw the initial failure. Again. These are not core columns

(https://s26.postimg.org/iegp2ilix/images-43.jpg)

Then, the entire core fails nearly simultaneously and causes a 2.25 second symmetrical free-fall.

[youtube][/youtube] @24

So many of you are going to jail.

Why did you choose a video that doesn't show the penthouse collapse progressively left to right.  Also you realize that for the penthouse to collapse, that everything underneath it has already collapsed.   All the internal structural support had gone by the time the facade started to buckle inward.



I think you chose that video dishonestly.   Why distort the truth.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 06:24:33 AM
You're projecting.

The ""left to right collapse"" of the interior of the core we saw was the failure of columns 79, 80, 81. These are not core columns

(https://s26.postimg.org/iegp2ilix/images-43.jpg)

Then we see the entire core fail nearly simultaneously and the whole building collapse at or near free-fall. Your video is as good a reference as any.

For teh lulz.
[youtube][/youtube]
Weaponised.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 06:35:46 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 06:24:33 AM
The ""left to right collapse"" of the interior of the core we saw was the failure of columns 79, 80, 81. These are not core columns

Not true. it starts with columns 79,80,81, and then the collapse progresses all the way across,  the interior support has collapsed and is falling which appears to pull the facade inwards and it then buckles and the whole facade collapses down.  It's crystal clear on the video that the interior did not collapse simultaneously, as Hulsey claims.

Why are you choosing to lie about what is obvious to everyone on the video?


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 06:36:58 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 06:20:55 AM
you realize that for the penthouse to collapse, that everything underneath it has already collapsed.   All the internal structural support had gone by the time the facade started to buckle inward.

Very much so, thats why we say the entire inner core collapsed nearly simultaneously.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 06:39:31 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 06:35:46 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 06:24:33 AM
The ""left to right collapse"" of the interior of the core we saw was the failure of columns 79, 80, 81. These are not core columns

Not true. it starts with columns 79,80,81, and then the collapse progresses all the way across,  the interior support has collapsed and is falling which appears to pull the facade inwards and it then buckles and the whole facade collapses down.  It's crystal clear on the video that the interior did not collapse simultaneously, as Hulsey claims.

Why are you choosing to lie about what is obvious to everyone on the video?

Because I am not lying. The left to right / east to west collapse of the penthouse was caused by the failure of column 79, 80, and 81 (not part of the core) happening a few seconds before the near simultaneous failure of the entire core causing the 2.25 second symmetrical free fall.

Check it.

[Youtube][/youtube]
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 06:47:11 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 06:39:31 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 06:35:46 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 06:24:33 AM
The ""left to right collapse"" of the interior of the core we saw was the failure of columns 79, 80, 81. These are not core columns

Not true. it starts with columns 79,80,81, and then the collapse progresses all the way across,  the interior support has collapsed and is falling which appears to pull the facade inwards and it then buckles and the whole facade collapses down.  It's crystal clear on the video that the interior did not collapse simultaneously, as Hulsey claims.

Why are you choosing to lie about what is obvious to everyone on the video?

Because I am not lying. The left to right / east to west collapse of the penthouse was caused by the failure of column 79, 80, and 81 (not part of the core) happening a few seconds before the near simultaneous failure of the entire core causing the 2.25 second symmetrical free fall.

Check it.

[Youtube][/youtube]

Now watch this again.  Tell me you still think the collapse was simultaneous.  Skip to 1:40 if you like



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 06:49:03 AM
Your video is bogus. This is clear and concise logic, backed up by all video evidence.

The left to right / east to west collapse of the penthouse was caused by the failure of column 79, 80, and 81 (not part of the core)

(https://s26.postimg.org/iegp2ilix/images-43.jpg)

Happening a few seconds before the near simultaneous failure of the entire core causing the 2.25 second symmetrical free fall.

Check it.

[Youtube][/youtube]
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 06:54:45 AM
(https://s26.postimg.org/7whgfa5x5/300.jpg)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 07:00:38 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 06:54:45 AM
(https://s26.postimg.org/7whgfa5x5/300.jpg)

That's far more likely for you than me. 

What are your expectations for Anon Metal Phase 6?   

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 07:01:38 AM
I'm expecting to start seeing arrests.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 07:08:18 AM
I'm getting slightly erect thinking about what Trump might do with Hulseys report. It's a very powerful weapon against nearly all of his enemies. Like you say, the man looks out for himself.

Sleep tight, Rayzor.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 07:11:37 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 07:01:38 AM
I'm expecting to start seeing arrests.

LOL,  Let's revisit that next year, and see who gets arrested.   
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 07:15:15 AM
Show us you aren't an intelligence asset and show us where I am wrong.

I won the debate with my first post. Honestly, I'm just seeing how much I can make you lie now.

Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 06:49:03 AM
Your video is bogus. This is clear and concise logic, backed up by all video evidence.

The left to right / east to west collapse of the penthouse was caused by the failure of column 79, 80, and 81 (not part of the core)

(https://s26.postimg.org/iegp2ilix/images-43.jpg)

Happening a few seconds before the near simultaneous failure of the entire core causing the 2.25 second symmetrical free fall.

Check it.

[Youtube][/youtube]
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 07:18:19 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 07:08:18 AM
I'm getting slightly erect thinking about what Trump might do with Hulseys report. It's a very powerful weapon against nearly all of his enemies. Like you say, the man looks out for himself.

Sleep tight, Rayzor.

Trump is dirty, and his presidency will end badly. 

As far as Hulsey and the AE911truthers go  I'd be surprised if even the Trump administration would stoop so low as to dirty their hands dealing with conspiracy nutters.

Sorry.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 07:20:46 AM
Let's just consider for a moment who Trumps greatest enemies are, it's the deep state / fake news media and the intelligence agencies / shadow governemt.

Now let's give this wildcard a weapon based on sound physics that could take down all his enemies and quite literally drain the swamp in one foul swoop.

The enemy of my enemy is far more useful than my enemy.

Sleep tight Rayzor.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 07:24:10 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 07:20:46 AM
Let's just consider for a moment who Trumps greatest enemies are, it's the deep state / fake news media and the intelligence agencies / shadow governemt.

Now let's give this wildcard a weapon based on sound physics that could take down all his enemies and quite literally drain the swamp in one foul swoop.

The enemy of my enemy is far more useful than my enemy.

Sleep tight Rayzor.

Trumps greatest enemy is the truth.   Well,  apart from himself that is. 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: DuckDodgers on September 19, 2017, 07:26:40 AM
Dammit Rayzor, you beat me to the punch. If we suppose the Hulsey report is true, giving it to Trump would be like giving silver to a vampire.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 07:38:35 AM
Quote from: DuckDodgers on September 19, 2017, 07:26:40 AM
Dammit Rayzor, you beat me to the punch. If we suppose the Hulsey report is true, giving it to Trump would be like giving silver to a vampire.

I disagree. Lets keep that assumption then, our other option would be giving it to someone who very likely has more than a finger in the pie.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 07:46:54 AM
Quote from: DuckDodgers on September 19, 2017, 07:26:40 AM
Dammit Rayzor, you beat me to the punch. If we suppose the Hulsey report is true, giving it to Trump would be like giving silver to a vampire.

LOL,  there's a new TV series idea,  the Trump version of the twilight zone.   Could be a hit, with Trump judging apprentice vampires.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 07:49:14 AM
I think Duck might be off doing his own research. We might have caught his interest.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sokarul on September 19, 2017, 02:29:07 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 07:15:15 AM
Show us you aren't an intelligence asset and show us where I am wrong.

I won the debate with my first post. Honestly, I'm just seeing how much I can make you lie now.

Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 06:49:03 AM
Your video is bogus. This is clear and concise logic, backed up by all video evidence.

The left to right / east to west collapse of the penthouse was caused by the failure of column 79, 80, and 81 (not part of the core)

(https://s26.postimg.org/iegp2ilix/images-43.jpg)

Happening a few seconds before the near simultaneous failure of the entire core causing the 2.25 second symmetrical free fall.

Check it.

[Youtube][/youtube]
You won nothing. You believe anything that suits your view. You couldn't even see that the video you posted of "an explosion" was mislabeled.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 02:42:37 PM
Quote from: sokarul on September 19, 2017, 02:29:07 PM
You believe anything that suits your view.

No. Thats you Sokarul. You are projecting.

You believe small scattered fires caused the symmetrical 2.25 second free-fall of all of wtc 7. That's an absolute fairy tale. I am sorry.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 06:38:09 PM
Please open your eyes guys.

[youtube][/youtube]

I hadn't seen the official clip before. Thanks for the shout outs Disturbed, you're doing gods work.

#OperationMetal.

Edit. I've got the sixth spot on google for opmetal currently. Lift your game anons.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 06:44:38 PM
There's an exchange that illustrates dispute's lack of comprehension perfectly.

Sokarul  asked for evidence of explosions.

Dispute replied with a series of videos showing what he thought was evidence of explosions.

Sadly for the dipshit,  the videos were hoaxes,  but worse than that they were obvious hoaxes that he didn't pick up on.

So Sokarul says..
Quote from: sokarul on September 19, 2017, 02:29:07 PM
You believe anything that suits your view.

To which dispute replies..

Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 02:42:37 PM
No. Thats you Sokarul. You are projecting.
You believe small scattered fires caused the symmetrical 2.25 second free-fall of all of wtc 7. That's an absolute fairy tale. I am sorry.

Actually it's dispute that's projecting his idea of what he thinks Sokarul's view is.   

Sokarul, never said anything about small scattered fires or 2.25 seconds of freefall,   that was all in dispute's addled brain.

Silly fuck probably wonders why he is so isolated.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 06:48:09 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 06:44:38 PM
There's an exchange that illustrates dispute's lack of comprehension perfectly.

I was wrong. I made a mistake. I admitted it. I always try to admit when I'm wrong. You should too.

Rayzor
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 07:15:15 AM
Show us you aren't an intelligence asset and show us where I am wrong.

I won the debate with my first post. Honestly, I'm just seeing how much I can make you lie now.

Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 06:49:03 AM
Your video is bogus. This is clear and concise logic, backed up by all video evidence.

The left to right / east to west collapse of the penthouse was caused by the failure of column 79, 80, and 81 (not part of the core)

(https://s26.postimg.org/iegp2ilix/images-43.jpg)

Happening a few seconds before the near simultaneous failure of the entire core causing the 2.25 second symmetrical free fall.

Check it.

[Youtube][/youtube]

Scattered ordinary office fires and 2.25 seconds of freefall as cited by NIST.

https://www.nist.gov/el/faqs-nist-wtc-7-investigation
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on September 19, 2017, 07:12:04 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 06:44:38 PM
Sadly for the dipshit,

Quote
dispute's addled brain.

Quote
Silly fuck

Wow, your debate tactics are always so pure Rayzor...you should pat yourself on the back.

It really is sad, you make fun of dispute, but a while back he posted a picture of a shill checklist, and for whatever reason you follow it to a 100 percent accuracy..

I would say the only two options left for you would be a shill or blow hard...

Though I would say a blow hard is still a better option. At least that is just an ignorant do nothing with an undeserved entitlement of ego.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 07:23:48 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on September 19, 2017, 07:12:04 PM
It really is sad, you make fun of dispute, but a while back he posted a shill checklist, and for whatever reason you follow it to a 100 percent accuracy..

Ah yes. This one. I've been dealing with his type for a very long time now.

Quote from: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 03:26:42 AM
Wow you follow the script...

Quote from: disputeone on March 26, 2017, 08:40:16 PM
Rayzor I have summarised your debate tactics as a reference and guide for you.

*Encourage group shaming and group think as a first priority.

*Always quote and support the official story, if any evidence doesn't support the OS, then deny it and re-quote the official story.

*Deny any and all facts that go against the official story.

*Discredit anyone that goes against the official story.

*Push controlled opposition conspiracy theories e.g aliens, holographic planes, death rays from space.

*Speak from a position of authority on all subjects, never provide proof of authority.

*Give absolutely no quarter, if you can't answer a question honestly descredit the poster and distract the debate.

*Offer the official story as the only explanation, keep trying to exaggerate your opponents position and twist their words out of meaning.

*Attack only the weakest points of your opponent's argument, if there are no weak enough points, create a strawman and tear it to shreds.

This is a free reference if you get stuck.

I am sure you can air your issues during peer review. Hulsey is giving us this option.

Isn't science great.

Consider this list open source. Please feel free to add to it or edit it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Wolvaccine on September 19, 2017, 07:38:10 PM
Rayzor is most definitely a shill.

Why is he so concerned with people believing the governments official story? What's his stake in what we believe?

Why, when someone questions the official story and questions it's validity or why so much of it is redacted or classified does he make them out to be some kind of nutcase? Ridiculous. The pursuit of truth and justice is noble and to be admired yet Rayzor demeans and degrades those who seek it. What does that say?

It is clear that neither side of politics will hold each other accountable for the crimes they commit. It is up to the people to do it. And if we all rolled over and parroted the governments story then we would end up in a situation that exists in China or North Korea. This is the kind of authoritarian regime that Rayzor is shilling for

As long as the people are constantly watching and calling out the governments on their lies and spin, it keeps the power in the hands of the people.

Remember, it is the GOVERNMENT who should be subservient to the PEOPLE. That is the POINT OF THEM!

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 07:43:21 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on September 19, 2017, 07:12:04 PM
Wow, your debate tactics are always so pure Rayzor...you should pat yourself on the back.

You are correct, making fun of dipshit's mental problems is way too easy.   I just hit him over the back of the head every time he calls me a shill, and says I'm going to jail.

He has recently gone completely off the deep end, or haven't you noticed?


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 07:43:45 PM
Quote from: Shifter on September 19, 2017, 07:38:10 PM
As long as the people are constantly watching and calling out the governments on their lies and spin, it keeps the power in the hands of the people.

Remember, it is the GOVERNMENT who should be subservient to the PEOPLE. That is the POINT OF THEM!

People shouldn't be afraid of their governments, governments should be afraid of their people.

Awesome Shifter, thanks anon.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 07:47:19 PM
Quote from: Shifter on September 19, 2017, 07:38:10 PM
Rayzor is most definitely a shill.

Why is he so concerned with people believing the governments official story? What's his stake in what we believe?

Why, when someone questions the official story and questions it's validity or why so much of it is redacted or classified does he make them out to be some kind of nutcase? Ridiculous. The pursuit of truth and justice is noble and to be admired yet Rayzor demeans and degrades those who seek it. What does that say?

It is clear that neither side of politics will hold each other accountable for the crimes they commit. It is up to the people to do it. And if we all rolled over and parroted the governments story then we would end up in a situation that exists in China or North Korea. This is the kind of authoritarian regime that Rayzor is shilling for

As long as the people are constantly watching and calling out the governments on their lies and spin, it keeps the power in the hands of the people.

Remember, it is the GOVERNMENT who should be subservient to the PEOPLE. That is the POINT OF THEM!

I agree that Governments should serve the people.  What's your point?

If you think 9/11 was an inside job,  have you any evidence to support your conspiracy theory?   Or are you just another gullible dumbass?

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 07:49:02 PM
Watch the ad hominems Rayzor.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 07:51:08 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 07:49:02 PM
Watch the ad hominems Rayzor.

What?  are you planning to stop calling me a shill?

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 07:54:13 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 07:51:08 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 07:49:02 PM
Watch the ad hominems Rayzor.

What?  are you planning to stop calling me a shill?

No.

There is plenty of evidence of that, and 9/11 being an inside job on this thread.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Wolvaccine on September 19, 2017, 08:03:33 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 07:47:19 PM
Quote from: Shifter on September 19, 2017, 07:38:10 PM
Rayzor is most definitely a shill.

Why is he so concerned with people believing the governments official story? What's his stake in what we believe?

Why, when someone questions the official story and questions it's validity or why so much of it is redacted or classified does he make them out to be some kind of nutcase? Ridiculous. The pursuit of truth and justice is noble and to be admired yet Rayzor demeans and degrades those who seek it. What does that say?

It is clear that neither side of politics will hold each other accountable for the crimes they commit. It is up to the people to do it. And if we all rolled over and parroted the governments story then we would end up in a situation that exists in China or North Korea. This is the kind of authoritarian regime that Rayzor is shilling for

As long as the people are constantly watching and calling out the governments on their lies and spin, it keeps the power in the hands of the people.

Remember, it is the GOVERNMENT who should be subservient to the PEOPLE. That is the POINT OF THEM!

I agree that Governments should serve the people.  What's your point?

If you think 9/11 was an inside job,  have you any evidence to support your conspiracy theory?   Or are you just another gullible dumbass?

My point is, ridiculing someone who questions what the government tells them and (refuses to tell them under the guise of 'classified for public safety') is not the person you should be ridiculing.

Are you sure it's not YOU who is the gullible dumbarse? You're a little too quick to jump on and parrot government stories. The more you let the government relax, the more freedoms and liberties they will take from you. They should always be kept on their toes, their jobs held by a thread and a healthy fear of people power.

People like disputeone should be getting our support - because it's their efforts which keep us from losing what's left of our democracy. You may not agree with him, and we live in a part of the world where freedom of speech and thought is celebrated. The way you talk down to people who question governments flies in the face of that.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 08:06:19 PM
Shifter. You are the reason we fight. It has and will always be about you. I don't expect thanks as I have said to everyone here, however I do appreciate that very much indeed.

Also thank you from all of us for your efforts in fighting for truth and against corruption.

[youtube][/youtube]

@20 minutes for why we do what we do. I also find it upsetting when people wonder why I fight.

The whole video is very good.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 08:52:42 PM
Quote from: Shifter on September 19, 2017, 08:03:33 PM
People like disputeone should be getting our support - because it's their efforts which keep us from losing what's left of our democracy. You may not agree with him, and we live in a part of the world where freedom of speech and thought is celebrated. The way you talk down to people who question governments flies in the face of that.

No people like dispute should be called out to prove what they claim,  in this case it's the most evil crime of the century, we know who did it and why,  but the 9/11 nutters want to shift the blame to innocent people. 

If there actually was any evidence to support the "inside job" theory that stood up to critical analysis,  I'd be first in line to support it. 

But, there is nothing.   Not a single shred that stands up to even the most cursory analysis.   

But, by all means, go join dispute with his anon 4chan buddies,  call everyone faggots, and shills.   You'll feel better.   Just don't expect any respect from me.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Wolvaccine on September 19, 2017, 09:03:40 PM
Your respect to me is not necessary. I just wish people respected peoples freedoms rather than shill for the governments in suppressing them.

You would say you're not a shill? Ok, lets pretend you're not and answer me this


Do you believe the government has been completely honest, open, transparent and upfront with the people regarding the events of 9/11?

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 09:20:08 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 08:52:42 PM
Quote from: Shifter on September 19, 2017, 08:03:33 PM
People like disputeone should be getting our support - because it's their efforts which keep us from losing what's left of our democracy. You may not agree with him, and we live in a part of the world where freedom of speech and thought is celebrated. The way you talk down to people who question governments flies in the face of that.

No people like dispute should be called out to prove what they claim,  in this case it's the most evil crime of the century, we know who did it and why,  but the 9/11 nutters want to shift the blame to innocent people. 

If there actually was any evidence to support the "inside job" theory that stood up to critical analysis,  I'd be first in line to support it.

But, there is nothing.   Not a single shred that stands up to even the most cursory analysis.   

But, by all means, go join dispute with his anon 4chan buddies,  call everyone faggots, and shills.   You'll feel better.   Just don't expect any respect from me.

You've told some whoppers but that was probably the biggest one.

We are literally drowning in evidence for a 9/11 false flag. All of it has been presented on this thread.
http://www.ae911truth.org/
http://www.wtc7evaluation.org/

Intelligent posters see what you are trying to achieve.

Quote
Psychological operations (PSYOP) are planned operations to convey selected information and indicators to audiences to influence their emotions, motives, and objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of governments, organizations, groups, and individuals.

The purpose of United States psychological operations is to induce or reinforce behavior favorable to U.S. objectives. They are an important part of the range of diplomatic, informational, military and economic activities available to the U.S. They can be utilized during both peacetime and conflict. There are three main types: strategic, operational and tactical. Strategic PSYOP include informational activities conducted by the U.S. government agencies outside of the military arena, though many utilize Department of Defense (DOD) assets. Operational PSYOP are conducted across the range of military operations, including during peacetime, in a defined operational area to promote the effectiveness of the joint force commander's (JFC) campaigns and strategies. TacticalPSYOP are conducted in the area assigned to a tactical commander across the range of military operations to support the tactical mission against opposing forces.

PSYOP can encourage popular discontent with the opposition's leadership and by combining persuasion with a credible threat, degrade an adversary's ability to conduct or sustain military operations. They can also disrupt, confuse, and protract the adversary's decision-making process, undermining command and control.[1] When properly employed, PSYOP have the potential to save the lives of friendly or enemy forces by reducing the adversary's will to fight. By lowering the adversary's morale and then its efficiency, PSYOP can also discourage aggressive actions by creating disaffection within their ranks, ultimately leading to surrender.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 09:22:42 PM
Quote from: Shifter on September 19, 2017, 09:03:40 PM
Your respect to me is not necessary. I just wish people respected peoples freedoms rather than shill for the governments in suppressing them.

You would say you're not a shill? Ok, lets pretend you're not and answer me this


Do you believe the government has been completely honest, open, transparent and upfront with the people regarding the events of 9/11?

Just goes to show, you've not read anything I've already said on the topic.   

Here's a quick version.   

Part 1.
The US Army, ran a counter intelligence operation called  "Able Danger"  it was a supercomputer based system to analyse terrorist threats, it correctly identified 3 of the pilot hijackers and the information was passed to the FBI,  the FBI failed to act on the information because the Justice Dept legal advice was that the people concerned were in the US legally, and no action was taken.   

This intelligence failure was suppressed by the Bush white house, and the intelligence services just covered their asses.

Part 2.
Osama Bin Laden was armed trained and funded by the CIA via the Pakistani ISI,  to support the insurgency against the Russians in Afghanistan,  after the first Gulf War,  Bin Laden's Al Qadea turned on the US,  ( that infidel boots on holy ground thing ),  Clinton put out the CIA kill order on Bin Laden, and they missed several opportunities to carry out the order,  one famous one was where a Saudi Royal was visiting Bin Laden in his Al Qaeda camp in Afghanistan, and they chose to hold off on the cruise missiles. 

All the above is a matter of public record and well proven and documented.   

The CIA had a part to play in creating the monster,  then the intelligence service failed to connect the dots. 

There's your Government cover up.  If there was to be an enquiry that's where you should start,  not with some half assed crackpot theory about WTC7 that makes no sense.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 09:25:01 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 09:22:42 PM
some half assed crackpot theory about WTC7 that makes no sense.

The thing that doesn't make sense about wtc 7 is scattered local ordinary office fires causing the symmetrical free-fall for 2.25 seconds of the entire building.

You are asking people to believe a fairy tale.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 09:29:21 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 09:25:01 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 09:22:42 PM
some half assed crackpot theory about WTC7 that makes no sense.

The thing that doesn't make sense about wtc 7 is scattered local ordinary office fires causing the symmetrical free-fall for 2.25 seconds of the entire building.

You are asking people to believe a fairy tale.

Stop telling blatant lies.  here is your scattered ordinary office fires.   BHS tried to tell me once it was just a burning rubbish bin.  FFS

(https://s26.postimg.org/lnguwfuax/WTC7_Fires1.jpg)
(https://s26.postimg.org/48s1af7s9/WTC7_fires3.jpg)
(https://s26.postimg.org/ds1q3vvah/WTC_fires4.jpg)

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 09:32:13 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 09:29:21 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 09:25:01 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 09:22:42 PM
some half assed crackpot theory about WTC7 that makes no sense.

The thing that doesn't make sense about wtc 7 is scattered local ordinary office fires causing the symmetrical free-fall for 2.25 seconds of the entire building.

You are asking people to believe a fairy tale.

Stop telling blatant lies.  here is your scattered ordinary office fires.

Who's telling lies?
https://www.nist.gov/pba/questions-and-answers-about-nist-wtc-7-investigation
Quote
The following factors describe the fire events that occurred in both WTC 7 and the referenced buildings: 1) the fuel for the fires was ordinary office combustibles at ordinary combustible load levels; 2) there was no use of accelerants; 3) the spread of fire from combustible to combustible was governed by ordinary fire physics;
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 09:36:30 PM
This one is for Shifter



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 09:37:25 PM
Rayzor cut the ad hominems. Who is telling lies, is it me and NIST or you.

Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 09:32:13 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 09:29:21 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 09:25:01 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 09:22:42 PM
some half assed crackpot theory about WTC7 that makes no sense.

The thing that doesn't make sense about wtc 7 is scattered local ordinary office fires causing the symmetrical free-fall for 2.25 seconds of the entire building.

You are asking people to believe a fairy tale.

Stop telling blatant lies.  here is your scattered ordinary office fires.

Who's telling lies?
https://www.nist.gov/pba/questions-and-answers-about-nist-wtc-7-investigation
Quote
The following factors describe the fire events that occurred in both WTC 7 and the referenced buildings: 1) the fuel for the fires was ordinary office combustibles at ordinary combustible load levels; 2) there was no use of accelerants; 3) the spread of fire from combustible to combustible was governed by ordinary fire physics;
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 09:43:10 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 09:37:25 PM
Rayzor cut the ad hominems. Who is telling lies, is it me and NIST or you.

It's you who are lying about the extent and size of the fires,  you are claiming that they were not significant.  That's a lie.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 09:44:31 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 09:43:10 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 09:37:25 PM
Rayzor cut the ad hominems. Who is telling lies, is it me and NIST or you.

It's you who are lying about the extent and size of the fires,  you are claiming that they were not significant.  That's a lie.

I'm claiming they weren't significant enough to cause a 2.25 second free fall of the entire building yes.

Again.
https://www.nist.gov/pba/questions-and-answers-about-nist-wtc-7-investigation
http://www.wtc7evaluation.org/
Quote
The following factors describe the fire events that occurred in both WTC 7 and the referenced buildings: 1) the fuel for the fires was ordinary office combustibles at ordinary combustible load levels; 2) there was no use of accelerants; 3) the spread of fire from combustible to combustible was governed by ordinary fire physics;

You are the one lying for your handlers.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 09:49:35 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 09:44:31 PM
I'm claiming they weren't significant enough to cause a 2.25 second free fall of the entire building yes.

Seems you were wrong,  apart from NIST  the FDNY also disagrees with you.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 09:50:33 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 09:49:35 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 09:44:31 PM
I'm claiming they weren't significant enough to cause a 2.25 second free fall of the entire building yes.

Seems you were wrong,  apart from NIST  the FDNY also disagrees with you.

We'll soon see about that.

A single column failure will not lead to a 2.25 second symmetrical free-fall.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 09:51:48 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 09:50:33 PM
We'll soon see about that.

Yes,  Hulsey's  simultaneous collapse theory.   What a joke.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 10:00:14 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 09:51:48 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 09:50:33 PM
We'll soon see about that.

Yes,  Hulsey's  simultaneous collapse theory.   What a joke.

In order for the building to collapse at free-fall the entire core had to fail nearly simultaneously. Structural resistence slows fall acceleration. If you don't like it take it up with Newton, not me.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Newt.html
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Wolvaccine on September 19, 2017, 10:07:02 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 09:51:48 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 09:50:33 PM
We'll soon see about that.

Yes,  Hulsey's  simultaneous collapse theory.   What a joke.


There have only been 3 buildings in history that have come down in such a fashion due to fire and they were all on the same day on 9/11. Every other building has remained standing. Unstable and unsafe to be near but standing. Grenfell in London burned for 13 hours. Still standing.

Even if you wish to claim all the airplane fuel and the fact a plane smashed into the building was unique to the twin towers so there is nothing to reference, then WTF was the deal with WTC7.

Sorry, it doesn't add up. And you parroting the government line while lambasting anyone who questions it is pretty deplorable. Do we live in a democracy or some weird police state?


Check yourself
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 10:16:04 PM
Quote from: Shifter on September 19, 2017, 10:07:02 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 09:51:48 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 09:50:33 PM
We'll soon see about that.

Yes,  Hulsey's  simultaneous collapse theory.   What a joke.


There have only been 3 buildings in history that have come down in such a fashion due to fire and they were all on the same day on 9/11. Every other building has remained standing. Unstable and unsafe to be near but standing. Grenfell in London burned for 13 hours. Still standing.

Even if you wish to claim all the airplane fuel and the fact a plane smashed into the building was unique to the twin towers so there is nothing to reference, then WTF was the deal with WTC7.

Sorry, it doesn't add up. And you parroting the government line while lambasting anyone who questions it is pretty deplorable. Do we live in a democracy or some weird police state?


Check yourself


The jet fuel had very little to do with the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2  other than start and spread the fires.  The tube in tube construction of the buildings had everything to do with the collapse. 

Grenfell tower was concrete not steel.   Try to get at least some basic facts correct.    But if you are going to jump into the discussion,  do a little research and perhaps see what's already been covered, if you don't want to at least to that, then do us all a favour and fuck off.



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on September 19, 2017, 10:16:53 PM
Quote from: Shifter on September 19, 2017, 10:07:02 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 09:51:48 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 09:50:33 PM
We'll soon see about that.

Yes,  Hulsey's  simultaneous collapse theory.   What a joke.

There have only been 3 buildings in history that have come down in such a fashion due to fire and they were all on the same day on 9/11. Every other building has remained standing. Unstable and unsafe to be near but standing. Grenfell in London burned for 13 hours. Still standing.
There was a lot of debris that damaged wtc7. Also, london tower was built totally different.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Wolvaccine on September 19, 2017, 10:29:56 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 10:16:04 PM
Quote from: Shifter on September 19, 2017, 10:07:02 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 09:51:48 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 09:50:33 PM
We'll soon see about that.

Yes,  Hulsey's  simultaneous collapse theory.   What a joke.


There have only been 3 buildings in history that have come down in such a fashion due to fire and they were all on the same day on 9/11. Every other building has remained standing. Unstable and unsafe to be near but standing. Grenfell in London burned for 13 hours. Still standing.

Even if you wish to claim all the airplane fuel and the fact a plane smashed into the building was unique to the twin towers so there is nothing to reference, then WTF was the deal with WTC7.

Sorry, it doesn't add up. And you parroting the government line while lambasting anyone who questions it is pretty deplorable. Do we live in a democracy or some weird police state?


Check yourself


The jet fuel had very little to do with the collapse of WTC1 and WTC2  other than start and spread the fires.  The tube in tube construction of the buildings had everything to do with the collapse. 

Grenfell tower was concrete not steel.   Try to get at least some basic facts correct.    But if you are going to jump into the discussion,  do a little research and perhaps see what's already been covered, if you don't want to at least to that, then do us all a favour and fuck off.

My point is, out of the thousands and thousands of building fires in the history of buildings only 3 have been brought down 'by fire' in such a fashion

Prior to this, the only way buildings imploded like that was through controlled demolitions. Yet government says these ones were by ordinary fire and by the way we are classifying our modelling and redacting swathes of our report, but just trust us.

So If Grenfell is still standing because its concrete and not steel I gather than that because of the risk of an entire collapse of the building from fire they will not be constructing anymore buildings with steel over concrete then. That's a relief. I wouldn't want an entire apartment complex come crashing down on my head on the ground floor because some loser was smoking in bed on the top floor
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 10:35:39 PM
Quote from: Shifter on September 19, 2017, 10:29:56 PM
Prior to this, the only way buildings imploded like that was through controlled demolitions.

Not quite true,  the verinage demolition technique is very similar mechanism to the collapse mechanism of WTC1 and 2

I assume that when you say controlled, you are implying explosive demolition.  Verinage is mechanical, not explosive.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Wolvaccine on September 19, 2017, 10:43:08 PM
Yes, but even verinage demolition require a deliberate human hand in its involvement. What I mean is that the way the twin towers and WTC7 fell (as in how it looked) have only been seen when people have done something (not talking about smashing planes into the building but meticulous planning)to make it do that. Never because of a fire or natural phenomenon. We are being told to believe the only times this has ever happened was on 9/11 and it happened 3 times and then never again

Can you seriously blame people for questioning?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Heiwa on September 19, 2017, 10:47:29 PM
According NIST structural analysis the left to right / east to west collapse of the penthouse was caused by the failure of vertical column #79 at floor 12. The horizontal beams supporting it failed due to fire and columns #79 buckled and couldn't carry any load.

(https://s26.postimg.org/iegp2ilix/images-43.jpg)

The load was thus transferred to adjacent columns, whose beam connections also failed according NIST leading to the near simultaneous failure of all remaining 20 core columns #58-78 and #80-81 causing the 2.25 second symmetrical free fall.

However, the failure of column #79 cannot cause any damage to the intact 20 core columns. You can simply remove column #79 and the structure remains standing. Only the floor at column #79 will sag down a little.

Easy to show with a simple beam/FE analysis model. http://heiwaco.com/nist7.htm . I wonder why Hulsey didn't start with it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 10:55:15 PM
Quote from: Shifter on September 19, 2017, 10:43:08 PM
Yes, but even verinage demolition require a deliberate human hand in its involvement. What I mean is that the way the twin towers and WTC7 fell (as in how it looked) have only been seen when people have done something (not talking about smashing planes into the building but meticulous planning)to make it do that. Never because of a fire or natural phenomenon. We are being told to believe the only times this has ever happened was on 9/11 and it happened 3 times and then never again

Can you seriously blame people for questioning?

Or maybe it was caused by a fully loaded 767 taking out a few floors and starting fires which weakened the steel initiating the collapse.

A couple of relevant facts. 

1. WTC2 collapsed first, even though it was hit second,  why?    Because UA175 hit lower down, there was more weight above the impact zone than on WTC1.

2. If it was a demolition job,  why  did the collapse start at exactly the floors which were impacted by the planes?   

3. Also if it was a demolition job, why wait an hour or so?   Why demolish WTC2 first?   

Sorry, the conspiracy theories just don't fit the facts.   Unless you are a Heiwa or Judy Wood who thinks it was a death ray from space.   In which case you are on your own.



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 11:43:41 PM
Quote from: User324 on September 19, 2017, 10:16:53 PM
There was a lot of debris that damaged wtc7.

There was, that's a good point.

None of the structural support columns were damaged however and as stated before the outer structure was to take horizontal loads where the internal core took vertical loads.

Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 11:19:21 PM
Please stop the ad-hominems. Shifter has done nothing but disagree with you and call you what you are.

Check yourself.

We don't need to prove wtc 1 or 2 were demolition jobs to put everyone involved in jail. Just wtc 7.

Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 11:21:24 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 10:35:39 PM
Quote from: Shifter on September 19, 2017, 10:29:56 PM
Prior to this, the only way buildings imploded like that was through controlled demolitions.

Not quite true,  the verinage demolition technique is very similar mechanism to the collapse mechanism of WTC1 and 2

I assume that when you say controlled, you are implying explosive demolition.  Verinage is mechanical, not explosive.



Verinage is controlled demolition. It is demolishing a building in a controlled fashion.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 12:50:35 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 10:00:14 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 09:51:48 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 09:50:33 PM
We'll soon see about that.

Yes,  Hulsey's  simultaneous collapse theory.   What a joke.

In order for the building to collapse at free-fall the entire core had to fail nearly simultaneously. Structural resistence slows fall acceleration. If you don't like it take it up with Newton, not me.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Newt.html

Reminder this is where we left our discussion Rayzor.

Contrary to what Rayzor and Bullwinkle will tell you. I am not a threat to myself or others. I do quite well for myself if the truth is to be told.

I was saving this for a special occasion and I thought, what more special occasion could there be?

One for me, one for my friends left behind, two for all those who would fight for truth and justice against all odds, you are my heros.

(https://s26.postimg.org/ah0kd05tl/20170920_154212.jpg)

(https://s26.postimg.org/my78060zd/20170920_154303.jpg)

Cheers guys. I know you prefer VB Rayzor so I won't offer you a glass.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 01:19:35 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 06:44:38 PM
Silly fuck probably wonders why he is so isolated.

Sorry what?
Since I am proving things about myself check this out. Was a good night, I had fun up on stage. Seems like everyone had fun.

(https://s26.postimg.org/q1h4v0upl/20161231_212051_1.jpg)

(https://s26.postimg.org/6aowp5kzd/20161231_212049_0_1.jpg)

Edit.

Now your personal attacks have fallen flat on their face, can we get back to discussing wtc7?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 01:47:36 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 01:19:35 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 06:44:38 PM
Silly fuck probably wonders why he is so isolated.

Sorry what?
Since I am proving things about myself check this out. Was a good night, I had fun up on stage. Seems like everyone had fun.
Now your personal attacks have fallen flat on their face, can we get back to discussing wtc7?

Why do you feel the need to prove anything about yourself?   You are starting to sound like BHS.  He's always trying to prove something about himself.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 01:50:41 AM
It's just that I do just fine for myself and am quite popular. In contrast to the narrative you are trying to push.

Quote from: Heiwa on September 19, 2017, 10:47:29 PM
http://heiwaco.com/nist7.htm . I wonder why Hulsey didn't start with it.

Hulsey has done this already, we can remove column 79 in the FEA without any further damage to the core.

This was not enough for us. This report will have to cover all the bases. The intelligence agencies are making plans to discredit and suppress this as we speak. Just as we are making plans to make this public knowlege and freely available.

Shout out to AE911truth, this is great. We need more memes and humour to push this to people who haven't researched it yet. I know all the lyrics now :).

[youtube][/youtube]
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 01:52:56 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 01:47:36 AM
You are starting to sound like BHS.

I'm glad, he's a very good engineer.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 02:16:07 AM
Oh and Rayzor.

Thankyou. I had only dealt indirectly with psyop agents before, as I said, I wasn't used to the name and identity here. I don't use anti-social media.

However I learned so much. I knew what you were for so long, I was content to watch and interact with you for a time. I know all of your tricks now, I know all of your "arguments" and psychological weapons and how to counter them.

I've written up quite a nice list. I know what you can and can't talk about, I know what you can and can't acknowledge. I know how to avoid falling into your traps. I know your playbook as well as you do.

Even better it is all public information and I can search, copy and paste at my leisure and ruin shills days at a whim.

Thank you Rayzor we really did get a lot out of this thread.

Edit. OperationMetal.
[youtube]
[/Youtube]
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 02:48:55 AM
@Rayzor especially and everyone watching this thread. 20 minutes to the end. We mean every word. I could look you in the eyes and say it.

[youtube][/youtube]

We can fix things but only when we work together. Watch it and call me crazy. We all share a vision.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on September 20, 2017, 02:57:25 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 01:47:36 AM
Why do you feel the need to prove anything about yourself?   You are starting to sound like BHS.  He's always trying to prove something about himself.

You keep bringing me in the middle...go figure, that says alot.

You mean proving what you say?? Like an honest person would?

Here....just a random pic as we speak...

(http://i67.tinypic.com/2dwazig.jpg)

Can you even do this?? Can you even prove you are real?

We will leave out the blow hard or shill.... Just do step one
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 02:58:48 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 02:16:07 AM
Oh and Rayzor.

Thankyou. I had only dealt indirectly with psyop agents before, as I said, I wasn't used to the name and identity here. I don't use anti-social media.

However I learned so much. I knew what you were for so long, I was content to watch and interact with you for a time. I know all of your tricks now, I know all of your "arguments" and psychological weapons and how to counter them.

I've written up quite a nice list. I know what you can and can't talk about, I know what you can and can't acknowledge. I know how to avoid falling into your traps. I know your playbook as well as you do.

Even better it is all public information and I can search, copy and paste at my leisure and ruin shills days at a whim.

Thank you Rayzor we really did get a lot out of this thread.

Edit. OperationMetal.
[youtube]
[/Youtube]

Yep that's me unpaid psyop professional,   nope,  I just have a thing about the way the internet spread ignorance and lies.

You want to fry you brain with conspiracy theories,  go right ahead.  I know where you are headed, and it's not a pretty ending.

 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 03:01:42 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on September 20, 2017, 02:57:25 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 01:47:36 AM
Why do you feel the need to prove anything about yourself?   You are starting to sound like BHS.  He's always trying to prove something about himself.

You keep bringing me in the middle...go figure, that says alot.

You mean proving what you say?? Like an honest person would?

Here....just a random pic as we speak...

(http://i67.tinypic.com/2dwazig.jpg)

Can you even do this?? Can you even prove you are real?

We will leave out the blow hard or shill.... Just do step one

Oh man, that's classic,  right on cue.  BHS comes in with trying to prove something about himself,  seriously  Jerry, if it makes you feel better I'll just shut up and let you make a fool of yourself. 

Oh, wait,  do you have a Rolex?  That would be so cool.  Please show us.
 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 03:03:09 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 02:58:48 AM
You want to fry you brain with conspiracy theories,  go right ahead.  I know where you are headed, and it's not a pretty ending.

Reminder you are trying to debunk Newton.

Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 10:00:14 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 09:51:48 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 09:50:33 PM
We'll soon see about that.

Yes,  Hulsey's  simultaneous collapse theory.   What a joke.

In order for the building to collapse at free-fall the entire core had to fail nearly simultaneously. Structural resistence slows fall acceleration. If you don't like it take it up with Newton, not me.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Newt.html

Nice Porsche man
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on September 20, 2017, 03:18:38 AM
Rayzor insulting​ me instead of proving he is even real.....not even asking for anything else, just a random picture doing what you are doing..

I am Jack's complete lack of surprise...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 03:26:32 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on September 20, 2017, 03:18:38 AM
Rayzor insulting​ me instead of proving he is even real.....not even asking for anything else, just a random picture doing what you are doing..

I am Jack's complete lack of surprise...

Ok,  word of advice,  you don't need to keep proving yourself, you are a smart guy, you have a successful business, you don't have to prove yourself to strangers on the internet.

Be confident in yourself and your abilities.  Don't let people like me get under your skin, we will just wind you up. 

Good people don't care what you own, they care who you are.  I mean, deep down you seem to care about people ( like dipshit ).  That's a good thing.  Don't get distracted by the glitter.

Speaking of dipshit,  I'm afraid he's heading into a bad situation with this anon shit he's getting into.  He means well but he's not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 03:33:41 AM
As I said earlier. The pool was always closed. Kid.

Sounds like you're a bit jealous that you drink VB and shill on a flat earth forum whereas myself and Bhs are confident in who we are.

You still haven't addressed your post trying to debunk Newton. Do you stand by it?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 03:54:44 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 03:33:41 AM
You still haven't addressed your post trying to debunk Newton. Do you stand by it?

You seriously think I'm trying to debunk Newton?   Have a think about that for a while, get back to me when the penny drops.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 03:59:31 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 03:54:44 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 03:33:41 AM
You still haven't addressed your post trying to debunk Newton. Do you stand by it?

You seriously think I'm trying to debunk Newton?

I do, yes.

See.
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 10:00:14 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 09:51:48 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 09:50:33 PM
We'll soon see about that.

Yes,  Hulsey's  simultaneous collapse theory.   What a joke.

In order for the building to collapse at free-fall the entire core had to fail nearly simultaneously. Structural resistance slows fall acceleration. If you don't like it take it up with Newton, not me.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Newt.html
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 04:05:20 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 03:59:31 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 03:54:44 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 03:33:41 AM
You still haven't addressed your post trying to debunk Newton. Do you stand by it?

You seriously think I'm trying to debunk Newton?

I do, yes.

See.
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 10:00:14 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 09:51:48 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 09:50:33 PM
We'll soon see about that.

Yes,  Hulsey's  simultaneous collapse theory.   What a joke.

In order for the building to collapse at free-fall the entire core had to fail nearly simultaneously. Structural resistance slows fall acceleration. If you don't like it take it up with Newton, not me.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Newt.html

Ah, I see where you went wrong,  you forgot that the center had already collapsed / was collapsing BEFORE the facade came down.  I really can't keep holding you hand while you work through these things, you have to start to think for yourself if you are going to be a good anon campaigner.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 04:10:35 AM
Thats not true that's the conclusions of the fraudulent NIST report. That is merely the lie we were sold.

Furthermore, even if the entire inner core collapsed leaving the entire "facade" intact (which is impossible because of the cross bracing) there were still 18 support columns around the exterior.

(https://s26.postimg.org/iegp2ilix/images-43.jpg)

A free fall collapse even under your fairytale conditions is still impossible without a controlled demolition. You are trying to debunk Newton.

Q.E.D.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 04:27:20 AM
[youtube][/youtube]

Artists use lies to tell the truth.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Heiwa on September 20, 2017, 04:48:48 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 04:10:35 AM
Thats not true that's the conclusions of the fraudulent NIST report. That is merely the lie we were sold.

Furthermore, even if the entire inner core collapsed leaving the entire "facade" intact (which is impossible because of the cross bracing) there were still 18 support columns around the exterior.

(https://s26.postimg.org/iegp2ilix/images-43.jpg)

A free fall collapse even under your fairytale conditions is still impossible without a controlled demolition. You are trying to debunk Newton.

Q.E.D.

Yes, you are 100% right. But NIST says only the core columns failed and everything structural inside and the roof + penthouse on top just dropped down. So the external walls should have remained in place. Like an empty cage!

Of course footage doesn't show this, so I assume NIST suggests the footage is fakery.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 04:50:31 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 20, 2017, 04:48:48 AM
Of course footage doesn't show this, so I assume NIST suggests the footage is fakery.

We know who and what you are. Check yourself. Wtc 7 was a controlled demolition using ordinary methods. We saw it live on TV.

Edit. @Rayzor.
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 04:05:20 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 03:59:31 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 03:54:44 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 03:33:41 AM
You still haven't addressed your post trying to debunk Newton. Do you stand by it?

You seriously think I'm trying to debunk Newton?

I do, yes.

See.
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 10:00:14 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 09:51:48 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 09:50:33 PM
We'll soon see about that.

Yes,  Hulsey's  simultaneous collapse theory.   What a joke.

In order for the building to collapse at free-fall the entire core had to fail nearly simultaneously. Structural resistance slows fall acceleration. If you don't like it take it up with Newton, not me.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Newt.html

Ah, I see where you went wrong,  you forgot that the center had already collapsed / was collapsing BEFORE the facade came down.  I really can't keep holding you hand while you work through these things, you have to start to think for yourself if you are going to be a good anon campaigner.

Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 04:10:35 AM
Thats not true that's the conclusions of the fraudulent NIST report. That is merely the lie we were sold.

Furthermore, even if the entire inner core collapsed leaving the entire "facade" intact (which is impossible because of the cross bracing) there were still 18 support columns around the exterior.

(https://s26.postimg.org/iegp2ilix/images-43.jpg)

A free fall collapse even under your fairytale conditions is still impossible without a controlled demolition. You are trying to debunk Newton.

Q.E.D.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 04:56:29 AM
@Heiwa and your B/S moon landing challenge scam.

Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 04:26:25 AM
On the topic of the people you serve.

Check out all the cool shit we could have and do if we just stood up to our corrupt goverments. There's no limits on humanity except the ones we place on ourselves and others.
[Youtube][/youtube]
This is simply declassified no "conspiracy" involved. It's quite old news now.

Like we've had that since '94 man, Everyone thinks the em drive was so cool. We've had this and more for so long. It's kept locked away in black budget alphabet soup programs to use as weapons against humanity instead of the betterment. We could be so much more if we just opened our eyes to the groups and systems controlling us.

All we have ever wanted is transparency and a free exchange of information and ideas.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 05:12:52 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 04:27:20 AM
[youtube][/youtube]

Artists use lies to tell the truth.
OperationMetal.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 05:25:45 AM
[youtube][/youtube]

[youtube][/youtube]

We are the media now.
Expect us.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Pezevenk on September 20, 2017, 06:32:01 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 05:12:52 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 04:27:20 AM
[youtube][/youtube]

Artists use lies to tell the truth.
OperationMetal.

What does the Sound of Silence have to do with OperationMetal?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 06:42:55 AM
Quote from: Definitely Not Official on September 20, 2017, 06:32:01 AM
What does the Sound of Silence have to do with OperationMetal?

Disturbed is of the metal genre.

Edit. Wikipedia link is bogus.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Pezevenk on September 20, 2017, 06:43:44 AM
That's it?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 06:47:47 AM
There's heaps more but it would be cheating if I told you.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Pezevenk on September 20, 2017, 06:52:33 AM
Why?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 06:54:24 AM
That's the idea. Do you have anything to add on wtc 7? You're pretty bright I would like your input.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Pezevenk on September 20, 2017, 06:57:04 AM
I don't get it, "why" is the idea?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 06:57:32 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 06:54:24 AM
Do you have anything to add on wtc 7? You're pretty bright I would like your input.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Pezevenk on September 20, 2017, 07:02:24 AM
No. I'm not an engineer and I don't know much about it.

Why is it cheating? Cheating for what? I'm kinda confused...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 07:04:07 AM
Quote from: Definitely Not Official on September 20, 2017, 07:02:24 AM
No. I'm not an engineer and I don't know much about it.

That's fine.

Quote from: Definitely Not Official on September 20, 2017, 07:02:24 AM
Why is it cheating? Cheating for what? I'm kinda confused...

That's the idea, and why Rayzor and his mates can't touch us. Please keep this thread on topic.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sokarul on September 20, 2017, 08:41:23 AM
That was a fun read from my last post. Still no evidence presented.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: DuckDodgers on September 20, 2017, 10:57:06 AM
Quote from: Shifter on September 19, 2017, 10:43:08 PM
Yes, but even verinage demolition require a deliberate human hand in its involvement. What I mean is that the way the twin towers and WTC7 fell (as in how it looked) have only been seen when people have done something (not talking about smashing planes into the building but meticulous planning)to make it do that. Never because of a fire or natural phenomenon. We are being told to believe the only times this has ever happened was on 9/11 and it happened 3 times and then never again

Can you seriously blame people for questioning?
You can officially stop saying the wtc buildings are the only ones to ever collapse by fire.  There was a 17-story high rise in Iran that collapsed back in January, the Plasco building, which was caused by a fire which started on the 9th floor.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: DuckDodgers on September 20, 2017, 11:00:12 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on September 20, 2017, 02:57:25 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 01:47:36 AM
Why do you feel the need to prove anything about yourself?   You are starting to sound like BHS.  He's always trying to prove something about himself.

You keep bringing me in the middle...go figure, that says alot.

You mean proving what you say?? Like an honest person would?

Here....just a random pic as we speak...

(http://i67.tinypic.com/2dwazig.jpg)

Can you even do this?? Can you even prove you are real?

We will leave out the blow hard or shill.... Just do step one
It's pretty suspicious that you come in here to post "proof" you are real after Rayzor blatantly stated you are always posting things to prove yourself.  It's almost like he summoned you to do this. Are you shilling with him?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Crouton on September 20, 2017, 11:20:51 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on September 20, 2017, 02:57:25 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 01:47:36 AM
Why do you feel the need to prove anything about yourself?   You are starting to sound like BHS.  He's always trying to prove something about himself.

You keep bringing me in the middle...go figure, that says alot.

You mean proving what you say?? Like an honest person would?

Here....just a random pic as we speak...

(http://i67.tinypic.com/2dwazig.jpg)

Can you even do this?? Can you even prove you are real?

We will leave out the blow hard or shill.... Just do step one

Is that a Cayenne?  How does it compare to Porsche's car offerings?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on September 20, 2017, 11:40:25 AM
Quote from: DuckDodgers on September 20, 2017, 11:00:12 AM
It's pretty suspicious that you come in here to post "proof" you are real after Rayzor blatantly stated you are always posting things to prove yourself.  It's almost like he summoned you to do this. Are you shilling with him?

I like to irritate the blow hard/possible shill by doing things he cannot...this is just one of many ways to get under his skin.

Quote from: crutonius on September 20, 2017, 11:20:51 AM
Is that a Cayenne?  How does it compare to Porsche's car offerings?

Turbo Panamera...it's a good daily driver. It depends what you like as a person. If you are looking for pure luxury and bling bling then go with an s550... however, if you want simplicity, functionality, efficiency and sporty Porsche is a decent option.

I myself am a simplicity and functionality person....I am the person that only has one spoon/knife/bowl/cup/fork etc and rewash every sitting
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Wolvaccine on September 20, 2017, 02:49:28 PM
Quote from: DuckDodgers on September 20, 2017, 10:57:06 AM
Quote from: Shifter on September 19, 2017, 10:43:08 PM
Yes, but even verinage demolition require a deliberate human hand in its involvement. What I mean is that the way the twin towers and WTC7 fell (as in how it looked) have only been seen when people have done something (not talking about smashing planes into the building but meticulous planning)to make it do that. Never because of a fire or natural phenomenon. We are being told to believe the only times this has ever happened was on 9/11 and it happened 3 times and then never again

Can you seriously blame people for questioning?
You can officially stop saying the wtc buildings are the only ones to ever collapse by fire.  There was a 17-story high rise in Iran that collapsed back in January, the Plasco building, which was caused by a fire which started on the 9th floor.


Perhaps all may not be as it seems here either

http://www.ae911truth.org/images/PDFs/Plasco_Building_Report_2.20.17.pdf

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 03:06:48 PM
Please keep this thread on topic guys.

Rayzor is trying to debunk Newton. Let's talk about that.

Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 04:50:31 AM
Edit. @Rayzor.
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 04:05:20 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 03:59:31 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 03:54:44 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 03:33:41 AM
You still haven't addressed your post trying to debunk Newton. Do you stand by it?

You seriously think I'm trying to debunk Newton?

I do, yes.

See.
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 10:00:14 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 09:51:48 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 09:50:33 PM
We'll soon see about that.

Yes,  Hulsey's  simultaneous collapse theory.   What a joke.

In order for the building to collapse at free-fall the entire core had to fail nearly simultaneously. Structural resistance slows fall acceleration. If you don't like it take it up with Newton, not me.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Newt.html

Ah, I see where you went wrong,  you forgot that the center had already collapsed / was collapsing BEFORE the facade came down.  I really can't keep holding you hand while you work through these things, you have to start to think for yourself if you are going to be a good anon campaigner.

Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 04:10:35 AM
Thats not true that's the conclusions of the fraudulent NIST report. That is merely the lie we were sold.

Furthermore, even if the entire inner core collapsed leaving the entire "facade" intact (which is impossible because of the cross bracing) there were still 18 support columns around the exterior.

(https://s26.postimg.org/iegp2ilix/images-43.jpg)

A free fall collapse even under your fairytale conditions is still impossible without a controlled demolition. You are trying to debunk Newton.

Q.E.D.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 03:21:10 PM
Can anyone help Rayzor debunk Newton and thus defend the 9/11 official story?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on September 20, 2017, 04:17:06 PM
Quote from: Shifter on September 20, 2017, 02:49:28 PM
Perhaps all may not be as it seems here either

http://www.ae911truth.org/images/PDFs/Plasco_Building_Report_2.20.17.pdf


Guess they figured if it worked 3 times in a row here in the states, why not try it once there.

Though I don't know much about this besides the basic design of that building (nothing like the towers or 7)..I will say this, if it is a 9/11 Esq situation, it will be harder to suppress there. They are not nearly as brainwashed, and somehow their government is not as corrupt as ours ??? Which is crazy considering how corrupt their government is.

However​, I doubt it is nearly as complex as our situation was here if it does turn out to be nefarious in nature. More than likely just simple insurance fraud.

The deaths I don't understand though...I saw a video, while the place was on fire they were allowing people to just walk around in the damn place....I mean what the hell is that about? Why not just let it burn and just contain from the outside?? Also, why let people back in when the place is still a blaze??


Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 03:21:10 PM
Can anyone help Rayzor debunk Newton and thus defend the 9/11 official story?

Kinda hard to fight reality...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 05:18:45 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on September 20, 2017, 04:17:06 PM
They are not nearly as brainwashed, and somehow their government is not as corrupt as ours Which is crazy considering how corrupt their government is.

Let's do it guys, let's take the power back, rage has been trying to save us since '92, I was only three years old.

Let's take it back. Please, for all of us.
[youtube][/youtube]
#OperationMetal.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sokarul on September 20, 2017, 06:23:30 PM
Remember when you claimed people were at ground zero making payphone calls 7 hours after the twin towers collapsed? And they heard the explosion that took down wtc 7?  Remember that?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 06:37:12 PM
Quote from: sockarul on September 20, 2017, 06:23:30 PM
Remember when you claimed people were at ground zero making payphone calls 7 hours after the twin towers collapsed? And they heard the explosion that took down wtc 7?  Remember that?

I do, yes. You should research what "ground zero" was used to describe exclusively before september 11th 2001.

This one, this explosion the firefighters testified to hearing.

Wtc 7.
[youtube][/youtube]

Wtc 1 and 2.
[youtube][/youtube]

Please honour these brave heros.

Also, can you help Rayzor debunk Newton and save the 9/11 official story? It's looking bleak currently.

Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 04:50:31 AM
Edit. @Rayzor.
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 04:05:20 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 03:59:31 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 03:54:44 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 03:33:41 AM
You still haven't addressed your post trying to debunk Newton. Do you stand by it?

You seriously think I'm trying to debunk Newton?

I do, yes.

See.
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 10:00:14 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 09:51:48 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 09:50:33 PM
We'll soon see about that.

Yes,  Hulsey's  simultaneous collapse theory.   What a joke.

In order for the building to collapse at free-fall the entire core had to fail nearly simultaneously. Structural resistance slows fall acceleration. If you don't like it take it up with Newton, not me.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Newt.html

Ah, I see where you went wrong,  you forgot that the center had already collapsed / was collapsing BEFORE the facade came down.  I really can't keep holding you hand while you work through these things, you have to start to think for yourself if you are going to be a good anon campaigner.

Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 04:10:35 AM
Thats not true that's the conclusions of the fraudulent NIST report. That is merely the lie we were sold.

Furthermore, even if the entire inner core collapsed leaving the entire "facade" intact (which is impossible because of the cross bracing) there were still 18 support columns around the exterior.

(https://s26.postimg.org/iegp2ilix/images-43.jpg)

A free fall collapse even under your fairytale conditions is still impossible without a controlled demolition. You are trying to debunk Newton.

Q.E.D.

What about and which of Newtons laws do you disagree with Sockarul?

Please know you're not angry at me. You're angry with the people that did this to you. I am trying to help you help yourself. I don't care who hates me for it.

Typo.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on September 20, 2017, 07:08:27 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 06:37:12 PM
Sockarul?

I hope this was not an accidental typo! That made me laugh hard
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 07:16:06 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on September 20, 2017, 11:40:25 AM
I myself am a simplicity and functionality person....I am the person that only has one spoon/knife/bowl/cup/fork etc and rewash every sitting

Wow, mealtime must be pretty lonely at your place.  Do you never have visitors?

Mealtimes around here are can be a bit chaotic,  but it's always fun to have family and friends together for a meal.  We take turns cooking and everyone has a specialty.   Tonight is a birthday party and since I'm cooking, I'm going to cook Mexican.  Lots of wine, fajitas and hot chilli.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 07:18:15 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 06:37:12 PM
A free fall collapse even under your fairytale conditions is still impossible without a controlled demolition. You are trying to debunk Newton.

Ummm..  what about the complete collapse of the building internal structure as seen clearly on video evidence?   Another fail by dipshit.

Newton is my friend. 

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 07:25:58 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on September 20, 2017, 07:08:27 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 06:37:12 PM
Sockarul?

I hope this was not an accidental typo! That made me laugh hard

It certainly wasn't.

@Rayzor and Sock.
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 06:37:12 PM
@Rayzor.
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 04:05:20 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 03:59:31 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 03:54:44 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 03:33:41 AM
You still haven't addressed your post trying to debunk Newton. Do you stand by it?

You seriously think I'm trying to debunk Newton?

I do, yes.

See.
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 10:00:14 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 09:51:48 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 09:50:33 PM
We'll soon see about that.

Yes,  Hulsey's  simultaneous collapse theory.   What a joke.

In order for the building to collapse at free-fall the entire core had to fail nearly simultaneously. Structural resistance slows fall acceleration. If you don't like it take it up with Newton, not me.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Newt.html

Ah, I see where you went wrong,  you forgot that the center had already collapsed / was collapsing BEFORE the facade came down.  I really can't keep holding you hand while you work through these things, you have to start to think for yourself if you are going to be a good anon campaigner.

Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 04:10:35 AM
Thats not true that's the conclusions of the fraudulent NIST report. That is merely the lie we were sold.

Furthermore, even if the entire inner core collapsed leaving the entire "facade" intact (which is impossible because of the cross bracing) there were still 18 support columns around the exterior.

(https://s26.postimg.org/iegp2ilix/images-43.jpg)

A free fall collapse even under your fairytale conditions is still impossible without a controlled demolition. You are trying to debunk Newton.

Q.E.D.

What about and which of Newtons laws do you disagree with Sockarul?

Please know you're not angry at me. You're angry with the people that did this to you. I am trying to help you help yourself. I don't care who hates me for it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 07:26:59 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 07:18:15 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 06:37:12 PM
A free fall collapse even under your fairytale conditions is still impossible without a controlled demolition. You are trying to debunk Newton.

Ummm..  what about the complete collapse of the building internal structure as seen clearly on video evidence?   Another fail by dipshit.

Newton is my friend.

No he isn't.

Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 04:10:35 AM
Thats not true that's the conclusions of the fraudulent NIST report. That is merely the lie we were sold.

Furthermore, even if the entire inner core collapsed leaving the entire "facade" intact (which is impossible because of the cross bracing) there were still 18 support columns around the exterior.

(https://s26.postimg.org/iegp2ilix/images-43.jpg)

A free fall collapse even under your fairytale conditions is still impossible without a controlled demolition. You are trying to debunk Newton.

Q.E.D.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 07:28:38 PM
Repost for visability.

Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 07:25:58 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on September 20, 2017, 07:08:27 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 06:37:12 PM
Sockarul?

I hope this was not an accidental typo! That made me laugh hard

It certainly wasn't.

@Rayzor and Sock.
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 06:37:12 PM
@Rayzor.
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 04:05:20 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 03:59:31 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 03:54:44 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 03:33:41 AM
You still haven't addressed your post trying to debunk Newton. Do you stand by it?

You seriously think I'm trying to debunk Newton?

I do, yes.

See.
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 10:00:14 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 09:51:48 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 09:50:33 PM
We'll soon see about that.

Yes,  Hulsey's  simultaneous collapse theory.   What a joke.

In order for the building to collapse at free-fall the entire core had to fail nearly simultaneously. Structural resistance slows fall acceleration. If you don't like it take it up with Newton, not me.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Newt.html

Ah, I see where you went wrong,  you forgot that the center had already collapsed / was collapsing BEFORE the facade came down.  I really can't keep holding you hand while you work through these things, you have to start to think for yourself if you are going to be a good anon campaigner.

Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 04:10:35 AM
Thats not true that's the conclusions of the fraudulent NIST report. That is merely the lie we were sold.

Furthermore, even if the entire inner core collapsed leaving the entire "facade" intact (which is impossible because of the cross bracing) there were still 18 support columns around the exterior.

(https://s26.postimg.org/iegp2ilix/images-43.jpg)

A free fall collapse even under your fairytale conditions is still impossible without a controlled demolition. You are trying to debunk Newton.

Q.E.D.

What about and which of Newtons laws do you disagree with Sockarul?

Please know you're not angry at me. You're angry with the people that did this to you. I am trying to help you help yourself. I don't care who hates me for it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: DuckDodgers on September 20, 2017, 07:35:26 PM
I understand your desire for an answer to your question, but can you please stop posting the exact same post repeatedly, particularly back to back like you just did? It makes this thread that much more frustrating to sift through.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 07:36:45 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 07:28:38 PM
Repost for visability.

visibility  dumbass.   Or did you mean disability.

You make it too easy sometimes.   Try harder.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 07:40:01 PM
Quote from: DuckDodgers on September 20, 2017, 07:35:26 PM
I understand your desire for an answer to your question, but can you please stop posting the exact same post repeatedly, particularly back to back like you just did? It makes this thread that much more frustrating to sift through.

Actually, he has a disability, it's a feature of some kinds of OCD,  he will keep posting the same flawed logic over and over,  he's been doing this particular one since the start of this thread 5000 posts ago,  so that gives you some idea of how bad his problem is.   

I find that if you ridicule him for it, he stops for a while.  But it's only ever temporary.   

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 07:41:39 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 07:36:45 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 07:28:38 PM
Repost for visability.

visibility  dumbass.   Or did you mean disability.

You make it too easy sometimes.   Try harder.

I made a spelling error. I made a mistake. I make a lot of mistakes. My apologies, next time I will proof read it first. Can you please address my post?

Quote from: DuckDodgers on September 20, 2017, 07:35:26 PM
I understand your desire for an answer to your question, but can you please stop posting the exact same post repeatedly, particularly back to back like you just did? It makes this thread that much more frustrating to sift through.

I do want an answer and that's a fair point. You're very bright Duck, could you answer my question?

Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 07:40:01 PM

Please stop the ad-hominems and address my post.

Edit for spelling error. Lol.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 07:49:57 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 07:41:39 PM
[I made a spelling error. I made a mistake. I make a lot of mistakes. My apologies, next time I will proof read it first. Can you please address my post?

Let's see,  free-fall is free fall,   how can something fall at free-fall speeds,  ...  I know ...  the supporting structure collapsed.    Newton is saved.  And the conspiracy is defeated by logic.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 07:51:02 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 07:49:57 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 07:41:39 PM
[I made a spelling error. I made a mistake. I make a lot of mistakes. My apologies, next time I will proof read it first. Can you please address my post?

Let's see,  free-fall is free fall,   how can something fall at free-fall speeds,  ...  I know ...  the supporting structure collapsed.    Newton is saved.  And the conspiracy is defeated by logic.

Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 04:10:35 AM
Thats not true that's the conclusions of the fraudulent NIST report. That is merely the lie we were sold.

Furthermore, even if the entire inner core collapsed leaving the entire "facade" intact (which is impossible because of the cross bracing) there were still 18 support columns around the exterior.

(https://s26.postimg.org/iegp2ilix/images-43.jpg)

A free fall collapse even under your fairytale conditions is still impossible without a controlled demolition. You are trying to debunk Newton.

Q.E.D.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Newt.html
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 07:52:02 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 06:49:03 AM
This is clear and concise logic, backed up by all video evidence.

The left to right / east to west collapse of the penthouse was caused by the failure of column 79, 80, and 81 (not part of the core)

(https://s26.postimg.org/iegp2ilix/images-43.jpg)

Happening a few seconds before the near simultaneous failure of the entire core causing the 2.25 second symmetrical free fall.

Check it.

[Youtube][/youtube]

Sorry Duck but I won't let him duck this.
(Pun very much intended.)

Edit. Grammar mistake.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 07:56:57 PM
LOL,   he's like a wind up toy.  Crank the handle,  press the buttons and away he goes.

It would be funny if it wasn't so tragic.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 07:57:45 PM
How fid the west penthouse stay intact after the failure of the "supporting structure"

[Youtube][/youtube]

You are my wind up toy now.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 07:59:17 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 07:57:45 PM
You are my wind up toy now.

Stop copying my observations about your behaviour,  that's projecting.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 07:59:43 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 07:57:45 PM
How fid the west penthouse stay intact after the failure of the "supporting structure"

[Youtube][/youtube]
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 08:10:29 PM
At this point you are either realising that wtc 7 was a controlled demolition or that we were always going to win this and you were foolish not to expect us, even God bows to love. You would do well to remember.

Love is the law, love under will.
There is no bond that can unite the divided but love, all else is a curse.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 08:27:31 PM
To those that will listen I will say, do not despair, this is merely the changing of the ages as humanity moves into the age of Aquarius together. We can offer you the solutions to all of your problems because the solutions to all of your, and by extension, humanites problems lies inside you, inside your soul
All of this can all be fixed by humans.

Through all the lies and all the hate you are the one we have been trying to reach, you are the one that can save the world, you are the one who can fix what is broken in yourself, and by extension, humanity and save the world.

You will never walk alone, we will always be here for you, all of us.

[youtube][/youtube]

[youtube][/youtube]

[youtube][/youtube]
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sokarul on September 20, 2017, 09:16:12 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 06:37:12 PM
Quote from: sockarul on September 20, 2017, 06:23:30 PM
Remember when you claimed people were at ground zero making payphone calls 7 hours after the twin towers collapsed? And they heard the explosion that took down wtc 7?  Remember that?

I do, yes. You should research what "ground zero" was used to describe exclusively before september 11th 2001.

This one, this explosion the firefighters testified to hearing.

Wtc 7.
[youtube][/youtube]
Where was the video taken? When was the video taken? Why is there only one explosion? Why can't the building be heard? Why did no other camera pick up the explosion? Why aren't you asking any questions?
Quote
Wtc 1 and 2.
[youtube][/youtube]
Nothing else has ever exploded?

Quote
Please honour these brave heros.

Also, can you help Rayzor debunk Newton and save the 9/11 official story? It's looking bleak currently.
I don't need to. You are just too blind to see the truth.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 09:19:57 PM
Quote from: sockarul on September 20, 2017, 09:16:12 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 06:37:12 PM
Also, can you help Rayzor debunk Newton and save the 9/11 official story? It's looking bleak currently.
I don't need to. You are just too blind to see the truth.

[youtube][/youtube]
OperationMetal.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 09:33:25 PM
Quote from: sokarul on September 20, 2017, 09:16:12 PM

Are you a sockpuppet or a sheep? I don't mean any unnecessary disrespect but I think its pretty clear I have a strong point here.

Would you like to try and debunk it?
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 07:26:59 PM

Edit.
Put less politely here.

Quote from: disputeone on February 13, 2017, 10:49:57 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 13, 2017, 10:36:59 PM
What real evidence is there for a conspiracy about 911?

Fall acceleration of building 7.

You are going to end this a jibbering mess of failed insults and logic.

But you asked for it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 09:49:19 PM
Reply number 8 in this thread which has just passed 5358 posts,  and still dipshit doesn't understand my good buddy Newton.


Quote from: Rayzor on February 13, 2017, 11:18:08 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 13, 2017, 11:05:34 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 13, 2017, 10:57:21 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 13, 2017, 10:49:57 PM
As far as WTC7 goes I've already explained how things fall at free fall rate when the structure underneath is falling as well.   Have you got any real evidence?

What made the underlying structure fall underneath it at free fall?

Was there a big ass hole under the building? Or was it built on a solid concrete slab? Are you relying on the building losing 100% of its structural integrity?

Because that is what would have to happen to accelerate at g, also note the NIST report doesn't dare say the building lost 100% of its structural integrity. Also why did it hold steady until it plummeted down at g, could the whole building support itself at 99.9% loss of structural integrity but collapsed when it lost 100% of its structural integrity????

Like I said before, I work in the industry, I don't have an engineering PhD, I am not infallible I can only present evidence and ask logical questions.

If you want to get schooled on the actual physics behind it I have a feeling it can happen here.

Good luck.

Edit typos

We already debunked that free-fall argument.   But just to recap,  how is it possible for the rooftop of a building to fall?   Doesn't the fact that it collapsed at all mean that the building structure supporting the roof is collapsing,    why would you be surprised that it fell at a free fall rate.   At least until it hit ground and other debris piled up,   The graph in the NIST shows it quite clearly.   

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 10:37:22 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 09:49:19 PM
We already debunked that free-fall argument.

You haven't debunked it.

Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 09:49:19 PM
But just to recap,  how is it possible for the rooftop of a building to fall?   Doesn't the fact that it collapsed at all mean that the building structure supporting the roof is collapsing,    why would you be surprised that it fell at a free fall rate.   At least until it hit ground and other debris piled up,   The graph in the NIST shows it quite clearly.   

Correct check it out.
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 07:59:43 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 07:57:45 PM
How fid the west penthouse stay intact after the failure of the "supporting structure"

[Youtube][/youtube]

The answer is when the west penthouse collapsed the entire core failed simultaneously causing a 2.25 second symmetrical free-fall.

(https://s26.postimg.org/iegp2ilix/images-43.jpg)

The only way this is possible is a controlled demolition.

Q.E.D.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Symptom on September 20, 2017, 10:51:50 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 07:16:06 PM

Wow, mealtime must be pretty lonely at your place.  Do you never have visitors?

He owns a Lamborghini and a (questionable) Porsche (mostly driven by surgically enhanced trophy wife soccer moms), and he knows the 9/11 truth. So why would he need to form relationships with actual human beings?

Duh.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 10:55:41 PM
Quote from: Symptom on September 20, 2017, 10:51:50 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 07:16:06 PM

Wow, mealtime must be pretty lonely at your place.  Do you never have visitors?

He ownes a Lamborghini and a (questionable) Porsche, and he knows the 9/11 truth. So why would he need to form relationships with actual human beings?

Duh.

Can you help Rayzor debunk Newton?
He really needs some help here.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Symptom on September 20, 2017, 10:58:23 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 10:55:41 PM
Quote from: Symptom on September 20, 2017, 10:51:50 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 07:16:06 PM

Wow, mealtime must be pretty lonely at your place.  Do you never have visitors?

He ownes a Lamborghini and a (questionable) Porsche, and he knows the 9/11 truth. So why would he need to form relationships with actual human beings?

Duh.

Can you help Rayzor debunk Newton?
He really needs some help here.

I'll do that as soon as you stop pretending that you have anything to do with Anon.

Not gonna happen, is it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 11:01:16 PM
What makes someone a part of anonymous? If you can answer that I'll tell you I'm not pretending.

Then I'd like you to debunk Newtons laws and show us ordinary office fires caused wtc 7s collapse we all saw.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Symptom on September 20, 2017, 11:10:35 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 11:01:16 PM
What makes someone a part of anonymous? If you can answer that I'll tell you I'm not pretending.

Then I'd like you to debunk Newtons laws and show us ordinary office fires caused wtc 7s collapse we all saw.

We all know that if you were actually involved with Anon, you wouldn't spend this much time on an obscure humor forum that no one reads. (If you honestly don't get that this place is an elaborate in-joke, that's really all I need to know about you)

But hey, if your pathetic little 4chan fantasies makes you sleep at night, then by all means go ahead.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 11:11:41 PM
Anonymous was born in an obscure humour forum no one read newfriend.

Edit.

What better placed anon was there to expose the shilling at the flat earth society?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Symptom on September 20, 2017, 11:16:14 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 11:11:41 PM
Anonymous was born in an obscure humour forum no one read newfriend.

Edit.

What better placed anon was there to expose the shilling at the flat earth society?

HE EDITED HIS POST, BUT THERE IS NO EDIT-THINGY. CIA CONFIRMED.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 11:17:09 PM
Within a minute so I didn't get the edit stamp. There's links to how this forum works here.

Like this..

Real edit.

Please know you're not angry at me. You're angry with the people that did this to you. I am trying to help you help yourself. I don't care who hates me for it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Symptom on September 20, 2017, 11:19:29 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 11:11:41 PM

What better placed anon was there to expose the shilling at the flat earth society?

Also, English is not my first Language, but even I understand that this quote makes no sense at all.

Shill confirmed. CIA bot in da hizzay.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 11:20:03 PM
Please keep this thread on topic. Would you like to discuss wtc 7?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Symptom on September 20, 2017, 11:22:47 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 11:17:09 PM
Within a minute so I didn't get the edit stamp. There's links to how this forum works here.

Like this..

Real edit.

Please know you're not angry at me. You're angry with the people that did this to you. I am trying to help you help yourself. I don't care who hates me for it.

Says the psyop shill.

Does spreading lies for the Penguin NWO make you proud?

How much does the feather-clad shadow government pay you for this?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 11:23:36 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 07:28:38 PM
Repost for visibility.

Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 07:25:58 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on September 20, 2017, 07:08:27 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 06:37:12 PM
Sockarul?

I hope this was not an accidental typo! That made me laugh hard

It certainly wasn't.

@Rayzor and Sock.
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 06:37:12 PM
@Rayzor.
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 04:05:20 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 03:59:31 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 03:54:44 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 03:33:41 AM
You still haven't addressed your post trying to debunk Newton. Do you stand by it?

You seriously think I'm trying to debunk Newton?

I do, yes.

See.
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 10:00:14 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 09:51:48 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 09:50:33 PM
We'll soon see about that.

Yes,  Hulsey's  simultaneous collapse theory.   What a joke.

In order for the building to collapse at free-fall the entire core had to fail nearly simultaneously. Structural resistance slows fall acceleration. If you don't like it take it up with Newton, not me.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Newt.html

Ah, I see where you went wrong,  you forgot that the center had already collapsed / was collapsing BEFORE the facade came down.  I really can't keep holding you hand while you work through these things, you have to start to think for yourself if you are going to be a good anon campaigner.

Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 04:10:35 AM
Thats not true that's the conclusions of the fraudulent NIST report. That is merely the lie we were sold.

Furthermore, even if the entire inner core collapsed leaving the entire "facade" intact (which is impossible because of the cross bracing) there were still 18 support columns around the exterior.

(https://s26.postimg.org/iegp2ilix/images-43.jpg)

A free fall collapse even under your fairytale conditions is still impossible without a controlled demolition. You are trying to debunk Newton.

Q.E.D.

What about and which of Newtons laws do you disagree with Sockarul?

Please know you're not angry at me. You're angry with the people that did this to you. I am trying to help you help yourself. I don't care who hates me for it.

I do this out of love.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 11:25:50 PM
Rayzor this is where we left our discussion.

Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 10:37:22 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 09:49:19 PM
We already debunked that free-fall argument.

You haven't debunked it.

Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 09:49:19 PM
But just to recap,  how is it possible for the rooftop of a building to fall?   Doesn't the fact that it collapsed at all mean that the building structure supporting the roof is collapsing,    why would you be surprised that it fell at a free fall rate.   At least until it hit ground and other debris piled up,   The graph in the NIST shows it quite clearly.   

Correct check it out.
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 07:59:43 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 07:57:45 PM
How fid the west penthouse stay intact after the failure of the "supporting structure"

[Youtube][/youtube]

The answer is when the west penthouse collapsed the entire core failed simultaneously causing a 2.25 second symmetrical free-fall.

(https://s26.postimg.org/iegp2ilix/images-43.jpg)

The only way this is possible is a controlled demolition.

Q.E.D.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Symptom on September 20, 2017, 11:27:34 PM
"My wings may not be adequate for flight, but with each flap another lie is spread across the world".

Says the Penguin Shadow Goverment shill.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 11:31:22 PM
The shadow government is very real. You would be wise not to disregard it.

[youtube][/youtube]

I think you are at the limit of your intellectual capability currently. Look over my posts and try and come up with a rebuttal. There are a lot of very intelligent posters here I'd like to see it debunked
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Symptom on September 20, 2017, 11:38:03 PM
Yes, the shadow goverment is real. There is no question about that.

There is also no question that you are one of their brainwashed shills, you foul fowl.

I'm sorry that you are so afraid of the truth. I know the Penguins hurt you. And that they made you so afraid. But it's over now. I'm so sorry. We love you.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 11:42:31 PM
I don't think you are sincere however. There's a pretty big difference.
Are you capable of a rebuttal?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 11:46:41 PM
Quote from: Symptom on September 20, 2017, 11:22:47 PM
Says the psyop shill.

Does spreading lies for the Penguin NWO make you proud?

How much does the feather-clad shadow government pay you for this?

Hey,  that's my job,  I'm  the psyop shill.   And no before you ask I'm not with the Penguin division,  I hate those guys, they strut about  with their little tuxedos, waddling arrogantly about.  The bring a bad name to the real hard working psyop shills.   

And what's worse our dental plan is not as good as the flat earthers,  I'm seriously considering a strike action.   Are you with me comrade?


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 11:47:18 PM
Are either of you capable of a rebuttal?

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 11:51:27 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 11:47:18 PM
Are either of you capable of a rebuttal?

You mean like the one I gave you 5300 post ago?   

Ok,  while you think about that, can you tell me the rate at which an unsupported object falls.     ( Hint it's a trick question )

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Symptom on September 20, 2017, 11:52:35 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 11:46:41 PM
Quote from: Symptom on September 20, 2017, 11:22:47 PM
Says the psyop shill.

Does spreading lies for the Penguin NWO make you proud?

How much does the feather-clad shadow government pay you for this?

Hey,  that's my job,  I'm  the psyop shill.   And no before you ask I'm not with the Penguin division,  I hate those guys, they strut about  with their little tuxedos, waddling arrogantly about.  The bring a bad name to the real hard working psyop shills.   

And what's worse our dental plan is not as good as the flat earthers,  I'm seriously considering a strike action.   Are you with me comrade?

Oh, I am most certainly with you. The Penguins must be stopped, at any cost. Even total war.

But first we must deal with their shills, like d1. He is afraid, so very afraid. We must love him, and tell him that everything will be OK. I hate what those foul fowls have done to him. No love there. Just fear. So much fear.

We must love him.

Love. Him.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 11:57:48 PM
Quote from: Symptom on September 20, 2017, 11:52:35 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 11:46:41 PM
Quote from: Symptom on September 20, 2017, 11:22:47 PM
Says the psyop shill.

Does spreading lies for the Penguin NWO make you proud?

How much does the feather-clad shadow government pay you for this?

Hey,  that's my job,  I'm  the psyop shill.   And no before you ask I'm not with the Penguin division,  I hate those guys, they strut about  with their little tuxedos, waddling arrogantly about.  The bring a bad name to the real hard working psyop shills.   

And what's worse our dental plan is not as good as the flat earthers,  I'm seriously considering a strike action.   Are you with me comrade?

Oh, I am most certainly with you. The Penguins must be stopped, at any cost. Even total war.

But first we must deal with their shills, like d1. He is afraid, so very afraid. We must love him, and tell him that everything will be OK. I hate what those foul fowls have done to him. No love there. Just fear. So much fear.

We must love him.

He must be alerted to the terrifying reality that  Anonymous Metal is actually a covert Penguin operation,  those sneaky little flightless Nazi lunchboxes must be stopped. 

Step 6 is going to be mackerel soup....
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 11:58:39 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 11:51:27 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 11:47:18 PM
Are either of you capable of a rebuttal?

You mean like the one I gave you 5300 post ago?   

Ok,  while you think about that, can you tell me the rate at which an unsupported object falls.     ( Hint it's a trick question )

An unsupported object falls at g. The issue is why was wtc 7 completely unsupported for 2.25 seconds if the collapse was caused by fire and progressive like claimed by NIST in the official report. I would say there was only two stages, it is a real stretch to say progressive.

Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 11:25:50 PM
Rayzor this is where we left our discussion.

Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 10:37:22 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 09:49:19 PM
We already debunked that free-fall argument.

You haven't debunked it.

Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 09:49:19 PM
But just to recap,  how is it possible for the rooftop of a building to fall?   Doesn't the fact that it collapsed at all mean that the building structure supporting the roof is collapsing,    why would you be surprised that it fell at a free fall rate.   At least until it hit ground and other debris piled up,   The graph in the NIST shows it quite clearly.   

Correct check it out.
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 07:59:43 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 07:57:45 PM
How fid the west penthouse stay intact after the failure of the "supporting structure"

[Youtube][/youtube]

The answer is when the west penthouse collapsed the entire core failed simultaneously causing a 2.25 second symmetrical free-fall.

(https://s26.postimg.org/iegp2ilix/images-43.jpg)

The only way this is possible is a controlled demolition.

Q.E.D.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Symptom on September 21, 2017, 12:04:07 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 11:57:48 PM
Quote from: Symptom on September 20, 2017, 11:52:35 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 11:46:41 PM
Quote from: Symptom on September 20, 2017, 11:22:47 PM
Says the psyop shill.

Does spreading lies for the Penguin NWO make you proud?

How much does the feather-clad shadow government pay you for this?

Hey,  that's my job,  I'm  the psyop shill.   And no before you ask I'm not with the Penguin division,  I hate those guys, they strut about  with their little tuxedos, waddling arrogantly about.  The bring a bad name to the real hard working psyop shills.   

And what's worse our dental plan is not as good as the flat earthers,  I'm seriously considering a strike action.   Are you with me comrade?

Oh, I am most certainly with you. The Penguins must be stopped, at any cost. Even total war.

But first we must deal with their shills, like d1. He is afraid, so very afraid. We must love him, and tell him that everything will be OK. I hate what those foul fowls have done to him. No love there. Just fear. So much fear.

We must love him.

He must be alerted to the terrifying reality that  Anonymous Metal is actually a covert Penguin operation,  those sneaky little flightless Nazi lunchboxes must be stopped. 

Step 6 is going to be mackerel soup....

I fear that he is too far gone at this point. That the PSH (Penguin Shadow Government) has brought him beyond the point of no return.

This saddens me so much. I'm doing this for him. He is so afraid, and I love him so much. I'm so sorry.

pm me for further details, mission code 84#73993
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 12:05:25 AM
You should have a good hard look in the mirror before you continue symptom. I'm not saying that for my benefit, just consider it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Symptom on September 21, 2017, 12:08:43 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 12:05:25 AM
You should have a good hard look in the mirror before you continue symptom. I'm not saying that for my benefit, just consider it.

We are so sorry that you are so afraid. We are doing this for you. We love you so much. You are special. You are a hero. We are so sorry that you will be in jail soon. We love you.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 21, 2017, 12:09:51 AM
Quote from: Symptom on September 21, 2017, 12:04:07 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 11:57:48 PM
Quote from: Symptom on September 20, 2017, 11:52:35 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 11:46:41 PM
Quote from: Symptom on September 20, 2017, 11:22:47 PM
Says the psyop shill.

Does spreading lies for the Penguin NWO make you proud?

How much does the feather-clad shadow government pay you for this?

Hey,  that's my job,  I'm  the psyop shill.   And no before you ask I'm not with the Penguin division,  I hate those guys, they strut about  with their little tuxedos, waddling arrogantly about.  The bring a bad name to the real hard working psyop shills.   

And what's worse our dental plan is not as good as the flat earthers,  I'm seriously considering a strike action.   Are you with me comrade?

Oh, I am most certainly with you. The Penguins must be stopped, at any cost. Even total war.

But first we must deal with their shills, like d1. He is afraid, so very afraid. We must love him, and tell him that everything will be OK. I hate what those foul fowls have done to him. No love there. Just fear. So much fear.

We must love him.

He must be alerted to the terrifying reality that  Anonymous Metal is actually a covert Penguin operation,  those sneaky little flightless Nazi lunchboxes must be stopped. 

Step 6 is going to be mackerel soup....

I fear that he is too far gone at this point. That the PSH (Penguin Shadow Government) has brought him beyond the point of no return.

This saddens me so much. I'm doing this for him. He is so afraid, and I love him so much. I'm so sorry.

pm me for further details, mission code 84#73993

I've got him locked into the free-fall mind trap at the moment, so his awareness of external stimuli is minimal,  my NLP phrasebook got corrupted by penguin droppings on the last field op,  do you have the NLP phrasing for "Wake up you fucking dickhead"  I think that's the only thing that will snap him out of his fixation with WTC7. 



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 12:09:51 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 03:26:42 AM
Wow you follow the script...

Quote from: disputeone on March 26, 2017, 08:40:16 PM
Rayzor I have summarised your debate tactics as a reference and guide for you.

*Encourage group shaming and group think as a first priority.

*Always quote and support the official story, if any evidence doesn't support the OS, then deny it and re-quote the official story.

*Deny any and all facts that go against the official story.

*Discredit anyone that goes against the official story.

*Push controlled opposition conspiracy theories e.g aliens, holographic planes, death rays from space.

*Speak from a position of authority on all subjects, never provide proof of authority.

*Give absolutely no quarter, if you can't answer a question honestly descredit the poster and distract the debate.

*Offer the official story as the only explanation, keep trying to exaggerate your opponents position and twist their words out of meaning.

*Attack only the weakest points of your opponent's argument, if there are no weak enough points, create a strawman and tear it to shreds.

This is a free reference if you get stuck.

I am sure you can air your issues during peer review. Hulsey is giving us this option.

Isn't science great.

Consider this list open source. Please feel free to add to it or edit it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Symptom on September 21, 2017, 12:13:14 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 21, 2017, 12:09:51 AM
Quote from: Symptom on September 21, 2017, 12:04:07 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 11:57:48 PM
Quote from: Symptom on September 20, 2017, 11:52:35 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 11:46:41 PM
Quote from: Symptom on September 20, 2017, 11:22:47 PM
Says the psyop shill.

Does spreading lies for the Penguin NWO make you proud?

How much does the feather-clad shadow government pay you for this?

Hey,  that's my job,  I'm  the psyop shill.   And no before you ask I'm not with the Penguin division,  I hate those guys, they strut about  with their little tuxedos, waddling arrogantly about.  The bring a bad name to the real hard working psyop shills.   

And what's worse our dental plan is not as good as the flat earthers,  I'm seriously considering a strike action.   Are you with me comrade?

Oh, I am most certainly with you. The Penguins must be stopped, at any cost. Even total war.

But first we must deal with their shills, like d1. He is afraid, so very afraid. We must love him, and tell him that everything will be OK. I hate what those foul fowls have done to him. No love there. Just fear. So much fear.

We must love him.

He must be alerted to the terrifying reality that  Anonymous Metal is actually a covert Penguin operation,  those sneaky little flightless Nazi lunchboxes must be stopped. 

Step 6 is going to be mackerel soup....

I fear that he is too far gone at this point. That the PSH (Penguin Shadow Government) has brought him beyond the point of no return.

This saddens me so much. I'm doing this for him. He is so afraid, and I love him so much. I'm so sorry.

pm me for further details, mission code 84#73993

I've got him locked into the free-fall mind trap at the moment, so his awareness of external stimuli is minimal,  my NLP phrasebook got corrupted by penguin droppings on the last field op,  do you have the NLP phrasing for "Wake up you fucking dickhead"  I think that's the only thing that will snap him out of his fixation with WTC7.

Wait, give me five minutes, and I'll get back to you on that. My office is a mess, but I'll find it. Love will prevail.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 12:14:54 AM
Neither of you can or have tried to debunk my post. I'll stop posting it when that happens.

Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 11:58:39 PM
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Symptom on September 21, 2017, 12:18:44 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 12:09:51 AM
Symptom don't fall for his B/S I've been dealing with his type for a very long time now.

We are so sorry that the PSG (Penguin Shadow Government) have put you through this. That they have made you a mindless shill, and that now you are doing their bidding without question. We are so sorry.

We love you. We will make sure that you will never again be afraid. We are doing this for you. We love you.

Expect us.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 12:20:36 AM
Please know you're not angry at me. You're angry with the people that did this to you. I am trying to help you help yourself. I don't care who hates me for it.

I get it man. I don't hold it against you.
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 12:14:54 AM
Neither of you can or have tried to debunk my post. I'll stop posting it when that happens.

Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 11:58:39 PM
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Symptom on September 21, 2017, 12:23:27 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 12:20:36 AM
Please know you're not angry at me. You're angry with the people that did this to you. I am trying to help you help yourself. I don't care who hates me for it.

I get it man. I don't hold it against you.
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 12:14:54 AM
Neither of you can or have tried to debunk my post. I'll stop posting it when that happens.

Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 11:58:39 PM

We know you are angry. It's OK to be angry. They hurt you.

Just remember that we are doing this for you. We love you. For ever and ever, we will love you.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 12:24:01 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 12:14:54 AM
Neither of you can or have tried to debunk my post. I'll stop posting it when that happens.

Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 11:58:39 PM

Surely you understand you aren't "trolling" me, trolling requires skill.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Symptom on September 21, 2017, 12:25:14 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 12:24:01 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 12:14:54 AM
Neither of you can or have tried to debunk my post. I'll stop posting it when that happens.

Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 11:58:39 PM

Surely you understand you aren't "trolling" me, trolling requires skill.

We love you.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 12:25:50 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 12:14:54 AM
Neither of you can or have tried to debunk my post. I'll stop posting it when that happens.

Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 11:58:39 PM
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 21, 2017, 12:26:48 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 12:20:36 AM
Please know you're not angry at me. You're angry with the people that did this to you. I am trying to help you help yourself. I don't care who hates me for it.

I get it man. I don't hold it against you.
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 12:14:54 AM
Neither of you can or have tried to debunk my post. I'll stop posting it when that happens.

Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 11:58:39 PM

Ok, I found a backup version.   let's try it.

Newton pushed Leroy Hulsey off the roof of WTC7 he is now free falling

Let's see if it snaps him back to reality, and out of the reaches of those grubby little flippers.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 12:27:04 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 12:14:54 AM
Neither of you can or have tried to debunk my post. I'll stop posting it when that happens.

Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 11:58:39 PM
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Symptom on September 21, 2017, 12:27:59 AM
We love you. Don't be afraid. We are doing this for you. You are special.

We love you.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 12:28:36 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 12:14:54 AM
Neither of you can or have tried to debunk my post. I'll stop posting it when that happens.

Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 11:58:39 PM
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 21, 2017, 12:32:18 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 12:28:36 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 12:14:54 AM
Neither of you can or have tried to debunk my post. I'll stop posting it when that happens.

Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 11:58:39 PM

I think your syntactic awareness module has developed a short circuit.   

Look up at the light,   can you see my hand?   How many fingers am I holding up?

Sorry Symptom,  I think we lost him.   Thanks for trying,   I'll check back later and see it he recovers...     Damn those little feathered fiends. 

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 12:33:02 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 12:14:54 AM
Neither of you can or have tried to debunk my post. I'll stop posting it when that happens.

Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 11:58:39 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 11:51:27 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 11:47:18 PM
Are either of you capable of a rebuttal?

You mean like the one I gave you 5300 post ago?   

Ok,  while you think about that, can you tell me the rate at which an unsupported object falls.     ( Hint it's a trick question )

An unsupported object falls at g. The issue is why was wtc 7 completely unsupported for 2.25 seconds if the collapse was caused by fire and progressive like claimed by NIST in the official report. I would say there was only two stages, it is a real stretch to say progressive.

Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 11:25:50 PM
Rayzor this is where we left our discussion.

Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 10:37:22 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 09:49:19 PM
We already debunked that free-fall argument.

You haven't debunked it.

Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 09:49:19 PM
But just to recap,  how is it possible for the rooftop of a building to fall?   Doesn't the fact that it collapsed at all mean that the building structure supporting the roof is collapsing,    why would you be surprised that it fell at a free fall rate.   At least until it hit ground and other debris piled up,   The graph in the NIST shows it quite clearly.   

Correct check it out.
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 07:59:43 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 07:57:45 PM
How fid the west penthouse stay intact after the failure of the "supporting structure"

[Youtube][/youtube]

The answer is when the west penthouse collapsed the entire core failed simultaneously causing a 2.25 second symmetrical free-fall.

(https://s26.postimg.org/iegp2ilix/images-43.jpg)

The only way this is possible is a controlled demolition.

Q.E.D.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Symptom on September 21, 2017, 12:33:25 AM
Penguin shill confirmed.

I say we initiate doc 30999a.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 12:34:57 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 03:26:42 AM
Wow you follow the script...

Quote from: disputeone on March 26, 2017, 08:40:16 PM
Rayzor I have summarised your debate tactics as a reference and guide for you.

*Encourage group shaming and group think as a first priority.

*Always quote and support the official story, if any evidence doesn't support the OS, then deny it and re-quote the official story.

*Deny any and all facts that go against the official story.

*Discredit anyone that goes against the official story.

*Push controlled opposition conspiracy theories e.g aliens, holographic planes, death rays from space.

*Speak from a position of authority on all subjects, never provide proof of authority.

*Give absolutely no quarter, if you can't answer a question honestly descredit the poster and distract the debate.

*Offer the official story as the only explanation, keep trying to exaggerate your opponents position and twist their words out of meaning.

*Attack only the weakest points of your opponent's argument, if there are no weak enough points, create a strawman and tear it to shreds.

This is a free reference if you get stuck.

I am sure you can air your issues during peer review. Hulsey is giving us this option.

Isn't science great.

Consider this list open source. Please feel free to add to it or edit it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Symptom on September 21, 2017, 12:38:49 AM
Or should we go with 92x455n?

Or should we just await further orders? I'm kinda stumped here.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 12:39:29 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 12:14:54 AM
Neither of you can or have tried to debunk my post. I'll stop posting it when that happens.

Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 11:58:39 PM
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Symptom on September 21, 2017, 12:42:16 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 12:34:57 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 03:26:42 AM
Wow you follow the script...

Quote from: disputeone on March 26, 2017, 08:40:16 PM
Rayzor I have summarised your debate tactics as a reference and guide for you.

*disputeone is an obvious shill for the Penguin Shadow Government

This is a free reference if you get stuck.

I am sure you can air your issues during peer review. Hulsey is giving us this option.

Isn't science great.

Consider this list open source. Please feel free to add to it or edit it.

Edited for accuracy.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 12:43:33 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 12:14:54 AM
Neither of you can or have tried to debunk my post. I'll stop posting it when that happens.

Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 11:58:39 PM

Also 9/11 was a Mossad / CIA planned false flag. I know you hate it when I say it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Wolvaccine on September 21, 2017, 12:43:47 AM
Is this Rayzor like 5 years old? What a childish, pathetic and petulant response to honest questions. His dodging is clear admission he either is a dimwit with no idea or that he knows disputeone is spot on and is too embarrassed to admit after 180+ pages of shilling that he has it totally wrong.

Man up Rayzor. Your dodging of the questions only embarrasses and incriminates yourself. And your childish baiting is pathetic and only shows you off as being a loser.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on September 21, 2017, 12:45:23 AM
Wow at the attempted trolling....did symptom and Rayzor get kicked out of the d list pile or something?

Sad
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on September 21, 2017, 12:51:05 AM
Reality, evidence, engineering and common sense cannot be debunked...

Let's resort to trolling and ad hominems instead
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Symptom on September 21, 2017, 12:51:29 AM
Heh, look who's here. d1's supposed "friend".

Remember: We love you. Do not be afraid. We are doing this for you (and Your Beverly Hills soccer mom Porsche).
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 12:53:46 AM
Quote from: Symptom on September 21, 2017, 12:51:29 AM
Heh, look who's here. d1's supposed "friend".

Remember: We love you. Do not be afraid. We are doing this for you (and Your Beverly Hills soccer mom Porsche).

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on September 21, 2017, 12:51:05 AM
Reality, evidence, engineering and common sense cannot be debunked...

Let's resort to trolling and ad hominems instead

This. Also gaslighting and ad hominems does nothing to debunk any of the arguments presented. Temper your jealousy and hate.

Edit. It is your right to dislike me, disliking me doesn't debunk what I say.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Symptom on September 21, 2017, 12:54:14 AM
Quote from: Shifter on September 21, 2017, 12:43:47 AM
Is this Rayzor like 5 years old? What a childish, pathetic and petulant response to honest questions. His dodging is clear admission he either is a dimwit with no idea or that he knows disputeone is spot on and is too embarrassed to admit after 180+ pages of shilling that he has it totally wrong.

Man up Rayzor. Your dodging of the questions only embarrasses and incriminates yourself. And your childish baiting is pathetic and only shows you off as being a loser.

There are no questions being asked. It's all a bunch of 4chan fuckery.

Do not be afraid uf us. We love you. You are special. We are doing this for you.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 12:55:49 AM
You are special symptom. I wish you could see it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Symptom on September 21, 2017, 12:55:54 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 12:53:46 AM
Quote from: Symptom on September 21, 2017, 12:51:29 AM
Heh, look who's here. d1's supposed "friend".

Remember: We love you. Do not be afraid. We are doing this for you (and Your Beverly Hills soccer mom Porsche).

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on September 21, 2017, 12:51:05 AM
Reality, evidence, engineering and common sense cannot be debunked...

Let's resort to trolling and ad hominems instead

This also gaslighting and ad hominems does nothing to debunk any of the arguments presented. Temper your jealousy and hate.

We are not jealous. We do not hate. We are doing this for you.We love you.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Symptom on September 21, 2017, 12:57:08 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 12:55:49 AM
You are special symptom. I wish you could see it.

We are special. We see it.

You are special. We see it.

We love you. Do not be afraid.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 12:57:22 AM
Only the unloved and unnatural hate.

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 12:14:54 AM
Neither of you can or have tried to debunk my post. I'll stop posting it when that happens.

Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 11:58:39 PM

Also 9/11 was a Mossad / CIA planned false flag. I know you hate it when I say it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Wolvaccine on September 21, 2017, 12:58:57 AM
Quote from: Symptom on September 21, 2017, 12:57:08 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 12:55:49 AM
You are special symptom. I wish you could see it.

We are special. We see it.

You are special. We see it.

We love you.


What I see is your transparent tactic that whenever serious questions are being posed or your arguments blown away that you fill the thread with pages of utter nonsense in the hope they get bumped off the current page.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Symptom on September 21, 2017, 12:59:25 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 12:57:22 AM
Only the unloved and unnatural hate.

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 12:14:54 AM
Neither of you can or have tried to debunk my post. I'll stop posting it when that happens.

Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 11:58:39 PM

Also 9/11 was a Mossad / CIA planned false flag. I know you hate it when I say it.

Show us evidence that you are not paid by Mossad to shill on this forum. Prove it.

We love you.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 01:00:24 AM
Quote from: Shifter on September 21, 2017, 12:58:57 AM
Quote from: Symptom on September 21, 2017, 12:57:08 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 12:55:49 AM
You are special symptom. I wish you could see it.

We are special. We see it.

You are special. We see it.

We love you.


What I see is your transparent tactic that whenever serious questions are being posed or your arguments blown away that you fill the thread with pages of utter nonsense in the hope they get bumped off the current page.

Some people use their eyes their senses, logic and common sense to understand the world and its events. These people are not so easily decieved.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 21, 2017, 01:00:42 AM
Quote from: Shifter on September 21, 2017, 12:43:47 AM
Is this Rayzor like 5 years old? What a childish, pathetic and petulant response to honest questions. His dodging is clear admission he either is a dimwit with no idea or that he knows disputeone is spot on and is too embarrassed to admit after 180+ pages of shilling that he has it totally wrong.

Man up Rayzor. Your dodging of the questions only embarrasses and incriminates yourself. And your childish baiting is pathetic and only shows you off as being a loser.

You mean the question I answered 5830 post ago? 

As far as baiting dipshit,  I plead guilty to having some fun with his fragile mental state, in the hope that a bit of humor would snap him back to reality away from this Anon 6 step bullshit he is on?

Oh wait,  you are working with the penguins?   Damn I didn't see that coming.   So GTFO.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Symptom on September 21, 2017, 01:01:40 AM
Quote from: Shifter on September 21, 2017, 12:58:57 AM
Quote from: Symptom on September 21, 2017, 12:57:08 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 12:55:49 AM
You are special symptom. I wish you could see it.

We are special. We see it.

You are special. We see it.

We love you.


What I see is your transparent tactic that whenever serious questions are being posed or your arguments blown away that you fill the thread with pages of utter nonsense in the hope they get bumped off the current page.

We are sorry that you are afraid. (We suppose it is understandable considering the drop-bears you have to deal with down there)

We love you.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 01:01:59 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 21, 2017, 01:00:42 AM
Quote from: Shifter on September 21, 2017, 12:43:47 AM
Is this Rayzor like 5 years old? What a childish, pathetic and petulant response to honest questions. His dodging is clear admission he either is a dimwit with no idea or that he knows disputeone is spot on and is too embarrassed to admit after 180+ pages of shilling that he has it totally wrong.

Man up Rayzor. Your dodging of the questions only embarrasses and incriminates yourself. And your childish baiting is pathetic and only shows you off as being a loser.

You mean the question I answered 5830 post ago? 

As far as baiting dipshit,  I plead guilty to having some fun with his fragile mental state, in the hope that a bit of humor would snap him back to reality away from this Anon 6 step bullshit he is on?

Oh wait,  you are working with the penguins?   Damn I didn't see that coming.   So GTFO.

Every honest poster can see that question hasn't been answered.

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 12:14:54 AM
Neither of you can or have tried to debunk my post. I'll stop posting it when that happens.

Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 11:58:39 PM

Also 9/11 was a Mossad / CIA planned false flag. I know you hate it when I say it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 21, 2017, 01:02:37 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 01:00:24 AM
Some people use their eyes their senses, logic and common sense to understand the world and its events. These people are not so easily decieved.

Really?   You have got to be kidding.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 01:03:20 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 12:14:54 AM
Neither of you can or have tried to debunk my post. I'll stop posting it when that happens.

Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 11:58:39 PM

Also 9/11 was a Mossad / CIA planned false flag. I know you hate it when I say it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 21, 2017, 01:05:53 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 01:03:20 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 12:14:54 AM
Neither of you can or have tried to debunk my post. I'll stop posting it when that happens.

Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 11:58:39 PM

Also 9/11 was a Mossad / CIA planned false flag. I know you hate it when I say it.

Meh,  doesn't fuss me, I know who did it,  why they did it, and how.   Pretty much destroys your anti semitic fantasy,  sorry.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Symptom on September 21, 2017, 01:06:47 AM
Quote from: Symptom on September 21, 2017, 12:59:25 AM
Show us evidence that you are not paid by Mossad to shill on this forum. Prove it.


We are waiting, shill.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 01:07:25 AM
In case it wasn't 100% obvious of what Rayzor is, he tries to attach anti-semetic to this post. I would advise you to see through it however do what thou wilt.

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 12:14:54 AM
Neither of you can or have tried to debunk my post. I'll stop posting it when that happens.

Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 11:58:39 PM

Also 9/11 was a Mossad / CIA planned false flag. I know you hate it when I say it.

Edit.

Ask yourself if its "anti-white" to accuse the CIA of a crime?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Symptom on September 21, 2017, 01:08:31 AM
We are Legion.

Inspecta Deck, Raekwon, The Ol' Dirty Bastard.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Symptom on September 21, 2017, 01:09:06 AM
Quote from: Symptom on September 21, 2017, 01:06:47 AM
Quote from: Symptom on September 21, 2017, 12:59:25 AM
Show us evidence that you are not paid by Mossad to shill on this forum. Prove it.


We are waiting, shill.

PROVE IT
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 01:10:42 AM
Quote from: Symptom on September 21, 2017, 01:09:06 AM
Quote from: Symptom on September 21, 2017, 01:06:47 AM
Quote from: Symptom on September 21, 2017, 12:59:25 AM
Show us evidence that you are not paid by Mossad to shill on this forum. Prove it.


We are waiting, shill.

PROVE IT

I've proven im a human time and time again. Do your own research.

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 12:14:54 AM
Neither of you can or have tried to debunk my post. I'll stop posting it when that happens.

Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 11:58:39 PM

We are anonymous.
We are the common citizen.
We are legion.
We will forgive but we will never forget.
Expect us.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 01:13:11 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 11:58:39 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 11:51:27 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 11:47:18 PM
Are either of you capable of a rebuttal?

You mean like the one I gave you 5300 post ago?   

Ok,  while you think about that, can you tell me the rate at which an unsupported object falls.     ( Hint it's a trick question )

An unsupported object falls at g. The issue is why was wtc 7 completely unsupported for 2.25 seconds if the collapse was caused by fire and progressive like claimed by NIST in the official report. I would say there was only two stages, it is a real stretch to say progressive.

Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 11:25:50 PM
Rayzor this is where we left our discussion.

Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 10:37:22 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 09:49:19 PM
We already debunked that free-fall argument.

You haven't debunked it.

Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 09:49:19 PM
But just to recap,  how is it possible for the rooftop of a building to fall?   Doesn't the fact that it collapsed at all mean that the building structure supporting the roof is collapsing,    why would you be surprised that it fell at a free fall rate.   At least until it hit ground and other debris piled up,   The graph in the NIST shows it quite clearly.   

Correct check it out.
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 07:59:43 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 07:57:45 PM
How fid the west penthouse stay intact after the failure of the "supporting structure"

[Youtube][/youtube]

The answer is when the west penthouse collapsed the entire core failed simultaneously causing a 2.25 second symmetrical free-fall.

(https://s26.postimg.org/iegp2ilix/images-43.jpg)

The only way this is possible is a controlled demolition.

Q.E.D.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Symptom on September 21, 2017, 01:15:58 AM
At this point, any honest reader can clearly see that disputeone is a planted Shadow Government shill.

He is not anonymous.
He is not the common citizen.
He is not legion.

He is a liar and a paid shill.

Enjoy those Penguin shillings while you can d1, it's only a matter of time before you are locked up.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 01:17:16 AM
I hope you are a sock puppet of Rayzors because otherwise it breaks my heart to see how small and broken you are inside. I'm not saying that to trigger you. I had a tough life too. Love really is the law.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Symptom on September 21, 2017, 01:27:52 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 01:17:16 AM
I hope you are a sock puppet of Rayzors because otherwise it breaks my heart to see how small and broken you are inside. I'm not saying that to trigger you. I had a tough life too. Love really is the law.

You keep quoting Crowley, but it is obvious that you have never actually read any of his work. You just picked up some of his most known material on 4chan, and now you are attempting to use it to make yourself seem like some sort of internet hero.

But we know that you do not understand Crowley. You are not an individual. You know nothing of Magick. You know nothing of Thelema.

You are a scared little child, shilling for the Shadow Government, a pawn in the game, crippled, weak, blind to the world.

We are sorry you are so afraid. We love you.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 01:29:53 AM
Operation metal inspirational.

[youtube][/youtube]

[youtube][/youtube]

[youtube][/youtube]

It's easy to combat shilling with honesty, integrity, good music and spicy memes.

I've read all of crowleys work. He never intended everyone to understand his work. I very much like certain parts. Ideas shouldn't be constrained to who said them.

I understand more than you know about magick. I believe I can do it, you believe you can't. That is enough to differentiate our skill levels with all due respect my fellow pathwalker.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 01:34:19 AM
You would do well remember two things here.

Quote
Yea! deem not of change: ye shall be as ye are, & not other. Therefore the kings of the earth shall be Kings for ever: the slaves shall serve. There is none that shall be cast down or lifted up: all is ever as it was. Yet there are masked ones my servants: it may be that yonder beggar is a King. A King may choose his garment as he will: there is no certain test: but a beggar cannot hide his poverty.

59. Beware therefore! Love all, lest perchance is a King concealed! Say you so? Fool! If he be a King, thou canst not hurt him.

Quote
THE COMMENT.

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.

The study of this Book is forbidden. It is wise to destroy this copy after the first reading.

Whosoever disregards this does so at his own risk and peril. These are most dire.

Those who discuss the contents of this Book are to be shunned by all, as centres of pestilence.

All questions of the Law are to be decided only by appeal to my writings, each for himself.

There is no law beyond Do what thou wilt.

Love is the law, love under will.

The priest of the princes,

Ankh-f-n-khonsu

Read and understand.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Symptom on September 21, 2017, 01:40:34 AM
You have no honesty, you have no integrity, and you understand nothing, child. Anyone can Google passages from Crowleys work. Laughable.

Now, you keep asking others to prove that they are not shills, so I'd say it's about time that you prove the same to us.

Go ahead. For someone like you it should be easy, right?

Prove. It.

Now.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 01:43:24 AM
Sure.

Also a free warning to you.

Black magick is very real and very powerful.

Karmic law is real and much more powerful. Love is the law. Implied consent doesn't absolve all sins, understand this.

Black magick will always come home to roost the dark spirits you joke about or perhaps try to summon are merely the dark manifestations of your consciousness, your will. They are very real and very dangerous to the people you use them on, and to a much larger degree your soul.

Remember this.
I tell you secrets for free after you have disrespected me because love is the law, love under will.

Now. Back to the thread topic.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: hoppy on September 21, 2017, 01:44:11 AM
Quote from: Symptom on September 21, 2017, 12:38:49 AM
Or should we go with 92x455n?

Or should we just await further orders? I'm kinda stumped here.
Just remember to not stop loving him.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Symptom on September 21, 2017, 01:47:28 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 01:43:24 AM
Sure.

Also a free warning to you.

Black magick is very real and very powerful.

Karmic law is real and much more powerful. Love is the law. Implied consent doesn't absolve all sins, understand this.

Black magick will always come home to roost the dark spirits you joke about are merely the dark manifestations of your consciousness, your will. They are very real snd very dangerous to the people you use them on, an to a much larger degree your soul.

Remember this.
I tell you secrets for free after you have disrespected me because love is the law, love under will.

Now. Back to the thread topic.

Your 4chaning is impressive. Very #edgelord of you. Thanks for giving me a good laugh.

Now prove that you are not a Mossad/CIA/Penguin shill.

Prove. It.

Now.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 01:48:23 AM
What would you accept as proof?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Symptom on September 21, 2017, 01:49:51 AM
Quote from: hoppy on September 21, 2017, 01:44:11 AM
Quote from: Symptom on September 21, 2017, 12:38:49 AM
Or should we go with 92x455n?

Or should we just await further orders? I'm kinda stumped here.
Just remember to not stop loving him.

NEVAR

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Symptom on September 21, 2017, 01:51:05 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 01:48:23 AM
What would you accept as proof?

What would you accept as proof from those you ask?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 01:54:10 AM
Quote from: Symptom on September 21, 2017, 01:51:05 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 01:48:23 AM
What would you accept as proof?

What would you accept as proof from those you ask?

Rayzor forming a rebuttal to my post would be a good first step.

This one.

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 12:14:54 AM
Neither of you can or have tried to debunk my post. I'll stop posting it when that happens.

Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 11:58:39 PM

I'm a real guy, I'm a tradie from WA. This is all free information.

Quote from: disputeone on December 04, 2016, 02:34:13 PM
(https://s12.postimg.org/dc35ywry1/20160322_133424.jpg) (https://postimg.org/image/dc35ywry1/)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Symptom on September 21, 2017, 02:01:36 AM
Posting a picture of yourself tells us nothing about wether or not you are a shill, that picture proves nothing either way. No one questions that you are an actual person. What we question is your agenda here.

And a rebuttal (or not) from Rayzor has nothing to do with it. We're asking you to show us who you are, bringing up Rayzor is obvious deflection, and only makes your presence here seem even more suspicious.

The more you bring up Rayzor, the more we think you are a paid shill.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 02:02:40 AM
Why would someone pay me to destroy the 9/11 commision report, especially the wtc 7 report?

I do it for teh lulz and cause I want to.

Typo.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Symptom on September 21, 2017, 02:06:52 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 02:02:40 AM
Why would someone pay me to destroy the 9/11 commision report, especially the wtc 7 report?

I do it for teh lulz and cause I want to.

Typo.

The Saudis, perhaps? Or Angela Merkel? Are you paid in euros or camels?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 02:07:13 AM
If anyone wants to point out where my logic is wrong I would appreciate it.

Especially professionals or even people who have just put in the research.

Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 11:58:39 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 11:51:27 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 11:47:18 PM
Are either of you capable of a rebuttal?

You mean like the one I gave you 5300 post ago?   

Ok,  while you think about that, can you tell me the rate at which an unsupported object falls.     ( Hint it's a trick question )

An unsupported object falls at g. The issue is why was wtc 7 completely unsupported for 2.25 seconds if the collapse was caused by fire and progressive like claimed by NIST in the official report. I would say there was only two stages, it is a real stretch to say progressive.

Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 11:25:50 PM
Rayzor this is where we left our discussion.

Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 10:37:22 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 09:49:19 PM
We already debunked that free-fall argument.

You haven't debunked it.

Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 09:49:19 PM
But just to recap,  how is it possible for the rooftop of a building to fall?   Doesn't the fact that it collapsed at all mean that the building structure supporting the roof is collapsing,    why would you be surprised that it fell at a free fall rate.   At least until it hit ground and other debris piled up,   The graph in the NIST shows it quite clearly.   

Correct check it out.
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 07:59:43 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 07:57:45 PM
How fid the west penthouse stay intact after the failure of the "supporting structure"

[Youtube][/youtube]

The answer is when the west penthouse collapsed the entire core failed simultaneously causing a 2.25 second symmetrical free-fall.

(https://s26.postimg.org/iegp2ilix/images-43.jpg)

The only way this is possible is a controlled demolition.

Q.E.D.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Symptom on September 21, 2017, 02:10:22 AM
This is no longer about 9/11, this is now about your shill agenda. We demand answers.

Enjoy that Saudi gold while you can, traitor.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Symptom on September 21, 2017, 02:13:38 AM
Unlike your little 4chan perma-virgin circlejerk, we neither forgive nor forget.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 02:16:13 AM
This thread is about 9/11. Wtc 7 has been our smoking gun piece of evidence for sixteen years. We are the closest we have ever been to justice in sixteen years.

Quote from: disputeone on February 13, 2017, 10:49:57 PM
Fall acceleration of building 7.

You are going to end this a jibbering mess of failed insults and logic.

But you asked for it.

Mods can we move to tech and alt please. ty.

http://www.wtc7evaluation.org/
http://ine.uaf.edu/projects/wtc7/
http://www.ae911truth.org/

Do what thou wilt and live with the consequences. That isn't said but must be understood. As I said. You should look in a mirror and evaluate yourself.

I'm more concerned about your agenda here.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 02:17:35 AM
Quote from: Symptom on September 21, 2017, 02:13:38 AM
Unlike your little 4chan perma-virgin circlejerk, we neither forgive nor forget.

Do you honestly think I struggle getting laid? Not bragging I just want to know.

(https://s26.postimg.org/s69ecjla1/20160322_133424.jpg)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Symptom on September 21, 2017, 02:20:35 AM
So no answers from the obvious Saudi shill then.

Can't say I'm surprised. Traitor.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 02:21:40 AM
Quote from: Symptom on September 21, 2017, 02:20:35 AM
So no answers from the obvious Saudi shill then.

Can't say I'm surprised. Traitor.

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 01:48:23 AM
What would you accept as proof?

You're too obvious Rayzor.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Symptom on September 21, 2017, 02:22:13 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 02:17:35 AM
Quote from: Symptom on September 21, 2017, 02:13:38 AM
Unlike your little 4chan perma-virgin circlejerk, we neither forgive nor forget.

Do you honestly think I struggle getting laid? Not bragging I just want to know.

(https://s26.postimg.org/s69ecjla1/20160322_133424.jpg)

Lol. You seem upset, shill. That Saudi gold not keeping you happy?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 02:24:22 AM
You are a terrible shill. Your entrance after my checkmate of Rauzor is transparent.

Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 11:58:39 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 11:51:27 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 11:47:18 PM
Are either of you capable of a rebuttal?

You mean like the one I gave you 5300 post ago?   

Ok,  while you think about that, can you tell me the rate at which an unsupported object falls.     ( Hint it's a trick question )

An unsupported object falls at g. The issue is why was wtc 7 completely unsupported for 2.25 seconds if the collapse was caused by fire and progressive like claimed by NIST in the official report. I would say there was only two stages, it is a real stretch to say progressive.

Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 11:25:50 PM
Rayzor this is where we left our discussion.

Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 10:37:22 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 09:49:19 PM
We already debunked that free-fall argument.

You haven't debunked it.

Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 09:49:19 PM
But just to recap,  how is it possible for the rooftop of a building to fall?   Doesn't the fact that it collapsed at all mean that the building structure supporting the roof is collapsing,    why would you be surprised that it fell at a free fall rate.   At least until it hit ground and other debris piled up,   The graph in the NIST shows it quite clearly.   

Correct check it out.
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 07:59:43 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 07:57:45 PM
How fid the west penthouse stay intact after the failure of the "supporting structure"

[Youtube][/youtube]

The answer is when the west penthouse collapsed the entire core failed simultaneously causing a 2.25 second symmetrical free-fall.

(https://s26.postimg.org/iegp2ilix/images-43.jpg)

The only way this is possible is a controlled demolition.

Q.E.D.

(https://s26.postimg.org/w6gjosbqx/shill_monopoly.jpg)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Symptom on September 21, 2017, 02:25:44 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 02:21:40 AM
Quote from: Symptom on September 21, 2017, 02:20:35 AM
So no answers from the obvious Saudi shill then.

Can't say I'm surprised. Traitor.

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 01:48:23 AM
What would you accept as proof?

You're too obvious Rayzor.

Ah, yes of course. Anyone who calls out your utter stupidity must be an alt of Rayzor, because there is just no way that more than one single person on the entire planet could actually see through your lame-ass act.

Keep enjoying that Saudi gold, shill.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 02:27:39 AM
The thing about ideas, is they cannot be gaslighted, discredited personally, or psychologically attacked. Attacking the person presenting the arguments does not debunk the arguments themselves.

When you are ready to try and form a rebuttal to my post we can talk more. Until then you aren't worth my effort.

[youtube][/youtube]
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 02:31:57 AM
Time for a new one please guys.

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 02:24:22 AM
You are a terrible shill. Your entrance after my checkmate of Rauzor is transparent.

Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 11:58:39 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 11:51:27 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 11:47:18 PM
Are either of you capable of a rebuttal?

You mean like the one I gave you 5300 post ago?   

Ok,  while you think about that, can you tell me the rate at which an unsupported object falls.     ( Hint it's a trick question )

An unsupported object falls at g. The issue is why was wtc 7 completely unsupported for 2.25 seconds if the collapse was caused by fire and progressive like claimed by NIST in the official report. I would say there was only two stages, it is a real stretch to say progressive.

Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 11:25:50 PM
Rayzor this is where we left our discussion.

Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 10:37:22 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 09:49:19 PM
We already debunked that free-fall argument.

You haven't debunked it.

Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 09:49:19 PM
But just to recap,  how is it possible for the rooftop of a building to fall?   Doesn't the fact that it collapsed at all mean that the building structure supporting the roof is collapsing,    why would you be surprised that it fell at a free fall rate.   At least until it hit ground and other debris piled up,   The graph in the NIST shows it quite clearly.   

Correct check it out.
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 07:59:43 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 07:57:45 PM
How fid the west penthouse stay intact after the failure of the "supporting structure"

[Youtube][/youtube]

The answer is when the west penthouse collapsed the entire core failed simultaneously causing a 2.25 second symmetrical free-fall.

(https://s26.postimg.org/iegp2ilix/images-43.jpg)

The only way this is possible is a controlled demolition.

Q.E.D.

(https://s26.postimg.org/w6gjosbqx/shill_monopoly.jpg)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Symptom on September 21, 2017, 02:34:10 AM
Haha, what "effort"? All I see from you is a shitload of regurgitated conspiracy theorist cliches. Wake me up when you actually post something that you came up with your self. You big "free thinker", you.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 02:35:11 AM
The post above you is physics engineering and logic. Try harder Rayzor.

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 02:31:57 AM
Time for a new one please guys.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Symptom on September 21, 2017, 02:35:56 AM
Keep copy/pasting sweetheart, heaven forbid you come up with an original idea.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 02:37:12 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 02:35:11 AM
The post above you is physics engineering and logic. Try harder Rayzor.

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 02:31:57 AM
Time for a new one please guys.

That post is my own ideas and my own words based on what I have learned from some very good engineers (thanks Bhs I've learned heaps from you. You're a credit to your profession) and my own research.

If it's as stupid as you claim why not just debunk it?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Symptom on September 21, 2017, 02:43:10 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 02:35:11 AM
Try harder Rayzor.





Here's an idea: Seeing as how you are supposedly an integral part of Anon, why don't you guys get together and use your otherwordly hacking skills to prove that me and Rayzor are one and the same? I mean, if we are alts, it should be pretty easy for Anon to get that done with your genious-level collective internet-fu, right?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Symptom on September 21, 2017, 02:50:07 AM
I said nothing about the site as a whole, only Rayzor and me.

But we already knew that you have nothing to do with Anon, didn't we.

Don't be afraid, we are doing this for you. We love you.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Symptom on September 21, 2017, 02:53:00 AM
Ooh, look at that. d1 edited a post, but there is no sign of it anywhere. It even switched places with my last post! CONFIRMED SHILL
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Symptom on September 21, 2017, 02:55:27 AM
And now it's completely gone! Will it be back?!
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Symptom on September 21, 2017, 02:57:07 AM
And there it is, still with no sign of editing. Damn, those Saudis sure have their internet game together.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Symptom on September 21, 2017, 02:59:24 AM
And it jumped a full three posts down! Saudi shill confirmed.

Tell me, is the Saudi gold you're paid in shaped as little shiny Penguins?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Symptom on September 21, 2017, 03:01:29 AM
Now it jumped five! Holy crap, this is intense!

What will those crazy Saudis think of next?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Symptom on September 21, 2017, 03:06:38 AM
Lol, notice how now that I've keeped mentioning Saudia Arabia, d1 suddenly starts including them in his little conspiracy fantasy.

Nice deflection, Saudi shill! Your Penguin masters will be proud!
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Symptom on September 21, 2017, 03:11:30 AM
Well, this was fun. I shall return on a later date, to keep exposing the Saudi Penguin shill known as disputeone.

Toodle pip!
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 03:14:30 AM
Bye mate, that was called trolling. It takes skill, timing and setup. Learn it. Nine posts in a row, kek.

Toodle pip indeed.

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 03:07:04 AM
You still haven't answered me as to what makes someone a member of anonymous? Also learn what you can and can't do on this forum. It's public information.

This site is small fish. Plus I like it.
It's enough to destroy your arguments1 here.

[Youtube][/youtube]

[youtube][/youtube]

1 Generous interpretation, no argument has been presented except ad hominems.

The people involved in 9/11 from America, Israel and Saudi Arabia will be held accountable for thier crimes against the people.

The worst part, was the psychological manipulation and lies, worse than 9/11 itself.

We cannot forgive this.

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 12:34:57 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 03:26:42 AM
Wow you follow the script...

Quote from: disputeone on March 26, 2017, 08:40:16 PM
Rayzor I have summarised your debate tactics as a reference and guide for you.

*Encourage group shaming and group think as a first priority.

*Always quote and support the official story, if any evidence doesn't support the OS, then deny it and re-quote the official story.

*Deny any and all facts that go against the official story.

*Discredit anyone that goes against the official story.

*Push controlled opposition conspiracy theories e.g aliens, holographic planes, death rays from space.

*Speak from a position of authority on all subjects, never provide proof of authority.

*Give absolutely no quarter, if you can't answer a question honestly descredit the poster and distract the debate.

*Offer the official story as the only explanation, keep trying to exaggerate your opponents position and twist their words out of meaning.

*Attack only the weakest points of your opponent's argument, if there are no weak enough points, create a strawman and tear it to shreds.

This is a free reference if you get stuck.

I am sure you can air your issues during peer review. Hulsey is giving us this option.

Isn't science great.

Consider this list open source. Please feel free to add to it or edit it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Symptom on September 21, 2017, 03:21:46 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 03:14:30 AM
Bye mate, that was called trolling. It takes skill, timing and setup. Learn it. Nine posts in a row, kek.

Toodle pip indeed.


Well, if you would have not kept editing and deleting your posts like a little bitch, it would have looked quite different, no?

And you are hardly in any position to teach anyone about quality trolling.

Toodles, shill. Enjoy your Saudi Penguin gold while you can.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 03:22:35 AM
We were the original trolls newfag.

I hope you are a sockpuppet and not a really sad person.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Symptom on September 21, 2017, 03:25:34 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 03:22:35 AM
We were the original trolls newfag.

I hope you are a sockpuppet and not a really sad person.

"We were" lol. Give it up, no one here buys your shitty Anon schtick, 4chanboi.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 03:27:37 AM
Anonymous was born on 4chans /b/ board, we were always united by a sense of justice and usually relatively harmless troublemaking 4chan does not represent anonymous and anonymous doesn't represent 4chan. This is all public information.

Typo.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Symptom on September 21, 2017, 03:33:19 AM
True. But you were never personally a part of it. That is abundantly clear.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 03:39:29 AM
#OperationMetal.
Realanons recognise realanons, thats enough for me.

[youtube][/youtube]

[youtube][/youtube]

[youtube][/youtube]
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Symptom on September 21, 2017, 03:47:18 AM
So you were the guy hanging around on 4chan going "oh guise we are so awesome, fuck Yeah Anon", while all the others did all the work. Impressive.

I was out on the streets fighting cops and neo-nazis while you were still suckling you mamas teets. There wasn't much of an internet back then, so we actually went out and did shit.

But I suppose soliciting nude pictures of fourteen year old girls on teh innerwebz counts as "doing shit" too.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 03:55:00 AM
If you understand /b/ you would understand we are the bane of cp on the internet. We are more feared just by numbers and passion than any alphabet agency. People who would post illegal exploitative material are right to fear us.

Vice is so scared of us that they are trying to convince normies we don't have magick powers, (spoiler, we do.)
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/z4k549/trolling-scholars-debunk-the-idea-that-the-alt-rights-trolls-have-magic-powers

You claim enough understanding of the occult to understand it's chaos magick and its power.

We are ready for truth. Check em, chaos doesn't lie. 911911
(https://s26.postimg.org/d9iv57tjt/20170918_063643.png)

I appreciate your work on the streets, the new war is an information war.

The 141 could be seen as one for one and justice yet unserved.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 03:55:56 AM
Quote from: Symptom on September 21, 2017, 03:33:19 AM
True. But you were never personally a part of it. That is abundantly clear.

I feel no need to prove that to you, even if it were possible. Anyone can be anonymous, anonymous is a contradiction, anyone who tries to describe it as anything other needs to do more research.

Time for a new one please guys.
(Thanks alphabet friends)
Back on topic now.

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 02:24:22 AM
You are a terrible shill. Your entrance after my checkmate of Rauzor is transparent.

Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 11:58:39 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 11:51:27 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 11:47:18 PM
Are either of you capable of a rebuttal?

You mean like the one I gave you 5300 post ago?   

Ok,  while you think about that, can you tell me the rate at which an unsupported object falls.     ( Hint it's a trick question )

An unsupported object falls at g. The issue is why was wtc 7 completely unsupported for 2.25 seconds if the collapse was caused by fire and progressive like claimed by NIST in the official report. I would say there was only two stages, it is a real stretch to say progressive.

Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 11:25:50 PM
Rayzor this is where we left our discussion.

Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 10:37:22 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 09:49:19 PM
We already debunked that free-fall argument.

You haven't debunked it.

Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 09:49:19 PM
But just to recap,  how is it possible for the rooftop of a building to fall?   Doesn't the fact that it collapsed at all mean that the building structure supporting the roof is collapsing,    why would you be surprised that it fell at a free fall rate.   At least until it hit ground and other debris piled up,   The graph in the NIST shows it quite clearly.   

Correct check it out.
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 07:59:43 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 07:57:45 PM
How fid the west penthouse stay intact after the failure of the "supporting structure"

[Youtube][/youtube]

The answer is when the west penthouse collapsed the entire core failed simultaneously causing a 2.25 second symmetrical free-fall.

(https://s26.postimg.org/iegp2ilix/images-43.jpg)

The only way this is possible is a controlled demolition.

Q.E.D.

(https://s26.postimg.org/w6gjosbqx/shill_monopoly.jpg)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 04:16:31 AM
Quote from: Symptom on September 21, 2017, 03:47:18 AM
But I suppose soliciting nude pictures of fourteen year old girls on teh innerwebz counts as "doing shit" too.

I don't like that accusation one bit. Again, not bragging. Why dont you upload a picture of of yourself? A mask is fine.

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 02:17:35 AM
Quote from: Symptom on September 21, 2017, 02:13:38 AM
Unlike your little 4chan perma-virgin circlejerk, we neither forgive nor forget.

Do you honestly think I struggle getting laid? Not bragging I just want to know.

(https://s26.postimg.org/oxm3r8xg9/20170921_191319.jpg)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 04:31:35 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 16, 2017, 03:42:36 AM
Message to the compromised agents at the flat earth society from the Anonymous Collective.

We see you, the information required to make informed decisions is freely available and widely distributed online. We are not blind, we are not sheep, we are men and women motivated by love of humanity.

You have shown us again more of the full scope of what we are up against. For that we thank you. I hope we have shown you why one realanon is worth one thousand psyop agents. We hope we have shown you why we were always going to win this, we hope you will consider listening to your heart and doing what you believe is right.

We hope you will see through the mechanisms they use to control and subvert you and, by extention, all of us.
http://www.prisonexp.org/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment

We love you, all of us, and all of you.

We are anonymous, we are legion, we will forgive but we will never forget. It is too late to expect us.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: MicroBeta on September 21, 2017, 05:18:26 AM
Well, this thread got pretty weird.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 05:23:11 AM
Quote from: MicroBeta on September 21, 2017, 05:18:26 AM
Well, this thread got pretty weird.

Sorry man. I'm just trying to fight the shills. I understand you are on the fence but I have been fighting them for over 10 years.

Hope you can understand.

On another note I'd absolutely love your (edit. Professional) opinion on this.

Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 11:58:39 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 11:51:27 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 11:47:18 PM
Are either of you capable of a rebuttal?

You mean like the one I gave you 5300 post ago?   

Ok,  while you think about that, can you tell me the rate at which an unsupported object falls.     ( Hint it's a trick question )

An unsupported object falls at g. The issue is why was wtc 7 completely unsupported for 2.25 seconds if the collapse was caused by fire and progressive like claimed by NIST in the official report. I would say there was only two stages, it is a real stretch to say progressive.

Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 11:25:50 PM
Rayzor this is where we left our discussion.

Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 10:37:22 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 09:49:19 PM
We already debunked that free-fall argument.

You haven't debunked it.

Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 09:49:19 PM
But just to recap,  how is it possible for the rooftop of a building to fall?   Doesn't the fact that it collapsed at all mean that the building structure supporting the roof is collapsing,    why would you be surprised that it fell at a free fall rate.   At least until it hit ground and other debris piled up,   The graph in the NIST shows it quite clearly.   

Correct check it out.
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 07:59:43 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 07:57:45 PM
How fid the west penthouse stay intact after the failure of the "supporting structure"

[Youtube][/youtube]

The answer is when the west penthouse collapsed the entire core failed simultaneously causing a 2.25 second symmetrical free-fall.

(https://s26.postimg.org/iegp2ilix/images-43.jpg)

The only way this is possible is a controlled demolition.

Q.E.D.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on September 21, 2017, 06:40:38 AM
Dispute, I can understand that you fight for what you think is right. No big deal.
But I think you shouldn't get too much into the anonymous stuff. It makes me feel weird seeing you writing those things, also it seems a bit childish to be honest!


Quote
Message to the compromised agents at the flat earth society from the Anonymous Collective.

We see you, the information required to make informed decisions is freely available and widely distributed online. We are not blind, we are not sheep, we are men and women motivated by love of humanity.

You have shown us again more of the full scope of what we are up against. For that we thank you. I hope we have shown you why one realanon is worth one thousand psyop agents. We hope we have shown you why we were always going to win this, we hope you will consider listening to your heart and doing what you believe is right.

We hope you will see through the mechanisms they use to control and subvert you and, by extention, all of us.
http://www.prisonexp.org/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment

We love you, all of us, and all of you.

We are anonymous, we are legion, we will forgive but we will never forget. It is too late to expect us.

Quote
I feel no need to prove that to you, even if it were possible. Anyone can be anonymous, anonymous is a contradiction, anyone who tries to describe it as anything other needs to do more research.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 08:15:02 AM
It's not childish. It's just that you don't understand it. Anyway I'm off to bed.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sokarul on September 21, 2017, 09:23:13 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 09:33:25 PM
Quote from: sokarul on September 20, 2017, 09:16:12 PM

Are you a sockpuppet or a sheep? I don't mean any unnecessary disrespect but I think its pretty clear I have a strong point here.

Would you like to try and debunk it?
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 07:26:59 PM

Edit.
Put less politely here.

Quote from: disputeone on February 13, 2017, 10:49:57 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 13, 2017, 10:36:59 PM
What real evidence is there for a conspiracy about 911?

Fall acceleration of building 7.

You are going to end this a jibbering mess of failed insults and logic.

But you asked for it.
Alright I got it. You couldn't answer any of my questions so you tried to go off topic.

I didn't think you could.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on September 21, 2017, 09:23:48 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 08:15:02 AM
It's not childish. It's just that you don't understand it. Anyway I'm off to bed.
Then explain it.
Good night anyway.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Heiwa on September 21, 2017, 11:29:34 AM
As far as I am concerned 911 was an inside job. I explain why at http://heiwaco.com/nist.htm .

The 2001 911 attacks are a 100% US terrorist job on it self in order to blame others. It happens all the time.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 03:22:32 PM
Quote from: sokarul on September 21, 2017, 09:23:13 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 09:33:25 PM
Quote from: sokarul on September 20, 2017, 09:16:12 PM

Are you a sockpuppet or a sheep? I don't mean any unnecessary disrespect but I think its pretty clear I have a strong point here.

Would you like to try and debunk it?
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 07:26:59 PM

Edit.
Put less politely here.

Quote from: disputeone on February 13, 2017, 10:49:57 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 13, 2017, 10:36:59 PM
What real evidence is there for a conspiracy about 911?

Fall acceleration of building 7.

You are going to end this a jibbering mess of failed insults and logic.

But you asked for it.
Alright I got it. You couldn't answer any of my questions so you tried to go off topic.

I didn't think you could.

This isn't off topic. As shown wtc 7 was always our smoking gun. You are trying to debunk physics with Incredulity sock.

Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 11:58:39 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 11:51:27 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 11:47:18 PM
Are either of you capable of a rebuttal?

You mean like the one I gave you 5300 post ago?   

Ok,  while you think about that, can you tell me the rate at which an unsupported object falls.     ( Hint it's a trick question )

An unsupported object falls at g. The issue is why was wtc 7 completely unsupported for 2.25 seconds if the collapse was caused by fire and progressive like claimed by NIST in the official report. I would say there was only two stages, it is a real stretch to say progressive.

Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 11:25:50 PM
Rayzor this is where we left our discussion.

Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 10:37:22 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 09:49:19 PM
We already debunked that free-fall argument.

You haven't debunked it.

Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 09:49:19 PM
But just to recap,  how is it possible for the rooftop of a building to fall?   Doesn't the fact that it collapsed at all mean that the building structure supporting the roof is collapsing,    why would you be surprised that it fell at a free fall rate.   At least until it hit ground and other debris piled up,   The graph in the NIST shows it quite clearly.   

Correct check it out.
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 07:59:43 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 07:57:45 PM
How fid the west penthouse stay intact after the failure of the "supporting structure"

[Youtube][/youtube]

The answer is when the west penthouse collapsed the entire core failed simultaneously causing a 2.25 second symmetrical free-fall.

(https://s26.postimg.org/iegp2ilix/images-43.jpg)

The only way this is possible is a controlled demolition.

Q.E.D.

(https://s26.postimg.org/w6gjosbqx/shill_monopoly.jpg)

We do not abide victims here. Victims are weak, victims are useless. You are not a victim.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 03:59:07 PM
Quote from: User324 on September 21, 2017, 09:23:48 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 08:15:02 AM
It's not childish. It's just that you don't understand it. Anyway I'm off to bed.
Then explain it.
Good night anyway.

I really like your new attitude. A lot of it is a dramatis personae online. It's hard to change the world alone,  You cant gaslight an idea, you can't call it a pedophile (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1957619#msg1957619) to try and get it to stop talking about wtc 7. It's just an idea and ideas are bulletproof.

[youtube][/youtube]
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on September 21, 2017, 04:20:21 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 07:16:06 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on September 20, 2017, 11:40:25 AM
I myself am a simplicity and functionality person....I am the person that only has one spoon/knife/bowl/cup/fork etc and rewash every sitting

Wow, mealtime must be pretty lonely at your place.  Do you never have visitors?

Mealtimes around here are can be a bit chaotic,  but it's always fun to have family and friends together for a meal.  We take turns cooking and everyone has a specialty.   Tonight is a birthday party and since I'm cooking, I'm going to cook Mexican.  Lots of wine, fajitas and hot chilli.

I have visitors, though typically alcohol is the wanted party favor....I do have plenty of shot glasses and rocks glasses. If someone is so fancy they require a glass for their beer then they can bring their own..

However, now that I broke down after years of purposefully staying single and actually with someone, perhaps I may add a second set of utensils and cups....

Low blow on the family thing though... expected from you, but still a low blow. You know damn well I lost my family a while back, I have even complimented you on having a close family... Classy  ::)

Quote from: Symptom on September 20, 2017, 10:51:50 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 07:16:06 PM

Wow, mealtime must be pretty lonely at your place.  Do you never have visitors?

He owns a Lamborghini and a (questionable) Porsche (mostly driven by surgically enhanced trophy wife soccer moms), and he knows the 9/11 truth. So why would he need to form relationships with actual human beings?

Duh.

I love it when the bottom of the gene pool attempts to be clever...it's about as entertaining as a monkey trying to hump a football...at least the monkey will eventually get wise to the charade...

The foul smell of do nothing blow hards is quite a repugnant odor that permeates a distance of no limit.

Also, since you are trying to insult me, I would like to clear up a few things so perhaps you can do better next time. Rich soccer mom's do not drive turbo Panameras, they drive g wagons, s550s and range rovers...trophy wives drive Bentley gts and sl63s....also...it would be Lamborghinis, you forgot the s pumpkin  ;) ::)

Try harder...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 04:28:56 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on September 21, 2017, 04:20:21 PM
Low blow on the family thing though... expected from you, but still a low blow. You know damn well I lost my family a while back, I have even complimented you on having a close family... Classy  ::)

Quote from: Martin Luther King, Jr.
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.

Is this the content of your character Rayzor?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sokarul on September 21, 2017, 05:17:15 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 03:22:32 PM

This isn't off topic. As shown wtc 7 was always our smoking gun. You are trying to debunk physics with Incredulity sock.
If you showed that, why is it so hard to answer such easy questions? The off topic part was this "Are you a sockpuppet or a sheep? I don't mean any unnecessary disrespect but I think its pretty clear I have a strong point here." You didn't answer the simple questions and instead shouted shill. Which is of course funny since only something like 4 people know I go by sock else where. Who's alt are you?

I'll ask again, when and were was the explosion video take?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 05:25:42 PM
Quote from: sokarul on September 20, 2017, 09:16:12 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 06:37:12 PM
Quote from: sockarul on September 20, 2017, 06:23:30 PM
Remember when you claimed people were at ground zero making payphone calls 7 hours after the twin towers collapsed? And they heard the explosion that took down wtc 7?  Remember that?

I do, yes. You should research what "ground zero" was used to describe exclusively before september 11th 2001.

This one, this explosion the firefighters testified to hearing.

Wtc 7.
[youtube][/youtube]
Where was the video taken?
Near a pay phone in New York close to the wtc complex.
Quote from: sokarul on September 20, 2017, 09:16:12 PM
When was the video taken?
09/11/2001. After the twin towers fell just before wtc 7 fell.
Quote from: sokarul on September 20, 2017, 09:16:12 PM
Why is there only one explosion?
The core was nearly simultaneously destroyed by explosives. Only one explosion was heard.
Quote from: sokarul on September 20, 2017, 09:16:12 PM
Why can't the building be heard?
I'm not quite sure what sound a building makes.
Quote from: sokarul on September 20, 2017, 09:16:12 PM
Why did no other camera pick up the explosion?
They did.
[youtube][/youtube]
Quote from: sokarul on September 20, 2017, 09:16:12 PM
Why aren't you asking any questions?
I am asking lots of questions. I haven't got many answers yet.
Quote

Quote
Wtc 1 and 2.
[youtube][/youtube]
Quote from: sokarul on September 20, 2017, 09:16:12 PM
Nothing else has ever exploded?
Things explode all the time.

Quote from: sokarul on September 20, 2017, 09:16:12 PM
Quote
Please honour these brave heros.

Also, can you help Rayzor debunk Newton and save the 9/11 official story? It's looking bleak currently.
I don't need to. You are just too blind to see the truth.

I think now it's time now to address the issues with the physics of wtc 7s collapse and the official story.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 05:27:51 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 11:58:39 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 11:51:27 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 11:47:18 PM
Are either of you capable of a rebuttal?

You mean like the one I gave you 5300 post ago?   

Ok,  while you think about that, can you tell me the rate at which an unsupported object falls.     ( Hint it's a trick question )

An unsupported object falls at g. The issue is why was wtc 7 completely unsupported for 2.25 seconds if the collapse was caused by fire and progressive like claimed by NIST in the official report. I would say there was only two stages, it is a real stretch to say progressive.

Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 11:25:50 PM
Rayzor this is where we left our discussion.

Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 10:37:22 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 09:49:19 PM
We already debunked that free-fall argument.

You haven't debunked it.

Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 09:49:19 PM
But just to recap,  how is it possible for the rooftop of a building to fall?   Doesn't the fact that it collapsed at all mean that the building structure supporting the roof is collapsing,    why would you be surprised that it fell at a free fall rate.   At least until it hit ground and other debris piled up,   The graph in the NIST shows it quite clearly.   

Correct check it out.
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 07:59:43 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 07:57:45 PM
How fid the west penthouse stay intact after the failure of the "supporting structure"

[Youtube][/youtube]

The answer is when the west penthouse collapsed the entire core failed simultaneously causing a 2.25 second symmetrical free-fall.

(https://s26.postimg.org/iegp2ilix/images-43.jpg)

The only way this is possible is a controlled demolition.

Q.E.D.

(https://s26.postimg.org/w6gjosbqx/shill_monopoly.jpg)

We do not abide victims here. Victims are weak, victims are useless. You are not a victim.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sokarul on September 21, 2017, 05:43:02 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 05:25:42 PM
Quote from: sokarul on September 20, 2017, 09:16:12 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 06:37:12 PM
Quote from: sockarul on September 20, 2017, 06:23:30 PM
Remember when you claimed people were at ground zero making payphone calls 7 hours after the twin towers collapsed? And they heard the explosion that took down wtc 7?  Remember that?

I do, yes. You should research what "ground zero" was used to describe exclusively before september 11th 2001.

This one, this explosion the firefighters testified to hearing.

Wtc 7.
[youtube][/youtube]
Where was the video taken?
Near a pay phone in newyork close to the wtc complex.
Ok, now closer, what street?
Quote
Quote from: sokarul on September 20, 2017, 09:16:12 PM
When was the video taken?
09/11/2001. After the twin towers fell just before wtc 7 fell.
None of that is in the video, so how do you know. And an actual time is important, so what time was the video take?

Quote
Quote from: sokarul on September 20, 2017, 09:16:12 PM
Why is there only one explosion?
The core was nearly simultaneously destroyed by explosives. Only one explosion was heard.
So why in the video you posted below says multiple explosions were heard? In many videos of buildings being taken down with explosives multiple explosions are heard.But not minutes or hours apart, seconds at the most.
 
Quote
Quote from: sokarul on September 20, 2017, 09:16:12 PM
Why can't the building be heard?
I'm not quite sure what sound a building makes.
Feel free to watch other videos to find out.

Quote
Quote from: sokarul on September 20, 2017, 09:16:12 PM
Why did no other camera pick up the explosion?
They did.
[youtube][/youtube]
That is the same video and then a guy says he heard explosions. Anyone with have a brain can see explosions minutes or long apart is not how they bring buildings down. You still need a location too. I didn't hear that guy saying the explosions were coming from WTC 7, did you?

Quote
Quote from: sokarul on September 20, 2017, 09:16:12 PM
Why aren't you asking any questions?
I am asking lots of questions. I haven't got many answers yet.
But you blindly  believed a simple youtube video. You couldn't think for yourself.
Quote
Wtc 1 and 2.
Quote
Quote from: sokarul on September 20, 2017, 09:16:12 PM
[youtube][/youtube]
Nothing else has ever exploded?
Things explode all the time.

Quote from: sokarul on September 20, 2017, 09:16:12 PM
Quote
Please honour these brave heros.

Also, can you help Rayzor debunk Newton and save the 9/11 official story? It's looking bleak currently.
I don't need to. You are just too blind to see the truth.

I think now it's time now to address the issues with the physics of wtc 7s collapse and the official story.
It's already been covered. The inside collapsed first. It's all in how the building was designed. The video of the actual collapse showed this.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 05:46:15 PM
Quote from: sokarul on September 20, 2017, 09:16:12 PM
It's already been covered. The inside collapsed first. It's all in how the building was designed. The video of the actual collapse showed this.



No the video of the collapse shows the failure of columns 79, 80, and 81, causing a partial building collapse. (The collapse of the east penthouse.

None of these were core columns and then after a few seconds, the entire core failed nearly simultaneously causing a 2.25 second symmetrical free-fall of the entire bulding. Remeber the "outer facade" had 18 structural support columns making any natural free-fall impossible.

It is interesting that you also leave two spaces under each of your posts sock.(edited out.)

@Rayzor.
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 04:05:20 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 03:59:31 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 03:54:44 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 03:33:41 AM
You still haven't addressed your post trying to debunk Newton. Do you stand by it?

You seriously think I'm trying to debunk Newton?

I do, yes.

See.
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 10:00:14 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 09:51:48 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 09:50:33 PM
We'll soon see about that.

Yes,  Hulsey's  simultaneous collapse theory.   What a joke.

In order for the building to collapse at free-fall the entire core had to fail nearly simultaneously. Structural resistance slows fall acceleration. If you don't like it take it up with Newton, not me.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Newt.html

Ah, I see where you went wrong,  you forgot that the center had already collapsed / was collapsing BEFORE the facade came down.  I really can't keep holding you hand while you work through these things, you have to start to think for yourself if you are going to be a good anon campaigner.

Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 04:10:35 AM
Thats not true that's the conclusions of the fraudulent NIST report. That is merely the lie we were sold.

Furthermore, even if the entire inner core collapsed leaving the entire "facade" intact (which is impossible because of the cross bracing) there were still 18 support columns around the exterior.

(https://s26.postimg.org/iegp2ilix/images-43.jpg)

A free fall collapse even under your fairytale conditions is still impossible without a controlled demolition. You are trying to debunk Newton.

Q.E.D.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 05:52:08 PM
If it makes you feel better I will retract that video as evidence and we can just focus on the collapse of wtc 7, the physics involved and Newtons laws.

Would you prefer that?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bullwinkle on September 21, 2017, 05:52:14 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 05:27:51 PM

We do not abide victims here. Victims are weak, victims are useless. You are not a victim.



10 inches?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 05:53:16 PM
Quote from: Bullwinkle on September 21, 2017, 05:52:14 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 05:27:51 PM

We do not abide victims here. Victims are weak, victims are useless. You are not a victim.



10 inches?

Can you help Rayzor and Sock debunk Newton and save the 9/11 official story bullwinkle?

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 05:52:08 PM
If it makes you feel better I will retract that video as evidence and we can just focus on the collapse of wtc 7, the physics involved and Newtons laws.

Would you prefer that?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bullwinkle on September 21, 2017, 05:56:06 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 05:53:16 PM

Can you help Rayzor and Sock debunk Newton and save the 9/11 official story bullwinkle?


12 inches?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 05:57:51 PM
Can you debunk this post? If it's as stupid and I'm as stupid as you all claim surely a smart guy like you can debunk it.

Just over 8 if you are interested for whatever reason.

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 05:46:15 PM
No the video of the collapse shows the failure of columns 79, 80, and 81, causing a partial building collapse. (The collapse of the east penthouse.

None of these were core columns and then after a few seconds, the entire core failed nearly simultaneously causing a 2.25 second symmetrical free-fall of the entire bulding. Remeber the "outer facade" had 18 structural support columns making any natural free-fall impossible.

@Rayzor.
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 04:05:20 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 03:59:31 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 03:54:44 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 03:33:41 AM
You still haven't addressed your post trying to debunk Newton. Do you stand by it?

You seriously think I'm trying to debunk Newton?

I do, yes.

See.
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 10:00:14 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 09:51:48 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 09:50:33 PM
We'll soon see about that.

Yes,  Hulsey's  simultaneous collapse theory.   What a joke.

In order for the building to collapse at free-fall the entire core had to fail nearly simultaneously. Structural resistance slows fall acceleration. If you don't like it take it up with Newton, not me.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Newt.html

Ah, I see where you went wrong,  you forgot that the center had already collapsed / was collapsing BEFORE the facade came down.  I really can't keep holding you hand while you work through these things, you have to start to think for yourself if you are going to be a good anon campaigner.

Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 04:10:35 AM
Thats not true that's the conclusions of the fraudulent NIST report. That is merely the lie we were sold.

Furthermore, even if the entire inner core collapsed leaving the entire "facade" intact (which is impossible because of the cross bracing) there were still 18 support columns around the exterior.

(https://s26.postimg.org/iegp2ilix/images-43.jpg)

A free fall collapse even under your fairytale conditions is still impossible without a controlled demolition. You are trying to debunk Newton.

Q.E.D.

Edit.
Video evidence.
[Youtube][/youtube]
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 21, 2017, 06:19:49 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on September 21, 2017, 04:20:21 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 07:16:06 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on September 20, 2017, 11:40:25 AM
I myself am a simplicity and functionality person....I am the person that only has one spoon/knife/bowl/cup/fork etc and rewash every sitting

Wow, mealtime must be pretty lonely at your place.  Do you never have visitors?

Mealtimes around here are can be a bit chaotic,  but it's always fun to have family and friends together for a meal.  We take turns cooking and everyone has a specialty.   Tonight is a birthday party and since I'm cooking, I'm going to cook Mexican.  Lots of wine, fajitas and hot chilli.

I have visitors, though typically alcohol is the wanted party favor....I do have plenty of shot glasses and rocks glasses. If someone is so fancy they require a glass for their beer then they can bring their own..

However, now that I broke down after years of purposefully staying single and actually with someone, perhaps I may add a second set of utensils and cups....

Low blow on the family thing though... expected from you, but still a low blow. You know damn well I lost my family a while back, I have even complimented you on having a close family... Classy  ::)

Quote from: Symptom on September 20, 2017, 10:51:50 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 07:16:06 PM

Wow, mealtime must be pretty lonely at your place.  Do you never have visitors?

He owns a Lamborghini and a (questionable) Porsche (mostly driven by surgically enhanced trophy wife soccer moms), and he knows the 9/11 truth. So why would he need to form relationships with actual human beings?

Duh.

I love it when the bottom of the gene pool attempts to be clever...it's about as entertaining as a monkey trying to hump a football...at least the monkey will eventually get wise to the charade...

The foul smell of do nothing blow hards is quite a repugnant odor that permeates a distance of no limit.

Also, since you are trying to insult me, I would like to clear up a few things so perhaps you can do better next time. Rich soccer mom's do not drive turbo Panameras, they drive g wagons, s550s and range rovers...trophy wives drive Bentley gts and sl63s....also...it would be Lamborghinis, you forgot the s pumpkin  ;) ::)

Try harder...

Yeah,  sorry,  I didn't mean to make you feel bad,  it's just that you are always after me to tell you something about myself,  but when I do, it magically turns into being more about you.

Not everything is all about you.   I don't judge people by the type of car they drive,  I try to deal with people how I find them,  my point is that you should stop trying to prove yourself, you don't need to prove anything to me. 

It's clear to everyone that your friend dipstick is having some kind of a self destructive episode,  you are well placed to help, but you choose not to.  Why not?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 06:21:49 PM
There's so many gifted and very intelligent people on this site.

Surely someone can debunk my post. Maybe they are off proving the earth is in fact spherical????

Rayzor, Strong willed individuals are not susceptible to your psychological manipulations. You are trying to swim up a waterfall. Remember that. Your tactics only work on the weak.

On that note.
Please address my post.

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 05:57:51 PM
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 21, 2017, 06:25:25 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 06:21:49 PM
There's so many gifted and very intelligent people on this site.

Surely someone can debunk my post. Maybe they are off proving the earth is in fact spherical????

Rayzor, Strong willed individuals are not susceptible to your psychological manipulations. You are trying to swim up a waterfall. Remember that. Your tactics only work on the weak.

On that note.
Please address my post.


Hello post.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 06:26:07 PM
Can you debunk it or not? It's fine if you cant.

Stick to the script.

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 12:34:57 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 03:26:42 AM
Wow you follow the script...

Quote from: disputeone on March 26, 2017, 08:40:16 PM
Rayzor I have summarised your debate tactics as a reference and guide for you.

*Encourage group shaming and group think as a first priority.

*Always quote and support the official story, if any evidence doesn't support the OS, then deny it and re-quote the official story.

*Deny any and all facts that go against the official story.

*Discredit anyone that goes against the official story.

*Push controlled opposition conspiracy theories e.g aliens, holographic planes, death rays from space.

*Speak from a position of authority on all subjects, never provide proof of authority.

*Give absolutely no quarter, if you can't answer a question honestly descredit the poster and distract the debate.

*Offer the official story as the only explanation, keep trying to exaggerate your opponents position and twist their words out of meaning.

*Attack only the weakest points of your opponent's argument, if there are no weak enough points, create a strawman and tear it to shreds.

This is a free reference if you get stuck.

I am sure you can air your issues during peer review. Hulsey is giving us this option.

Isn't science great.

Consider this list open source. Please feel free to add to it or edit it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 21, 2017, 06:28:58 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 06:26:07 PM
Can you debunk it or not? It's fine if you cant.

Go back about 5000 or so posts,  in any case I'm not allowed to interact with you Penguin shills anymore,  the upper level shill management committee has declared you off limits. 

You are to be dealt with by the special anti-penguin task force.      May god have mercy on your soul.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 06:30:41 PM
Come on Rayzor..
This post has not been debunked.

Saying:
""Believe what you are told on the News!""

Doesn't debunk it.
Please address it if you are able.

Here.
Can you debunk this post? If it's as stupid and I'm as stupid as you all claim surely a smart guy like you can debunk it.

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 05:46:15 PM
No the video of the collapse shows the failure of columns 79, 80, and 81, causing a partial building collapse. (The collapse of the east penthouse.

None of these were core columns and then after a few seconds, the entire core failed nearly simultaneously causing a 2.25 second symmetrical free-fall of the entire bulding. Remeber the "outer facade" had 18 structural support columns making any natural free-fall impossible.

@Rayzor.
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 04:05:20 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 03:59:31 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 03:54:44 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 03:33:41 AM
You still haven't addressed your post trying to debunk Newton. Do you stand by it?

You seriously think I'm trying to debunk Newton?

I do, yes.

See.
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 10:00:14 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 09:51:48 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 09:50:33 PM
We'll soon see about that.

Yes,  Hulsey's  simultaneous collapse theory.   What a joke.

In order for the building to collapse at free-fall the entire core had to fail nearly simultaneously. Structural resistance slows fall acceleration. If you don't like it take it up with Newton, not me.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Newt.html

Ah, I see where you went wrong,  you forgot that the center had already collapsed / was collapsing BEFORE the facade came down.  I really can't keep holding you hand while you work through these things, you have to start to think for yourself if you are going to be a good anon campaigner.

Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 04:10:35 AM
Thats not true that's the conclusions of the fraudulent NIST report. That is merely the lie we were sold.

Furthermore, even if the entire inner core collapsed leaving the entire "facade" intact (which is impossible because of the cross bracing) there were still 18 support columns around the exterior.

(https://s26.postimg.org/iegp2ilix/images-43.jpg)

A free fall collapse even under your fairytale conditions is still impossible without a controlled demolition. You are trying to debunk Newton.

Q.E.D.

Edit.
Video evidence.
[Youtube][/youtube]
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 21, 2017, 06:33:10 PM
Quote from: Bullwinkle on September 21, 2017, 05:56:06 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 05:53:16 PM

Can you help Rayzor and Sock debunk Newton and save the 9/11 official story bullwinkle?


12 inches?

LOL. 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 06:34:47 PM
Why are you still dodging my post (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1958029#msg1958029)?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bullwinkle on September 21, 2017, 06:39:06 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 06:21:49 PM

There's so many gifted and very intelligent people on this site.



One less than you think.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 06:39:45 PM
Quote from: Bullwinkle on September 21, 2017, 06:39:06 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 06:21:49 PM

There's so many gifted and very intelligent people on this site.
One less than you think.

It's your right to call me what you like, however. Why are you still dodging my post (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1958029#msg1958029)?

I honestly believe I have made you hit your intellectual limit. You can break past this limit. Don't hold yourself back. Believe in yourself.

Debunk my post. Show me why I am wrong.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 21, 2017, 06:47:17 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 06:39:45 PM
Debunk my post. Show me why I am wrong.

You've been outed as a penguin shill,  why should anyone care what you think or do?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 06:49:12 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 21, 2017, 06:47:17 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 06:39:45 PM
Debunk my post. Show me why I am wrong.

You've been outed as a penguin shill,  why should anyone care what you think or do?

Because this is conclusive proof based purely on logic proving that the NIST report was fraudulent and wtc 7 was a controlled demolition. See my post (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1958029#msg1958029)

Also, as I said, your tricks only work on the weak willed. They are futile against some posters here.

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 12:34:57 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 03:26:42 AM
Wow you follow the script...

Quote from: disputeone on March 26, 2017, 08:40:16 PM
Rayzor I have summarised your debate tactics as a reference and guide for you.

*Encourage group shaming and group think as a first priority.

*Always quote and support the official story, if any evidence doesn't support the OS, then deny it and re-quote the official story.

*Deny any and all facts that go against the official story.

*Discredit anyone that goes against the official story.

*Push controlled opposition conspiracy theories e.g aliens, holographic planes, death rays from space.

*Speak from a position of authority on all subjects, never provide proof of authority.

*Give absolutely no quarter, if you can't answer a question honestly descredit the poster and distract the debate.

*Offer the official story as the only explanation, keep trying to exaggerate your opponents position and twist their words out of meaning.

*Attack only the weakest points of your opponent's argument, if there are no weak enough points, create a strawman and tear it to shreds.

This is a free reference if you get stuck.

I am sure you can air your issues during peer review. Hulsey is giving us this option.

Isn't science great.

Consider this list open source. Please feel free to add to it or edit it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bullwinkle on September 21, 2017, 06:49:28 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 06:39:45 PM

I honestly believe I have made you hit your intellectual limit.



I honestly believe you believe that.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 06:51:02 PM
Quote from: Bullwinkle on September 21, 2017, 06:49:28 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 06:39:45 PM

I honestly believe I have made you hit your intellectual limit.



I honestly believe you believe that.

Thanks. Call me delusional all you want but if you cant and won't even try to debunk my post (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1958029#msg1958029) it honestly looks like projection.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 06:52:24 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 21, 2017, 06:47:17 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 06:39:45 PM
Debunk my post. Show me why I am wrong.

You've been outed as a penguin shill,  why should anyone care what you think or do?

Because this is conclusive proof based purely on logic proving that the NIST report was fraudulent and wtc 7 was a controlled demolition. See my post (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1958029#msg1958029). Scientific proof is coming soon.

Also, as I said, your tricks only work on the weak willed. They are futile against some posters here.

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 12:34:57 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 28, 2017, 03:26:42 AM
Wow you follow the script...

Quote from: disputeone on March 26, 2017, 08:40:16 PM
Rayzor I have summarised your debate tactics as a reference and guide for you.

*Encourage group shaming and group think as a first priority.

*Always quote and support the official story, if any evidence doesn't support the OS, then deny it and re-quote the official story.

*Deny any and all facts that go against the official story.

*Discredit anyone that goes against the official story.

*Push controlled opposition conspiracy theories e.g aliens, holographic planes, death rays from space.

*Speak from a position of authority on all subjects, never provide proof of authority.

*Give absolutely no quarter, if you can't answer a question honestly descredit the poster and distract the debate.

*Offer the official story as the only explanation, keep trying to exaggerate your opponents position and twist their words out of meaning.

*Attack only the weakest points of your opponent's argument, if there are no weak enough points, create a strawman and tear it to shreds.

This is a free reference if you get stuck.

I am sure you can air your issues during peer review. Hulsey is giving us this option.

Isn't science great.

Consider this list open source. Please feel free to add to it or edit it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sokarul on September 21, 2017, 07:12:35 PM
That was easy.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bullwinkle on September 21, 2017, 07:12:54 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 06:51:02 PM
Call me delusional all you want but if you cant and won't even try to debunk my post (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1958029#msg1958029) it honestly looks like projection.

I don't remember ever calling you delusional.
I also don't care if you dig up an example where I did.


Which of the following sounds wacko?


We are Anonymous.
We are Legion.
We do not forgive.
We do not forget.
Expect us.


*** OR ***


I am Bullwinkle.
I am reason.
I forgive.
I forget.
I'll call if I'm going to be late.








.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:13:34 PM
Come on Rayzor..
This post has not been debunked.

Saying:
""Believe what you are told on the News!""

Doesn't debunk it.
Please address it if you are able.

Here.
Can you debunk this post? If it's as stupid and I'm as stupid as you all claim surely a smart guy like you can debunk it.

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 05:46:15 PM
No the video of the collapse shows the failure of columns 79, 80, and 81, causing a partial building collapse. (The collapse of the east penthouse.)

None of these were core columns and then after a few seconds, the entire core failed nearly simultaneously causing a 2.25 second symmetrical free-fall of the entire bulding. Remeber the "outer facade" had 18 structural support columns making any natural free-fall impossible.

@Rayzor.
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 04:05:20 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 03:59:31 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 03:54:44 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 03:33:41 AM
You still haven't addressed your post trying to debunk Newton. Do you stand by it?

You seriously think I'm trying to debunk Newton?

I do, yes.

See.
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 10:00:14 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 09:51:48 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 09:50:33 PM
We'll soon see about that.

Yes,  Hulsey's  simultaneous collapse theory.   What a joke.

In order for the building to collapse at free-fall the entire core had to fail nearly simultaneously. Structural resistance slows fall acceleration. If you don't like it take it up with Newton, not me.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Newt.html

Ah, I see where you went wrong,  you forgot that the center had already collapsed / was collapsing BEFORE the facade came down.  I really can't keep holding you hand while you work through these things, you have to start to think for yourself if you are going to be a good anon campaigner.

Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 04:10:35 AM
Thats not true that's the conclusions of the fraudulent NIST report. That is merely the lie we were sold.

Furthermore, even if the entire inner core collapsed leaving the entire "facade" intact (which is impossible because of the cross bracing) there were still 18 support columns around the exterior.

(https://s26.postimg.org/iegp2ilix/images-43.jpg)

A free fall collapse even under your fairytale conditions is still impossible without a controlled demolition. You are trying to debunk Newton.

Q.E.D.

Edit.
Video evidence.
[Youtube][/youtube]
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:14:58 PM
Quote from: sockarul on September 21, 2017, 07:12:35 PM
That was easy.



So you have video evidence of wtc 7 being a giant coke can and a giant stomping on it causing it to collapse?

I havent heard that hypothesis yet.

Also I can't see the giant in the official footage.
[Youtube][/youtube]
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 21, 2017, 07:16:24 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:06:57 PM
Come on Rayzor..
This post has not been debunked.

Well,  apart from the fact that I've debunked it maybe a hundred times,  and you never understood any of it,   secondly I don't especially like helping you feed this mental state you've descended into.  I'd like it if you switched off your phone and actually got back to work.   I'm sure your boss would like that as well.

Have you thought about the meaning of your phrase  "It's too late to expect us".     



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:17:54 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 21, 2017, 07:16:24 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:06:57 PM
Come on Rayzor..
This post has not been debunked.

Nuh-uh

Can you copy and paste your rebuttal to my post (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1958029#msg1958029)? To me it looks like you are just claiming you have debunked it.

Did you see the giant stomp on wtc 7 or is that just Sockaruls idea?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:25:35 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 21, 2017, 07:16:24 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:06:57 PM
Come on Rayzor..
This post has not been debunked.
I don't especially like helping you feed this mental state you've descended into.  I'd like it if you switched off your phone and actually got back to work.   I'm sure your boss would like that as well.

Have you thought about the meaning of your phrase  "It's too late to expect us".   

Not everyone can work at home as a psyop shill. I took today off I have an upset stomach if you have to know. I'm hold up on the couch. Gonna go in to work tomorrow cause I'm honest and like my company.

Please keep this thread on topic.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 21, 2017, 07:26:15 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:17:54 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 21, 2017, 07:16:24 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:06:57 PM
Come on Rayzor..
This post has not been debunked.

Nuh-uh

Can you copy and paste your rebuttal to my post (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1958029#msg1958029)? To me it looks like you are just claiming you have debunked it.

Did you see the giant stomp on wtc 7 or is that just Sockaruls idea?

Post 8 in this thread,  5520 posts ago,  I realize you are as thick as two planks and don't have much of a grasp on basic physics or maths,  but you don't have to keep proving it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 21, 2017, 07:31:26 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:27:22 PM
This post debunks your assertion that the entire core collapsed leaving the outside intact and then the "outer facade" collapsing at free-fall.

Explain the coke can collapse video that Sokarul posted. 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:33:03 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 21, 2017, 07:31:26 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:27:22 PM
This post debunks your assertion that the entire core collapsed leaving the outside intact and then the "outer facade" collapsing at free-fall.

Explain the coke can collapse video that Sokarul posted.

Sure, a guy jumps / stands on a coke can, maybe flicks the edge of the cylinder and the Coke can is crushed. When you prove that wtc 7 was a giant coke can and a giant stomped on it causing it's collapse I'll accept you are right. Until then let's keep talking about reality.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 21, 2017, 07:34:00 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:33:03 PM
Sure guy jumps on a coke can. Coke can is crushed. When you prove that wtc 7 was a giant coke can and a giant stomped on it causing it's collapse I'll accept you are right. Until then let's keep talking about reality.

Thought so.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:35:14 PM
What about this is wrong. Show us.

Quote from: Rayzor on September 21, 2017, 07:31:26 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:27:22 PM
This post debunks your assertion that the entire core collapsed leaving the outside intact and then the "outer facade" collapsing at free-fall.

Explain the coke can collapse video that Sokarul posted.

Sure, a guy jumps / stands on a coke can, maybe flicks the edge of the cylinder and the Coke can is crushed. When you prove that wtc 7 was a giant coke can and a giant stomped on it causing it's collapse I'll accept you are right. Until then let's keep talking about reality.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:35:45 PM
This post debunks your assertion that the entire core collapsed leaving the outside intact and then the "outer facade" collapsing at free-fall.

Please read it and respond to it.
Here.
Can you debunk this post? If it's as stupid and I'm as stupid as you all claim surely a smart guy like you can debunk it.

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 05:46:15 PM
No the video of the collapse shows the failure of columns 79, 80, and 81, causing a partial building collapse. (The collapse of the east penthouse.)

None of these were core columns and then after a few seconds, the entire core failed nearly simultaneously causing a 2.25 second symmetrical free-fall of the entire bulding. Remeber the "outer facade" had 18 structural support columns making any natural free-fall impossible.

@Rayzor.
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 04:05:20 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 03:59:31 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 03:54:44 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 03:33:41 AM
You still haven't addressed your post trying to debunk Newton. Do you stand by it?

You seriously think I'm trying to debunk Newton?

I do, yes.

See.
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 10:00:14 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 09:51:48 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 09:50:33 PM
We'll soon see about that.

Yes,  Hulsey's  simultaneous collapse theory.   What a joke.

In order for the building to collapse at free-fall the entire core had to fail nearly simultaneously. Structural resistance slows fall acceleration. If you don't like it take it up with Newton, not me.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Newt.html

Ah, I see where you went wrong,  you forgot that the center had already collapsed / was collapsing BEFORE the facade came down.  I really can't keep holding you hand while you work through these things, you have to start to think for yourself if you are going to be a good anon campaigner.

Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 04:10:35 AM
Thats not true that's the conclusions of the fraudulent NIST report. That is merely the lie we were sold.

Furthermore, even if the entire inner core collapsed leaving the entire "facade" intact (which is impossible because of the cross bracing) there were still 18 support columns around the exterior.

(https://s26.postimg.org/iegp2ilix/images-43.jpg)

A free fall collapse even under your fairytale conditions is still impossible without a controlled demolition. You are trying to debunk Newton.

Q.E.D.

Edit.
Video evidence.
[Youtube][/youtube]

For reference Rayzor believes this debunks it. Notice he says it's "been debunked" since his first post on the topic.

Quote from: Rayzor on February 13, 2017, 11:18:08 PM
We already debunked that free-fall argument.   But just to recap,  how is it possible for the rooftop of a building to fall?   Doesn't the fact that it collapsed at all mean that the building structure supporting the roof is collapsing,    why would you be surprised that it fell at a free fall rate.   At least until it hit ground and other debris piled up,   The graph in the NIST shows it quite clearly.   

You say you work in the industry,  you mean the building industry?   In what capacity?

What caused the core to collapse at free-fall
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bullwinkle on September 21, 2017, 07:40:41 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:35:45 PM

What caused the core to collapse at free-fall



Opposed to hovering in place?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:43:13 PM
Quote from: Bullwinkle on September 21, 2017, 07:40:41 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:35:45 PM

What caused the core to collapse at free-fall



Opposed to hovering in place?

Watch the video. When the west penthouse fails the building immediately collapses.

Video evidence.
[Youtube][/youtube]
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 21, 2017, 07:49:46 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:43:13 PM
When the west penthouse fails the building immediately collapses.

Gee, I wonder what was holding up the penthouse?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:53:13 PM
All of this is connected. We're all trying to help you.

[youtube][/youtube]

Please open your eyes.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:54:14 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 21, 2017, 07:49:46 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:43:13 PM
When the west penthouse fails the building immediately collapses.

Gee, I wonder what was holding up the penthouse?

The core. Therefore as soon as the core failed the building came down. Hulsey is right.
Video evidence.
[Youtube][/youtube]
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on September 21, 2017, 07:55:41 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 21, 2017, 06:19:49 PM
Yeah,  sorry,  I didn't mean to make you feel bad,  it's just that you are always after me to tell you something about myself,  but when I do, it magically turns into being more about you.

Not everything is all about you.   I don't judge people by the type of car they drive,  I try to deal with people how I find them,  my point is that you should stop trying to prove yourself, you don't need to prove anything to me.

It had nothing to do about a car, if that were the case I would have done something other than my daily driver. If I wanted to "show off", I would have shown loft or shop or something more expensive than a nice car.

The point of that, I was bored, driving, and was just taking a picture of a normal person doing something normal in life (such as driving to a meeting)...I wanted you to do the same as you have been called a shill. That is why I asked "can you do this Rayzor"

Also, we have had this conversation with you before...You have continually attacked me personally...I am a person of honor and truth, the way a Texan should be. When we are called out we will shut the accuser up with proving them wrong. If they do it disrespectfully, take them out side and show them your displeasure.

People with lack of honor or truth do not understand this.

So yes, I am going to prove someone wrong, I don't feel bad about it...yes, someone calling me a liar I will prove them wrong, someone saying they are over me and calling me an idiot, I am gonna say "What do you have??"..

I am not the one that barks in a fight, I keep my mouth shut and speak with actions.

Who are you?

*Also, the family thing, I can graduated you on your family. I said don't take it for granted, enjoy, and God bless...this was many moons ago. I made it about me because again, you used it as a personal attack.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 21, 2017, 08:08:32 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on September 21, 2017, 07:55:41 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 21, 2017, 06:19:49 PM
Yeah,  sorry,  I didn't mean to make you feel bad,  it's just that you are always after me to tell you something about myself,  but when I do, it magically turns into being more about you.

Not everything is all about you.   I don't judge people by the type of car they drive,  I try to deal with people how I find them,  my point is that you should stop trying to prove yourself, you don't need to prove anything to me.

It had nothing to do about a car, if that were the case I would have done something other than my daily driver. If I wanted to "show off", I would have shown loft or shop or something more expensive than a nice car.

The point of that, I was bored, driving, and was just taking a picture of a normal person doing something normal in life (such as driving to a meeting)...I wanted you to do the same as you have been called a shill. That is why I asked "can you do this Rayzor"

Also, we have had this conversation with you before...You have continually attacked me personally...I am a person of honor and truth, the way a Texan should be. When we are called out we will shut the accuser up with proving them wrong. If they do it disrespectfully, take them out side and show them your displeasure.

People with lack of honor or truth do not understand this.

So yes, I am going to prove someone wrong, I don't feel bad about it...yes, someone calling me a liar I will prove them wrong, someone saying they are over me and calling me an idiot, I am gonna say "What do you have??"..

I am not the one that barks in a fight, I keep my mouth shut and speak with actions.

Who are you?

*Also, the family thing, I can graduated you on your family. I said don't take it for granted, enjoy, and God bless...this was many moons ago. I made it about me because again, you used it as a personal attack.

So in answer to  me saying "stop making it all about you",  you reply with a post that's all about you.   I tried.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on September 21, 2017, 08:12:04 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 21, 2017, 07:49:46 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:43:13 PM
When the west penthouse fails the building immediately collapses.

Gee, I wonder what was holding up the penthouse?

I don't see how the penthouse is a "smoking gun" for the official story. In my book, engineering, and reality it is a smoking gun for controlled demo which is obviously anti official story.

You remove all inner supports at once, down comes the penthouse because from the view we will see it move first. Just like all high rises, I can even go on the roof and prove it on mine, there is about a 3-6 foot railing, so you can't see the roof or if it collapsed.

Quote from: Rayzor on September 21, 2017, 08:08:32 PM
So in answer to  me saying "stop making it all about you",  you reply with a post that's all about you.   I tried.

Solid response to avoid all I said, as well as proving any humanity.

Also, you were attacking me personally again princess, so I responded in kind.

You don't like it because I CAN prove what I say....

Truth is easy...fairy tales or complete lies, not so much
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 21, 2017, 08:15:48 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on September 21, 2017, 08:12:04 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 21, 2017, 07:49:46 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:43:13 PM
When the west penthouse fails the building immediately collapses.

Gee, I wonder what was holding up the penthouse?

I don't see how the penthouse is a "smoking gun" for the official story. In my book, engineering, and reality it is a smoking gun for controlled demo which is obviously anti official story.

You remove all inner supports at once, down comes the penthouse because from the view we will see it move first. Just like all high rises, I can even go on the roof and prove it on mine, there is about a 3-6 foot railing, so you can't see the roof or if it collapsed.

Quote from: Rayzor on September 21, 2017, 08:08:32 PM
So in answer to  me saying "stop making it all about you",  you reply with a post that's all about you.   I tried.

Solid response to avoid all I said, as well as proving any humanity.

Also, you were attacking me personally again princess, so I responded in kind.

You don't like it because I CAN prove what I say....

Truth is easy...fairy tales or complete lies, not so much

What's your opinion about disputeone's anon threats to the forum? 

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bullwinkle on September 21, 2017, 08:17:23 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 21, 2017, 08:08:32 PM

So in answer to  me saying "stop making it all about you",  you reply with a post that's all about you.   I tried.



Everyone has a style. BHS, Bullwinkle and you too.
Don't think your style is best of all. It's just your style.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 08:24:09 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:43:13 PM
Quote from: Bullwinkle on September 21, 2017, 07:40:41 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:35:45 PM

What caused the core to collapse at free-fall



Opposed to hovering in place?

Watch the video. When the west penthouse fails the building immediately collapses.

Video evidence.
[Youtube][/youtube]

I've made no threats to this forum. I've merely asked the mods to ban the shills.

Please respond to my post.

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:54:14 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 21, 2017, 07:49:46 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:43:13 PM
When the west penthouse fails the building immediately collapses.

Gee, I wonder what was holding up the penthouse?

The core. Therefore as soon as the core failed the building came down. Hulsey is right.
Video evidence.
[Youtube][/youtube]
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 08:31:15 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on September 21, 2017, 08:12:04 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 21, 2017, 07:49:46 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:43:13 PM
When the west penthouse fails the building immediately collapses.

Gee, I wonder what was holding up the penthouse?

I don't see how the penthouse is a "smoking gun" for the official story. In my book, engineering, and reality it is a smoking gun for controlled demo which is obviously anti official story.

You remove all inner supports at once, down comes the penthouse because from the view we will see it move first. Just like all high rises, I can even go on the roof and prove it on mine, there is about a 3-6 foot railing, so you can't see the roof or if it collapsed.

Truth is easy...fairy tales or complete lies, not so much

This.

Again, I've learned absolutely heaps from you. Thank you very much. I promise your efforts weren't for nothing.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bullwinkle on September 21, 2017, 08:49:29 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 08:24:09 PM

I've made no threats to this forum.



Like you are in any position to threaten anything.


Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 08:24:09 PM

I've merely asked the mods to ban the shills.



You realize everyone is laughing at you, right?



Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 08:24:09 PM

Please respond to my post.



I did.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 08:53:03 PM
Quote from: Bullwinkle on September 21, 2017, 08:49:29 PM
I did.

You didn't. If you did please cite it.

Operation Metal
Phase one and two,
Flat Earth Society chapter.
Mission Accomplished.

[youtube][/youtube]

[youtube][/youtube]

Standing by for Phase Three.
[youtube][/youtube]
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Crouton on September 21, 2017, 08:56:00 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 08:24:09 PM

I've merely asked the mods to ban the shills.


 ???

Out of curiosity who all have you asked the mods to ban?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 08:56:58 PM
Please keep this thread on topic. If you have a rebuttal please present it.

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:43:13 PM
Quote from: Bullwinkle on September 21, 2017, 07:40:41 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:35:45 PM

What caused the core to collapse at free-fall



Opposed to hovering in place?

Watch the video. When the west penthouse fails the building immediately collapses.

Video evidence.
[Youtube][/youtube]

Please respond to my post.

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:54:14 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 21, 2017, 07:49:46 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:43:13 PM
When the west penthouse fails the building immediately collapses.

Gee, I wonder what was holding up the penthouse?

The core. Therefore as soon as the core failed the building came down. Hulsey is right.
Video evidence.
[Youtube][/youtube]

Edit. @Crutonius our requests were laid out in the AR thread.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Crouton on September 21, 2017, 09:04:54 PM
This is a thread about 911. You assert a shadow government perpetrated this and that this same government has hired shills to infiltrate this forum.

Who have you asked the mods to ban for shilling?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bullwinkle on September 21, 2017, 09:05:51 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 08:53:03 PM
Quote from: Bullwinkle on September 21, 2017, 08:49:29 PM

I did.


You didn't. If you did please cite it.



OK . . .


Quote from: Bullwinkle on September 21, 2017, 08:49:29 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 08:24:09 PM

Please respond to my post.


I did.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 09:11:00 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:43:13 PM
Quote from: Bullwinkle on September 21, 2017, 07:40:41 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:35:45 PM

What caused the core to collapse at free-fall



Opposed to hovering in place?

Watch the video. When the west penthouse fails the building immediately collapses.

Video evidence.
[Youtube][/youtube]

I've made no threats to this forum. I've merely asked the mods to ban the shills.

Please respond to my post.

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:54:14 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 21, 2017, 07:49:46 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:43:13 PM
When the west penthouse fails the building immediately collapses.

Gee, I wonder what was holding up the penthouse?

The core. Therefore as soon as the core failed the building came down. Hulsey is right.
Video evidence.
[Youtube][/youtube]
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Crouton on September 21, 2017, 09:13:07 PM
Was it Intikam?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bullwinkle on September 21, 2017, 09:23:05 PM
Quote from: crutonius on September 21, 2017, 09:13:07 PM
Was it Intikam?

It was everyone who failed to "expect us".
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 09:49:43 PM
Can anyone debunk my posts on wtc 7 proving it to be a controlled demolition?

Let's have a debate.

I think you shouldn't be so quick to dismiss the shadow government crutonius.

[youtube][/youtube]
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Crouton on September 21, 2017, 09:52:43 PM
Was it Shifter?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 10:20:06 PM
I only requested Rayzors ban.

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 09:49:43 PM
Can anyone debunk my posts on wtc 7 proving it to be a controlled demolition?

Let's have a debate.

I think you shouldn't be so quick to dismiss the shadow government crutonius.

[youtube][/youtube]
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 10:22:25 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:35:45 PM
This post debunks your assertion that the entire core collapsed leaving the outside intact and then the "outer facade" collapsing at free-fall.

Please read it and respond to it.
Here.
Can you debunk this post? If it's as stupid and I'm as stupid as you all claim surely a smart guy like you can debunk it.

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 05:46:15 PM
No the video of the collapse shows the failure of columns 79, 80, and 81, causing a partial building collapse. (The collapse of the east penthouse.)

None of these were core columns and then after a few seconds, the entire core failed nearly simultaneously causing a 2.25 second symmetrical free-fall of the entire bulding. Remeber the "outer facade" had 18 structural support columns making any natural free-fall impossible.

@Rayzor.
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 04:05:20 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 03:59:31 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 03:54:44 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 03:33:41 AM
You still haven't addressed your post trying to debunk Newton. Do you stand by it?

You seriously think I'm trying to debunk Newton?

I do, yes.

See.
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 10:00:14 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 09:51:48 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 09:50:33 PM
We'll soon see about that.

Yes,  Hulsey's  simultaneous collapse theory.   What a joke.

In order for the building to collapse at free-fall the entire core had to fail nearly simultaneously. Structural resistance slows fall acceleration. If you don't like it take it up with Newton, not me.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Newt.html

Ah, I see where you went wrong,  you forgot that the center had already collapsed / was collapsing BEFORE the facade came down.  I really can't keep holding you hand while you work through these things, you have to start to think for yourself if you are going to be a good anon campaigner.

Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 04:10:35 AM
Thats not true that's the conclusions of the fraudulent NIST report. That is merely the lie we were sold.

Furthermore, even if the entire inner core collapsed leaving the entire "facade" intact (which is impossible because of the cross bracing) there were still 18 support columns around the exterior.

(https://s26.postimg.org/iegp2ilix/images-43.jpg)

A free fall collapse even under your fairytale conditions is still impossible without a controlled demolition. You are trying to debunk Newton.

Q.E.D.

Edit.
Video evidence.
[Youtube][/youtube]

For reference Rayzor believes this debunks it. Notice he says it's "been debunked" since his first post on the topic.

Quote from: Rayzor on February 13, 2017, 11:18:08 PM
We already debunked that free-fall argument.   But just to recap,  how is it possible for the rooftop of a building to fall?   Doesn't the fact that it collapsed at all mean that the building structure supporting the roof is collapsing,    why would you be surprised that it fell at a free fall rate.   At least until it hit ground and other debris piled up,   The graph in the NIST shows it quite clearly.   

You say you work in the industry,  you mean the building industry?   In what capacity?

What caused the core to collapse at free-fall

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on September 21, 2017, 10:26:23 PM
Does anyone want to do the math of ratio between a 200 pound mass smashing a 2 ounce coke can?

Then we can determine the mass of the giant needed to crush building 7...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 10:27:09 PM
Quote from: Bullwinkle on September 21, 2017, 08:49:29 PM
You realize everyone is laughing at you, right?

As I said, nearly all the "popular posters" want everyone to dismiss the irrefutable evidence that wtc 7 was a controlled demolition and the subsequent conclusion that the last sixteen years and millions of deaths, were all needless and based on a lie.

Laugh it up buddy.
This is a very strange place indeed.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on September 21, 2017, 10:26:23 PM
Does anyone want to do the math of ratio between a 200 pound mass smashing a 2 ounce coke can?

Then we can determine the mass of the giant needed to crush building 7...

Audible lol.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bullwinkle on September 21, 2017, 10:30:21 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 10:20:06 PM

I only requested Rayzors ban.



 :'(
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: hoppy on September 21, 2017, 10:30:44 PM
D1 you should have Rayzor put in jail for shilling. Maybe they will cut his internet access.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Crouton on September 21, 2017, 10:35:18 PM
Quote from: hoppy on September 21, 2017, 10:30:44 PM
D1 you should have Rayzor put in jail for shilling. Maybe they will cut his internet access.

Uh... do the mods really have that power?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on September 21, 2017, 10:38:55 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 10:27:09 PM
Audible lol.

Doesn't seeing the formation make a good quarterback?

I think the truth needs to be seen in this thread. Newton, common sense, engineering, physics etc cannot be debunked unless you use fairy tales such as giants....so expect ad hominems and gas lighting.

A very simple yet effective form of deflection.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bullwinkle on September 21, 2017, 10:40:21 PM
It's not his opinion being attacked, it's his presentation.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 10:43:44 PM
Quote from: Bullwinkle on September 21, 2017, 10:40:21 PM
It's not his opinion being attacked, it's his presentation.

It's foolish to judge information based on how much you like the presenter personally.

Shilling against an standing president of the United States has always been treason. Let that sink in.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Crouton on September 21, 2017, 10:45:35 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 10:43:44 PM
Quote from: Bullwinkle on September 21, 2017, 10:40:21 PM
It's not his opinion being attacked, it's his presentation.

It's foolish to judge information based on how much you like the presenter personally.

Shilling against an standing president of the United States has always been treason. Let that sink in.

Even when the presenter is chasing down random people and beating them over the head with his clip board?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bullwinkle on September 21, 2017, 11:14:26 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 10:43:44 PM

Shilling against an [sic] standing president of the United States has always been treason. Let that sink in.



No concept is within your grasp.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 11:25:59 PM
No one can touch this.

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:35:45 PM
This post debunks your assertion that the entire core collapsed leaving the outside intact and then the "outer facade" collapsing at free-fall.

Please read it and respond to it.
Here.
Can you debunk this post? If it's as stupid and I'm as stupid as you all claim surely a smart guy like you can debunk it.

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 05:46:15 PM
No the video of the collapse shows the failure of columns 79, 80, and 81, causing a partial building collapse. (The collapse of the east penthouse.)

None of these were core columns and then after a few seconds, the entire core failed nearly simultaneously causing a 2.25 second symmetrical free-fall of the entire bulding. Remeber the "outer facade" had 18 structural support columns making any natural free-fall impossible.

@Rayzor.
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 04:05:20 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 03:59:31 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 03:54:44 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 03:33:41 AM
You still haven't addressed your post trying to debunk Newton. Do you stand by it?

You seriously think I'm trying to debunk Newton?

I do, yes.

See.
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 10:00:14 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 09:51:48 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 09:50:33 PM
We'll soon see about that.

Yes,  Hulsey's  simultaneous collapse theory.   What a joke.

In order for the building to collapse at free-fall the entire core had to fail nearly simultaneously. Structural resistance slows fall acceleration. If you don't like it take it up with Newton, not me.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Newt.html

Ah, I see where you went wrong,  you forgot that the center had already collapsed / was collapsing BEFORE the facade came down.  I really can't keep holding you hand while you work through these things, you have to start to think for yourself if you are going to be a good anon campaigner.

Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 04:10:35 AM
Thats not true that's the conclusions of the fraudulent NIST report. That is merely the lie we were sold.

Furthermore, even if the entire inner core collapsed leaving the entire "facade" intact (which is impossible because of the cross bracing) there were still 18 support columns around the exterior.

(https://s26.postimg.org/iegp2ilix/images-43.jpg)

A free fall collapse even under your fairytale conditions is still impossible without a controlled demolition. You are trying to debunk Newton.

Q.E.D.

Edit.
Video evidence.
[Youtube][/youtube]

For reference Rayzor believes this debunks it. Notice he says it's "been debunked" since his first post on the topic.

Quote from: Rayzor on February 13, 2017, 11:18:08 PM
We already debunked that free-fall argument.   But just to recap,  how is it possible for the rooftop of a building to fall?   Doesn't the fact that it collapsed at all mean that the building structure supporting the roof is collapsing,    why would you be surprised that it fell at a free fall rate.   At least until it hit ground and other debris piled up,   The graph in the NIST shows it quite clearly.   

You say you work in the industry,  you mean the building industry?   In what capacity?

What caused the core to collapse at free-fall

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:43:13 PM
Quote from: Bullwinkle on September 21, 2017, 07:40:41 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:35:45 PM

What caused the core to collapse at free-fall



Opposed to hovering in place?

Watch the video. When the west penthouse fails the building immediately collapses.

Video evidence.
[Youtube][/youtube]

Please respond to my post.

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:54:14 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 21, 2017, 07:49:46 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:43:13 PM
When the west penthouse fails the building immediately collapses.

Gee, I wonder what was holding up the penthouse?

The core. Therefore as soon as the core failed the building came down. Hulsey is right.
Video evidence.
[Youtube][/youtube]
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bullwinkle on September 22, 2017, 12:18:00 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 11:25:59 PM

Please respond to my post.



I did.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 22, 2017, 12:38:06 AM
Quote from: Bullwinkle on September 21, 2017, 11:14:26 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 10:43:44 PM

Shilling against an [sic] standing president of the United States has always been treason. Let that sink in.



No concept is within your grasp.

**sigh** such ignorance in one so young,  truly breathtaking in his stupidity.     I'm hesitant to try and enlighten him,  should I try or not?   

Nah,  fuck the little creep.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 22, 2017, 12:56:45 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on September 21, 2017, 10:38:55 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 10:27:09 PM
Audible lol.

Doesn't seeing the formation make a good quarterback?

I think the truth needs to be seen in this thread. Newton, common sense, engineering, physics etc cannot be debunked unless you use fairy tales such as giants....so expect ad hominems and gas lighting.

A very simple yet effective form of deflection.

Check the thread title,  for a clue. 

The truth about 9/11 conspiracy nutters.  is that they are paranoid delusional whack jobs.   Totally beyond the reach of logic and reason.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on September 22, 2017, 01:01:43 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 22, 2017, 12:56:45 AM
Check the thread title,  for a clue. 

The truth about 9/11 conspiracy nutters.  is that they are paranoid delusional whack jobs.   Totally beyond the reach of logic and reason.

Wow an ad hominem...I am Jack's complete lack of surprise...

Do you have anything else?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 22, 2017, 01:05:23 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on September 22, 2017, 01:01:43 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 22, 2017, 12:56:45 AM
Check the thread title,  for a clue. 

The truth about 9/11 conspiracy nutters.  is that they are paranoid delusional whack jobs.   Totally beyond the reach of logic and reason.

Wow an ad hominem...I am Jack's complete lack of surprise...

Do you have anything else?

Let's see how honest you really are.   Just answer 2 simple questions.

1.  Why bother to demolish a building that was about to collapse?   All they had to do was wait.
2.  Why wait 7 hours before the demolition.

I've never gotten honest answers to either question.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 01:06:05 AM
[Youtube][/youtube]
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 22, 2017, 01:09:05 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 22, 2017, 12:56:45 AM


Check the thread title,  for a clue. 

The truth about 9/11 conspiracy nutters.  is that they are paranoid delusional whack jobs.   Totally beyond the reach of logic and reason.
Are you basically saying that none of it should ever be questioned if it goes way beyond coincidence?
Is your default mindset to simply use CONSPIRACY NUTTERS for those that question official lines?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 01:12:23 AM
It's his job.

Quote
Psychological operations (PSYOP) are planned operations to convey selected information and indicators to audiences to influence their emotions, motives, and objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of governments, organizations, groups, and individuals.

The purpose of United States psychological operations is to induce or reinforce behavior favorable to U.S. objectives. They are an important part of the range of diplomatic, informational, military and economic activities available to the U.S. They can be utilized during both peacetime and conflict. There are three main types: strategic, operational and tactical. Strategic PSYOP include informational activities conducted by the U.S. government agencies outside of the military arena, though many utilize Department of Defense (DOD) assets. Operational PSYOP are conducted across the range of military operations, including during peacetime, in a defined operational area to promote the effectiveness of the joint force commander's (JFC) campaigns and strategies. TacticalPSYOP are conducted in the area assigned to a tactical commander across the range of military operations to support the tactical mission against opposing forces.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 22, 2017, 01:16:27 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 22, 2017, 01:05:23 AM

1.  Why bother to demolish a building that was about to collapse?   All they had to do was wait.
Who knew the building was about to collapse?

Quote from: Rayzor on September 22, 2017, 01:05:23 AM
2.  Why wait 7 hours before the demolition.
Think what was inside of that building.
Now imagine how suspicious it would have been if that building (WTC7) fell is short order like the towers CD collapses.
The plane explanation could not be used on WTC7 so a much longer wait would have been more beneficial to carry off to the public about fire and debris strikes bringing that building down at near free fall speed and into it's own basement.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 01:17:02 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 17, 2017, 07:09:34 PM
Those questions do not debunk physics. We are quite good at prediciting mechanical processes now. Newton showed us how.

Quote
1.  Why bother demolishing a building that was already in danger of collapsing?

Destroy evidence linking the CIA and Mossad to 9/11.

Quote
2.  Why wait 7 hours before demolition?

Same reason it wasn't mentioned on the official commission report. Try and limit peoples knowlege of wtc 7s collapse.

Rayzor this is where we left your questions.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 22, 2017, 01:18:19 AM
Quote from: sceptimatic on September 22, 2017, 01:09:05 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 22, 2017, 12:56:45 AM


Check the thread title,  for a clue. 

The truth about 9/11 conspiracy nutters.  is that they are paranoid delusional whack jobs.   Totally beyond the reach of logic and reason.
Are you basically saying that none of it should ever be questioned if it goes way beyond coincidence?
Is your default mindset to simply use CONSPIRACY NUTTERS for those that question official lines?

Not at all,  I believe you should question everything,  it's when a conspiracy makes no sense, and has no real supporting evidence, that continued belief descends into paranoid delusions.

Don't misunderstand me,  conspiracies are real,  9/11 was a conspiracy by islamic terrorists.  The US intelligence community conspired to cover up their failure to act on the information they had prior to 9/11. 

A conspiracy to demolish WTC7 makes no sense on any level.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 22, 2017, 01:19:32 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 01:17:02 AM
Rayzor this is where we left your questions.

I wasn't asking the penguin shill.  Please go away and shill somewhere else.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 01:21:58 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 22, 2017, 01:19:32 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 01:17:02 AM
Rayzor this is where we left your questions.

I wasn't asking the penguin shill.  Please go away and shill somewhere else.

Projection. You project your hatred of yourself onto me.

No one can touch this.

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:35:45 PM
This post debunks your assertion that the entire core collapsed leaving the outside intact and then the "outer facade" collapsing at free-fall.

Please read it and respond to it.
Here.
Can you debunk this post? If it's as stupid and I'm as stupid as you all claim surely a smart guy like you can debunk it.

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 05:46:15 PM
No the video of the collapse shows the failure of columns 79, 80, and 81, causing a partial building collapse. (The collapse of the east penthouse.)

None of these were core columns and then after a few seconds, the entire core failed nearly simultaneously causing a 2.25 second symmetrical free-fall of the entire bulding. Remeber the "outer facade" had 18 structural support columns making any natural free-fall impossible.

@Rayzor.
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 04:05:20 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 03:59:31 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 03:54:44 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 03:33:41 AM
You still haven't addressed your post trying to debunk Newton. Do you stand by it?

You seriously think I'm trying to debunk Newton?

I do, yes.

See.
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 10:00:14 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 09:51:48 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 09:50:33 PM
We'll soon see about that.

Yes,  Hulsey's  simultaneous collapse theory.   What a joke.

In order for the building to collapse at free-fall the entire core had to fail nearly simultaneously. Structural resistance slows fall acceleration. If you don't like it take it up with Newton, not me.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Newt.html

Ah, I see where you went wrong,  you forgot that the center had already collapsed / was collapsing BEFORE the facade came down.  I really can't keep holding you hand while you work through these things, you have to start to think for yourself if you are going to be a good anon campaigner.

Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 04:10:35 AM
Thats not true that's the conclusions of the fraudulent NIST report. That is merely the lie we were sold.

Furthermore, even if the entire inner core collapsed leaving the entire "facade" intact (which is impossible because of the cross bracing) there were still 18 support columns around the exterior.

(https://s26.postimg.org/iegp2ilix/images-43.jpg)

A free fall collapse even under your fairytale conditions is still impossible without a controlled demolition. You are trying to debunk Newton.

Q.E.D.

Edit.
Video evidence.
[Youtube][/youtube]

For reference Rayzor believes this debunks it. Notice he says it's "been debunked" since his first post on the topic.

Quote from: Rayzor on February 13, 2017, 11:18:08 PM
We already debunked that free-fall argument.   But just to recap,  how is it possible for the rooftop of a building to fall?   Doesn't the fact that it collapsed at all mean that the building structure supporting the roof is collapsing,    why would you be surprised that it fell at a free fall rate.   At least until it hit ground and other debris piled up,   The graph in the NIST shows it quite clearly.   

You say you work in the industry,  you mean the building industry?   In what capacity?

What caused the core to collapse at free-fall

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:43:13 PM
Quote from: Bullwinkle on September 21, 2017, 07:40:41 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:35:45 PM

What caused the core to collapse at free-fall



Opposed to hovering in place?

Watch the video. When the west penthouse fails the building immediately collapses.

Video evidence.
[Youtube][/youtube]

Please respond to my post.

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:54:14 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 21, 2017, 07:49:46 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:43:13 PM
When the west penthouse fails the building immediately collapses.

Gee, I wonder what was holding up the penthouse?

The core. Therefore as soon as the core failed the building came down. Hulsey is right.
Video evidence.
[Youtube][/youtube]

[Youtube][/youtube]
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 22, 2017, 01:22:46 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 01:12:23 AM
It's his job.

Quote
Psychological operations (PSYOP) are planned operations to convey selected information and indicators to audiences to influence their emotions, motives, and objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of governments, organizations, groups, and individuals.

The purpose of United States psychological operations is to induce or reinforce behavior favorable to U.S. objectives. They are an important part of the range of diplomatic, informational, military and economic activities available to the U.S. They can be utilized during both peacetime and conflict. There are three main types: strategic, operational and tactical. Strategic PSYOP include informational activities conducted by the U.S. government agencies outside of the military arena, though many utilize Department of Defense (DOD) assets. Operational PSYOP are conducted across the range of military operations, including during peacetime, in a defined operational area to promote the effectiveness of the joint force commander's (JFC) campaigns and strategies. TacticalPSYOP are conducted in the area assigned to a tactical commander across the range of military operations to support the tactical mission against opposing forces.
I won't go down those lines. It benefits nobody to be fair.

You aren't doing yourself any favours by using this anonymous crap either and then posting your selfie picture.

I get that you have a bonafide argument against the buildings and 9/11 in general. I agree that it was definitely not as we were told.

Using the tactics you've lately employed to hammer a point home makes you look odd.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 01:24:18 AM
Rayzor.
Honestly, it was fun and you were a worthy adversary.

[YouTube][/youtube]

That's fine scepti I don't mind looking odd.

It's word for word what he does here. The only debate is if it is by coincidence. I'm not sure how much you understand about Hulseys report but people will have to notice.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on September 22, 2017, 01:25:42 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 22, 2017, 01:18:19 AM
it's when a conspiracy makes no sense, and has no real supporting evidence

Let's see....I will trust my expensive education, over a decade of experience, 100k software, others education, experience and software that dwarfs mine over a "report" that the creators called rigged and "unsupported"...don't forget the 1000s of pages that were removed....

Yet the "truthers" are the crazy ones....
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 22, 2017, 01:26:36 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 22, 2017, 01:18:19 AM
Quote from: sceptimatic on September 22, 2017, 01:09:05 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 22, 2017, 12:56:45 AM


Check the thread title,  for a clue. 

The truth about 9/11 conspiracy nutters.  is that they are paranoid delusional whack jobs.   Totally beyond the reach of logic and reason.
Are you basically saying that none of it should ever be questioned if it goes way beyond coincidence?
Is your default mindset to simply use CONSPIRACY NUTTERS for those that question official lines?

Not at all,  I believe you should question everything,  it's when a conspiracy makes no sense, and has no real supporting evidence, that continued belief descends into paranoid delusions.

Don't misunderstand me,  conspiracies are real,  9/11 was a conspiracy by islamic terrorists.  The US intelligence community conspired to cover up their failure to act on the information they had prior to 9/11. 

A conspiracy to demolish WTC7 makes no sense on any level.
You accept it was a conspiracy on a different level to many others.
Is it possible that you are barking up the wrong tree and in actual fact, we are all not entirely barking up the right tree?
You seem to believe that EXTERNAL terrorists done it.
I happen to believe that you are way smarter than that.

I know that you have much more about you than to overlook the absolute abundance of coincidences and mishaps that would literally be impossible leading up to this supposed terrorist attack.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 01:29:30 AM
I posted a selfie because Symptom tried to imply I was some sort of neckbeard virgin predator.

I was pretty willing to bet I was better looking. It might have looked arrogant but imagine how you would feel if someone tried to imply you exploited children?

Edit.
Theres a lot of negativity and hate on this website directed at me and I try to be as reasonable as possible.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 01:37:31 AM
Daily reminder you cant touch this (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1958187#msg1958187).

[Youtube][/youtube]
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Wolvaccine on September 22, 2017, 01:38:16 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 22, 2017, 01:18:19 AM
Quote from: sceptimatic on September 22, 2017, 01:09:05 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 22, 2017, 12:56:45 AM


Check the thread title,  for a clue. 

The truth about 9/11 conspiracy nutters.  is that they are paranoid delusional whack jobs.   Totally beyond the reach of logic and reason.
Are you basically saying that none of it should ever be questioned if it goes way beyond coincidence?
Is your default mindset to simply use CONSPIRACY NUTTERS for those that question official lines?

Not at all,  I believe you should question everything,  it's when a conspiracy makes no sense, and has no real supporting evidence, that continued belief descends into paranoid delusions.

Don't misunderstand me,  conspiracies are real,  9/11 was a conspiracy by islamic terrorists.  The US intelligence community conspired to cover up their failure to act on the information they had prior to 9/11. 

A conspiracy to demolish WTC7 makes no sense on any level.



Failure to act on the information? BS You would think the destruction of the WTC's, the Pentagon and the one that went down early was rumoured to hit the White House would not have warranted more attention? The government not only knew about the impending attack (FACT) there is reason to suspect they helped to facilitate it. Convenient for them the side of the Pentagon that was hit was largely empty undergoing refurbishment, had no high level brass people and the plane for the White House never made it. The targets hit reached their goal in getting what they wanted. Those events were the catalyst for people across the entire world totally innocent to lose their personal freedoms, liberties and plunge the US into an indefinite ground war in the middle east.

I'll let independent experts that haven't been paid or directed by the government tell me what happened. Not the government who clearly had a hand in it. Not people paid for and selected by the government and not mindless shills like you tell me what happened. You still dodge questions and cant answer disputeones questions. You've had your cronies fill the page with walls of off topic, gas lighting posts instead.

Breaking it down into simplicity  Rayzor, the way you treat people who simply want answers and justice for what happened on that 9/11 day is quite abhorrent. Regardless of whether you believe he is wrong or right in this regard, your personal attacks are quite disgusting to watch and merely demonstrates your immaturity and ineptness. If you think your behaviour will score you points and credibility in the eyes of your peers, think again. You are only reaffirming why people should continue to ask questions and not give up.

Take a look in the mirror Rayzor. If you are proud of what is looking back at you then you have my sincere pity. If not, maybe there is hope for you yet. Wake up, take a look at your treatment of others and maybe re enter the discussions with a far more level head and mature conduct that earns you respect instead of losing it.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 22, 2017, 01:44:24 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 01:29:30 AM
I posted a selfie because Symptom tried to imply I was some sort of neckbeard virgin predator.

I was pretty willing to bet I was better looking. It might have looked arrogant but imagine how you would feel if someone tried to imply you exploited children?

Edit.
Theres a lot of negativity and hate on this website directed at me and I try to be as reasonable as possible.
There's no hate directed at you.
People are treating you like an idiot just like they treat me like one.
Both of us know we aren't idiots and those who play against us know that, but they have to play along in order to get the required bites.

You are now providing them with what they want. They want you to become irrational because it gives credence to their tried and tested spew of following mainstream opinion on questioner's of official lines being tin foil hat loop the loop conspiracy nutters.

Your lines of, we are legion, we forgive but not forget and we are anonymous, does not help your argument and nor does posting selfies of the supposed anonymous in order to prove how muscular and good looking anonymous, in your face selfie man, in a dust mask and safety glasses, looks.

It's actually counter productive.
Personally I don't trust you but then again I did tell you this a long time ago, didn't I?

Don't take it personally though, because I don't trust anyone on here...but I do have some semblance of forum trust with the few.

You were one, but so was legba.
The problem was, he destroyed his opportunity and you're as close as ever to destroying any last bit of forum trust.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: MicroBeta on September 22, 2017, 01:46:54 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 21, 2017, 11:29:34 AM
As far as I am concerned 911 was an inside job. I explain why at http://heiwaco.com/nist.htm .

The 2001 911 attacks are a 100% US terrorist job on it self in order to blame others. It happens all the time.
That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.  There’s no motive for killing so many of your own citizens...and you’re completely wrong.  People died and you’re an idiot if you can’t see that.

Mike
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 01:50:23 AM
Quote from: sceptimatic on September 22, 2017, 01:44:24 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 01:29:30 AM
I posted a selfie because Symptom tried to imply I was some sort of neckbeard virgin predator.

I was pretty willing to bet I was better looking. It might have looked arrogant but imagine how you would feel if someone tried to imply you exploited children?

Edit.
Theres a lot of negativity and hate on this website directed at me and I try to be as reasonable as possible.
There's no hate directed at you.
People are treating you like an idiot just like they treat me like one.
Both of us know we aren't idiots and those who play against us know that, but they have to play along in order to get the required bites.

You are now providing them with what they want. They want you to become irrational because it gives credence to their tried and tested spew of following mainstream opinion on questioner's of official lines being tin foil hat loop the loop conspiracy nutters.

Your lines of, we are legion, we forgive but not forget and we are anonymous, does not help your argument and nor does posting selfies of the supposed anonymous in order to prove how muscular and good looking anonymous, in your face selfie man, in a dust mask and safety glasses, looks.

It's actually counter productive.
Personally I don't trust you but then again I did tell you this a long time ago, didn't I?

Don't take it personally though, because I don't trust anyone on here...but I do have some semblance of forum trust with the few.

You were one, but so was legba.
The problem was, he destroyed his opportunity and you're as close as ever to destroying any last bit of forum trust.

That's fine man I respect your right not to totally trust me. I would actually encourage that skepticism on this site.

Trust the people you want to. Sorry if I offended you ripping on the flat earth. I have always tried to respect your beliefs. You're intelligent and I always found your posts interesting.

Edit. Scepti also no disrespect but it's a bit different with you and I here. I can prove my points on wtc 7 with accepted science. It's much more of a threat than any of your posts, again no disrespect.

Quote from: MicroBeta on September 22, 2017, 01:46:54 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on September 21, 2017, 11:29:34 AM
As far as I am concerned 911 was an inside job. I explain why at http://heiwaco.com/nist.htm .

The 2001 911 attacks are a 100% US terrorist job on it self in order to blame others. It happens all the time.
That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.  There’s no motive for killing so many of your own citizens...and you’re completely wrong.  People died and you’re an idiot if you can’t see that.

Mike

I'm not agreeing with Heiwa but there was all the motive in the world. Think I am crazy of you like, maybe consider the possibility we could be right.
This goes so much deeper than any of us know and 9/11 is our crowbar. The people really responsible for 9/11 didn't care about the deaths on 9/11 or the subsequent and illegal, fraudulent war on terror.

Totes used to make fun of me for arguing like this was a battle for our souls. It was and always has been.

[Youtube][/youtube]

Edit. Wrong quote.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 02:21:43 AM
(https://s26.postimg.org/fyg7z7461/tumblr_njpzrd_Z8a71tcarz0o1_1280.jpg)

Beauty cannot exist without truth.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 22, 2017, 02:25:09 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 01:50:23 AM
Trust the people you want to. Sorry if I offended you ripping on the flat earth. I have always tried to respect your beliefs. You're intelligent and I always found your posts interesting.

I find many posts interesting, from many people on here and not just alternate theorists to the mainstream.
I find many of your posts to be closer to the bone than away from it.
I'm definitely having a dig at you but not because of your questioning or belief's. I'm having a dig at the way you've changed tac.
Whether you believe you are or not, you are starting to come across as threateningly aggressive, word wise.


Quote from: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 01:50:23 AM
Edit. Scepti also no disrespect but it's a bit different with you and I here. I can prove my points on wtc 7 with accepted science. It's much more of a threat than any of your posts, again no disrespect.

Proving your points and having them accepted by official lines are two entirely different scenarios.
You may be able to prove that your governor of your state burgled your home but who is going to take you seriously if there's other explanations given as to who burgled your home?

You say it will all come out but 16 years later it's still argued.
The moon landings are still argued.
Every conspiracy remains so because the answers to what really happened are numerous and water muddied.

You and I know that WTC7 didn't collapse due to fire or debris strikes. Most people who have any interest in it, unemotionally, knows it didn't just collapse like we are told.

It's all interesting to ponder over but the truth of anything will only ever come out when it's designed to come out and not before...no matter what.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 22, 2017, 02:28:05 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 02:21:43 AM
(https://s26.postimg.org/fyg7z7461/tumblr_njpzrd_Z8a71tcarz0o1_1280.jpg)

Beauty cannot exist without truth.
Do you tell lies?

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 02:32:36 AM
Newtons laws are laws for a reason Scepti. When we show that either wtc 7 was a controlled demolition or broke all three of newtons laws on 9/11 it will be a big deal. More than that this gives people who wouldn't have otherwise had the courage to stand up and say wtc 7 was a controlled demolition out of fear of being called a "conspiracy nutter" (or any other colourful examples on this thread)

We landed on the moon. It's trivial to do by todays standards. Technology is purposefully suppressed from the public.

This is a massive red-pill.
[youtube][/youtube]
We had these twenty four years ago.

I do agree with you that these people keep the general population as slaves.

I believe we are on the verge of winning.

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 22, 2017, 02:28:05 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 02:21:43 AM
(https://s26.postimg.org/fyg7z7461/tumblr_njpzrd_Z8a71tcarz0o1_1280.jpg)

Beauty cannot exist without truth.
Do you tell lies?

I tell the truth as much as I can and always try to admit when I'm wrong. That's all I can say. I have of course told a lie or two before because I am human. I do my very best to be honest.

Edit.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 22, 2017, 02:52:15 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 02:32:36 AM
Newtons laws are laws for a reason Scepti. When we show that either wtc 7 was a controlled demolition or broke all three of newtons laws on 9/11 it will be a big deal. More than that this gives people who wouldn't have otherwise had the courage to stand up and say wtc 7 was a controlled demolition out of fear of being called a "conspiracy nutter" (or any other colourful examples on this thread)

We landed on the moon. It's trivial to do by todays standards. Technology is purposefully suppressed from the public.

This is a massive red-pill.

We had these twenty four years ago.

I do agree with you that these people keep the general population as slaves.

I believe we are on the verge of winning.

Quote from: sceptimatic
I believe they were all CD.
As for being on the verge of winning........winning what?
The sooner you understand that there are genius people running this world, the sooner you will realise that you will never win anything that isn't already designed for you to supposedly win.



Quote from: sceptimatic
Do you tell lies?

Quote from: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 02:32:36 AM
I tell the truth as much as I can and always try to admit when I'm wrong. That's all I can say. I have of course told a lie or two before because I am human. I do my very best to be honest.
Doing your very best to be honest is not being honest.
You were a liar like the rest of the populations of the world.
The issue is in the design of the lie as to how it comes across to others as being better or worse.
The truth is, a lie is a lie no matter how it's dressed up.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 02:59:15 AM
There's still objective truth.

Objective truth is wtc 7 collapsed due to controlled demolition. It was a false flag to take our freedoms.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 22, 2017, 03:05:10 AM
Quote from: Shifter on September 22, 2017, 01:38:16 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 22, 2017, 01:18:19 AM
Quote from: sceptimatic on September 22, 2017, 01:09:05 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 22, 2017, 12:56:45 AM


Check the thread title,  for a clue. 

The truth about 9/11 conspiracy nutters.  is that they are paranoid delusional whack jobs.   Totally beyond the reach of logic and reason.
Are you basically saying that none of it should ever be questioned if it goes way beyond coincidence?
Is your default mindset to simply use CONSPIRACY NUTTERS for those that question official lines?

Not at all,  I believe you should question everything,  it's when a conspiracy makes no sense, and has no real supporting evidence, that continued belief descends into paranoid delusions.

Don't misunderstand me,  conspiracies are real,  9/11 was a conspiracy by islamic terrorists.  The US intelligence community conspired to cover up their failure to act on the information they had prior to 9/11. 

A conspiracy to demolish WTC7 makes no sense on any level.



Failure to act on the information? BS You would think the destruction of the WTC's, the Pentagon and the one that went down early was rumoured to hit the White House would not have warranted more attention? The government not only knew about the impending attack (FACT) there is reason to suspect they helped to facilitate it. Convenient for them the side of the Pentagon that was hit was largely empty undergoing refurbishment, had no high level brass people and the plane for the White House never made it. The targets hit reached their goal in getting what they wanted. Those events were the catalyst for people across the entire world totally innocent to lose their personal freedoms, liberties and plunge the US into an indefinite ground war in the middle east.

I'll let independent experts that haven't been paid or directed by the government tell me what happened. Not the government who clearly had a hand in it. Not people paid for and selected by the government and not mindless shills like you tell me what happened. You still dodge questions and cant answer disputeones questions. You've had your cronies fill the page with walls of off topic, gas lighting posts instead.

Breaking it down into simplicity  Rayzor, the way you treat people who simply want answers and justice for what happened on that 9/11 day is quite abhorrent. Regardless of whether you believe he is wrong or right in this regard, your personal attacks are quite disgusting to watch and merely demonstrates your immaturity and ineptness. If you think your behaviour will score you points and credibility in the eyes of your peers, think again. You are only reaffirming why people should continue to ask questions and not give up.

Take a look in the mirror Rayzor. If you are proud of what is looking back at you then you have my sincere pity. If not, maybe there is hope for you yet. Wake up, take a look at your treatment of others and maybe re enter the discussions with a far more level head and mature conduct that earns you respect instead of losing it.

I'll give you one chance, and one only,  provide verifiable evidence for your assertions.   I'll listen to whatever you present as fairly as I can.

A word of advice however,  keep up the personal attacks and you'll get the same in return, your choice.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 22, 2017, 03:06:53 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 22, 2017, 01:05:23 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on September 22, 2017, 01:01:43 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 22, 2017, 12:56:45 AM
Check the thread title,  for a clue. 

The truth about 9/11 conspiracy nutters.  is that they are paranoid delusional whack jobs.   Totally beyond the reach of logic and reason.

Wow an ad hominem...I am Jack's complete lack of surprise...

Do you have anything else?

Let's see how honest you really are.   Just answer 2 simple questions.

1.  Why bother to demolish a building that was about to collapse?   All they had to do was wait.
2.  Why wait 7 hours before the demolition.

I've never gotten honest answers to either question.

Still waiting for an honest response from BHS. 

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 03:09:08 AM
Quote from: sceptimatic on September 22, 2017, 02:52:15 AM
I believe they were all CD.
As for being on the verge of winning........winning what?
The sooner you understand that there are genius people running this world, the sooner you will realise that you will never win anything that isn't already designed for you to supposedly win.

Don't be such a pessimist, you'll never change anything with that attitude that's for sure man. Winning against these so called geniuses that run the world. The internet has given us a free exchange of information and the truth is very hard to hide. Given they still have lots of secrets but as I said. 9/11 is our crowbar into their house. Can you see they're scared?

What makes these people so much smarter than any of us? We are all humans, we all breathe the same air and have the same colour blood.

You can save the world from these people Scepti, I believe you can.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 22, 2017, 03:09:37 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 02:59:15 AM
There's still objective truth.

Objective truth is wtc 7 collapsed due to controlled demolition. It was a false flag to take our freedoms.
What freedom?
We've never really had freedom.
It's to keep us in line. To keep us in a state of need. the need for security.

It's always been the same and always will be  until we are able to control our savagery.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 03:10:55 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 22, 2017, 03:05:10 AM
I'll give you one chance, and one only,  provide verifiable evidence for your assertions.   I'll listen to whatever you present as fairly as I can.

Audible kek.

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:35:45 PM
This post debunks your assertion that the entire core collapsed leaving the outside intact and then the "outer facade" collapsing at free-fall.

Please read it and respond to it.
Here.
Can you debunk this post? If it's as stupid and I'm as stupid as you all claim surely a smart guy like you can debunk it.

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 05:46:15 PM
No the video of the collapse shows the failure of columns 79, 80, and 81, causing a partial building collapse. (The collapse of the east penthouse.)

None of these were core columns and then after a few seconds, the entire core failed nearly simultaneously causing a 2.25 second symmetrical free-fall of the entire bulding. Remeber the "outer facade" had 18 structural support columns making any natural free-fall impossible.

@Rayzor.
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 04:05:20 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 03:59:31 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 03:54:44 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 03:33:41 AM
You still haven't addressed your post trying to debunk Newton. Do you stand by it?

You seriously think I'm trying to debunk Newton?

I do, yes.

See.
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 10:00:14 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 09:51:48 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 09:50:33 PM
We'll soon see about that.

Yes,  Hulsey's  simultaneous collapse theory.   What a joke.

In order for the building to collapse at free-fall the entire core had to fail nearly simultaneously. Structural resistance slows fall acceleration. If you don't like it take it up with Newton, not me.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Newt.html

Ah, I see where you went wrong,  you forgot that the center had already collapsed / was collapsing BEFORE the facade came down.  I really can't keep holding you hand while you work through these things, you have to start to think for yourself if you are going to be a good anon campaigner.

Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 04:10:35 AM
Thats not true that's the conclusions of the fraudulent NIST report. That is merely the lie we were sold.

Furthermore, even if the entire inner core collapsed leaving the entire "facade" intact (which is impossible because of the cross bracing) there were still 18 support columns around the exterior.

(https://s26.postimg.org/iegp2ilix/images-43.jpg)

A free fall collapse even under your fairytale conditions is still impossible without a controlled demolition. You are trying to debunk Newton.

Q.E.D.

Edit.
Video evidence.
[Youtube][/youtube]

For reference Rayzor believes this debunks it. Notice he says it's "been debunked" since his first post on the topic.

Quote from: Rayzor on February 13, 2017, 11:18:08 PM
We already debunked that free-fall argument.   But just to recap,  how is it possible for the rooftop of a building to fall?   Doesn't the fact that it collapsed at all mean that the building structure supporting the roof is collapsing,    why would you be surprised that it fell at a free fall rate.   At least until it hit ground and other debris piled up,   The graph in the NIST shows it quite clearly.   

You say you work in the industry,  you mean the building industry?   In what capacity?

What caused the core to collapse at free-fall

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:43:13 PM
Quote from: Bullwinkle on September 21, 2017, 07:40:41 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:35:45 PM

What caused the core to collapse at free-fall



Opposed to hovering in place?

Watch the video. When the west penthouse fails the building immediately collapses.

Video evidence.
[Youtube][/youtube]

Please respond to my post.

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:54:14 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 21, 2017, 07:49:46 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:43:13 PM
When the west penthouse fails the building immediately collapses.

Gee, I wonder what was holding up the penthouse?

The core. Therefore as soon as the core failed the building came down. Hulsey is right.
Video evidence.
[Youtube][/youtube]

[Youtube][/youtube]
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 03:12:27 AM
Quote from: sceptimatic on September 22, 2017, 03:09:37 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 02:59:15 AM
There's still objective truth.

Objective truth is wtc 7 collapsed due to controlled demolition. It was a false flag to take our freedoms.
What freedom?
We've never really had freedom.
It's to keep us in line. To keep us in a state of need. the need for security.

It's always been the same and always will be  until we are able to control our savagery.

A lot of our freedom was lost with JFK. I agree it's gone on much longer than that. As I said. I believe we can win.

We are not as we are now by nature. Our corrupt society has corrupted us.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Heiwa on September 22, 2017, 03:16:27 AM
Why 911 was an inside job I have explained at http://heiwaco.com/nist.htm since many years.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 03:16:47 AM
Bot.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 22, 2017, 03:24:52 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 03:09:08 AM
Quote from: sceptimatic on September 22, 2017, 02:52:15 AM
I believe they were all CD.
As for being on the verge of winning........winning what?
The sooner you understand that there are genius people running this world, the sooner you will realise that you will never win anything that isn't already designed for you to supposedly win.

Don't be such a pessimist, you'll never change anything with that attitude that's for sure man. Winning against these so called geniuses that run the world. The internet has given us a free exchange of information and the truth is very hard to hide. Given they still have lots of secrets but as I said. 9/11 is our crowbar into their house. Can you see they're scared?

What makes these people so much smarter than any of us? We are all humans, we all breathe the same air and have the same colour blood.

You can save the world from these people Scepti, I believe you can.
I'm not after saving the world. I'm after getting on with my life is as comfortable a way as possible, whilst exercising my mind in my leisure time, by using forums to convey my thoughts and take onboard, other thoughts.

I have no wish to walk about with placards proclaiming the end of the world is nigh or this or that government is corrupt, or the moon landing's were a hoax.
I'll happily discuss them and happily agree to them all being in need of questioning.
What I don't feel the need to do is to waste my life trying to physically alter something that will only be altered when it is decided by the powers that be, on their terms.

The common person wins nothing in conflict and you are deluded if you think otherwise.
All you will ever achieve by doing what you're doing, assuming you are physically trying to alter stuff by being a sort of martyr.....is legal strife for what will be deemed, your illegal activities.

Worth it you say?
What's it worth?
Jail or fines and the tag on nutcase?

A planted " we won" flag on some common if you manage to make some media news outlet take an interest?

Stick to forum discussions and/or pizza nights in with conspiracies on the agenda in an in house heated debate.
You will never win anything you're fighting against.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 03:27:02 AM
Quote from: sceptimatic on September 22, 2017, 03:24:52 AM
I'm not after saving the world. I'm after getting on with my life is as comfortable a way as possible, whilst exercising my mind in my leisure time, by using forums to convey my thoughts and take onboard, other thoughts.

I respect your path, it's a fine one to walk. Good luck on your journey.

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 22, 2017, 03:24:52 AM
You will never win anything you're fighting against.

I believe you are wrong.

Edit.
1 million views we don't need the media. The internet is the media now.

[youtube][/youtube]

Quote from: Kevin Shipp
They know we have the internet and they are scared, trust me.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 22, 2017, 03:34:56 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 03:27:02 AM
Quote from: sceptimatic on September 22, 2017, 03:24:52 AM
I'm not after saving the world. I'm after getting on with my life is as comfortable a way as possible, whilst exercising my mind in my leisure time, by using forums to convey my thoughts and take onboard, other thoughts.

I respect your path, it's a fine one to walk. Good luck on your journey.

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 22, 2017, 03:24:52 AM
You will never win anything you're fighting against.

I believe you are wrong.

Edit.
1 million views we don't need the media. The internet is the media now.


I think you are both wrong,  there are in fact things worth fighting for,  personal freedom and truth are top of the list.  Any time we see unfounded conspiracies and attacks on science we should stand up and be counted. 

A conspiracy to shift the blame from the real culprits,  islamic terrorists, to innocents should be fought with facts and evidence. 

The internet is great for spreading conspiracies,  we need to educate people to recognize bullshit when they encounter it.

Sorry Scepti,  I admire free thinking, but the earth isn't flat, and we don't live under a dome.   

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 22, 2017, 03:35:58 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 03:27:02 AM
Quote from: sceptimatic on September 22, 2017, 03:24:52 AM
I'm not after saving the world. I'm after getting on with my life is as comfortable a way as possible, whilst exercising my mind in my leisure time, by using forums to convey my thoughts and take onboard, other thoughts.

I respect your path, it's a fine one to walk. Good luck on your journey.

Quote from: sceptimatic on September 22, 2017, 03:24:52 AM
You will never win anything you're fighting against.

I believe you are wrong.
You're entitled to do what you feel you need to do; whatever that is.
Many people have tried and failed to make a stance against those that they feel have wronged them.

Whatever age you reach, you will have a last look back and despair at how much of your physical and mental energies you put into doing what you're doing.
The problem is, you'll never get the chance to change any of it.

Change it now and just get on with your life in as best way you can, by doing the things that you genuinely want to do.
You are being led down the garden path with a blind fold on and you still think your long journey is still walking down your garden path, because you've comforted yourself on that thought, despite being way outside of your perceived comfort zone.

I personally hope you're just trolling.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bullwinkle on September 22, 2017, 03:39:58 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 03:10:55 AM

Audible kek.



There was a pothole in my street.
OMG, someone save me, nobody understands my plight? 

No.

I bought a sack of hard pack asphalt and fixed it.

My 10 year old great nephew helped.
He asked, "what if we get caught?"

I told him, "Don't be a D1"


He thought it was a Star Wars reference.




Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 03:43:13 AM
Scepti I am nearly 29, not that old but I have lived a long life. I believe in my heart no cause is greater than fighting against the people who would seek to and have already partially enslaved us. With truth and information. I've spent a long time being selfish and it hasn't made me happy.

I believe in my heart that if the people are well informed we will make good choices. Democracy is a beautiful thing, a lot of us just want to restore it to what it was and what it was meant to be. The American constitution is a great example. It has sadly and unforgivably been subverted. When we have unelected corrupt sociopaths running our lives it's a big issue for me.

Perhaps you would like to debunk my post Bullwinkle?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 22, 2017, 03:44:37 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 22, 2017, 03:34:56 AM


Sorry Scepti,  I admire free thinking, but the earth isn't flat, and we don't live under a dome.
You're entitled to think what you want.
I believe otherwise, but we seem to be swaying off topic.
I'm to blame for a good part of it, mind.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 03:46:09 AM
That's ok Scepti.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 22, 2017, 03:48:12 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 03:43:13 AM
Scepti I am nearly 29, not that old but I have lived a long life. I believe in my heart no cause is greater than fighting against the people who would seek to and have already partially enslaved us. With truth and information. I've spent a long time being selfish and it hasn't made me happy.

I believe in my heart that if the people are well informed we will make good choices. Democracy is a beautiful thing, a lot of us just want to restore it to what it was and what it was meant to be. The American constitution is a great example. It has sadly and unforgivably been subverted. When we have unelected corrupt sociopaths running our lives it's a big issue for me.


Can you explain the bit in bold?

Just tell me what you are after restoring.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 03:50:58 AM
Kevin Shipp lays it out specifically.
He's a personal hero of mine.

[Youtube][/youtube]

We want to oust the unelected shadow government and restore democracy. Through non violent memes, with good information and honesty, integrity and truth. By informing the people of the methods and systems that control and subvert them.

Edit for lulz.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 22, 2017, 03:55:26 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 03:50:58 AM
Kevin Shipp lays it out specifically.
He's a personal hero of mine.

[Youtube][/youtube]

We want to oust the unelected shadow government and restore democracy. Through non violent means, with good information and honesty, integrity and truth. By informing the people of the methods and systems that control and subvert them.
No videos show up.
Can you answer my question in red bold?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 04:00:12 AM
Quote from: sceptimatic on September 22, 2017, 03:55:26 AM
No videos show up.
Can you answer my question in red bold?

Quote from: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 03:50:58 AM
We want to oust the unelected shadow government and restore democracy. Through non violent memes, with good information and honesty, integrity and truth. By informing the people of the methods and systems that control and subvert them.

Edit for lulz.

It's a long video but worth a watch. He's a veteran counter "terrorism" CIA agent whistleblower. Grab the url from a quote.

Quote from: Kevin Shipp
I'm a recovering CIA agent, we take 24 step programs, the first 12 steps are learning how to tell the truth again.

With that said, I'll ask you to keep this thread on topic. We could continue this in philosophy if you want?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sceptimatic on September 22, 2017, 04:05:14 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 04:00:12 AM
Quote from: sceptimatic on September 22, 2017, 03:55:26 AM
No videos show up.
Can you answer my question in red bold?

Quote from: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 03:50:58 AM
We want to oust the unelected shadow government and restore democracy. Through non violent memes, with good information and honesty, integrity and truth. By informing the people of the methods and systems that control and subvert them.

Edit for lulz.

It's a long video but worth a watch. He's a veteran counter "terrorism" CIA agent whistleblower. Grab the url from a quote.

Quote from: Kevin Shipp
I'm a recovering CIA agent, we take 24 step programs, the first 12 steps are learning how to tell the truth again.

With that said, I'll ask you to keep this thread on topic. We could continue this in philosophy if you want?
Ok, no problem.
Recovering CIA agent.
I'll leave it at that.
Good luck in your quest for whatever the hell it is you're looking for.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 04:08:45 AM
Thanks man. I trust Kevin Shipp. The fact he confirmed what many of us already knew only increased that trust.

Cheers Scepti.

Edit. Free advice take it as you will.
There is more than one matrix to fall into. To fall into the trap of not trusting anything said by anyone can be be as bad as believing everything everyone says. I consider myself a decent judge of character and trust my heart.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bullwinkle on September 22, 2017, 04:09:59 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 03:43:13 AM

Perhaps you would like to debunk my post Bullwinkle?


I thoroughly debunk thee.



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bullwinkle on September 22, 2017, 04:21:19 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 04:13:25 AM

Audible kek.
You guys forgot to stomp your feet.



So, do we forget or forgive?

I am Bullwinkle.
I am reason.
I forgive.
I forget.
I'll call if I'm going to be late.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 22, 2017, 04:31:03 AM
Quote from: Bullwinkle on September 22, 2017, 04:21:19 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 04:13:25 AM

Audible kek.
You guys forgot to stomp your feet.



So, do we forget or forgive?

I am Bullwinkle.
I am reason.
I forgive.
I forget.
I'll call if I'm going to be late.

Cool,  so if you call we can expect you.   I'll keep a few cold beers aside.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: hoppy on September 22, 2017, 04:46:17 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 22, 2017, 12:56:45 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on September 21, 2017, 10:38:55 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 10:27:09 PM
Audible lol.

Doesn't seeing the formation make a good quarterback?

I think the truth needs to be seen in this thread. Newton, common sense, engineering, physics etc cannot be debunked unless you use fairy tales such as giants....so expect ad hominems and gas lighting.

A very simple yet effective form of deflection.

Check the thread title,  for a clue. 

The truth about 9/11 conspiracy nutters.  is that they are paranoid delusional whack jobs.   Totally beyond the reach of logic and reason.
This is exactly what a shill would say.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 22, 2017, 04:48:33 AM
Quote from: hoppy on September 22, 2017, 04:46:17 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 22, 2017, 12:56:45 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on September 21, 2017, 10:38:55 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 10:27:09 PM
Audible lol.

Doesn't seeing the formation make a good quarterback?

I think the truth needs to be seen in this thread. Newton, common sense, engineering, physics etc cannot be debunked unless you use fairy tales such as giants....so expect ad hominems and gas lighting.

A very simple yet effective form of deflection.

Check the thread title,  for a clue. 

The truth about 9/11 conspiracy nutters.  is that they are paranoid delusional whack jobs.   Totally beyond the reach of logic and reason.
This is exactly what a shill would say.

Thank you,  can you call me a "psyop shill"  in future,  I'm angling for a pay rise.   

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 05:05:18 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 22, 2017, 04:48:33 AM
Quote from: hoppy on September 22, 2017, 04:46:17 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 22, 2017, 12:56:45 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on September 21, 2017, 10:38:55 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 10:27:09 PM
Audible lol.

Doesn't seeing the formation make a good quarterback?

I think the truth needs to be seen in this thread. Newton, common sense, engineering, physics etc cannot be debunked unless you use fairy tales such as giants....so expect ad hominems and gas lighting.

A very simple yet effective form of deflection.

Check the thread title,  for a clue. 

The truth about 9/11 conspiracy nutters.  is that they are paranoid delusional whack jobs.   Totally beyond the reach of logic and reason.
This is exactly what a shill would say.

Thank you,  can you call me a "psyop shill"  in future,  I'm angling for a pay rise.

More like a jail cell.

Quote from: Bullwinkle on September 22, 2017, 04:09:59 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 03:43:13 AM

Perhaps you would like to debunk my post Bullwinkle?


I thoroughly debunk thee.

Quote from: Rayzor on September 22, 2017, 03:05:10 AM
I'll give you one chance, and one only,  provide verifiable evidence for your assertions.   I'll listen to whatever you present as fairly as I can.

Audible kek.
You guys forgot to stomp your feet.

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:35:45 PM
This post debunks your assertion that the entire core collapsed leaving the outside intact and then the "outer facade" collapsing at free-fall.

Please read it and respond to it.
Here.
Can you debunk this post? If it's as stupid and I'm as stupid as you all claim surely a smart guy like you can debunk it.

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 05:46:15 PM
No the video of the collapse shows the failure of columns 79, 80, and 81, causing a partial building collapse. (The collapse of the east penthouse.)

None of these were core columns and then after a few seconds, the entire core failed nearly simultaneously causing a 2.25 second symmetrical free-fall of the entire bulding. Remeber the "outer facade" had 18 structural support columns making any natural free-fall impossible.

@Rayzor.
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 04:05:20 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 03:59:31 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 03:54:44 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 03:33:41 AM
You still haven't addressed your post trying to debunk Newton. Do you stand by it?

You seriously think I'm trying to debunk Newton?

I do, yes.

See.
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 10:00:14 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 09:51:48 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 09:50:33 PM
We'll soon see about that.

Yes,  Hulsey's  simultaneous collapse theory.   What a joke.

In order for the building to collapse at free-fall the entire core had to fail nearly simultaneously. Structural resistance slows fall acceleration. If you don't like it take it up with Newton, not me.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Newt.html

Ah, I see where you went wrong,  you forgot that the center had already collapsed / was collapsing BEFORE the facade came down.  I really can't keep holding you hand while you work through these things, you have to start to think for yourself if you are going to be a good anon campaigner.

Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 04:10:35 AM
Thats not true that's the conclusions of the fraudulent NIST report. That is merely the lie we were sold.

Furthermore, even if the entire inner core collapsed leaving the entire "facade" intact (which is impossible because of the cross bracing) there were still 18 support columns around the exterior.

(https://s26.postimg.org/iegp2ilix/images-43.jpg)

A free fall collapse even under your fairytale conditions is still impossible without a controlled demolition. You are trying to debunk Newton.

Q.E.D.

Edit.
Video evidence.
[Youtube][/youtube]

For reference Rayzor believes this debunks it. Notice he says it's "been debunked" since his first post on the topic.

Quote from: Rayzor on February 13, 2017, 11:18:08 PM
We already debunked that free-fall argument.   But just to recap,  how is it possible for the rooftop of a building to fall?   Doesn't the fact that it collapsed at all mean that the building structure supporting the roof is collapsing,    why would you be surprised that it fell at a free fall rate.   At least until it hit ground and other debris piled up,   The graph in the NIST shows it quite clearly.   

You say you work in the industry,  you mean the building industry?   In what capacity?

What caused the core to collapse at free-fall

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:43:13 PM
Quote from: Bullwinkle on September 21, 2017, 07:40:41 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:35:45 PM

What caused the core to collapse at free-fall



Opposed to hovering in place?

Watch the video. When the west penthouse fails the building immediately collapses.

Video evidence.
[Youtube][/youtube]

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:54:14 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 21, 2017, 07:49:46 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:43:13 PM
When the west penthouse fails the building immediately collapses.

Gee, I wonder what was holding up the penthouse?

The core. Therefore as soon as the core failed the building came down. Hulsey is right.
Video evidence.
[Youtube][/youtube]

Please respond to my post.

[Youtube][/youtube]
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 22, 2017, 06:05:03 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 22, 2017, 01:05:23 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on September 22, 2017, 01:01:43 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 22, 2017, 12:56:45 AM
Check the thread title,  for a clue. 

The truth about 9/11 conspiracy nutters.  is that they are paranoid delusional whack jobs.   Totally beyond the reach of logic and reason.

Wow an ad hominem...I am Jack's complete lack of surprise...

Do you have anything else?

Let's see how honest you really are.   Just answer 2 simple questions.

1.  Why bother to demolish a building that was about to collapse?   All they had to do was wait.
2.  Why wait 7 hours before the demolition.

I've never gotten honest answers to either question.

Still waiting for an honest response from BHS.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sokarul on September 22, 2017, 06:12:11 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:14:58 PM
Quote from: sockarul on September 21, 2017, 07:12:35 PM
That was easy.



So you have video evidence of wtc 7 being a giant coke can and a giant stomping on it causing it to collapse?

I havent heard that hypothesis yet.

Also I can't see the giant in the official footage.
[Youtube][/youtube]

It simply shows a strong outside support system can fail easily when the loads become unbalanced.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 06:13:03 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 22, 2017, 06:05:03 AM
Still waiting for an honest response from BHS.

I know your playbook.

More free publicly available information to disarm you.

(https://s26.postimg.org/xl38vbv89/images-55.jpg)

Your attempts on me have largely back fired. Also this because you dont like it.

Quote from: disputeone on September 17, 2017, 07:09:34 PM
Those questions do not debunk physics. We are quite good at prediciting mechanical processes now. Newton showed us how.

Quote
1.  Why bother demolishing a building that was already in danger of collapsing?

Destroy evidence linking the CIA and Mossad to 9/11.

Quote
2.  Why wait 7 hours before demolition?

Same reason it wasn't mentioned on the official commission report. Try and limit peoples knowlege of wtc 7s collapse.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 06:16:28 AM
Quote from: sokarul on September 22, 2017, 06:12:11 AM
It simply shows a strong outside support system can fail easily when the loads become unbalanced.

Even if that fairy tale was a representation of the support columns on wtc 7 it only represents ONE COLUMN. YOU ARE PROVING MY POINT. THE ENTIRE CORE HAD TO FAIL SIMULTANEOUSLY FOR THE COLLAPSE WE SAW.

Count them and use your brain for god sakes.

(https://s26.postimg.org/iegp2ilix/images-43.jpg)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sokarul on September 22, 2017, 06:17:38 AM
Where were the 57 explosions to take out the columns?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 06:20:10 AM
Quote from: sokarul on September 22, 2017, 06:17:38 AM
Where were the 57 explosions to take out the columns?

Logically it would follow they were around the columns.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sokarul on September 22, 2017, 06:21:41 AM
And yet nothing recorded them. Why are you so blind to this fact?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 06:24:30 AM
Did you want cameras inside filming the explosions as the building came down?

Incredulity doesn't debunk physics. You sound like a flat earther throwing a tantrum when shown the physics of space flight work quite well.

Don't be mad I debunked your hypothesis that a giant crushed wtc 7.

Edit.
[youtube][/youtube]
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bullwinkle on September 22, 2017, 06:27:28 AM
Quote from: sokarul on September 22, 2017, 06:17:38 AM
Where were the 57 explosions to take out the columns?


Shhhhh, it's a secret. Muffled bombs. NuTek. Can't say more.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sokarul on September 22, 2017, 06:28:01 AM
Your post fell short, 57 explosions short.

The sooner you realize a building can't be brought down with explosives and no one notice the better.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 06:31:36 AM
Quote from: sokarul on September 22, 2017, 06:28:01 AM
The sooner you realize a building can't be brought down with explosives and no one notice the better.

Actually lots of people did notice. There's a growing truth movement.

Squibs. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squib_(explosive))
[youtube][/youtube]

(https://s26.postimg.org/9viekdm8p/downloadfile-2.gif)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sokarul on September 22, 2017, 06:36:10 AM
This just in, gravity.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 06:37:27 AM
Quote from: sokarul on September 22, 2017, 06:36:10 AM
This just in, gravity.
Again I will remind you that arguments from incredulity (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity) don't debunk Newton.

Quote from: Rayzor on September 22, 2017, 04:48:33 AM
Quote from: hoppy on September 22, 2017, 04:46:17 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 22, 2017, 12:56:45 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on September 21, 2017, 10:38:55 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 10:27:09 PM
Audible lol.

Doesn't seeing the formation make a good quarterback?

I think the truth needs to be seen in this thread. Newton, common sense, engineering, physics etc cannot be debunked unless you use fairy tales such as giants....so expect ad hominems and gas lighting.

A very simple yet effective form of deflection.

Check the thread title,  for a clue. 

The truth about 9/11 conspiracy nutters.  is that they are paranoid delusional whack jobs.   Totally beyond the reach of logic and reason.
This is exactly what a shill would say.

Thank you,  can you call me a "psyop shill"  in future,  I'm angling for a pay rise.

More like a jail cell.

Quote from: Bullwinkle on September 22, 2017, 04:09:59 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 03:43:13 AM

Perhaps you would like to debunk my post Bullwinkle?


I thoroughly debunk thee.

Quote from: Rayzor on September 22, 2017, 03:05:10 AM
I'll give you one chance, and one only,  provide verifiable evidence for your assertions.   I'll listen to whatever you present as fairly as I can.

Audible kek.
You guys forgot to stomp your feet.

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:35:45 PM
This post debunks your assertion that the entire core collapsed leaving the outside intact and then the "outer facade" collapsing at free-fall.

Please read it and respond to it.
Here.
Can you debunk this post? If it's as stupid and I'm as stupid as you all claim surely a smart guy like you can debunk it.

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 05:46:15 PM
No the video of the collapse shows the failure of columns 79, 80, and 81, causing a partial building collapse. (The collapse of the east penthouse.)

None of these were core columns and then after a few seconds, the entire core failed nearly simultaneously causing a 2.25 second symmetrical free-fall of the entire bulding. Remeber the "outer facade" had 18 structural support columns making any natural free-fall impossible.

@Rayzor.
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 04:05:20 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 03:59:31 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 03:54:44 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 03:33:41 AM
You still haven't addressed your post trying to debunk Newton. Do you stand by it?

You seriously think I'm trying to debunk Newton?

I do, yes.

See.
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 10:00:14 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 09:51:48 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 09:50:33 PM
We'll soon see about that.

Yes,  Hulsey's  simultaneous collapse theory.   What a joke.

In order for the building to collapse at free-fall the entire core had to fail nearly simultaneously. Structural resistance slows fall acceleration. If you don't like it take it up with Newton, not me.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Newt.html

Ah, I see where you went wrong,  you forgot that the center had already collapsed / was collapsing BEFORE the facade came down.  I really can't keep holding you hand while you work through these things, you have to start to think for yourself if you are going to be a good anon campaigner.

Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 04:10:35 AM
Thats not true that's the conclusions of the fraudulent NIST report. That is merely the lie we were sold.

Furthermore, even if the entire inner core collapsed leaving the entire "facade" intact (which is impossible because of the cross bracing) there were still 18 support columns around the exterior.

(https://s26.postimg.org/iegp2ilix/images-43.jpg)

A free fall collapse even under your fairytale conditions is still impossible without a controlled demolition. You are trying to debunk Newton.

Q.E.D.

Edit.
Video evidence.
[Youtube][/youtube]

For reference Rayzor believes this debunks it. Notice he says it's "been debunked" since his first post on the topic.

Quote from: Rayzor on February 13, 2017, 11:18:08 PM
We already debunked that free-fall argument.   But just to recap,  how is it possible for the rooftop of a building to fall?   Doesn't the fact that it collapsed at all mean that the building structure supporting the roof is collapsing,    why would you be surprised that it fell at a free fall rate.   At least until it hit ground and other debris piled up,   The graph in the NIST shows it quite clearly.   

You say you work in the industry,  you mean the building industry?   In what capacity?

What caused the core to collapse at free-fall

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:43:13 PM
Quote from: Bullwinkle on September 21, 2017, 07:40:41 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:35:45 PM

What caused the core to collapse at free-fall



Opposed to hovering in place?

Watch the video. When the west penthouse fails the building immediately collapses.

Video evidence.
[Youtube][/youtube]

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:54:14 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 21, 2017, 07:49:46 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:43:13 PM
When the west penthouse fails the building immediately collapses.

Gee, I wonder what was holding up the penthouse?

The core. Therefore as soon as the core failed the building came down. Hulsey is right.
Video evidence.
[Youtube][/youtube]

Please respond to my post.

[Youtube][/youtube]
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sokarul on September 22, 2017, 06:40:23 AM
404 57 explosions not found.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 06:41:23 AM
Quote from: sokarul on September 22, 2017, 06:40:23 AM
404 57 explosions not found.

How did the building collapse symmetrically at free-fall for 2.25 seconds sock?

How did fire cause that?

I will remind you again that arguments from incredulity (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity) don't debunk Newton.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on September 22, 2017, 06:57:09 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 06:41:23 AM
Quote from: sokarul on September 22, 2017, 06:40:23 AM
404 57 explosions not found.

How did the building collapse symmetrically at free-fall for 2.25 seconds sock?

How did fire cause that?

I will remind you again that arguments from incredulity (https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity) don't debunk Newton.

I and others have already given multiple possible explanations for that.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 07:04:16 AM
Please copy and paste your rebuttal to this post if one exists user. Use the search feature if you need to. However this is new and hasn't been addressed yet.

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:35:45 PM
This post debunks your assertion that the entire core collapsed leaving the outside intact and then the "outer facade" collapsing at free-fall.

Please read it and respond to it.
Here.
Can you debunk this post? If it's as stupid and I'm as stupid as you all claim surely a smart guy like you can debunk it.

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 05:46:15 PM
No the video of the collapse shows the failure of columns 79, 80, and 81, causing a partial building collapse. (The collapse of the east penthouse.)

None of these were core columns and then after a few seconds, the entire core failed nearly simultaneously causing a 2.25 second symmetrical free-fall of the entire bulding. Remeber the "outer facade" had 18 structural support columns making any natural free-fall impossible.

@Rayzor.
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 04:05:20 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 03:59:31 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 03:54:44 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 03:33:41 AM
You still haven't addressed your post trying to debunk Newton. Do you stand by it?

You seriously think I'm trying to debunk Newton?

I do, yes.

See.
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 10:00:14 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 09:51:48 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 09:50:33 PM
We'll soon see about that.

Yes,  Hulsey's  simultaneous collapse theory.   What a joke.

In order for the building to collapse at free-fall the entire core had to fail nearly simultaneously. Structural resistance slows fall acceleration. If you don't like it take it up with Newton, not me.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Newt.html

Ah, I see where you went wrong,  you forgot that the center had already collapsed / was collapsing BEFORE the facade came down.  I really can't keep holding you hand while you work through these things, you have to start to think for yourself if you are going to be a good anon campaigner.

Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 04:10:35 AM
Thats not true that's the conclusions of the fraudulent NIST report. That is merely the lie we were sold.

Furthermore, even if the entire inner core collapsed leaving the entire "facade" intact (which is impossible because of the cross bracing) there were still 18 support columns around the exterior.

(https://s26.postimg.org/iegp2ilix/images-43.jpg)

A free fall collapse even under your fairytale conditions is still impossible without a controlled demolition. You are trying to debunk Newton.

Q.E.D.

Edit.
Video evidence.
[Youtube][/youtube]

For reference Rayzor believes this debunks it. Notice he says it's "been debunked" since his first post on the topic.

Quote from: Rayzor on February 13, 2017, 11:18:08 PM
We already debunked that free-fall argument.   But just to recap,  how is it possible for the rooftop of a building to fall?   Doesn't the fact that it collapsed at all mean that the building structure supporting the roof is collapsing,    why would you be surprised that it fell at a free fall rate.   At least until it hit ground and other debris piled up,   The graph in the NIST shows it quite clearly.   

You say you work in the industry,  you mean the building industry?   In what capacity?

What caused the core to collapse at free-fall

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:43:13 PM
Quote from: Bullwinkle on September 21, 2017, 07:40:41 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:35:45 PM

What caused the core to collapse at free-fall



Opposed to hovering in place?

Watch the video. When the west penthouse fails the building immediately collapses.

Video evidence.
[Youtube][/youtube]

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:54:14 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 21, 2017, 07:49:46 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:43:13 PM
When the west penthouse fails the building immediately collapses.

Gee, I wonder what was holding up the penthouse?

The core. Therefore as soon as the core failed the building came down. Hulsey is right.
Video evidence.
[Youtube][/youtube]

Please respond to my post.

[Youtube][/youtube]
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: markjo on September 22, 2017, 07:24:44 AM
It's page 189.  Are you guys any closer to the truth now than you were on page 1?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on September 22, 2017, 07:32:40 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 07:04:16 AM
Please copy and paste your rebuttal to this post if one exists user. Use the search feature if you need to. However this is new and hasn't been addressed yet.
Not really having time for this stuff now. Basic points were
- It's impossible to know how fast the building would have to be falling to achieve free fall speed, because you don't know it's air resistance etc.
- It's impossible to precisely calculate the actual speed of the falling building
So, even if it's stated it did fall in free fall speed, it's just an approximation that's more or less accurate.

Assuming that it was close to free fall speed, this could very well be because
- Inertia of the falling mass is very high
- Once a wall/beam whatever cracks, theres basically no resistance for until the next floor/beam/whatever
- Imagine a 10m long beam. If it starts to bend until 9m and then breaks in the middle then there is no resistance for the rest of the 9m.

Anyway, those are obviously super simplified concepts, but I'm rather sure it's no worse than saying "free fall is impossible because  I think it doesn't sound right".
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 07:41:48 AM
Quote from: User324 on September 22, 2017, 07:32:40 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 07:04:16 AM
Please copy and paste your rebuttal to this post if one exists user. Use the search feature if you need to. However this is new and hasn't been addressed yet.
Not really having time for this stuff now. Basic points were
- It's impossible to know how fast the building would have to be falling to achieve free fall speed, because you don't know it's air resistance etc.

We measured and NIST admits free-fall in the official report. The building had no structural resistance for 2.25 seconds allowing a symmetrical collapse at free-fall

Quote from: User324 on September 22, 2017, 07:32:40 AM
- It's impossible to precisely calculate the actual speed of the falling building

No it's quite easy both NIST and David Chandler did an analysis and came to pretty much on free-fall.

Quote from: User324 on September 22, 2017, 07:32:40 AM
So, even if it's stated it did fall in free fall speed, it's just an approximation that's more or less accurate.

Sure which is impossible to by caused by fire and NISTs conclusions on the building collapse were either criminal negligence or forgery.

Quote from: User324 on September 22, 2017, 07:32:40 AM
Assuming that it was close to free fall speed, (it was) this could very well be because
- Inertia of the falling mass is very high
- Once a wall/beam whatever cracks, theres basically no resistance for until the next floor/beam/whatever
- Imagine a 10m long beam. If it starts to bend until 9m and then breaks in the middle then there is no resistance for the rest of the 9m.

Anyway, those are obviously super simplified concepts, but I'm rather sure it's no worse than saying "free fall is impossible because  I think it doesn't sound right".

None of that is possible because of the way the building was supported and braced. No symmetrical free-fall is possible caused by fires and "progressive" collapse.

Edit.
As I have shown in my post everyone is dodging.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 07:44:12 AM
Quote from: markjo on September 22, 2017, 07:24:44 AM
It's page 189.  Are you guys any closer to the truth now than you were on page 1?

Much closer my friend.

http://ine.uaf.edu/projects/wtc7/
Quote
This is a study of the collapse of the 47-story World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC7) at 5:20 P.M. on September 11, 2001. This building was a steel-frame office building located north of Vesey Street in the World Trade Center Complex in New York City’s Financial District. The World Trade Center Complex opened on April 4, 1973, and, at the time of completion, the featured Twin Towers (WTC 1 and WTC 2) were the tallest buildings in the world. WTC 7 was later completed in 1987. Other buildings in the complex included the Marriott World Trade Center (3 WTC), 4 WTC, 5 WTC, and 6 WTC.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) opened an investigation into the collapses of WTC 1, WTC 2, and WTC 7 in August 2002. NIST released its final report on WTC 7 in 2008, finding that the fires that were ignited by falling debris from WTC 1 caused the collapse of WTC 7. Independent researchers, however, have assembled evidence that has raised profound questions regarding the notion that WTC 7 collapsed because of fire.

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth provided funding to the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) to evaluate if fire caused the collapse of WTC 7 and to examine what may have occurred at 5:20 P.M. on September 11, 2001. Therefore, the UAF research team evaluated the structural response due to the reported fire. A structural framing virtual model of WTC 7 was used to conduct the study. The reported failure was simulated using three-dimensional finite element computer models of the building. The research team studied the building’s response using two finite element programs, ABAQUS and SAP2000 version 18. At the micro level, three types of evaluations were performed. In plan-view, the research team evaluated: 1) the planar response of the structural elements to the fire(s) using wire elements; 2) the building’s response using the NIST’s approach with solid elements; and 3) the validity of NIST’s findings using solid elements. At the macro-level, progressive collapse, i.e., the structural system’s response to local failures, is being studied using SAP2000 with wire elements, as well as with ABAQUS, and it is near completion. The findings thus far are that fire did not bring down this building. Building failure simulations show that, to match observation, the entire inner core of this building failed nearly simultaneously.

So close we can taste it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: DuckDodgers on September 22, 2017, 08:08:35 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 06:31:36 AM
Quote from: sokarul on September 22, 2017, 06:28:01 AM
The sooner you realize a building can't be brought down with explosives and no one notice the better.

Actually lots of people did notice. There's a growing truth movement.

Squibs. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squib_(explosive))
[youtube][/youtube]

(https://s26.postimg.org/9viekdm8p/downloadfile-2.gif)
There is something curious about the gif, the building on the right seems to never slow down during the fall.  There is also a very noticeable cloud of debris ejected prior to the fall starting.  Neither of these appear to happen in that shot of wtc7 falling. Did either of these happen?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 08:11:00 AM
Quote from: DuckDodgers on September 22, 2017, 08:08:35 AM
There is something curious about the gif, the building on the right seems to never slow down during the fall.  There is also a very noticeable cloud of debris ejected prior to the fall starting.  Neither of these appear to happen in that shot of wtc7 falling. Did either of these happen?

Maybe wtc 7 wasn't a garden variety demolition. Assuming it was a demolition and Newtons laws hold, maybe they didn't want it to look too obvious. This could explain why columns 79, 80, and 81 failed a few seconds before the core simultaneously failed.

Edit.
As I've said we've had this for over 20 years. Don't underestimate what they're capable of.

[Youtube][/Youtube]
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Crouton on September 22, 2017, 08:37:17 AM
Quote from: markjo on September 22, 2017, 07:24:44 AM
It's page 189.  Are you guys any closer to the truth now than you were on page 1?

There's some interesting information every now and then.  You just have to wade through a lot of V For Vendetta memes and personal attacks to get to it.

A few months ago there was a user named MaeNaesWolf who is a structural engineer.  He added some very good insight on wtc7.

If you start here https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1887692#msg1887692 and read his posts onward he clears up a lot of the weirdness regarding how that tower fell.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 08:41:15 AM
He leaves and agrees that it was a strange collapse and he understood why we thought it shouldn't have collapsed as it did.

But thats all in the link crutonius posted and his posts on this thread.

If you think this is hard to wade through you should try posting on one of the chans. ;)

Do you disagree with my assetion and evidence that the entire core had to fail nearly simultaneously for the collapse we saw to be possible?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: DuckDodgers on September 22, 2017, 08:42:43 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 08:11:00 AM
Quote from: DuckDodgers on September 22, 2017, 08:08:35 AM
There is something curious about the gif, the building on the right seems to never slow down during the fall.  There is also a very noticeable cloud of debris ejected prior to the fall starting.  Neither of these appear to happen in that shot of wtc7 falling. Did either of these happen?

Maybe wtc 7 wasn't a garden variety demolition. Assuming it was a demolition and Newtons laws hold, maybe they didn't want it to look too obvious. This could explain why columns 79, 80, and 81 failed a few seconds before the core simultaneously failed.

Edit.
As I've said we've had this for over 20 years. Don't underestimate what they're capable of.

[Youtube][/Youtube]
That could explain the speed, but what about the debris cloud before the fall?   It's kind of difficult to make that disappear.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 08:45:14 AM
Quote from: crutonius on September 22, 2017, 08:37:17 AM
Quote from: markjo on September 22, 2017, 07:24:44 AM
It's page 189.  Are you guys any closer to the truth now than you were on page 1?

There's some interesting information every now and then.  You just have to wade through a lot of V For Vendetta memes and personal attacks to get to it.

A few months ago there was a user named MaeNaesWolf who is a structural engineer.  He added some very good insight on wtc7.

If you start here https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1887692#msg1887692 and read his posts onward he clears up a lot of the weirdness regarding how that tower fell.

For reference.

Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on March 31, 2017, 12:14:38 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/Y1HDPtV.png)


This is what the external skin looks like. These are not minor steel beams they where using to keep it together either. Godzilla would not have gotten through that. Somewhere I saw pictures of the collapsed WTC7 building rubble, you could still see pictures of the external structures still highly intact. I am not sure how this building could have fallen over unless the external structure was severed first.

edit note


This is the east elevation, west looks similar. The east and west elevations are heavily braced, more so than North and South, this is because the edison substation is below the northern facade. So the buildings moments have to be pulled back to support the large spans and overhangs on the Northern facade. This is what would have to be destroyed before the building can have a non-symmetrical collapse.
Northern face is lighter than above, and south is fairly strong, but not as stiff as east or west.

Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on March 30, 2017, 04:37:32 AM

The collapse makes a bit more sense to me after having gotten hold of the plans.
That said, it is still a very strange collapse.
I have the manufacturers drawings, I want to look at the joints between the floor beams and the outer columns.
I feel there should have been more support provided from the outer skin.


I completely understand why people dont think it should have fallen.

I will try respond properly after I have gone over some more stuff.
But for now I have to go.


edited because South Africa's lingo is not international
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 08:47:32 AM
Quote from: DuckDodgers on September 22, 2017, 08:42:43 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 08:11:00 AM
Quote from: DuckDodgers on September 22, 2017, 08:08:35 AM
There is something curious about the gif, the building on the right seems to never slow down during the fall.  There is also a very noticeable cloud of debris ejected prior to the fall starting.  Neither of these appear to happen in that shot of wtc7 falling. Did either of these happen?

Maybe wtc 7 wasn't a garden variety demolition. Assuming it was a demolition and Newtons laws hold, maybe they didn't want it to look too obvious. This could explain why columns 79, 80, and 81 failed a few seconds before the core simultaneously failed.

Edit.
As I've said we've had this for over 20 years. Don't underestimate what they're capable of.
That could explain the speed, but what about the debris cloud before the fall?   It's kind of difficult to make that disappear.

All I am 100% sure of is that fires didn't cause wtc 7s collapse and NISTs classified report is either fraudulent or criminally negligent. We can move forward from here.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Crouton on September 22, 2017, 09:43:57 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 08:41:15 AM
He leaves and agrees that it was a strange collapse and he understood why we thought it shouldn't have collapsed as it did.

But thats all in the link crutonius posted and his posts on this thread.

If you think this is hard to wade through you should try posting on one of the chans. ;)

Do you disagree with my assetion and evidence that the entire core had to fail nearly simultaneously for the collapse we saw to be possible?

No he had a series of posts.  They're all very well informed.  The gist of it is that the outer shell was exceptionally strong but it relied on the inner structure to remain upright.  The inner and outer shell weren't particularly well connected.  So when the inner structure collapsed, which we saw with the penthouse, then the outer shell would quickly follow and fall in a more vertical fashion than what we would expect.

There could be more to it.  But if you want a rational explanation about why the fall seems symmetrical and in free fall then MaeNaesWolf's explanation is the best I've seen so far.

The more I read this thread the more evidence I see agreeing with the "official story".
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: DuckDodgers on September 22, 2017, 10:44:18 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 08:47:32 AM
Quote from: DuckDodgers on September 22, 2017, 08:42:43 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 08:11:00 AM
Quote from: DuckDodgers on September 22, 2017, 08:08:35 AM
There is something curious about the gif, the building on the right seems to never slow down during the fall.  There is also a very noticeable cloud of debris ejected prior to the fall starting.  Neither of these appear to happen in that shot of wtc7 falling. Did either of these happen?

Maybe wtc 7 wasn't a garden variety demolition. Assuming it was a demolition and Newtons laws hold, maybe they didn't want it to look too obvious. This could explain why columns 79, 80, and 81 failed a few seconds before the core simultaneously failed.

Edit.
As I've said we've had this for over 20 years. Don't underestimate what they're capable of.
That could explain the speed, but what about the debris cloud before the fall?   It's kind of difficult to make that disappear.

All I am 100% sure of is that fires didn't cause wtc 7s collapse and NISTs classified report is either fraudulent or criminally negligent. We can move forward from here.
Something had to cause the collapse. So if not fire or explosions, then what?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: RocketSauce on September 22, 2017, 12:54:05 PM
nothing worse than being 100% sure about something, and still being wrong...


:(
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 03:30:01 PM
Quote from: crutonius on September 22, 2017, 09:43:57 AM
The more I read this thread the more evidence I see agreeing with the "official story".

Tell us which of Newtons laws you disagree with and why.

Quote from: RocketSauce on September 22, 2017, 12:54:05 PM
nothing worse than being 100% sure about something, and still being wrong...

Is that what you believe?
Can you debunk Newton? And save the official story?

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:35:45 PM
This post debunks your assertion that the entire core collapsed leaving the outside intact and then the "outer facade" collapsing at free-fall.

Please read it and respond to it.
Here.
Can you debunk this post? If it's as stupid and I'm as stupid as you all claim surely a smart guy like you can debunk it.

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 05:46:15 PM
No the video of the collapse shows the failure of columns 79, 80, and 81, causing a partial building collapse. (The collapse of the east penthouse.)

None of these were core columns and then after a few seconds, the entire core failed nearly simultaneously causing a 2.25 second symmetrical free-fall of the entire bulding. Remeber the "outer facade" had 18 structural support columns making any natural free-fall impossible.

@Rayzor.
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 04:05:20 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 03:59:31 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 03:54:44 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 03:33:41 AM
You still haven't addressed your post trying to debunk Newton. Do you stand by it?

You seriously think I'm trying to debunk Newton?

I do, yes.

See.
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 10:00:14 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 09:51:48 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 09:50:33 PM
We'll soon see about that.

Yes,  Hulsey's  simultaneous collapse theory.   What a joke.

In order for the building to collapse at free-fall the entire core had to fail nearly simultaneously. Structural resistance slows fall acceleration. If you don't like it take it up with Newton, not me.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Newt.html

Ah, I see where you went wrong,  you forgot that the center had already collapsed / was collapsing BEFORE the facade came down.  I really can't keep holding you hand while you work through these things, you have to start to think for yourself if you are going to be a good anon campaigner.

Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 04:10:35 AM
Thats not true that's the conclusions of the fraudulent NIST report. That is merely the lie we were sold.

Furthermore, even if the entire inner core collapsed leaving the entire "facade" intact (which is impossible because of the cross bracing) there were still 18 support columns around the exterior.

(https://s26.postimg.org/iegp2ilix/images-43.jpg)

A free fall collapse even under your fairytale conditions is still impossible without a controlled demolition. You are trying to debunk Newton.

Q.E.D.

Edit.
Video evidence.
[Youtube][/youtube]

For reference Rayzor believes this debunks it. Notice he says it's "been debunked" since his first post on the topic.

Quote from: Rayzor on February 13, 2017, 11:18:08 PM
We already debunked that free-fall argument.   But just to recap,  how is it possible for the rooftop of a building to fall?   Doesn't the fact that it collapsed at all mean that the building structure supporting the roof is collapsing,    why would you be surprised that it fell at a free fall rate.   At least until it hit ground and other debris piled up,   The graph in the NIST shows it quite clearly.   

You say you work in the industry,  you mean the building industry?   In what capacity?

What caused the core to collapse at free-fall

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:43:13 PM
Quote from: Bullwinkle on September 21, 2017, 07:40:41 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:35:45 PM

What caused the core to collapse at free-fall



Opposed to hovering in place?

Watch the video. When the west penthouse fails the building immediately collapses.

Video evidence.
[Youtube][/youtube]

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:54:14 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 21, 2017, 07:49:46 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:43:13 PM
When the west penthouse fails the building immediately collapses.

Gee, I wonder what was holding up the penthouse?

The core. Therefore as soon as the core failed the building came down. Hulsey is right.
Video evidence.
[Youtube][/youtube]

Please respond to my post.

[Youtube][/youtube]
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 03:36:50 PM
Quote from: crutonius on September 22, 2017, 09:43:57 AM
if you want a rational explanation about why the fall seems symmetrical and in free fall then MaeNaesWolf's explanation is the best I've seen so far.

Please cite where MaeNaesWolf explains the free-fall "rationally" or please stop lying.

Thanks.

Edit.

Quote from: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 08:45:14 AM
Quote from: crutonius on September 22, 2017, 08:37:17 AM
Quote from: markjo on September 22, 2017, 07:24:44 AM
It's page 189.  Are you guys any closer to the truth now than you were on page 1?

There's some interesting information every now and then.  You just have to wade through a lot of V For Vendetta memes and personal attacks to get to it.

A few months ago there was a user named MaeNaesWolf who is a structural engineer.  He added some very good insight on wtc7.

If you start here https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1887692#msg1887692 and read his posts onward he clears up a lot of the weirdness regarding how that tower fell.

For reference.

Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on March 31, 2017, 12:14:38 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/Y1HDPtV.png)


This is what the external skin looks like. These are not minor steel beams they where using to keep it together either. Godzilla would not have gotten through that. Somewhere I saw pictures of the collapsed WTC7 building rubble, you could still see pictures of the external structures still highly intact. I am not sure how this building could have fallen over unless the external structure was severed first.

edit note


This is the east elevation, west looks similar. The east and west elevations are heavily braced, more so than North and South, this is because the edison substation is below the northern facade. So the buildings moments have to be pulled back to support the large spans and overhangs on the Northern facade. This is what would have to be destroyed before the building can have a non-symmetrical collapse.
Northern face is lighter than above, and south is fairly strong, but not as stiff as east or west.

Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on March 30, 2017, 04:37:32 AM

The collapse makes a bit more sense to me after having gotten hold of the plans.
That said, it is still a very strange collapse.
I have the manufacturers drawings, I want to look at the joints between the floor beams and the outer columns.
I feel there should have been more support provided from the outer skin.


I completely understand why people dont think it should have fallen.

I will try respond properly after I have gone over some more stuff.
But for now I have to go.


edited because South Africa's lingo is not international

The entire core had to fail nearly simultaneously to make a symmetrical free-fall possible

Fires cannot cause this.

Q.E.D.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 03:50:00 PM
Now, kindly debubk Principia Mathematica and show us why Newtons laws didn't apply to wtc 7 and why the entire core failed instantly if it was caused by ordinary office fires.

If not then do more research and homework.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Crouton on September 22, 2017, 04:02:14 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 03:36:50 PM
Quote from: crutonius on September 22, 2017, 09:43:57 AM
if you want a rational explanation about why the fall seems symmetrical and in free fall then MaeNaesWolf's explanation is the best I've seen so far.

Please cite where MaeNaesWolf explains the free-fall "rationally" or please stop lying.

Thanks.

Edit.

Quote from: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 08:45:14 AM
Quote from: crutonius on September 22, 2017, 08:37:17 AM
Quote from: markjo on September 22, 2017, 07:24:44 AM
It's page 189.  Are you guys any closer to the truth now than you were on page 1?

There's some interesting information every now and then.  You just have to wade through a lot of V For Vendetta memes and personal attacks to get to it.

A few months ago there was a user named MaeNaesWolf who is a structural engineer.  He added some very good insight on wtc7.

If you start here https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1887692#msg1887692 and read his posts onward he clears up a lot of the weirdness regarding how that tower fell.

For reference.

Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on March 31, 2017, 12:14:38 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/Y1HDPtV.png)


This is what the external skin looks like. These are not minor steel beams they where using to keep it together either. Godzilla would not have gotten through that. Somewhere I saw pictures of the collapsed WTC7 building rubble, you could still see pictures of the external structures still highly intact. I am not sure how this building could have fallen over unless the external structure was severed first.

edit note


This is the east elevation, west looks similar. The east and west elevations are heavily braced, more so than North and South, this is because the edison substation is below the northern facade. So the buildings moments have to be pulled back to support the large spans and overhangs on the Northern facade. This is what would have to be destroyed before the building can have a non-symmetrical collapse.
Northern face is lighter than above, and south is fairly strong, but not as stiff as east or west.

Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on March 30, 2017, 04:37:32 AM

The collapse makes a bit more sense to me after having gotten hold of the plans.
That said, it is still a very strange collapse.
I have the manufacturers drawings, I want to look at the joints between the floor beams and the outer columns.
I feel there should have been more support provided from the outer skin.


I completely understand why people dont think it should have fallen.

I will try respond properly after I have gone over some more stuff.
But for now I have to go.


edited because South Africa's lingo is not international

The entire core had to fail nearly simultaneously to make a symmetrical free-fall possible

Fires cannot cause this.

Q.E.D.

Emotional reactions like this are why I avoid this thread.  On a rage scale of 1 to 10 I'm at about a 3 right now.  You seem to be at 11.

Maybe that's just the resting anger level of this thread.  Maybe you're mistaking me for Razor or something.  But if you're going to react to everything I have to say like then I'm not sure how useful a discussion is. 

As it stands MaNaeSWolf has an explanation that fits the fact, the best credentials of anyone on this thread and his contribution seems to be impartial. 

What am I missing here?  And please, take some time to calm down before you respond.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 04:08:36 PM
Quote from: crutonius on September 22, 2017, 04:02:14 PM
As it stands MaNaeSWolf has an explanation that fits the fact

I'm calm.

Please cite where MaeNaeSWolf "explained" the free-fall. If you cant cite what you claim then please retract it.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?action=search

This is what he actually said.

Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on March 30, 2017, 04:37:32 AM
I feel there should have been more support provided from the outer skin.

I completely understand why people dont think it should have fallen.

Edit. 1.
I just like Honesty Crutonius, that's all. If you have a quote please present it so we can see it and consider the information in it.

If no such quote exists please retract your claim and apologise.

Again.
This is what he actually said.

Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on March 30, 2017, 04:37:32 AM
I feel there should have been more support provided from the outer skin.

I completely understand why people dont think it should have fallen.

Edit. 2.
No rush I've got all day man.

Edit.
Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on March 30, 2017, 04:37:32 AM
I feel there should have been more support provided from the outer skin.

I completely understand why people dont think it should have fallen.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bullwinkle on September 22, 2017, 05:09:38 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 04:08:36 PM

I just like Honesty Crutonius, that's all.



You are a self proclaimed liar.




I am Bullwinkle.
I am reason.
I forgive.
I forget.
I'll call if I'm going to be late.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 05:11:27 PM
Quote from: Bullwinkle on September 22, 2017, 05:09:38 PM

Please keep this thread on topic and your personal attacks to yourself.

No rush Crutonius.
Quote from: crutonius on September 22, 2017, 04:02:14 PM
As it stands MaNaeSWolf has the best credentials of anyone on this thread and his contribution seems to be impartial. 

What am I missing here?

Ok Firstly he was very impartial and a pleasure to debate with. You can see this in our exchanges. Bhs also enjoyed debating with someone who knew what they were talking about.

Secondly I have shown that he merely offered a possible explanation of why the collapse was symmetrical. No explanation was given for the free-fall. As has been said since page one the symmetry and fall acceleration of wtc 7 combined are our smoking gun.

Thirdly Hulseys qualifications smash Wolfs, no disrespect intended Wolf you are a gentleman and a scholar.

http://cem.uaf.edu/cee/people/leroy-hulsey.aspx
http://www.wtc7evaluation.org/
http://ine.uaf.edu/projects/wtc7/

Most of all. You are claiming Wolf said things he didn't say. That is the reason I used large bold text.

I'd like you to retract your statement when you are ready.

Cheers.
Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on March 30, 2017, 04:37:32 AM
I feel there should have been more support provided from the outer skin.

I completely understand why people dont think it should have fallen.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bullwinkle on September 22, 2017, 05:14:16 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 05:11:27 PM


Please keep this thread on topic and your personal attacks to yourself.



You are a self proclaimed liar.




I am Bullwinkle.
I am reason.
I forgive.
I forget.
I'll call if I'm going to be late.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Crouton on September 22, 2017, 05:15:34 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 04:08:36 PM
Quote from: crutonius on September 22, 2017, 04:02:14 PM
As it stands MaNaeSWolf has an explanation that fits the fact

I'm calm.

Please cite where MaeNaeSWolf "explained" the free-fall. If you cant cite what you claim then please retract it.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?action=search

This is what he actually said.

Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on March 30, 2017, 04:37:32 AM
I feel there should have been more support provided from the outer skin.

I completely understand why people dont think it should have fallen.

Edit. 1.
I just like Honesty Crutonius, that's all. If you have a quote please present it so we can see it and consider the information in it.

If no such quote exists please retract your claim and apologise.

Again.
This is what he actually said.

Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on March 30, 2017, 04:37:32 AM
I feel there should have been more support provided from the outer skin.

I completely understand why people dont think it should have fallen.

Edit. 2.
No rush I've got all day man.

Edit.
Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on March 30, 2017, 04:37:32 AM
I feel there should have been more support provided from the outer skin.

I completely understand why people dont think it should have fallen.

You don't have free fall, you have something that vaguely seems like free fall on a fuzzy camcorder recorded nearly 20 years ago.

The outer shell was rigid enough to hold while the inner structure collapsed.  Without the inner structure to hold it the outer shell would then collapse much faster than we would expect.

Now that I've proven your claims on wtc7 wrong beyond any reasonable doubt I think it's time for you to retract your claims about controlled demolition on it and apologize to razor and everyone else you've been attacking for disagreeing with you.  It's been a fun 200 pages but it's time for you to be a man and apologize to the people you've slandered.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on September 22, 2017, 05:16:17 PM
The reason I enjoyed speaking with wolf is one, he knew what he was talking about so we could talk honestly and quickly... excluding a few differences in terms because of him working in Africa.

Two, he came to support the official story and believed it (though admitted he never really looked into it)..so we spoke honestly, with no ad hominems or personal attacks..he honestly looked at what the official story said with the design of the buildings and began to question the whole thing. He left feeling very uneasy about the whole thing...He knows it's impossible, but it is a tough pill to swallow.

I was an official story believer at one point too, I actually was converted when I was doing a project in college trying to support the official fairy tale. It's a tough pill to swallow, I knew the government didn't care about the people, but I didn't know they hated is that much.

Even if he came back and disagreed and supported the official story, I would have no beef with him. He took an honest look and made his conclusion....though I think we know by his uneasy actions how he feels about it...

So this goes back to

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on September 22, 2017, 01:25:42 AM
Let's see....I will trust my expensive education, over a decade of experience, 100k software, others education, experience and software that dwarfs mine over a "report" that the creators called rigged and "unsupported"...don't forget the 1000s of pages that were removed....

Yet the "truthers" are the crazy ones....

I am very surprised by some of the people's comments in this thread, and I am not talking about the usual Rayzor/symptom/user nonsense.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 05:32:10 PM
Quote from: crutonius on September 22, 2017, 05:15:34 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 04:08:36 PM
Quote from: crutonius on September 22, 2017, 04:02:14 PM
As it stands MaNaeSWolf has an explanation that fits the fact

I'm calm.

Please cite where MaeNaeSWolf "explained" the free-fall. If you cant cite what you claim then please retract it.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?action=search

This is what he actually said.

Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on March 30, 2017, 04:37:32 AM
I feel there should have been more support provided from the outer skin.

I completely understand why people dont think it should have fallen.

Edit. 1.
I just like Honesty Crutonius, that's all. If you have a quote please present it so we can see it and consider the information in it.

If no such quote exists please retract your claim and apologise.

Again.
This is what he actually said.

Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on March 30, 2017, 04:37:32 AM
I feel there should have been more support provided from the outer skin.

I completely understand why people dont think it should have fallen.

Edit. 2.
No rush I've got all day man.

Edit.
Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on March 30, 2017, 04:37:32 AM
I feel there should have been more support provided from the outer skin.

I completely understand why people dont think it should have fallen.

You don't have free fall, you have something that vaguely seems like free fall on a fuzzy camcorder recorded nearly 20 years ago.

The outer shell was rigid enough to hold while the inner structure collapsed.  Without the inner structure to hold it the outer shell would then collapse much faster than we would expect.

Now that I've proven your claims on wtc7 wrong beyond any reasonable doubt I think it's time for you to retract your claims about controlled demolition on it and apologize to razor and everyone else you've been attacking for disagreeing with you.  It's been a fun 200 pages but it's time for you to be a man and apologize to the people you've slandered.

Ive been trying to not use any personal attacks and just use logic and speak the truth.

Rayzor is a shill. I am 75% sure you are too. This is more than fear and cognitive dissonance. What you are doing is intentional it is too much of a councidence you jump in after I got Rauzor in checkmate This post directly debunks your assertions.

Quote from: crutonius on September 22, 2017, 09:43:57 AM
The more I read this thread the more evidence I see agreeing with the "official story".

Tell us which of Newtons laws you disagree with and why.

Quote from: RocketSauce on September 22, 2017, 12:54:05 PM
nothing worse than being 100% sure about something, and still being wrong...

Is that what you believe?
Can you debunk Newton? And save the official story?

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:35:45 PM
This post debunks your assertion that the entire core collapsed leaving the outside intact and then the "outer facade" collapsing at free-fall.

Please read it and respond to it.
Here.
Can you debunk this post? If it's as stupid and I'm as stupid as you all claim surely a smart guy like you can debunk it.

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 05:46:15 PM
No the video of the collapse shows the failure of columns 79, 80, and 81, causing a partial building collapse. (The collapse of the east penthouse.)

None of these were core columns and then after a few seconds, the entire core failed nearly simultaneously causing a 2.25 second symmetrical free-fall of the entire bulding. Remeber the "outer facade" had 18 structural support columns making any natural free-fall impossible.

@Rayzor.
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 04:05:20 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 03:59:31 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 03:54:44 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 03:33:41 AM
You still haven't addressed your post trying to debunk Newton. Do you stand by it?

You seriously think I'm trying to debunk Newton?

I do, yes.

See.
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 10:00:14 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 09:51:48 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 09:50:33 PM
We'll soon see about that.

Yes,  Hulsey's  simultaneous collapse theory.   What a joke.

In order for the building to collapse at free-fall the entire core had to fail nearly simultaneously. Structural resistance slows fall acceleration. If you don't like it take it up with Newton, not me.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Newt.html

Ah, I see where you went wrong,  you forgot that the center had already collapsed / was collapsing BEFORE the facade came down.  I really can't keep holding you hand while you work through these things, you have to start to think for yourself if you are going to be a good anon campaigner.

Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 04:10:35 AM
Thats not true that's the conclusions of the fraudulent NIST report. That is merely the lie we were sold.

Furthermore, even if the entire inner core collapsed leaving the entire "facade" intact (which is impossible because of the cross bracing) there were still 18 support columns around the exterior.

(https://s26.postimg.org/iegp2ilix/images-43.jpg)

A free fall collapse even under your fairytale conditions is still impossible without a controlled demolition. You are trying to debunk Newton.

Q.E.D.

Edit.
Video evidence.
[Youtube][/youtube]

For reference Rayzor believes this debunks it. Notice he says it's "been debunked" since his first post on the topic.

Quote from: Rayzor on February 13, 2017, 11:18:08 PM
We already debunked that free-fall argument.   But just to recap,  how is it possible for the rooftop of a building to fall?   Doesn't the fact that it collapsed at all mean that the building structure supporting the roof is collapsing,    why would you be surprised that it fell at a free fall rate.   At least until it hit ground and other debris piled up,   The graph in the NIST shows it quite clearly.   

You say you work in the industry,  you mean the building industry?   In what capacity?

What caused the core to collapse at free-fall

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:43:13 PM
Quote from: Bullwinkle on September 21, 2017, 07:40:41 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:35:45 PM

What caused the core to collapse at free-fall



Opposed to hovering in place?

Watch the video. When the west penthouse fails the building immediately collapses.

Video evidence.
[Youtube][/youtube]

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:54:14 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 21, 2017, 07:49:46 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:43:13 PM
When the west penthouse fails the building immediately collapses.

Gee, I wonder what was holding up the penthouse?

The core. Therefore as soon as the core failed the building came down. Hulsey is right.
Video evidence.
[Youtube][/youtube]

Please respond to my post.

[Youtube][/youtube]
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 05:36:31 PM
Quote from: crutonius on September 22, 2017, 05:15:34 PM
You don't have free fall,

Do your homework please.

https://www.nist.gov/pba/questions-and-answers-about-nist-wtc-7-investigation
Quote
The analyses of the video (both the estimation of the instant the roofline began to descend and the calculated velocity and acceleration of a point on the roofline) revealed three distinct stages characterizing the 5.4 seconds of collapse:

Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 05:37:33 PM
Repost.

Quote from: crutonius on September 22, 2017, 05:15:34 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 04:08:36 PM
Quote from: crutonius on September 22, 2017, 04:02:14 PM
As it stands MaNaeSWolf has an explanation that fits the fact

I'm calm.

Please cite where MaeNaeSWolf "explained" the free-fall. If you cant cite what you claim then please retract it.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?action=search

This is what he actually said.

Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on March 30, 2017, 04:37:32 AM
I feel there should have been more support provided from the outer skin.

I completely understand why people dont think it should have fallen.

Edit. 1.
I just like Honesty Crutonius, that's all. If you have a quote please present it so we can see it and consider the information in it.

If no such quote exists please retract your claim and apologise.

Again.
This is what he actually said.

Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on March 30, 2017, 04:37:32 AM
I feel there should have been more support provided from the outer skin.

I completely understand why people dont think it should have fallen.

Edit. 2.
No rush I've got all day man.

Edit.
Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on March 30, 2017, 04:37:32 AM
I feel there should have been more support provided from the outer skin.

I completely understand why people dont think it should have fallen.

You don't have free fall, you have something that vaguely seems like free fall on a fuzzy camcorder recorded nearly 20 years ago.

The outer shell was rigid enough to hold while the inner structure collapsed.  Without the inner structure to hold it the outer shell would then collapse much faster than we would expect.

Now that I've proven your claims on wtc7 wrong beyond any reasonable doubt I think it's time for you to retract your claims about controlled demolition on it and apologize to razor and everyone else you've been attacking for disagreeing with you.  It's been a fun 200 pages but it's time for you to be a man and apologize to the people you've slandered.

Ive been trying to not use any personal attacks and just use logic and speak the truth.

Rayzor is a shill. I am 75% sure you are too. This is more than fear and cognitive dissonance. What you are doing is intentional it is too much of a coincidence you jump in after I got Rayzor in checkmate This post directly debunks your assertions.

Quote from: crutonius on September 22, 2017, 09:43:57 AM
The more I read this thread the more evidence I see agreeing with the "official story".

Tell us which of Newtons laws you disagree with and why.

Quote from: RocketSauce on September 22, 2017, 12:54:05 PM
nothing worse than being 100% sure about something, and still being wrong...

Is that what you believe?
Can you debunk Newton? And save the official story?

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:35:45 PM
This post debunks your assertion that the entire core collapsed leaving the outside intact and then the "outer facade" collapsing at free-fall.

Please read it and respond to it.
Here.
Can you debunk this post? If it's as stupid and I'm as stupid as you all claim surely a smart guy like you can debunk it.

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 05:46:15 PM
No the video of the collapse shows the failure of columns 79, 80, and 81, causing a partial building collapse. (The collapse of the east penthouse.)

None of these were core columns and then after a few seconds, the entire core failed nearly simultaneously causing a 2.25 second symmetrical free-fall of the entire bulding. Remeber the "outer facade" had 18 structural support columns making any natural free-fall impossible.

@Rayzor.
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 04:05:20 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 03:59:31 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 03:54:44 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 03:33:41 AM
You still haven't addressed your post trying to debunk Newton. Do you stand by it?

You seriously think I'm trying to debunk Newton?

I do, yes.

See.
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 10:00:14 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 09:51:48 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 09:50:33 PM
We'll soon see about that.

Yes,  Hulsey's  simultaneous collapse theory.   What a joke.

In order for the building to collapse at free-fall the entire core had to fail nearly simultaneously. Structural resistance slows fall acceleration. If you don't like it take it up with Newton, not me.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Newt.html

Ah, I see where you went wrong,  you forgot that the center had already collapsed / was collapsing BEFORE the facade came down.  I really can't keep holding you hand while you work through these things, you have to start to think for yourself if you are going to be a good anon campaigner.

Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 04:10:35 AM
Thats not true that's the conclusions of the fraudulent NIST report. That is merely the lie we were sold.

Furthermore, even if the entire inner core collapsed leaving the entire "facade" intact (which is impossible because of the cross bracing) there were still 18 support columns around the exterior.

(https://s26.postimg.org/iegp2ilix/images-43.jpg)

A free fall collapse even under your fairytale conditions is still impossible without a controlled demolition. You are trying to debunk Newton.

Q.E.D.

Edit.
Video evidence.
[Youtube][/youtube]

For reference Rayzor believes this debunks it. Notice he says it's "been debunked" since his first post on the topic.

Quote from: Rayzor on February 13, 2017, 11:18:08 PM
We already debunked that free-fall argument.   But just to recap,  how is it possible for the rooftop of a building to fall?   Doesn't the fact that it collapsed at all mean that the building structure supporting the roof is collapsing,    why would you be surprised that it fell at a free fall rate.   At least until it hit ground and other debris piled up,   The graph in the NIST shows it quite clearly.   

You say you work in the industry,  you mean the building industry?   In what capacity?

What caused the core to collapse at free-fall

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:43:13 PM
Quote from: Bullwinkle on September 21, 2017, 07:40:41 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:35:45 PM

What caused the core to collapse at free-fall



Opposed to hovering in place?

Watch the video. When the west penthouse fails the building immediately collapses.

Video evidence.
[Youtube][/youtube]

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:54:14 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 21, 2017, 07:49:46 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:43:13 PM
When the west penthouse fails the building immediately collapses.

Gee, I wonder what was holding up the penthouse?

The core. Therefore as soon as the core failed the building came down. Hulsey is right.
Video evidence.
[Youtube][/youtube]

Please respond to my post.

[Youtube][/youtube]
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 05:47:34 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on September 22, 2017, 05:16:17 PM
The reason I enjoyed speaking with wolf is one, he knew what he was talking about so we could talk honestly and quickly... excluding a few differences in terms because of him working in Africa.

Two, he came to support the official story and believed it (though admitted he never really looked into it)..so we spoke honestly, with no ad hominems or personal attacks..he honestly looked at what the official story said with the design of the buildings and began to question the whole thing. He left feeling very uneasy about the whole thing...He knows it's impossible, but it is a tough pill to swallow.

I was an official story believer at one point too, I actually was converted when I was doing a project in college trying to support the official fairy tale. It's a tough pill to swallow, I knew the government didn't care about the people, but I didn't know they hated is that much.

Even if he came back and disagreed and supported the official story, I would have no beef with him. He took an honest look and made his conclusion....though I think we know by his uneasy actions how he feels about it...

So this goes back to

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on September 22, 2017, 01:25:42 AM
Let's see....I will trust my expensive education, over a decade of experience, 100k software, others education, experience and software that dwarfs mine over a "report" that the creators called rigged and "unsupported"...don't forget the 1000s of pages that were removed....

Yet the "truthers" are the crazy ones....

I am very surprised by some of the people's comments in this thread, and I am not talking about the usual Rayzor/symptom/user nonsense.

This.

To users credit his attitude has done a 180 and I think he's genuine.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 22, 2017, 06:13:15 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on September 22, 2017, 05:16:17 PM
I am very surprised by some of the people's comments in this thread, and I am not talking about the usual Rayzor/symptom/user nonsense.

Why?  Does the truth surprise you?  Truth is dispute has turned into a raving looney,  and you've done nothing to help.

He just keeps misunderstanding basic physics and asking the same question over and over in ever increasing font sizes.  I think he lacks the mental capacity to understand.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Crouton on September 22, 2017, 06:15:46 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 05:37:33 PM
Rayzor is a shill. I am 75% sure you are too. This is more than fear and cognitive dissonance. What you are doing is intentional it is too much of a coincidence you jump in after I got Rayzor in checkmate This post directly debunks your assertions.

Now do you see why I warned you not to equate agreeing with someone's ideas with approving of them?  See now you look duplicitous because just this morning you were saying what I great guy I was when I did agree with you.

And these very emotional posts you keep writing, how am I supposed to respond to these?  Nothing short of agreeing with you is going to calm you down.

Finally, I have other things to do right now instead of hitting F5 in chrome.  I'll get to your posts when I get to your posts.  Don't worry about it so much.  It's Saturday for you right?  Get out of the house and have some fun.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 22, 2017, 06:26:06 PM
Quote from: markjo on September 22, 2017, 07:24:44 AM
It's page 189.  Are you guys any closer to the truth now than you were on page 1?

Yes, the truth is 9/11 conspiracy crazies are locked into a mindset where facts and evidence no longer matter.   Remarkably similar to the the flat earth thought processes.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bullwinkle on September 22, 2017, 06:31:52 PM
I am Bullwinkle.
I am reason.
I forgive.
I forget.
I'll call if I'm going to be late.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 06:39:29 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 22, 2017, 06:13:15 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on September 22, 2017, 05:16:17 PM
I am very surprised by some of the people's comments in this thread, and I am not talking about the usual Rayzor/symptom/user nonsense.

Why?  Does the truth surprise you?  Truth is dispute has turned into a raving looney,  and you've done nothing to help.

He just keeps misunderstanding basic physics and asking the same question over and over in ever increasing font sizes.  I think he lacks the mental capacity to understand.

So debunk my post (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1958717#msg1958717) genius.

[youtube][/youtube]
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bullwinkle on September 22, 2017, 06:42:10 PM
I am Bullwinkle.
I am reason.
I forgive.
I forget.
I'll call if I'm going to be late.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 06:44:20 PM
Quote from: crutonius on September 22, 2017, 06:15:46 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 05:37:33 PM
Rayzor is a shill. I am 75% sure you are too. This is more than fear and cognitive dissonance. What you are doing is intentional it is too much of a coincidence you jump in after I got Rayzor in checkmate This post directly debunks your assertions.

Now do you see why I warned you not to equate agreeing with someone's ideas with approving of them?  See now you look duplicitous because just this morning you were saying what I great guy I was when I did agree with you.

And these very emotional posts you keep writing, how am I supposed to respond to these?  Nothing short of agreeing with you is going to calm you down.

Finally, I have other things to do right now instead of hitting F5 in chrome.  I'll get to your posts when I get to your posts.  Don't worry about it so much.  It's Saturday for you right?  Get out of the house and have some fun.

In actuality my opinion of your shillary went down to around 35% with that post (pretending?) to care the NSA and CIA are breaking the constitution and committing crimes against the people. Now it is back up to 75%, I want to believe you are genuine. Bullwinkle you are around 90%.

Please keep this thread on topic, wtc 7. We can continue this line but I think you saw what happened to Rayzor.

Rayzor I will politely ask you to stop Gaslighting.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on September 22, 2017, 06:50:39 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 22, 2017, 06:26:06 PM
Quote from: markjo on September 22, 2017, 07:24:44 AM
It's page 189.  Are you guys any closer to the truth now than you were on page 1?

Yes, the truth is 9/11 conspiracy crazies are locked into a mindset where facts and evidence no longer matter.   Remarkably similar to the the flat earth thought processes.

If you mean insult after insult from a gas lighting blow hard, then yes, we have gotten quite far.

The smell of desperation is surely a stinky one. It's hard to debunk reality I suppose ??? What other option is their besides relying on such deflection techniques.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 22, 2017, 06:52:25 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 06:44:20 PM
Rayzor I will politely ask you to stop Gaslighting.

Hey,  I'd lose my weekend bonus for psyop shilling on overtime rates.  So no deal, unless you want to up the offer?

Oh,  nearly forgot.    Dipshit is a conspiracy nutter,    that's the quota for this morning completed.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 06:52:36 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 22, 2017, 06:26:06 PM
9/11 conspiracy crazies

Quote
Psychological operations (PSYOP) are planned operations to convey selected information and indicators to audiences to influence their emotions, motives, and objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of governments, organizations, groups, and individuals.

The purpose of United States psychological operations is to induce or reinforce behavior favorable to U.S. objectives. They are an important part of the range of diplomatic, informational, military and economic activities available to the U.S. They can be utilized during both peacetime and conflict. There are three main types: strategic, operational and tactical. Strategic PSYOP include informational activities conducted by the U.S. government agencies outside of the military arena, though many utilize Department of Defense (DOD) assets. Operational PSYOP are conducted across the range of military operations, including during peacetime, in a defined operational area to promote the effectiveness of the joint force commander's (JFC) campaigns and strategies. Tactical PSYOP are conducted in the area assigned to a tactical commander across the range of military operations to support the tactical mission against opposing forces.

PSYOP can encourage popular discontent with the opposition's leadership and by combining persuasion with a credible threat, degrade an adversary's ability to conduct or sustain military operations. They can also disrupt, confuse, and protract the adversary's decision-making process, undermining command and control. [1] When properly employed, PSYOP have the potential to save the lives of friendly or enemy forces by reducing the adversary's will to fight. By lowering the adversary's morale and then its efficiency, PSYOP can also discourage aggressive actions by creating disaffection within their ranks, ultimately leading to surrender.


"Persuade, Change, Influence"
(Army)
"Never Seen, Always Heard"
(Air Force)

Quote from: Rayzor on September 22, 2017, 06:26:06 PM
Remarkably similar to the the flat earth thought processes.

Quote
COINTELPRO (a portmanteau derived fromCOunter INTELligence PROgram) was a series of covert, and often illegal,[1][2] projects conducted by the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) aimed at surveilling, infiltrating, discrediting, and disrupting American political organizations.[3]

FBI records show that COINTELPRO resources targeted groups and individuals that the FBI deemed subversive,[4] including anti-Vietnam War organizers, activists of theCivil Rights Movement or Black Power movement (e.g., Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Black Panther Party), feministorganizations, independence movements (such as Puerto Rican independence groups like the Young Lords), and a variety of organizations that were part of the broader New Left.

FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover issued directives governing COINTELPRO, ordering FBI agents to "expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit, neutralize or otherwise eliminate" the activities of these movements and especially their leaders.[5][6] Under Hoover, the agent in charge of COINTELPRO was William C. Sullivan.[7] Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy personally authorized some of the programs.[8] Although Kennedy only gave written approval for limited wiretapping of Martin Luther King's phones "on a trial basis, for a month or so",[9] Hoover extended the clearance so his men were "unshackled" to look for evidence in any areas of King's life they deemed worthy.[10]

According to attorney Brian Glick in his book War at Home, the FBI used four main methods during COINTELPRO:

Infiltration: Agents and informers did not merely spy on political activists. Their main purpose was to discredit and disrupt. Their very presence served to undermine trust and scare off potential supporters. The FBI and police exploited this fear to smear genuine activists as agents.

Psychological warfare:
The FBI and police used myriad "dirty tricks" to undermine progressive movements. They planted false media stories and published bogus leaflets and other publications in the name of targeted groups. They forged correspondence, sent anonymous letters, and made anonymous telephone calls. They spread misinformation about meetings and events, set up pseudo movement groups run by government agents, and manipulated or strong-armed parents, employers, landlords, school officials and others to cause trouble for activists. They used bad-jacketing to create suspicion about targeted activists, sometimes with lethal consequences.[43]

Harassment via the legal system:
The FBI and police abused the legal system to harass dissidents and make them appear to be criminals. Officers of the law gave perjured testimony and presented fabricated evidence as a pretext for false arrests and wrongful imprisonment. They discriminatorily enforced tax laws and other government regulations and used conspicuous surveillance, "investigative" interviews, and grand jury subpoenas in an effort to intimidate activists and silence their supporters.[41][44]

Illegal force:
The FBI conspired with local police departments to threaten dissidents; to conduct illegal break-ins in order to search dissident homes; and to commit vandalism, assaults, beatings and assassinations.[41] The object was to frighten or eliminate dissidents and disrupt their movements.

The FBI specifically developed tactics intended to heighten tension and hostility between various factions in the black militancy movement, for example between the Black Panthers, the US Organization, and the Blackstone Rangers. This resulted in numerous deaths, among which were San Diego Black Panther Party members John Huggins, Bunchy Carter and Sylvester Bell.[41]

Dhoruba Bin Wahad a former Black Panther, reflects on how these tactics made him feel, saying he had a combat mentality and felt like he was at war with the government. When asked about why he thinks the Black Panthers were targeted he said, "In the United States, the equivalent of the military was the local police. During the early sixties, at the height of the Civil Rights Movement, and the human rights movement, the police in the United States became increasingly militaristic. They began to train out of military bases in the United States. The Law Enforcement Assistance Act (LEAA) supplied local police with military technology, everything from assault rifles to army personnel carriers. In his opinion, the Counterintelligence Program went hand-in-hand with the militarization of the police in the Black community, with the militarization of police in America."[45]

The FBI also conspired with the police departments of many U.S. cities (San Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Oakland, Philadelphia, Chicago) to encourage repeated raids on Black Panther homes—often with little or no evidence of violations of federal, state, or local laws—which resulted directly in the police killing many members of the Black Panther Party, most notably Chicago Black Panther Party Chairman Fred Hampton on December 4, 1969.[41][42][46]

In order to eliminate black militant leaders whom they considered dangerous, the FBI is believed to have worked with local police departments to target specific individuals,[47]accuse them of crimes they did not commit, suppress exculpatory evidence and falsely incarcerate them. Elmer "Geronimo" Pratt, a Black Panther Party leader, was incarcerated for 27 years before a California Superior Court vacated his murder conviction, ultimately freeing him. Appearing before the court, an FBI agent testified that he believed Pratt had been framed, because both the FBI and the Los Angeles Police Department knew he had not been in the area at the time the murder occurred.[48][49]

Some sources claim that the FBI conducted more than 200 "black bag jobs",[50][51] which were warrantless surreptitious entries, against the targeted groups and their members.[52]

In 1969 the FBI special agent in San Francisco wrote Hoover that his investigation of the Black Panther Party (BPP) had concluded that in his city, at least, the Panthers were primarily engaged in feeding breakfast to children. Hoover fired back a memo implying the agent's career goals would be directly affected by his supplying evidence to support Hoover's view that the BPP was "a violence-prone organization seeking to overthrow the Government by revolutionary means".[53]

Hoover supported using false claims to attack his political enemies. In one memo he wrote: "Purpose of counterintelligence action is to disrupt the BPP and it is immaterial whether facts exist to substantiate the charge."[54]

In one particularly controversial 1965 incident, white civil rights worker Viola Liuzzo was murdered by Ku Klux Klansmen, who gave chase and fired shots into her car after noticing that her passenger was a young black man; one of the Klansmen was Gary Thomas Rowe, an acknowledged FBI informant.[55][56] The FBI spread rumors that Liuzzo was a member of the Communist Party and had abandoned her children to have sexual relationships with African Americansinvolved in the Civil Rights Movement.[57][58]FBI records show that J. Edgar Hooverpersonally communicated these insinuations to President Johnson.[59][60] FBI informant Rowe has also been implicated in some of the most violent crimes of the 1960s civil rights era, including attacks on the Freedom Ridersand the 1963 Birmingham, Alabama 16th Street Baptist Church bombing.[55]

Hoover ordered preemptive action "to pinpoint potential troublemakers and neutralize them before they exercise their potential for violence."[5]

Information is free and it's our greatest weapon against you.

[youtube][/youtube]
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 22, 2017, 06:53:46 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on September 22, 2017, 06:50:39 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 22, 2017, 06:26:06 PM
Quote from: markjo on September 22, 2017, 07:24:44 AM
It's page 189.  Are you guys any closer to the truth now than you were on page 1?

Yes, the truth is 9/11 conspiracy crazies are locked into a mindset where facts and evidence no longer matter.   Remarkably similar to the the flat earth thought processes.

If you mean insult after insult from a gas lighting blow hard, then yes, we have gotten quite far.

The smell of desperation is surely a stinky one. It's hard to debunk reality I suppose ??? What other option is their besides relying on such deflection techniques.

I assumed you were an idiot,  thanks for the confirmation,  you never honestly answered my questions, but please don't bother now.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 07:01:08 PM
Babyhighspeed has a PhD and is a hero.

Inb4 he's not.
He's one of my personal heros.

We disagree on plenty of things.

Best possible case for you Rayzor (we both know this is not the case) is you are a sad and no nothing failure and a broken man clinging desperately to a lie like a child clings to Santa. You have thoroughly demonstrated the content of your character.

I can disarm you merely with the truth.
#OperationMetal.
[youtube][/youtube]
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on September 22, 2017, 07:02:08 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 22, 2017, 06:53:46 PM
I assumed you were an idiot,  thanks for the confirmation,  you never honestly answered my questions, but please don't bother now.

Hollow words from an anonymous blowhard nobody....can't even prove he is a real person, much less show why he is better than these supposed "nutters"...my night is ruined now, I don't know how I could ever deal with this tragedy.

Nor do I know what questions you are talking about, this thread has had alot of posts on it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 07:08:44 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on September 22, 2017, 07:02:08 PM
Nor do I know what questions you are talking about, this thread has had alot of posts on it.

These are the questions he has been asking to try and debunk physics, engineering and reality since the start of the thread.

I answered them here as honestly as possible with educated speculation.

Quote from: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 01:17:02 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 17, 2017, 07:09:34 PM
Those questions do not debunk physics. We are quite good at prediciting mechanical processes now. Newton showed us how.

Quote
1.  Why bother demolishing a building that was already in danger of collapsing?

Destroy evidence linking the CIA and Mossad to 9/11.

Quote
2.  Why wait 7 hours before demolition?

Same reason it wasn't mentioned on the official commission report. Try and limit peoples knowlege of wtc 7s collapse.

Rayzor this is where we left your questions.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 22, 2017, 07:12:54 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on September 22, 2017, 07:02:08 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 22, 2017, 06:53:46 PM
I assumed you were an idiot,  thanks for the confirmation,  you never honestly answered my questions, but please don't bother now.

Hollow words from an anonymous blowhard nobody....can't even prove he is a real person, much less show why he is better than these supposed "nutters"...my night is ruined now, I don't know how I could ever deal with this tragedy.

Nor do I know what questions you are talking about, this thread has had alot of posts on it.

LOL, how do you manage to make everything about you?  Either you are the most insecure person I've ever encountered or you are an ego maniac of Trumpian proportions. 

On balance I think it's insecurity, much the same as dispute is embroiled in a struggle for his identity. 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 07:22:39 PM
I know who I am and I am proud of it. You are powerless and foolish to think you can take that away.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on September 22, 2017, 07:22:56 PM
It wasn't "in danger of collapsing" only in the world of fairy tales....unless it was already damaged by explosives heard by witnesses and government officials... conveniently most of the officials that vouched to this have been "suicided"...as well as their testimony removed from the commission report.

Even if it was in danger of collapse, when you need to guarantee an outcome, it's better to have a Fail-Safe..

Not rocket science...

As for why wait 7 hours?? If you have a story to keep (which it was obvious the story was already written by the fake interviews)



Then you have to try and make it believable...you couldn't set a fire then have it come down in 20 mins, that would be even more nonsense than what already exists...not even Rayzor could lie that one away.

You could also go into the theory of that building being the control center for the towers magic show, so you would not want to collapse it till later, however, that is just speculation and thinking out loud.

Quote from: Rayzor on September 22, 2017, 07:12:54 PM

LOL, how do you manage to make everything about you?  Either you are the most insecure person I've ever encountered or you are an ego maniac of Trumpian proportions. 

On balance I think it's insecurity, much the same as dispute is embroiled in a struggle for his identity. 


Because you are too dense to understand this happens when you attack me personally...I know you have zero honor nor truth in you, so you wouldn't understand...a righteous person would.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 22, 2017, 07:36:24 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on September 22, 2017, 07:22:56 PM
It wasn't "in danger of collapsing" only in the world of fairy tales....unless it was already damaged by explosives heard by witnesses and government officials... conveniently most of the officials that vouched to this have been "suicided"...as well as their testimony removed from the commission report.

Even if it was in danger of collapse, when you need to guarantee an outcome, it's better to have a Fail-Safe..

Not rocket science...

I assume you have evidence to support that claim?  Because all the evidence available says otherwise.  The FDNY repeatedly warned throughout the day that it was in danger of collapse.

Likewise there is no evidence of explosives either heard or seen.   



Quote from: Babyhighspeed on September 22, 2017, 07:22:56 PM
As for why wait 7 hours?? If you have a story to keep (which it was obvious the story was already written by the fake interviews)



Then you have to try and make it believable...you couldn't set a fire then have it come down in 20 mins, that would be even more nonsense than what already exists...not even Rayzor could lie that one away.

You could also go into the theory of that building being the control center for the towers magic show, so you would not want to collapse it till later, however, that is just speculation and thinking out loud.


So your theory it that it was delayed to make it look like it was a believable collapse.   Guess what?   It was.


Quote from: Babyhighspeed on September 22, 2017, 07:22:56 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 22, 2017, 07:12:54 PM

LOL, how do you manage to make everything about you?  Either you are the most insecure person I've ever encountered or you are an ego maniac of Trumpian proportions. 

On balance I think it's insecurity, much the same as dispute is embroiled in a struggle for his identity. 


Because you are too dense to understand this happens when you attack me personally...I know you have zero honor nor truth in you, so you wouldn't understand...a righteous person would.

I find it hilarious that you haven't figured out after 5500 posts that I only attack you after you attack me,  I call it respond in kind.   But for someone as insecure as you, I'd be a bit sensitive about starting something you'll regret.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 07:37:09 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on September 22, 2017, 07:22:56 PM
It wasn't "in danger of collapsing" only in the world of fairy tales....unless it was already damaged by explosives heard by witnesses and government officials... conveniently most of the officials that vouched to this have been "suicided"...as well as their testimony removed from the commission report.

Even if it was in danger of collapse, when you need to guarantee an outcome, it's better to have a Fail-Safe..

Not rocket science...

Also I would like to point out the obvious that a natural collapse would look something like pic related and not the symmetrical free-fall we saw of wtc 7.

Q.E.D. (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1958717#msg1958717)

(https://s26.postimg.org/aiunjk33t/www.voanews.com_Media_Assets2_projects_ground_zer.jpg)

(https://s26.postimg.org/8sbmi2lkp/images-50.jpg)

(https://s26.postimg.org/dfhoju8xl/images-57.jpg)

Information is free.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bullwinkle on September 22, 2017, 07:54:05 PM
Typically when something happens for the first time it has never happened before.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 22, 2017, 07:56:31 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 07:37:09 PM

Also I would like to point out the obvious that a natural collapse would look something like pic related and not the symmetrical free-fall we saw of wtc 7.



Doesn't that contradict the theory that it was supposed to look like a natural collapse?   Why go to all that trouble to wait 7 hours if you just bungle it at the end?

But on the other hand

Can you prove that a natural collapse would not be symmetrical?   No you can't

But no matter because the truth is the collapse wasn't anywhere near symmetrical,  the angle that the video was taken from doesn't show how far it buckled and leant over as it went down.

So the evidence of near symmetrical free-fall is evidence of what?   Nothing.   

Your conspiracy theory is a big nothing.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 08:01:35 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on September 22, 2017, 07:22:56 PM
Because you are too dense to understand this happens when you attack me personally...I know you have zero honor nor truth in you, so you wouldn't understand...a righteous person would.

I also think we should all take a minute to learn a lesson from Jesus / Yehoshua, regardless of our beliefs.

Quote
The cleansing of the Temple narrative tells of Jesus expelling the merchants and the money changers from the Temple, and occurs in all four canonical gospels of the New Testament.

In this account, Jesus and his disciples travel to Jerusalem for Passover, where Jesus expels the merchants and money changers from the Temple, accusing them of turning the Temple into "a den of thieves" through their commercial activities.[1][2] In the Gospel of John Jesus refers to the Temple as "my Father's house", thus, making a claim to being the Son of God.[3]

(Ad lib. Are we all not children of god / nature?)

The narrative occurs near the end of theSynoptic Gospels (at Matthew 21:12–17,Mark 11:15–19, and Luke 19:45–48) and near the start in the Gospel of John (at John 2:13–16). Some scholars believe that these refer to two separate incidents, given that the Gospel of John also includes more than one Passover.[4]

The scene became common in art.



Quote from: Rayzor on September 22, 2017, 07:56:31 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 07:37:09 PM

Also I would like to point out the obvious that a natural collapse would look something like pic related and not the symmetrical free-fall we saw of wtc 7.
Doesn't that contradict the theory that it was supposed to look like a natural collapse?

They f*cked up on wtc 7, they got cocky and greedy, I know it, you know it, they know it.

We know you are scared.

Edit.

Quote
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 22, 2017, 08:16:26 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 08:01:35 PM
They f*cked up on wtc 7, they got cocky and greedy, I know it, you know it, they know it.

Or you are wrong and the FDNY was correct, it was about to collapse anyway.  Which do you think is more likely?

Your conspiracy has no substance.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 08:17:35 PM
Quote from: Bullwinkle on September 22, 2017, 07:54:05 PM
Typically when something happens for the first time it has never happened before.

If fire caused wtc 7s collapse Newtons laws were broken on that day.

Q.E.D. (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1958717#msg1958717)

That's just an unpleasant fact. Maybe Newton really was wrong? Maybe the war on terror really was to protect our freedom and not for oil and control of the middle east?

Quote from: Leroy Hulsey
You're dealing with things like F=MA.

You never know you could be right.

Edit.

Quote from: Rayzor on September 22, 2017, 08:16:26 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 08:01:35 PM
They f*cked up on wtc 7, they got cocky and greedy, I know it, you know it, they know it.

Or you are wrong and the FDNY was correct, it was about to collapse anyway.  Which do you think is more likely?

I'm putting my faith in Newton until you debunk his laws.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 22, 2017, 08:34:56 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 08:17:35 PM
If fire caused wtc 7s collapse Newtons laws were broken on that day.

I'm betting Newtons laws are just fine,  I'm less sure about they way you understand them.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 08:48:41 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 22, 2017, 08:34:56 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 08:17:35 PM
If fire caused wtc 7s collapse Newtons laws were broken on that day.

I'm betting Newtons laws are just fine,  I'm less sure about they way you understand them.

Show us how Newtons laws could allow wtc 7s collapse. I have shown they are incompatible with a fire caused collapse.

Q.E.D. (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1958717#msg1958717)

Scientific proof is coming. Your attempts at subversion will fail.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bullwinkle on September 22, 2017, 08:51:19 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 08:48:41 PM

Scientific proof is coming.



How soon? 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 08:54:46 PM
Quote from: Bullwinkle on September 22, 2017, 08:51:19 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 08:48:41 PM
Scientific proof is coming.
How soon?

http://www.wtc7evaluation.org/
http://ine.uaf.edu/projects/wtc7/

Quote
A draft report of the study will be released in October or November 2017 and will be open for public comment for a six-week period, allowing for input from the public and the engineering community. A final report will then be published in early 2018.

Quote
Project Info
Lead Researcher
(s)J. Leroy Hulsey
Project Team
Dr. Feng Xiao, Post-doctoral ResearcherZhili Quan, Ph.D. student Project Dates

May 1, 2015 - April 30, 2018

Funding

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
Project Budget: $316,153

Presentations

Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7
presentation by Dr. Leroy Hulsey on September 6, 2017 at the University of Alaska Fairbanks.

Reports

[youtube][/youtube]

WTC7 Progress Report (September 2017)

It's like you think you don't have access to information and aren't smart enough to think for yourself.

You do and you are smart enough.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 08:59:25 PM
Freindly reminder this post is yet to be debunked.

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:35:45 PM
This post debunks your assertion that the entire core collapsed leaving the outside intact and then the "outer facade" collapsing at free-fall.

Please read it and respond to it.
Here.
Can you debunk this post? If it's as stupid and I'm as stupid as you all claim surely a smart guy like you can debunk it.

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 05:46:15 PM
No the video of the collapse shows the failure of columns 79, 80, and 81, causing a partial building collapse. (The collapse of the east penthouse.)

None of these were core columns and then after a few seconds, the entire core failed nearly simultaneously causing a 2.25 second symmetrical free-fall of the entire bulding. Remeber the "outer facade" had 18 structural support columns making any natural free-fall impossible.

@Rayzor.
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 04:05:20 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 03:59:31 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 03:54:44 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 03:33:41 AM
You still haven't addressed your post trying to debunk Newton. Do you stand by it?

You seriously think I'm trying to debunk Newton?

I do, yes.

See.
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 10:00:14 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 09:51:48 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 09:50:33 PM
We'll soon see about that.

Yes,  Hulsey's  simultaneous collapse theory.   What a joke.

In order for the building to collapse at free-fall the entire core had to fail nearly simultaneously. Structural resistance slows fall acceleration. If you don't like it take it up with Newton, not me.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Newt.html

Ah, I see where you went wrong,  you forgot that the center had already collapsed / was collapsing BEFORE the facade came down.  I really can't keep holding you hand while you work through these things, you have to start to think for yourself if you are going to be a good anon campaigner.

Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 04:10:35 AM
Thats not true that's the conclusions of the fraudulent NIST report. That is merely the lie we were sold.

Furthermore, even if the entire inner core collapsed leaving the entire "facade" intact (which is impossible because of the cross bracing) there were still 18 support columns around the exterior.

(https://s26.postimg.org/iegp2ilix/images-43.jpg)

A free fall collapse even under your fairytale conditions is still impossible without a controlled demolition. You are trying to debunk Newton.

Q.E.D.

Edit.
Video evidence.
[Youtube][/youtube]

For reference Rayzor believes this debunks it. Notice he says it's "been debunked" since his first post on the topic.

Quote from: Rayzor on February 13, 2017, 11:18:08 PM
We already debunked that free-fall argument.   But just to recap,  how is it possible for the rooftop of a building to fall?   Doesn't the fact that it collapsed at all mean that the building structure supporting the roof is collapsing,    why would you be surprised that it fell at a free fall rate.   At least until it hit ground and other debris piled up,   The graph in the NIST shows it quite clearly.   

You say you work in the industry,  you mean the building industry?   In what capacity?

What caused the core to collapse at free-fall

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:43:13 PM
Quote from: Bullwinkle on September 21, 2017, 07:40:41 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:35:45 PM

What caused the core to collapse at free-fall



Opposed to hovering in place?

Watch the video. When the west penthouse fails the building immediately collapses.

Video evidence.
[Youtube][/youtube]

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:54:14 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 21, 2017, 07:49:46 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:43:13 PM
When the west penthouse fails the building immediately collapses.

Gee, I wonder what was holding up the penthouse?

The core. Therefore as soon as the core failed the building came down. Hulsey is right.
Video evidence.
[Youtube][/youtube]

Please respond to my post.

[Youtube][/youtube]
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 09:02:19 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 22, 2017, 06:26:06 PM
9/11 conspiracy crazies

Quote
Psychological operations (PSYOP) are planned operations to convey selected information and indicators to audiences to influence their emotions, motives, and objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of governments, organizations, groups, and individuals.

The purpose of United States psychological operations is to induce or reinforce behavior favorable to U.S. objectives. They are an important part of the range of diplomatic, informational, military and economic activities available to the U.S. They can be utilized during both peacetime and conflict. There are three main types: strategic, operational and tactical. Strategic PSYOP include informational activities conducted by the U.S. government agencies outside of the military arena, though many utilize Department of Defense (DOD) assets. Operational PSYOP are conducted across the range of military operations, including during peacetime, in a defined operational area to promote the effectiveness of the joint force commander's (JFC) campaigns and strategies. Tactical PSYOP are conducted in the area assigned to a tactical commander across the range of military operations to support the tactical mission against opposing forces.

PSYOP can encourage popular discontent with the opposition's leadership and by combining persuasion with a credible threat, degrade an adversary's ability to conduct or sustain military operations. They can also disrupt, confuse, and protract the adversary's decision-making process, undermining command and control. [1] When properly employed, PSYOP have the potential to save the lives of friendly or enemy forces by reducing the adversary's will to fight. By lowering the adversary's morale and then its efficiency, PSYOP can also discourage aggressive actions by creating disaffection within their ranks, ultimately leading to surrender.


"Persuade, Change, Influence"
(Army)
"Never Seen, Always Heard"
(Air Force)

Quote from: Rayzor on September 22, 2017, 06:26:06 PM
Remarkably similar to the the flat earth thought processes.

Quote
COINTELPRO (a portmanteau derived fromCOunter INTELligence PROgram) was a series of covert, and often illegal,[1][2] projects conducted by the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) aimed at surveilling, infiltrating, discrediting, and disrupting American political organizations.[3]

FBI records show that COINTELPRO resources targeted groups and individuals that the FBI deemed subversive,[4] including anti-Vietnam War organizers, activists of theCivil Rights Movement or Black Power movement (e.g., Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Black Panther Party), feministorganizations, independence movements (such as Puerto Rican independence groups like the Young Lords), and a variety of organizations that were part of the broader New Left.

FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover issued directives governing COINTELPRO, ordering FBI agents to "expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit, neutralize or otherwise eliminate" the activities of these movements and especially their leaders.[5][6] Under Hoover, the agent in charge of COINTELPRO was William C. Sullivan.[7] Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy personally authorized some of the programs.[8] Although Kennedy only gave written approval for limited wiretapping of Martin Luther King's phones "on a trial basis, for a month or so",[9] Hoover extended the clearance so his men were "unshackled" to look for evidence in any areas of King's life they deemed worthy.[10]

According to attorney Brian Glick in his book War at Home, the FBI used four main methods during COINTELPRO:

Infiltration: Agents and informers did not merely spy on political activists. Their main purpose was to discredit and disrupt. Their very presence served to undermine trust and scare off potential supporters. The FBI and police exploited this fear to smear genuine activists as agents.

Psychological warfare:
The FBI and police used myriad "dirty tricks" to undermine progressive movements. They planted false media stories and published bogus leaflets and other publications in the name of targeted groups. They forged correspondence, sent anonymous letters, and made anonymous telephone calls. They spread misinformation about meetings and events, set up pseudo movement groups run by government agents, and manipulated or strong-armed parents, employers, landlords, school officials and others to cause trouble for activists. They used bad-jacketing to create suspicion about targeted activists, sometimes with lethal consequences.[43]

Harassment via the legal system:
The FBI and police abused the legal system to harass dissidents and make them appear to be criminals. Officers of the law gave perjured testimony and presented fabricated evidence as a pretext for false arrests and wrongful imprisonment. They discriminatorily enforced tax laws and other government regulations and used conspicuous surveillance, "investigative" interviews, and grand jury subpoenas in an effort to intimidate activists and silence their supporters.[41][44]

Illegal force:
The FBI conspired with local police departments to threaten dissidents; to conduct illegal break-ins in order to search dissident homes; and to commit vandalism, assaults, beatings and assassinations.[41] The object was to frighten or eliminate dissidents and disrupt their movements.

The FBI specifically developed tactics intended to heighten tension and hostility between various factions in the black militancy movement, for example between the Black Panthers, the US Organization, and the Blackstone Rangers. This resulted in numerous deaths, among which were San Diego Black Panther Party members John Huggins, Bunchy Carter and Sylvester Bell.[41]

Dhoruba Bin Wahad a former Black Panther, reflects on how these tactics made him feel, saying he had a combat mentality and felt like he was at war with the government. When asked about why he thinks the Black Panthers were targeted he said, "In the United States, the equivalent of the military was the local police. During the early sixties, at the height of the Civil Rights Movement, and the human rights movement, the police in the United States became increasingly militaristic. They began to train out of military bases in the United States. The Law Enforcement Assistance Act (LEAA) supplied local police with military technology, everything from assault rifles to army personnel carriers. In his opinion, the Counterintelligence Program went hand-in-hand with the militarization of the police in the Black community, with the militarization of police in America."[45]

The FBI also conspired with the police departments of many U.S. cities (San Diego, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Oakland, Philadelphia, Chicago) to encourage repeated raids on Black Panther homes—often with little or no evidence of violations of federal, state, or local laws—which resulted directly in the police killing many members of the Black Panther Party, most notably Chicago Black Panther Party Chairman Fred Hampton on December 4, 1969.[41][42][46]

In order to eliminate black militant leaders whom they considered dangerous, the FBI is believed to have worked with local police departments to target specific individuals,[47]accuse them of crimes they did not commit, suppress exculpatory evidence and falsely incarcerate them. Elmer "Geronimo" Pratt, a Black Panther Party leader, was incarcerated for 27 years before a California Superior Court vacated his murder conviction, ultimately freeing him. Appearing before the court, an FBI agent testified that he believed Pratt had been framed, because both the FBI and the Los Angeles Police Department knew he had not been in the area at the time the murder occurred.[48][49]

Some sources claim that the FBI conducted more than 200 "black bag jobs",[50][51] which were warrantless surreptitious entries, against the targeted groups and their members.[52]

In 1969 the FBI special agent in San Francisco wrote Hoover that his investigation of the Black Panther Party (BPP) had concluded that in his city, at least, the Panthers were primarily engaged in feeding breakfast to children. Hoover fired back a memo implying the agent's career goals would be directly affected by his supplying evidence to support Hoover's view that the BPP was "a violence-prone organization seeking to overthrow the Government by revolutionary means".[53]

Hoover supported using false claims to attack his political enemies. In one memo he wrote: "Purpose of counterintelligence action is to disrupt the BPP and it is immaterial whether facts exist to substantiate the charge."[54]

In one particularly controversial 1965 incident, white civil rights worker Viola Liuzzo was murdered by Ku Klux Klansmen, who gave chase and fired shots into her car after noticing that her passenger was a young black man; one of the Klansmen was Gary Thomas Rowe, an acknowledged FBI informant.[55][56] The FBI spread rumors that Liuzzo was a member of the Communist Party and had abandoned her children to have sexual relationships with African Americansinvolved in the Civil Rights Movement.[57][58]FBI records show that J. Edgar Hooverpersonally communicated these insinuations to President Johnson.[59][60] FBI informant Rowe has also been implicated in some of the most violent crimes of the 1960s civil rights era, including attacks on the Freedom Ridersand the 1963 Birmingham, Alabama 16th Street Baptist Church bombing.[55]

Hoover ordered preemptive action "to pinpoint potential troublemakers and neutralize them before they exercise their potential for violence."[5]

Information is free and it's our greatest weapon against you.

[youtube][/youtube]
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Symptom on September 22, 2017, 09:48:50 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on September 21, 2017, 04:20:21 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 07:16:06 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on September 20, 2017, 11:40:25 AM
I myself am a simplicity and functionality person....I am the person that only has one spoon/knife/bowl/cup/fork etc and rewash every sitting

Wow, mealtime must be pretty lonely at your place.  Do you never have visitors?

Mealtimes around here are can be a bit chaotic,  but it's always fun to have family and friends together for a meal.  We take turns cooking and everyone has a specialty.   Tonight is a birthday party and since I'm cooking, I'm going to cook Mexican.  Lots of wine, fajitas and hot chilli.

I have visitors, though typically alcohol is the wanted party favor....I do have plenty of shot glasses and rocks glasses. If someone is so fancy they require a glass for their beer then they can bring their own..

However, now that I broke down after years of purposefully staying single and actually with someone, perhaps I may add a second set of utensils and cups....

Low blow on the family thing though... expected from you, but still a low blow. You know damn well I lost my family a while back, I have even complimented you on having a close family... Classy  ::)

Quote from: Symptom on September 20, 2017, 10:51:50 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 07:16:06 PM

Wow, mealtime must be pretty lonely at your place.  Do you never have visitors?

He owns a Lamborghini and a (questionable) Porsche (mostly driven by ), and he knows the 9/11 truth. So why would he need to form relationships with actual human beings?

Duh.

I love it when the bottom of the gene pool attempts to be clever...it's about as entertaining as a monkey trying to hump a football...at least the monkey will eventually get wise to the charade...

The foul smell of do nothing blow hards is quite a repugnant odor that permeates a distance of no limit.

Also, since you are trying to insult me, I would like to clear up a few things so perhaps you can do better next time. Rich soccer mom's do not drive turbo Panameras, they drive g wagons, s550s and range rovers...trophy wives drive Bentley gts and sl63s....also...it would be Lamborghinis, you forgot the s pumpkin  ;) ::)

Try harder...

How on earth is "a Lamborghini" incorrect? Not plural. You should know that, as you supposedly own one. Or are you saying you own "a Lamborghinis"?

And while you're at it, please provide evidence that no surgically enhanced trophy wife soccer moms on the planet drive Panamera's.
Thanks in advance.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bullwinkle on September 22, 2017, 09:50:46 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 08:54:46 PM
Quote from: Bullwinkle on September 22, 2017, 08:51:19 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 08:48:41 PM
Scientific proof is coming.
How soon?

http://www.wtc7evaluation.org/ (http://www.wtc7evaluation.org/)
http://ine.uaf.edu/projects/wtc7/ (http://ine.uaf.edu/projects/wtc7/)



Correct answer would have been a date and time.

Nice try.



I am Bullwinkle.
I am reason.
I forgive.
I forget.
I'll call if I'm going to be late.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 09:53:14 PM
Please keep this thread on topic. The topic at the moment is wtc 7. Please stop the personal attacks and detailing.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on September 22, 2017, 09:56:49 PM
Quote from: Symptom on September 22, 2017, 09:48:50 PM
How on earth is "a Lamborghini" incorrect? Not plural. You should know that, as you supposedly own one. Or are you saying you own "a Lamborghinis"?

And while you're at it, please provide evidence that no surgically enhanced trophy wife soccer moms on the planet drive Panamera's.
Thanks in advance.

Adding an s would make it plural pumpkin...if you were gonna be a smart ass I was going to correct you.

I am sure some trophy wife drives a turbo Panamera someone, just not on average.

Is there a point to this? Or are you drunk again and just banging the keyboard?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bullwinkle on September 22, 2017, 10:03:12 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 09:53:14 PM
Please keep this thread on topic. The topic at the moment is wtc 7. Please stop the personal attacks and detailing.


Stop triggering my night light.



I am Bullwinkle.
I am reason.
I forgive.
I forget.
I'll call if I'm going to be late.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Symptom on September 22, 2017, 10:04:56 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on September 22, 2017, 09:56:49 PM
Quote from: Symptom on September 22, 2017, 09:48:50 PM
How on earth is "a Lamborghini" incorrect? Not plural. You should know that, as you supposedly own one. Or are you saying you own "a Lamborghinis"?

And while you're at it, please provide evidence that no surgically enhanced trophy wife soccer moms on the planet drive Panamera's.
Thanks in advance.

Adding an s would make it plural pumpkin...if you were gonna be a smart ass I was going to correct you.

I am sure some trophy wife drives a turbo Panamera someone, just not on average.

Is there a point to this? Or are you drunk again and just banging the keyboard?

Again, "a Lamborghini". "BHS owns a Lamborghini". You fucked up, just admit it, sweetheart.  :-*

And there's no less point to this than your usual deluded ramblings, drunk or not.  ;D
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on September 22, 2017, 10:10:59 PM
Quote from: Symptom on September 22, 2017, 10:04:56 PM
Again, "a Lamborghini". "BHS owns a Lamborghini". You fucked up, just admit it, sweetheart.  :-*

And there's no less point to this than your usual deluded ramblings, drunk or not.  ;D

Once again cup cake, it's plural, as in more than one princess.

Squint so you can see the screen better in your drunken stupor...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Symptom on September 22, 2017, 10:21:38 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on September 22, 2017, 10:10:59 PM
Quote from: Symptom on September 22, 2017, 10:04:56 PM
Again, "a Lamborghini". "BHS owns a Lamborghini". You fucked up, just admit it, sweetheart.  :-*

And there's no less point to this than your usual deluded ramblings, drunk or not.  ;D

Once again cup cake, it's plural, as in more than one princess.

Squint so you can see the screen better in your drunken stupor...

Ohhh, I get it now. What you're telling the class is that you don't own one single Lamborghini, you own several Lamborghinis.

I'm sure we are all impressed. Now riddle us this: If you really are as successful as you claim to be, why are you hanging out here on an obscure web forum with the ass end of the gene pool, rather than being out there in the real world burning rubber and benchpressing supermodels? On a Friday night?

We're all dying to know.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 10:29:54 PM
Friendly reminder you can't touch this. (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1958790#msg1958790)

[Youtube][/youtube]

Quote from: Symptom on September 22, 2017, 10:21:38 PM
why are you hanging out here on an obscure web forum with the ass end of the gene pool

If I had a dollar for everytime I've heard something like that I could retire.

Personally, I'm here because there are some very intelligent people here. I'm not claiming to be ""successful"" but you're the one who seems jealous.

Be comfortable with who and what you are symptom. You can do that.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Symptom on September 22, 2017, 10:43:03 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 10:29:54 PM
Friendly reminder you can't touch this. (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1958790#msg1958790)

[Youtube][/youtube]

Quote from: Symptom on September 22, 2017, 10:21:38 PM
why are you hanging out here on an obscure web forum with the ass end of the gene pool

If I had a dollar for everytime I've heard something like that I could retire.

Personally, I'm here because there are some very intelligent people here. I'm not claiming to be ""successful"" but you're the one who seems jealous.

Be comfortable with who and what you are symptom. You can do that.

Pro tip: You have no fucking idea who or what I am.

We all know who you are though.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on September 22, 2017, 10:51:44 PM
Quote from: Symptom on September 22, 2017, 10:21:38 PM

Ohhh, I get it now. What you're telling the class is that you don't own one single Lamborghini, you own several Lamborghinis.

I'm sure we are all impressed. Now riddle us this: If you really are as successful as you claim to be, why are you hanging out here on an obscure web forum with the ass end of the gene pool, rather than being out there in the real world burning rubber and benchpressing supermodels? On a Friday night?

We're all dying to know.

Just having fun screwing with you since you are attempting to be a dick towards me. The vacuum thread has two of them on it.. doesn't matter.

As for why I am on this site, I gave a long description else where here, I would repeat, but I know you don't care so it's not worth it.

The site served it's purpose at the time, but I stayed because of a few people I have met here.

Yes I am out, I live in downtown, can walk everywhere, but I still post on here on and off because I am A.D.D.

Any other attempted dick head questions?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 10:54:32 PM
Quote from: Symptom on September 22, 2017, 10:43:03 PM
Pro tip: You have no fucking idea who or what I am.

We all know who you are though.

[youtube][/youtube]
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Symptom on September 22, 2017, 10:58:38 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on September 22, 2017, 10:51:44 PM
Quote from: Symptom on September 22, 2017, 10:21:38 PM

Ohhh, I get it now. What you're telling the class is that you don't own one single Lamborghini, you own several Lamborghinis.

I'm sure we are all impressed. Now riddle us this: If you really are as successful as you claim to be, why are you hanging out here on an obscure web forum with the ass end of the gene pool, rather than being out there in the real world burning rubber and benchpressing supermodels? On a Friday night?

We're all dying to know.

Just having fun screwing with you since you are attempting to be a dick towards me. The vacuum thread has two of them on it.. doesn't matter.

As for why I am on this site, I gave a long description else where here, I would repeat, but I know you don't care so it's not worth it.

The site served it's purpose at the time, but I stayed because of a few people I have met here.

Yes I am out, I live in downtown, can walk everywhere, but I still post on here on and off because I am A.D.D.

Any other attempted dick head questions?

It takes more than whatever it is you think you are doing to "screw with me". I didn't even notice.

Oh, the ADD things means we actually have something in common. Who knew. Mah brutha from anotha motha. We're practically twins.

I don't own any Lamborghiniseseses though. I own a rusty mid-seventies Volvo, does that count?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on September 22, 2017, 11:07:38 PM
Quote from: Symptom on September 22, 2017, 10:58:38 PM
It takes more than whatever it is you think you are doing to "screw with me". I didn't even notice.

Oh, the ADD things means we actually have something in common. Who knew. Mah brutha from anotha motha.

I don't own any Lamborghiniseseses though. I own a rusty mid-seventies Volvo, does that count?

Well look at that....

Let me be brief...something traumatic happened in my life...could not sleep (was already an insomniac)...not to mention could not handle idle time so always had to be doing something. While on YouTube came across a flat earth video, was surprised that is still a thing...came to this site in search for more info.

Ended up meeting people here that a few of them I would consider a friend, so still here.

Also don't get a big dick about the Lamborghinis, I only bought one new. The rest I built from wrecks, have other cars as well that are in the stages of being built up but lost interest.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Symptom on September 22, 2017, 11:19:12 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 10:54:32 PM
Quote from: Symptom on September 22, 2017, 10:43:03 PM
Pro tip: You have no fucking idea who or what I am.

We all know who you are though.

[youtube][/youtube]

Disputeone in a nutshell:

Above average physical appearance, above average intelligence, charming, funny, attractive to both sexes, and just an all around good guy to hang out with.

Also, his job as a DJ means he has a pretty booming social life. He can pretty much pick whatever he want's from the top shelf.
But yet, even if he brings two, three, or even four women home with him after a gig on a friday or saturday night, they are all gone in the morning which leaves d1 wondering "Why is it so hard for me to make any sort of actual connection with another human being? Why am I so alone?".

So d1 turns to the internet. And finds this little place called 4chan. I think we all know where this is going.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bullwinkle on September 22, 2017, 11:20:20 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on September 22, 2017, 11:07:38 PM

Ended up meeting people here that a few of them I would consider a friend, so still here.



Same thing. Stopped by on a lark. Good people.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Symptom on September 22, 2017, 11:22:51 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on September 22, 2017, 11:07:38 PM
Quote from: Symptom on September 22, 2017, 10:58:38 PM
It takes more than whatever it is you think you are doing to "screw with me". I didn't even notice.

Oh, the ADD things means we actually have something in common. Who knew. Mah brutha from anotha motha.

I don't own any Lamborghiniseseses though. I own a rusty mid-seventies Volvo, does that count?

Well look at that....

Let me be brief...something traumatic happened in my life...could not sleep (was already an insomniac)...not to mention could not handle idle time so always had to be doing something. While on YouTube came across a flat earth video, was surprised that is still a thing...came to this site in search for more info.

Ended up meeting people here that a few of them I would consider a friend, so still here.

Also don't get a big dick about the Lamborghinis, I only bought one new. The rest I built from wrecks, have other cars as well that are in the stages of being built up but lost interest.

I'm enough of a gearhead that I'm gonna ask you what other cars you are building. Let's hear it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 11:26:22 PM
Quote from: Symptom on September 22, 2017, 11:19:12 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 10:54:32 PM
Quote from: Symptom on September 22, 2017, 10:43:03 PM
Pro tip: You have no fucking idea who or what I am.

We all know who you are though.

[youtube][/youtube]

Disputeone in a nutshell:

Above average physical appearance, above average intelligence, charming, funny, attractive to both sexes, and just an all around good guy to hang out with.

Also, his job as a DJ means he has a pretty booming social life. He can pretty much pick whatever he want's from the top shelf.
But yet, even if he brings two, three, or even four women home with him after a gig on a friday or saturday night, they are all gone in the morning which leaves d1 wondering "Why is it so hard for me to make any sort of actual connection with another human being? Why am I so alone?".

So d1 turns to the internet. And finds this little place called 4chan. I think we all know where this is going.

I grew up with a lot of domestic violence and abuse.

As a man I can't stand people with power oppressing those without it. It's always been a thing for me.

No lies here.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Symptom on September 22, 2017, 11:28:31 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 11:26:22 PM
Quote from: Symptom on September 22, 2017, 11:19:12 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 10:54:32 PM
Quote from: Symptom on September 22, 2017, 10:43:03 PM
Pro tip: You have no fucking idea who or what I am.

We all know who you are though.

[youtube][/youtube]

Disputeone in a nutshell:

Above average physical appearance, above average intelligence, charming, funny, attractive to both sexes, and just an all around good guy to hang out with.

Also, his job as a DJ means he has a pretty booming social life. He can pretty much pick whatever he want's from the top shelf.
But yet, even if he brings two, three, or even four women home with him after a gig on a friday or saturday night, they are all gone in the morning which leaves d1 wondering "Why is it so hard for me to make any sort of actual connection with another human being? Why am I so alone?".

So d1 turns to the internet. And finds this little place called 4chan. I think we all know where this is going.

I grew up with a lot of domestic violence and abuse.


That sucks, and I hate that you had to live through that. Honestly.

But what I wrote is correct, right?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on September 22, 2017, 11:32:48 PM
Quote from: Bullwinkle on September 22, 2017, 11:20:20 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on September 22, 2017, 11:07:38 PM

Ended up meeting people here that a few of them I would consider a friend, so still here.



Same thing. Stopped by on a lark. Good people.
For myself, I stopped by and stayed because it's funny too see that many retards in one place.
Okay, I admit, I kind of like some of the guys here, too.

@BHS: toy lambos ain't countin', ya know?
Also, remeber back in the days, when you wanted to convince me that university brainwashes me? You still have never explained how it supposedly happens...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 11:58:10 PM
Quote from: Symptom on September 22, 2017, 11:28:31 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 11:26:22 PM
Quote from: Symptom on September 22, 2017, 11:19:12 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 10:54:32 PM
Quote from: Symptom on September 22, 2017, 10:43:03 PM
Pro tip: You have no fucking idea who or what I am.

We all know who you are though.

[youtube][/youtube]

Disputeone in a nutshell:

Above average physical appearance, above average intelligence, charming, funny, attractive to both sexes, and just an all around good guy to hang out with.

Also, his job as a DJ means he has a pretty booming social life. He can pretty much pick whatever he want's from the top shelf.
But yet, even if he brings two, three, or even four women home with him after a gig on a friday or saturday night, they are all gone in the morning which leaves d1 wondering "Why is it so hard for me to make any sort of actual connection with another human being? Why am I so alone?".

So d1 turns to the internet. And finds this little place called 4chan. I think we all know where this is going.

I grew up with a lot of domestic violence and abuse.


That sucks, and I hate that you had to live through that. Honestly.

But what I wrote is correct, right?

Total honesty again.

I went to nine different schools in four different states. I was always gifted but this made a real education very difficult. As my family was always moving from place to place chasing career and status.

Websites like 4chan gave a sense of lasting connection because I was always leaving all of my real friends and girlfriends behind.

I still value real life connections and understand they are the real thing. The internet is just a game. It can be used as a tool or to keep in touch with friends far away.

No lies here.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Symptom on September 23, 2017, 12:07:47 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 11:58:10 PM
Quote from: Symptom on September 22, 2017, 11:28:31 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 11:26:22 PM
Quote from: Symptom on September 22, 2017, 11:19:12 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 10:54:32 PM
Quote from: Symptom on September 22, 2017, 10:43:03 PM
Pro tip: You have no fucking idea who or what I am.

We all know who you are though.

[youtube][/youtube]

Disputeone in a nutshell:

Above average physical appearance, above average intelligence, charming, funny, attractive to both sexes, and just an all around good guy to hang out with.

Also, his job as a DJ means he has a pretty booming social life. He can pretty much pick whatever he want's from the top shelf.
But yet, even if he brings two, three, or even four women home with him after a gig on a friday or saturday night, they are all gone in the morning which leaves d1 wondering "Why is it so hard for me to make any sort of actual connection with another human being? Why am I so alone?".

So d1 turns to the internet. And finds this little place called 4chan. I think we all know where this is going.

I grew up with a lot of domestic violence and abuse.


That sucks, and I hate that you had to live through that. Honestly.

But what I wrote is correct, right?

Total honesty again.

I went to nine different schools in four different states. I was always gifted but this made a real education very difficult. As my family was always moving from place to place chasing career and status.

Websites like 4chan gave a sense of lasting connection because I was always leaving all of my real friends and girlfriends behind.

I still value real life connections and understand they are the real thing. The internet is just a game. It can be used as a tool or to keep in touch with friends far away.

No lies here.

I think we'd all like to see more of the real d1 you are giving us hints of here. I'm just saying.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 23, 2017, 12:08:18 AM
[youtube][/youtube]
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bullwinkle on September 23, 2017, 12:14:24 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 11:26:22 PM

No lies here.



Ha ha ha
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Symptom on September 23, 2017, 12:21:21 AM
Quote from: Bullwinkle on September 23, 2017, 12:14:24 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 11:26:22 PM

No lies here.



Ha ha ha

Indeed.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 23, 2017, 02:02:12 AM
Quote from: Bullwinkle on September 23, 2017, 12:14:24 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 22, 2017, 11:26:22 PM
No lies here.
Ha ha ha

None.

None here. (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1958790#msg1958790)

[Youtube][/youtube]
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on September 23, 2017, 03:01:57 AM
Dispute, how can you expect from people to stay on topic when you 24/7 spam youtube videos and anonymous stuff?


Edit:
I think you'll find this interesting in case you didn't know already (not 9/11 related tho):
https://www.welivesecurity.com/2017/09/21/new-finfisher-surveillance-campaigns/
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 23, 2017, 03:18:14 PM
Quote from: User324 on September 23, 2017, 03:01:57 AM
Dispute, how can you expect from people to stay on topic when you 24/7 spam youtube videos and anonymous stuff?

Just debunk this post user. Should be easy if what we were told about 9/11 was true.

Just debunk it man and I'll stop posting it. Show us all I'm wrong. People would appreciate it.

Freindly reminder this post is yet to be debunked.

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:35:45 PM
This post debunks your assertion that the entire core collapsed leaving the outside intact and then the "outer facade" collapsing at free-fall.

Please read it and respond to it.
Here.
Can you debunk this post? If it's as stupid and I'm as stupid as you all claim surely a smart guy like you can debunk it.

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 05:46:15 PM
No the video of the collapse shows the failure of columns 79, 80, and 81, causing a partial building collapse. (The collapse of the east penthouse.)

None of these were core columns and then after a few seconds, the entire core failed nearly simultaneously causing a 2.25 second symmetrical free-fall of the entire bulding. Remeber the "outer facade" had 18 structural support columns making any natural free-fall impossible.

@Rayzor.
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 04:05:20 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 03:59:31 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 03:54:44 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 03:33:41 AM
You still haven't addressed your post trying to debunk Newton. Do you stand by it?

You seriously think I'm trying to debunk Newton?

I do, yes.

See.
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 10:00:14 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 09:51:48 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 09:50:33 PM
We'll soon see about that.

Yes,  Hulsey's  simultaneous collapse theory.   What a joke.

In order for the building to collapse at free-fall the entire core had to fail nearly simultaneously. Structural resistance slows fall acceleration. If you don't like it take it up with Newton, not me.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Newt.html

Ah, I see where you went wrong,  you forgot that the center had already collapsed / was collapsing BEFORE the facade came down.  I really can't keep holding you hand while you work through these things, you have to start to think for yourself if you are going to be a good anon campaigner.

Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 04:10:35 AM
Thats not true that's the conclusions of the fraudulent NIST report. That is merely the lie we were sold.

Furthermore, even if the entire inner core collapsed leaving the entire "facade" intact (which is impossible because of the cross bracing) there were still 18 support columns around the exterior.

(https://s26.postimg.org/iegp2ilix/images-43.jpg)

A free fall collapse even under your fairytale conditions is still impossible without a controlled demolition. You are trying to debunk Newton.

Q.E.D.

Edit.
Video evidence.
[Youtube][/youtube]

For reference Rayzor believes this debunks it. Notice he says it's "been debunked" since his first post on the topic.

Quote from: Rayzor on February 13, 2017, 11:18:08 PM
We already debunked that free-fall argument.   But just to recap,  how is it possible for the rooftop of a building to fall?   Doesn't the fact that it collapsed at all mean that the building structure supporting the roof is collapsing,    why would you be surprised that it fell at a free fall rate.   At least until it hit ground and other debris piled up,   The graph in the NIST shows it quite clearly.   

You say you work in the industry,  you mean the building industry?   In what capacity?

What caused the core to collapse at free-fall

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:43:13 PM
Quote from: Bullwinkle on September 21, 2017, 07:40:41 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:35:45 PM

What caused the core to collapse at free-fall



Opposed to hovering in place?

Watch the video. When the west penthouse fails the building immediately collapses.

Video evidence.
[Youtube][/youtube]

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:54:14 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 21, 2017, 07:49:46 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:43:13 PM
When the west penthouse fails the building immediately collapses.

Gee, I wonder what was holding up the penthouse?

The core. Therefore as soon as the core failed the building came down. Hulsey is right.
Video evidence.
[Youtube][/youtube]

Please respond to my post.

[Youtube][/youtube]
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 23, 2017, 03:58:58 PM
Quote from: User324 on September 22, 2017, 11:32:48 PM
@BHS: toy lambos ain't countin', ya know?
Also, remeber back in the days, when you wanted to convince me that university brainwashes me? You still have never explained how it supposedly happens...

This book will explain it. Slightly dated but all good philosophy books are. Also most brainwashing is ineffective on the strong willed.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/25870624-the-crowd

I'll buy it for you if you want to read it.

I've got a few pictures of Babyhighspeeds cars and bikes that he's sent me. His Lamborghinis are real.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Symptom on September 23, 2017, 06:50:36 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 23, 2017, 03:58:58 PM
Also most brainwashing is ineffective on the strong willed.

But the thing is, how can you be sure that you actually are one of "the strong willed"? How do you know that you have not simply been brainwashed by 4chan conspirasist group-think?

How do you know that Anon is not controlled opposition?

You claim that you question everything, but do you constantly question your own beliefs? Honestly? I suspect you don't.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Symptom on September 23, 2017, 06:56:11 PM
oh, and the claim "most brainwashing is ineffective on the strong willed" is completely ridiculous to begin with.

There is not a single human being on the face of the earth who is immune to bias. And that includes you, d1.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 23, 2017, 10:05:06 PM
Quote from: Symptom on September 23, 2017, 06:50:36 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 23, 2017, 03:58:58 PM
Also most brainwashing is ineffective on the strong willed.

But the thing is, how can you be sure that you actually are one of "the strong willed"? How do you know that you have not simply been brainwashed by 4chan conspirasist group-think?

How do you know that Anon is not controlled opposition?

You claim that you question everything, but do you constantly question your own beliefs? Honestly? I suspect you don't.

I do, that's why I enjoy debate so much.

Speaking of debate can anyone debunk my post? (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1959049#msg1959049)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Symptom on September 23, 2017, 10:12:39 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 23, 2017, 10:05:06 PM
Quote from: Symptom on September 23, 2017, 06:50:36 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 23, 2017, 03:58:58 PM
Also most brainwashing is ineffective on the strong willed.

But the thing is, how can you be sure that you actually are one of "the strong willed"? How do you know that you have not simply been brainwashed by 4chan conspirasist group-think?

How do you know that Anon is not controlled opposition?

You claim that you question everything, but do you constantly question your own beliefs? Honestly? I suspect you don't.

I do, that's why I enjoy debate so much.

Speaking of debate can anyone debunk my post? (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1959049#msg1959049)

I have no interest in debunking your post. It's already been done. I'm just glad you didn't copy/paste it for the umpteenth time.

And it's pretty obvious by now that you don't ask any actual questions. You've decided what to believe, and you're sticking to it no matter what.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 23, 2017, 10:15:17 PM
Please link to where my post (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1959049#msg1959049) was debunked.

If you are unable to I will politely ask you to retract your claim of it being "debunked."
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Symptom on September 23, 2017, 10:24:33 PM
You are a liar and a troll.

And you can stuff your polite request where the sun never shines.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on September 23, 2017, 10:50:07 PM
Quote from: Symptom on September 22, 2017, 11:22:51 PM
I'm enough of a gearhead that I'm gonna ask you what other cars you are building. Let's hear it.

I have way more than I should, only about 30 percent are road worthy, there is a post in the drunken angry ranting thread in angry ranting that goes into more specifics. I don't know how people link to an exact post here.

The push button Pantera is unique as is the ll edition lotus turbo.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Symptom on September 23, 2017, 10:54:51 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on September 23, 2017, 10:50:07 PM
Quote from: Symptom on September 22, 2017, 11:22:51 PM
I'm enough of a gearhead that I'm gonna ask you what other cars you are building. Let's hear it.

I have way more than I should, only about 30 percent are road worthy, there is a post in the drunken angry ranting thread in angry ranting that goes into more specifics. I don't know how people link to an exact post here.

The push button Pantera is unique as is the ll edition lotus turbo.

Ooohh, Pantera's are sweet. Is it a wide-body?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 23, 2017, 11:15:49 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on September 23, 2017, 10:50:07 PM
Quote from: Symptom on September 22, 2017, 11:22:51 PM
I'm enough of a gearhead that I'm gonna ask you what other cars you are building. Let's hear it.

I have way more than I should, only about 30 percent are road worthy, there is a post in the drunken angry ranting thread in angry ranting that goes into more specifics. I don't know how people link to an exact post here.

The push button Pantera is unique as is the ll edition lotus turbo.

You can click the link of the post you want to link to and just copy and paste the url.

By clicking on
Re: 911 What is the truth?
On my post for example.

Then paste the link. (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1959267#msg1959267)
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1959267#msg1959267
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 24, 2017, 01:22:53 AM
Quote from: Symptom on September 23, 2017, 10:24:33 PM
You are a liar and a troll.

And you can stuff your polite request where the sun never shines.

Please cite evidence of my lies or retract your claim.

Quote
5. Flaming and Harassment
Do not use insulting or denigrating personal attacks against other members. Harassment or bullying of other members is forbidden.

6. Profanity
Do not use excessive profanity, or create threads with profane titles.

7. Troublemaking
Do not post or behave in a manner obviously intended to start a fight, get a reaction, or cause problems (e.g. making facetious complaints, adjusting/creating a profile so as to impersonate other members, etc.).

8. Low-content Posting/Derailment
Do not make spammy, non-contributive or low-quality posts, or derail threads by deliberately dragging discussion away from the original topic.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Symptom on September 24, 2017, 01:41:48 AM
Lol, d1 finally shows his true totalitarian face.

"You will obey the rules, or I am going to tell on you"
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 24, 2017, 01:43:30 AM
Quote from: Symptom on September 24, 2017, 01:41:48 AM
Lol, d1 finally shows his true totalitarian face.

"You will obey the rules, or I am going to tell on you"

I am merely posting some of the forum rules how you take it is up to you.

Please cite evidence of my lies or retract your claim.

Quote
5. Flaming and Harassment
Do not use insulting or denigrating personal attacks against other members. Harassment or bullying of other members is forbidden.

6. Profanity
Do not use excessive profanity, or create threads with profane titles.

7. Troublemaking
Do not post or behave in a manner obviously intended to start a fight, get a reaction, or cause problems (e.g. making facetious complaints, adjusting/creating a profile so as to impersonate other members, etc.).

8. Low-content Posting/Derailment
Do not make spammy, non-contributive or low-quality posts, or derail threads by deliberately dragging discussion away from the original topic.

Any mod can confirm I don't report posts except sometimes spambots.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Symptom on September 24, 2017, 01:44:58 AM
Such a free man.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 24, 2017, 02:08:38 AM
Quote from: Symptom on September 24, 2017, 01:44:58 AM
Such a free man.

More free than you. I wish to change that.

[youtube][/youtube]
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Symptom on September 24, 2017, 02:28:13 AM
Yeah, no. The last thing I need is your help.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 24, 2017, 02:31:41 AM
Quote from: Symptom on September 24, 2017, 02:28:13 AM
Yeah, no. The last thing I need is your help.

Please keep this thread on topic and post elsewhere then.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Symptom on September 24, 2017, 02:37:33 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 24, 2017, 02:31:41 AM
Quote from: Symptom on September 24, 2017, 02:28:13 AM
Yeah, no. The last thing I need is your help.

Please keep this thread on topic and post elsewhere then.

Nah. You're just gonna have to live with me.

I'm sorry, but out there in the real world there are people who may actually disagree with you. You might as well get used to it, snowflake.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 24, 2017, 02:55:54 AM
Quote from: Symptom on September 24, 2017, 02:37:33 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 24, 2017, 02:31:41 AM
Quote from: Symptom on September 24, 2017, 02:28:13 AM
Yeah, no. The last thing I need is your help.

Please keep this thread on topic and post elsewhere then.

Nah. You're just gonna have to live with me.

I'm sorry, but out there in the real world there are people who may actually disagree with you. You might as well get used to it, snowflake.

Ive been financially independent and lived on my own since I was 17.

Please keep this thread on topic.

If you disagree present your rebuttal to my post. (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1959049#msg1959049)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Symptom on September 24, 2017, 03:00:45 AM
Way to miss the point, sweetheart.

Are you really this dumb, or is it an act?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 24, 2017, 03:55:48 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 24, 2017, 02:55:54 AM
If you disagree present your rebuttal to my post. (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1959049#msg1959049)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 24, 2017, 05:44:26 PM
Daily reminder.

Quote from: disputeone on September 24, 2017, 03:55:48 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 24, 2017, 02:55:54 AM
If you disagree present your rebuttal to my post. (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1959049#msg1959049)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sokarul on September 24, 2017, 06:01:23 PM
Daily reminder, 57 explosions missing.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 24, 2017, 06:06:52 PM
Quote from: sokarul on September 24, 2017, 06:01:23 PM
Daily reminder, 57 explosions missing.

Physics > Incredulity.

Sorry Sock.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity
Quote
The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone decides that something did not happen, because they cannot personally understand how it could happen.

The fallacy is an argument from ignorance and an informal fallacy

I liked it better when you claimed wtc 7 was a coke can and a giant stepped on it.

Quote from: disputeone on September 24, 2017, 05:44:26 PM
Daily reminder.

Quote from: disputeone on September 24, 2017, 03:55:48 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 24, 2017, 02:55:54 AM
If you disagree present your rebuttal to my post. (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1959049#msg1959049)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sokarul on September 24, 2017, 07:10:03 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 24, 2017, 06:06:52 PM
Quote from: sokarul on September 24, 2017, 06:01:23 PM
Daily reminder, 57 explosions missing.

Physics > Incredulity.

Sorry Sock.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity
Quote
The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone decides that something did not happen, because they cannot personally understand how it could happen.

The fallacy is an argument from ignorance and an informal fallacy
[\quote]
Don't say I am, you are a textbook example of this. You can't understand how a tower fell down without explosives.

Quote
I liked it better when you claimed wtc 7 was a coke can and a giant stepped on it.

Quote from: disputeone on September 24, 2017, 05:44:26 PM
Daily reminder.

Quote from: disputeone on September 24, 2017, 03:55:48 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 24, 2017, 02:55:54 AM
If you disagree present your rebuttal to my post. (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1959049#msg1959049)
Unbalanced forces are a problem aren't they.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 24, 2017, 07:40:40 PM
Quote from: sokarul on September 24, 2017, 07:10:03 PM
Unbalanced forces are a problem aren't they.

Please elaborate on what you mean by unbalanced forces. Using the information in your short post it's hard to understand your meaning.

http://study.com/academy/lesson/unbalanced-force-definition-example-quiz.html

Seems like you're on the right track, keep researching.

Quote
Unbalanced forces are forces that cause a change in the motion of an object.

Very good.

Now this article shows us why a 2.25 second symmetrical free-fall of wtc 7 is impossible.

Quote
Any push or pull is a force. To describe a force, you must know two things. You must know the size of the force and the direction of the force. Suppose two teams are playing tug of war. Each team is pulling with equal force, but in opposite directions. Neither team can make the other team move. Forces that are equal in size but opposite in direction are called balanced forces.

Newtons third does debunk the idea of a fire induced natural collapse of wtc 7, no doubt about that.

Quote
If two forces are in opposite directions, then the net force is the difference between the two forces, and it is in the direction of the larger force. Consider two dogs playing tug of war with a short piece of rope. Each is exerting a force, but in opposite directions.

So we could look at gravitational potential energy, inertia and structural resistance to calculate the predicted fall acceleration of wtc 7 if the NIST conclusions were correct and the collapse was progressive starting with the failure of column 79 on floor 13.

Spoiler.
It isnt 2.25 seconds of very close to 9.8m/s2.

If I'm going to put in the effort show me it's worth it.

[Youtube][/youtube]
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 24, 2017, 07:51:27 PM
[youtube][/youtube]

(https://s26.postimg.org/l59lou1k9/yeahsciencebitch.jpg)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 25, 2017, 04:07:57 PM
Bump.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 25, 2017, 09:40:57 PM
Reminder this thread is why everyone hates me.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 25, 2017, 09:44:35 PM
Friendly reminder if you can debunk my points on wtc 7 to do so and to please stop personally attacking me.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 25, 2017, 09:45:24 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:35:45 PM
This post debunks your assertion that the entire core collapsed leaving the outside intact and then the "outer facade" collapsing at free-fall.

Please read it and respond to it.
Here.
Can you debunk this post? If it's as stupid and I'm as stupid as you all claim surely a smart guy like you can debunk it.

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 05:46:15 PM
No the video of the collapse shows the failure of columns 79, 80, and 81, causing a partial building collapse. (The collapse of the east penthouse.)

None of these were core columns and then after a few seconds, the entire core failed nearly simultaneously causing a 2.25 second symmetrical free-fall of the entire bulding. Remeber the "outer facade" had 18 structural support columns making any natural free-fall impossible.

@Rayzor.
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 04:05:20 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 03:59:31 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 03:54:44 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 03:33:41 AM
You still haven't addressed your post trying to debunk Newton. Do you stand by it?

You seriously think I'm trying to debunk Newton?

I do, yes.

See.
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 10:00:14 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 09:51:48 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 09:50:33 PM
We'll soon see about that.

Yes,  Hulsey's  simultaneous collapse theory.   What a joke.

In order for the building to collapse at free-fall the entire core had to fail nearly simultaneously. Structural resistance slows fall acceleration. If you don't like it take it up with Newton, not me.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Newt.html

Ah, I see where you went wrong,  you forgot that the center had already collapsed / was collapsing BEFORE the facade came down.  I really can't keep holding you hand while you work through these things, you have to start to think for yourself if you are going to be a good anon campaigner.

Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 04:10:35 AM
Thats not true that's the conclusions of the fraudulent NIST report. That is merely the lie we were sold.

Furthermore, even if the entire inner core collapsed leaving the entire "facade" intact (which is impossible because of the cross bracing) there were still 18 support columns around the exterior.

(https://s26.postimg.org/iegp2ilix/images-43.jpg)

A free fall collapse even under your fairytale conditions is still impossible without a controlled demolition. You are trying to debunk Newton.

Q.E.D.

Edit.
Video evidence.
[Youtube][/youtube]

For reference Rayzor believes this debunks it. Notice he says it's "been debunked" since his first post on the topic.

Quote from: Rayzor on February 13, 2017, 11:18:08 PM
We already debunked that free-fall argument.   But just to recap,  how is it possible for the rooftop of a building to fall?   Doesn't the fact that it collapsed at all mean that the building structure supporting the roof is collapsing,    why would you be surprised that it fell at a free fall rate.   At least until it hit ground and other debris piled up,   The graph in the NIST shows it quite clearly.   

You say you work in the industry,  you mean the building industry?   In what capacity?

What caused the core to collapse at free-fall

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:43:13 PM
Quote from: Bullwinkle on September 21, 2017, 07:40:41 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:35:45 PM

What caused the core to collapse at free-fall



Opposed to hovering in place?

Watch the video. When the west penthouse fails the building immediately collapses.

Video evidence.
[Youtube][/youtube]

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:54:14 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 21, 2017, 07:49:46 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:43:13 PM
When the west penthouse fails the building immediately collapses.

Gee, I wonder what was holding up the penthouse?

The core. Therefore as soon as the core failed the building came down. Hulsey is right.
Video evidence.
[Youtube][/youtube]

Quote from: disputeone on September 24, 2017, 07:40:40 PM
Quote from: sokarul on September 24, 2017, 07:10:03 PM
Unbalanced forces are a problem aren't they.

Please elaborate on what you mean by unbalanced forces. Using the information in your short post it's hard to understand your meaning.

http://study.com/academy/lesson/unbalanced-force-definition-example-quiz.html

Seems like you're on the right track, keep researching.

Quote
Unbalanced forces are forces that cause a change in the motion of an object.

Very good.

Now this article shows us why a 2.25 second symmetrical free-fall of wtc 7 is impossible.

Quote
Any push or pull is a force. To describe a force, you must know two things. You must know the size of the force and the direction of the force. Suppose two teams are playing tug of war. Each team is pulling with equal force, but in opposite directions. Neither team can make the other team move. Forces that are equal in size but opposite in direction are called balanced forces.

Newtons third does debunk the idea of a fire induced natural collapse of wtc 7, no doubt about that.

Quote
If two forces are in opposite directions, then the net force is the difference between the two forces, and it is in the direction of the larger force. Consider two dogs playing tug of war with a short piece of rope. Each is exerting a force, but in opposite directions.

So we could look at gravitational potential energy, inertia and structural resistance to calculate the predicted fall acceleration of wtc 7 if the NIST conclusions were correct and the collapse was progressive starting with the failure of column 79 on floor 13.

Spoiler.
It isnt 2.25 seconds of very close to 9.8m/s2.

If I'm going to put in the effort show me it's worth it.

[Youtube][/youtube]
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 26, 2017, 02:42:01 AM
I'm gonna school Mick West if anyone wants to watch, Bhs if you want to join in for some lulz. That whole site is dripping with fear ;D.

https://www.metabunk.org/invitation-to-debate-mick-west-on-wtc-7.t9090/

Edit. @Rayzor I'm not sure if they are allowed to use your tactics there.

I guess I'll find out.
Edit. Been waiting 33 minutes for this post to be approved...

Quote
To get started I would set out to prove that the 2.25 seconds of free-fall acceleration of the entire roofline of wtc 7, in effect a 2.25 second symmetrical free-fall is impossible for any fire induced collapse. I have a knowlege of the building and the engineering principles involved. It's hard to have a polite debate on this subject and I was hoping you could offer me one.

I'll await your answer.
dispute.

Like really metabunk?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on September 26, 2017, 03:25:40 AM
Your link doesn't work.
'Requested thread cant be found'
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 26, 2017, 03:30:34 AM
I'm still waiting for the moderators to approve the thread. Over an hour now.

No idea why.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 26, 2017, 03:32:20 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 26, 2017, 02:42:01 AM
I'm gonna school Mick West if anyone wants to watch, Bhs if you want to join in for some lulz. That whole site is dripping with fear ;D.

This should be good for a giggle,  don't forget to remind them about Newton.   

Post a link.  The one you put up earlier is broken.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 26, 2017, 03:32:46 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 26, 2017, 03:32:20 AM
Post a link.  The one you put up earlier is broken.

Quote from: disputeone on September 26, 2017, 03:30:34 AM
I'm still waiting for the moderators to approve the thread. Over an hour now.

No idea why.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 26, 2017, 03:39:40 AM
He claims to have """debunked""" Hulseys report.

When it hasn't even been released. His main point in """debunking""" it is that it hasn't been released ;D ;D ;D. I can smell the desperation. Smells like winning.

Edit.
https://www.metabunk.org/9-11.f28/
Lulzy.

This is the thread waiting to be approved for clarity. OP and first post.

Quote
Hi Mick I would like to offer a debate to you on the collapse of wtc 7 if you find that acceptable.

I have done my research and would enjoy a structured conversation.

Quote
To get started I would set out to prove that the 2.25 seconds of free-fall acceleration of the entire roofline of wtc 7, in effect a 2.25 second symmetrical free-fall is impossible for any fire induced collapse. I have a knowlege of the building and the engineering principles involved. It's hard to have a polite debate on this subject and I was hoping you could offer me one.

I'll await your answer.
dispute.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 26, 2017, 04:04:11 AM
HE ALSO CLAIMS A GIANT STEPPED ON WTC 7!!!!

https://www.metabunk.org/how-buckling-led-to-free-fall-acceleration-for-part-of-wtc7s-collapse.t8270/

Man he's gonna be pissed when even by his logic he's gonna need 52 giants.

(Warning cartoon giants.)
[youtube][/youtube]

Edit.

Even then all of the core columns had to fail simultaneously for the 2.25 second symmetrical free-fall.

Lol.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on September 26, 2017, 06:40:11 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 26, 2017, 04:04:11 AM
HE ALSO CLAIMS A GIANT STEPPED ON WTC 7!!!!

https://www.metabunk.org/how-buckling-led-to-free-fall-acceleration-for-part-of-wtc7s-collapse.t8270/

Man he's gonna be pissed when even by his logic he's gonna need 52 giants.

(Warning cartoon giants.)
[youtube][/youtube]

Edit.

Even then all of the core columns had to fail simultaneously for the 2.25 second symmetrical free-fall.

Lol.

I still don't see a link to your thread on Metabunk?   
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 26, 2017, 07:22:23 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 26, 2017, 06:40:11 AM
I still don't see a link to your thread on Metabunk?

Yeah apparently they dont want to debate wtc 7.

(https://s26.postimg.org/rwejgb8ax/20170926_221801.png)

The posts and thread above """didn't meet gudelines.""" Apparently debunking the 9/11 official story is forbidden and censored there?

I wonder why they don't want an honest debate? I wonder why they have to censor free speech?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on September 26, 2017, 07:34:55 AM
Well, free speech doesn't mean that they, on a private platform, have to accept or publish your opinion.

Anyway, just write them an email and ask what the issue with your post was.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 26, 2017, 07:36:16 AM
I have already. Waiting for a response. I'll post one here if I get one.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Crouton on September 26, 2017, 07:37:51 AM
Oh wow, they have a flat earth section there. I wonder if they ever reference this forum.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 26, 2017, 07:39:26 AM
Right under 9/11.

You would know.
Old friend.

Edit. To confirm I have not been sent an email or allowed an honest debate as of this moment. They sure do moderate that forum like commies.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sokarul on September 27, 2017, 09:00:45 AM
I'm still going to respond to the post on the other page.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 27, 2017, 04:28:20 PM
Quote from: sokarul on September 27, 2017, 09:00:45 AM
I'm still going to respond to the post on the other page.

I look forward to it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 29, 2017, 05:45:53 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 27, 2017, 04:28:20 PM
Quote from: sokarul on September 27, 2017, 09:00:45 AM
I'm still going to respond to the post on the other page.

I look forward to it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bullwinkle on September 29, 2017, 10:37:03 PM
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on September 30, 2017, 01:34:25 AM
That's not a rebuttal Bullwinkle. Even by the standard I hold you to. I'm waiting for Sokaruls rebuttal.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sokarul on September 30, 2017, 12:18:19 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 29, 2017, 05:45:53 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 27, 2017, 04:28:20 PM
Quote from: sokarul on September 27, 2017, 09:00:45 AM
I'm still going to respond to the post on the other page.

I look forward to it.
It happened 16 years ago. What are you in a hurry for?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bullwinkle on October 03, 2017, 07:21:48 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 30, 2017, 01:34:25 AM
That's not a rebuttal Bullwinkle. Even by the standard I hold you to.

I have lower standards.   ;)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Heiwa on October 04, 2017, 11:06:41 AM
Quote from: Bullwinkle on October 03, 2017, 07:21:48 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 30, 2017, 01:34:25 AM
That's not a rebuttal Bullwinkle. Even by the standard I hold you to.

I have lower standards.   ;)

LOL
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Crouton on October 04, 2017, 12:16:34 PM
Okay so we've got a few days of quiet time here before it turns into the thunderdome again.  Thought I'd get out a few questions that I've wanted to ask but I didn't feel like participating in a mosh pit.

BHS, these questions are directed at you.  I'm not trying to change your mind.  I'm just trying to understand your point of view here.  Maybe you've answered these questions elsewhere but this thread started out very toxic and only got worse.  So finding actual information here is very difficult.

Anyways.

1. 
My understanding of WTC1 and 2 going down is: 
Airplane crashes into tower.
The crash in addition to causing structural damage also destroys the firing proofing on the support beams.
The remaining fuel in the plane sets part of the tower ablaze.
The heat from the fire weakens the beams.
Eventually they can't support the weight of the floors above them and the progressive collapse brings the tower down.

My question is why do you find this explanation unlikely?

2.
If the plane crash didn't bring down WTC1&2 then what do you believe did?  It seems very unlikely that a conventional demolition wouldn't have been noticed.  Explosives are very loud.  Do you think it was thermite or something else?

3.
WTC7.  D1 has accused me of intentionally misinterpreting Wolf's explanation of why that tower collapsed in such an odd way.  I assure you I am not.  If I'm misunderstanding what wolf said here and he wants to set the record straight then I'll happily own up to it.  As far as I can tell though he provided a great explanation for how WTC7 would have looked like a controlled demolition.  Which is not to say he's definitely correct.  Just that it fits the facts as far as I can tell.
Are you of the opinion that WTC7 was brought down by controlled demolition?
If 911 was a false flag then isn't it possible that WTC7 was just collateral damage?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on October 26, 2017, 11:24:06 PM
Bump.

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:35:45 PM
This post debunks your assertion that the entire core collapsed leaving the outside intact and then the "outer facade" collapsing at free-fall.

Please read it and respond to it.
Here.
Can you debunk this post? If it's as stupid and I'm as stupid as you all claim surely a smart guy like you can debunk it.

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 05:46:15 PM
No the video of the collapse shows the failure of columns 79, 80, and 81, causing a partial building collapse. (The collapse of the east penthouse.)

None of these were core columns and then after a few seconds, the entire core failed nearly simultaneously causing a 2.25 second symmetrical free-fall of the entire bulding. Remeber the "outer facade" had 18 structural support columns making any natural free-fall impossible.

@Rayzor.
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 04:05:20 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 03:59:31 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 03:54:44 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 03:33:41 AM
You still haven't addressed your post trying to debunk Newton. Do you stand by it?

You seriously think I'm trying to debunk Newton?

I do, yes.

See.
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 10:00:14 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 09:51:48 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 09:50:33 PM
We'll soon see about that.

Yes,  Hulsey's  simultaneous collapse theory.   What a joke.

In order for the building to collapse at free-fall the entire core had to fail nearly simultaneously. Structural resistance slows fall acceleration. If you don't like it take it up with Newton, not me.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Newt.html

Ah, I see where you went wrong,  you forgot that the center had already collapsed / was collapsing BEFORE the facade came down.  I really can't keep holding you hand while you work through these things, you have to start to think for yourself if you are going to be a good anon campaigner.

Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 04:10:35 AM
Thats not true that's the conclusions of the fraudulent NIST report. That is merely the lie we were sold.

Furthermore, even if the entire inner core collapsed leaving the entire "facade" intact (which is impossible because of the cross bracing) there were still 18 support columns around the exterior.

(https://s26.postimg.org/iegp2ilix/images-43.jpg)

A free fall collapse even under your fairytale conditions is still impossible without a controlled demolition. You are trying to debunk Newton.

Q.E.D.

Edit.
Video evidence.
[Youtube][/youtube]

For reference Rayzor believes this debunks it. Notice he says it's "been debunked" since his first post on the topic.

Quote from: Rayzor on February 13, 2017, 11:18:08 PM
We already debunked that free-fall argument.   But just to recap,  how is it possible for the rooftop of a building to fall?   Doesn't the fact that it collapsed at all mean that the building structure supporting the roof is collapsing,    why would you be surprised that it fell at a free fall rate.   At least until it hit ground and other debris piled up,   The graph in the NIST shows it quite clearly.   

You say you work in the industry,  you mean the building industry?   In what capacity?

What caused the core to collapse at free-fall

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:43:13 PM
Quote from: Bullwinkle on September 21, 2017, 07:40:41 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:35:45 PM

What caused the core to collapse at free-fall



Opposed to hovering in place?

Watch the video. When the west penthouse fails the building immediately collapses.

Video evidence.
[Youtube][/youtube]

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:54:14 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 21, 2017, 07:49:46 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:43:13 PM
When the west penthouse fails the building immediately collapses.

Gee, I wonder what was holding up the penthouse?

The core. Therefore as soon as the core failed the building came down. Hulsey is right.
Video evidence.
[Youtube][/youtube]

Quote from: disputeone on September 24, 2017, 07:40:40 PM
Quote from: sokarul on September 24, 2017, 07:10:03 PM
Unbalanced forces are a problem aren't they.

Please elaborate on what you mean by unbalanced forces. Using the information in your short post it's hard to understand your meaning.

http://study.com/academy/lesson/unbalanced-force-definition-example-quiz.html

Seems like you're on the right track, keep researching.

Quote
Unbalanced forces are forces that cause a change in the motion of an object.

Very good.

Now this article shows us why a 2.25 second symmetrical free-fall of wtc 7 is impossible.

Quote
Any push or pull is a force. To describe a force, you must know two things. You must know the size of the force and the direction of the force. Suppose two teams are playing tug of war. Each team is pulling with equal force, but in opposite directions. Neither team can make the other team move. Forces that are equal in size but opposite in direction are called balanced forces.

Newtons third does debunk the idea of a fire induced natural collapse of wtc 7, no doubt about that.

Quote
If two forces are in opposite directions, then the net force is the difference between the two forces, and it is in the direction of the larger force. Consider two dogs playing tug of war with a short piece of rope. Each is exerting a force, but in opposite directions.

So we could look at gravitational potential energy, inertia and structural resistance to calculate the predicted fall acceleration of wtc 7 if the NIST conclusions were correct and the collapse was progressive starting with the failure of column 79 on floor 13.

Spoiler.
It isnt 2.25 seconds of very close to 9.8m/s2.

If I'm going to put in the effort show me it's worth it.

Recognise that
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on October 26, 2017, 11:34:50 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 27, 2017, 04:28:20 PM
Quote from: sokarul on September 27, 2017, 09:00:45 AM
I'm still going to respond to the post on the other page.

I look forward to it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sokarul on October 27, 2017, 09:17:43 AM
Quote from: sokarul on September 30, 2017, 12:18:19 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 29, 2017, 05:45:53 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 27, 2017, 04:28:20 PM
Quote from: sokarul on September 27, 2017, 09:00:45 AM
I'm still going to respond to the post on the other page.

I look forward to it.
It happened 16 years ago. What are you in a hurry for?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on October 27, 2017, 10:25:54 AM
If not now then when? If not you then who?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: RocketSauce on October 27, 2017, 11:43:26 AM
Quote from: disputeone on October 27, 2017, 10:25:54 AM
If not now then when? If not you then who?

What are you hoping from this thread?
Do you want the 10 active people on this site to say... yes we agree with you?
Then what? Do you move to another forum to get more people to agree with you?
What if you get 50 people to agree with you, Then what? Do you rally everyone to.... what? Get the government to tell you the real truth? Why would they do that?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bullwinkle on October 27, 2017, 01:13:02 PM
Quote from: RocketSauce on October 27, 2017, 11:43:26 AM

What are you hoping from this thread?
Do you want the 10 active people on this site to say... yes we agree with you?
Then what? Do you move to another forum to get more people to agree with you?
What if you get 50 people to agree with you, Then what? Do you rally everyone to.... what? Get the government to tell you the real truth? Why would they do that?



Walk into the shrink wherever you are, just walk in, say, "Shrink, . . . you
Can get anything you want at Alice's Restaurant", and walk out.

You know, if one person, just one person, does it, they may think he's
Really sick and they won't take him.

And if two people do it, in harmony, they may think they're both faggots and
They won't take either of them.

And if three people do it! Can you imagine three people walkin' in, singin'
A bar of "Alice's Restaurant" and walkin' out? They may think it's an
Organization!

And can you imagine fifty people a day? I said FIFTY people a day . . .
Walkin' in, singin' a bar of "Alice's Restaurant" and walkin' out? Friends,
They may think it's a MOVEMENT, and that's what it is: THE ALICE'S
RESTAURANT ANTI-MASSACREE MOVEMENT! . . . and all you gotta do to join is to
Sing it the next time it comes around on the guitar.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: RocketSauce on October 27, 2017, 01:41:12 PM
as a shrink, I don't think I would be around long enough for 50 people to come into my office... especially not more than once.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: MicroBeta on October 27, 2017, 04:49:14 PM
Quote from: Bullwinkle on October 27, 2017, 01:13:02 PM
Quote from: RocketSauce on October 27, 2017, 11:43:26 AM

What are you hoping from this thread?
Do you want the 10 active people on this site to say... yes we agree with you?
Then what? Do you move to another forum to get more people to agree with you?
What if you get 50 people to agree with you, Then what? Do you rally everyone to.... what? Get the government to tell you the real truth? Why would they do that?



Walk into the shrink wherever you are, just walk in, say, "Shrink, . . . you
Can get anything you want at Alice's Restaurant", and walk out.

You know, if one person, just one person, does it, they may think he's
Really sick and they won't take him.

And if two people do it, in harmony, they may think they're both faggots and
They won't take either of them.

And if three people do it! Can you imagine three people walkin' in, singin'
A bar of "Alice's Restaurant" and walkin' out? They may think it's an
Organization!

And can you imagine fifty people a day? I said FIFTY people a day . . .
Walkin' in, singin' a bar of "Alice's Restaurant" and walkin' out? Friends,
They may think it's a MOVEMENT, and that's what it is: THE ALICE'S
RESTAURANT ANTI-MASSACREE MOVEMENT! . . . and all you gotta do to join is to
Sing it the next time it comes around on the guitar.
You can' get anything you want...Excepting Alice! ;D
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on October 27, 2017, 07:25:35 PM
Quote from: RocketSauce on October 27, 2017, 11:43:26 AM
Quote from: disputeone on October 27, 2017, 10:25:54 AM
If not now then when? If not you then who?

What are you hoping from this thread?
Do you want the 10 active people on this site to say... yes we agree with you?
Then what? Do you move to another forum to get more people to agree with you?
What if you get 50 people to agree with you, Then what? Do you rally everyone to.... what? Get the government to tell you the real truth? Why would they do that?

Merely to show the official story doesn't make physical sense.

Micro-Beta you know good and well I am right.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on October 27, 2017, 07:26:24 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:35:45 PM
This post debunks your assertion that the entire core collapsed leaving the outside intact and then the "outer facade" collapsing at free-fall.

Please read it and respond to it.
Here.
Can you debunk this post? If it's as stupid and I'm as stupid as you all claim surely a smart guy like you can debunk it.

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 05:46:15 PM
No the video of the collapse shows the failure of columns 79, 80, and 81, causing a partial building collapse. (The collapse of the east penthouse.)

None of these were core columns and then after a few seconds, the entire core failed nearly simultaneously causing a 2.25 second symmetrical free-fall of the entire bulding. Remeber the "outer facade" had 18 structural support columns making any natural free-fall impossible.

@Rayzor.
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 04:05:20 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 03:59:31 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 03:54:44 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 03:33:41 AM
You still haven't addressed your post trying to debunk Newton. Do you stand by it?

You seriously think I'm trying to debunk Newton?

I do, yes.

See.
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 10:00:14 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 09:51:48 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 09:50:33 PM
We'll soon see about that.

Yes,  Hulsey's  simultaneous collapse theory.   What a joke.

In order for the building to collapse at free-fall the entire core had to fail nearly simultaneously. Structural resistance slows fall acceleration. If you don't like it take it up with Newton, not me.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Newt.html

Ah, I see where you went wrong,  you forgot that the center had already collapsed / was collapsing BEFORE the facade came down.  I really can't keep holding you hand while you work through these things, you have to start to think for yourself if you are going to be a good anon campaigner.

Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 04:10:35 AM
Thats not true that's the conclusions of the fraudulent NIST report. That is merely the lie we were sold.

Furthermore, even if the entire inner core collapsed leaving the entire "facade" intact (which is impossible because of the cross bracing) there were still 18 support columns around the exterior.

(https://s26.postimg.org/iegp2ilix/images-43.jpg)

A free fall collapse even under your fairytale conditions is still impossible without a controlled demolition. You are trying to debunk Newton.

Q.E.D.

Edit.
Video evidence.
[Youtube][/youtube]

For reference Rayzor believes this debunks it. Notice he says it's "been debunked" since his first post on the topic.

Quote from: Rayzor on February 13, 2017, 11:18:08 PM
We already debunked that free-fall argument.   But just to recap,  how is it possible for the rooftop of a building to fall?   Doesn't the fact that it collapsed at all mean that the building structure supporting the roof is collapsing,    why would you be surprised that it fell at a free fall rate.   At least until it hit ground and other debris piled up,   The graph in the NIST shows it quite clearly.   

You say you work in the industry,  you mean the building industry?   In what capacity?

What caused the core to collapse at free-fall

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:43:13 PM
Quote from: Bullwinkle on September 21, 2017, 07:40:41 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:35:45 PM

What caused the core to collapse at free-fall



Opposed to hovering in place?

Watch the video. When the west penthouse fails the building immediately collapses.

Video evidence.
[Youtube][/youtube]

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:54:14 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 21, 2017, 07:49:46 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:43:13 PM
When the west penthouse fails the building immediately collapses.

Gee, I wonder what was holding up the penthouse?

The core. Therefore as soon as the core failed the building came down. Hulsey is right.
Video evidence.
[Youtube][/youtube]

Quote from: disputeone on September 24, 2017, 07:40:40 PM
Quote from: sokarul on September 24, 2017, 07:10:03 PM
Unbalanced forces are a problem aren't they.

Please elaborate on what you mean by unbalanced forces. Using the information in your short post it's hard to understand your meaning.

http://study.com/academy/lesson/unbalanced-force-definition-example-quiz.html

Seems like you're on the right track, keep researching.

Quote
Unbalanced forces are forces that cause a change in the motion of an object.

Very good.

Now this article shows us why a 2.25 second symmetrical free-fall of wtc 7 is impossible.

Quote
Any push or pull is a force. To describe a force, you must know two things. You must know the size of the force and the direction of the force. Suppose two teams are playing tug of war. Each team is pulling with equal force, but in opposite directions. Neither team can make the other team move. Forces that are equal in size but opposite in direction are called balanced forces.

Newtons third does debunk the idea of a fire induced natural collapse of wtc 7, no doubt about that.

Quote
If two forces are in opposite directions, then the net force is the difference between the two forces, and it is in the direction of the larger force. Consider two dogs playing tug of war with a short piece of rope. Each is exerting a force, but in opposite directions.

So we could look at gravitational potential energy, inertia and structural resistance to calculate the predicted fall acceleration of wtc 7 if the NIST conclusions were correct and the collapse was progressive starting with the failure of column 79 on floor 13.

Spoiler.
It isnt 2.25 seconds of very close to 9.8m/s2.

If I'm going to put in the effort show me it's worth it.

Recognise that
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Symptom on October 27, 2017, 08:29:34 PM
COPYPASTA FTW
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on October 27, 2017, 08:51:57 PM
Because it's undebunked

All you can say is, "I already ignored that, I'll just ignore it again."
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Symptom on October 27, 2017, 08:54:44 PM
Answer the question. Yes or no?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on October 27, 2017, 09:13:59 PM
What question?

I think it was impossible for wtc 7s collapse to be caused by fire for the reasons stated above.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Symptom on October 27, 2017, 09:28:33 PM
Quote from: disputeone on October 27, 2017, 09:13:59 PM
What question?

The Sandy Hook question. The longer you keep avoiding it, the more people will see you for the coward you are.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on October 27, 2017, 10:26:42 PM
It is my opinion that Sandy Hook was a false flag.

5. Flaming and Harassment
Do not use insulting or denigrating personal attacks against other members. Harassment or bullying of other members is forbidden.


6. Profanity
Do not use excessive profanity, or create threads with profane titles.


7. Troublemaking
Do not post or behave in a manner obviously intended to start a fight, get a reaction, or cause problems (e.g. making facetious complaints, adjusting/creating a profile so as to impersonate other members, etc.).


8. Low-content Posting/Derailment
Do not make spammy, non-contributive or low-quality posts, or derail threads by deliberately dragging discussion away from the original topic.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: MicroBeta on October 28, 2017, 11:12:19 AM
Quote from: disputeone on October 27, 2017, 10:26:42 PM
It is my opinion that Sandy Hook was a false flag.

<snip>
And what the heck do you base that on? 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Symptom on October 28, 2017, 03:49:34 PM
D1 FOR MOD 2018!
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on October 29, 2017, 07:52:18 PM
Quote from: MicroBeta on October 28, 2017, 11:12:19 AM
Quote from: disputeone on October 27, 2017, 10:26:42 PM
It is my opinion that Sandy Hook was a false flag.

<snip>
And what the heck do you base that on?

This thread is about the proven 9/11 false flag.

5. Flaming and Harassment
Do not use insulting or denigrating personal attacks against other members. Harassment or bullying of other members is forbidden.


6. Profanity
Do not use excessive profanity, or create threads with profane titles.


7. Troublemaking
Do not post or behave in a manner obviously intended to start a fight, get a reaction, or cause problems (e.g. making facetious complaints, adjusting/creating a profile so as to impersonate other members, etc.).


8. Low-content Posting/Derailment
Do not make spammy, non-contributive or low-quality posts, or derail threads by deliberately dragging discussion away from the original topic.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bullwinkle on October 29, 2017, 08:07:00 PM
Quote from: disputeone on October 29, 2017, 07:52:18 PM

5. Flaming and Harassment
Do not use insulting or denigrating personal attacks against other members. Harassment or bullying of other members is forbidden.


6. Profanity
Do not use excessive profanity, or create threads with profane titles.


7. Troublemaking
Do not post or behave in a manner obviously intended to start a fight, get a reaction, or cause problems (e.g. making facetious complaints, adjusting/creating a profile so as to impersonate other members, etc.).


8. Low-content Posting/Derailment
Do not make spammy, non-contributive or low-quality posts, or derail threads by deliberately dragging discussion away from the original topic.



79. Don't make your problem our problem.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on October 29, 2017, 08:28:36 PM
8. Low-content Posting/Derailment
Do not make spammy, non-contributive or low-quality posts, or derail threads by deliberately dragging discussion away from the original topic.



Quote from: Bullwinkle on October 29, 2017, 08:07:00 PM
79. Don't make your problem our problem.

I agree. Don't post in this thread then.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: AltSpace on October 29, 2017, 09:30:13 PM
I find it funny that people are so keen and eager to defend the mainstream doctrine in all these cases and incidents.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bullwinkle on October 29, 2017, 09:33:05 PM
Quote from: AltSpace on October 29, 2017, 09:30:13 PM
I find it funny that people are so keen and eager to defend the mainstream doctrine in all these cases and incidents.

No, more like when the cat claws your couch, don't blame bats from the attic.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on October 29, 2017, 09:38:12 PM
Quote from: AltSpace on October 29, 2017, 09:30:13 PM
I find it funny that people are so keen and eager to defend the mainstream doctrine in all these cases and incidents.

I also.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: MicroBeta on October 30, 2017, 04:25:04 AM
Quote from: disputeone on October 29, 2017, 07:52:18 PM
Quote from: MicroBeta on October 28, 2017, 11:12:19 AM
Quote from: disputeone on October 27, 2017, 10:26:42 PM
It is my opinion that Sandy Hook was a false flag.

<snip>
And what the heck do you base that on?

This thread is about the proven 9/11 false flag.

5. Flaming and Harassment
Do not use insulting or denigrating personal attacks against other members. Harassment or bullying of other members is forbidden.


6. Profanity
Do not use excessive profanity, or create threads with profane titles.


7. Troublemaking
Do not post or behave in a manner obviously intended to start a fight, get a reaction, or cause problems (e.g. making facetious complaints, adjusting/creating a profile so as to impersonate other members, etc.).


8. Low-content Posting/Derailment
Do not make spammy, non-contributive or low-quality posts, or derail threads by deliberately dragging discussion away from the original topic.
You made the comment so don't complain about off topic posting by others. It's typically not enforced by the Mods anyway.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on October 30, 2017, 06:08:08 AM
After I was harrassed by symptom about it. This thread is about 9/11.

Specifically how the entire core of wtc 7 had to fail simultaneously to match observations which is incompatible with the NIST report.

You are correct in asserting the rules aren't enforced.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sokarul on October 30, 2017, 02:31:32 PM
Did you find the massive explosions yet?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on October 30, 2017, 08:09:32 PM
Have you realised you are trying to use an argument from incredulity to debunk Newton?

Please continue. It's interesting.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on October 30, 2017, 09:04:18 PM
Have a rare while I'm here.

https://webmshare.com/bZNge

Have you seen this one Bhs?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sokarul on October 30, 2017, 09:21:17 PM
I don't know who Bhs is but anyways, nice clip. Really shows a lack of explosions and how unbalanced forces can bring down a seemingly strong building.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on October 30, 2017, 10:35:12 PM
You haven't explained how unbalanced forces can bring a building down?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on October 30, 2017, 10:57:09 PM
Neither did Shyam Sunder.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: RocketSauce on October 31, 2017, 09:38:33 AM
Have you changed anyone's mind yet Dispute?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Crouton on October 31, 2017, 09:45:00 AM
Quote from: RocketSauce on October 31, 2017, 09:38:33 AM
Have you changed anyone's mind yet Dispute?

My mind has changed.  I used to scratch my head at wtc7 but now I see that there's a good explanation was to why it looks like controlled demolition.

I also used to be at about 70% sure in the official story but after all of the evidence presented here I'm at about 85% now.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on October 31, 2017, 06:59:42 PM
7/10 shilling.

Please cite the post explaining why wtc 7 fell at free-fall.

If such a post exists and you are not lying.
Just cite it.

Should be easy.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on October 31, 2017, 07:02:12 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 31, 2017, 01:16:08 AM
Lets use NIST buckling model for example, they claim the outer and inner structure at the bottom pretty well "ceased to exist" which allowed a 2.25 second free-fall.

(http://ae911truth.info/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Floors-7-14-Buckling.png)

Now we have a very stiff cross braced outer structure which has apparently completely vaporized on the lower floors, (7-14) which allowed the tower to fall with no / negligible structural resistance. I understand the outer structure isn't vertically load bearing and wouldn't hold the entire weight of the building without the core, 100% paid.

I'll pay up to the fires causing the collapse of the core. (Dubious) How did we have such symmetry after the external structure was severed / buckled. According to the NIST model, and due to the varying stiffness we should not have seen such symmetry during free-fall.



I agree that the symmetry isn't a smoking gun nor is the free-fall. It's the combination of the two which I believe are impossible.

A progressive, reasonably symmetrical collapse with such a strong outer frame (leaving out how fires completely destroyed the core) after the core was removed isn't that unlikely, however at free-fall?

We still have the problem of a crossbraced outer structure collapsing into itself very close to 9.8m/s2 even if for the sake of simplicity we assume the entire inner structure was destroyed. (In video evidence we can see the tower start it's free-fall with a lot of the west side of the interior still reasonably intact.)

I understand lift shafts arent load bearing in and of themselves always but we have say (estimating) 250mm thick concrete shafts reinforced with reebar and braced to the support structures, we then have two T 150mm by 16mm rails and two T 100mm by 8mm counterweight rails, these are pinned into the concrete every 1500mm with an average of six 12mm high tensile trubolts, the shaft is absolutely over designed for the lifts, nearly all of the static load is taken through the rails into the concrete slab, dynamic loads are taken through the shaft by the rails and rail brackets.

My point is this is a very stiff, very strong structure that has actually gained stiffness and strength from the high tensile metal.

I can't understand how the whole building fell into itself at free-fall after a single column failure.

Partial collapse slower than free-fall?
Absolutely would have bought it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Crouton on October 31, 2017, 07:02:56 PM
Quote from: disputeone on October 31, 2017, 06:59:42 PM
7/10 shilling.

Please cite the post explaining why wtc 7 fell at free-fall.

If such a post exists and you are not lying.
Just cite it.t

Should be easy.

This question has been answered a great many times. 

Also the x/x thing, come on. You're better than that. It's getting old.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on October 31, 2017, 07:03:46 PM
If you cannot cite what you claim please dont make the claim in the future.

Thanks.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on October 31, 2017, 07:05:31 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:35:45 PM
This post debunks your assertion that the entire core collapsed leaving the outside intact and then the "outer facade" collapsing at free-fall.

Please read it and respond to it.
Here.
Can you debunk this post? If it's as stupid and I'm as stupid as you all claim surely a smart guy like you can debunk it.

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 05:46:15 PM
No the video of the collapse shows the failure of columns 79, 80, and 81, causing a partial building collapse. (The collapse of the east penthouse.)

None of these were core columns and then after a few seconds, the entire core failed nearly simultaneously causing a 2.25 second symmetrical free-fall of the entire bulding. Remeber the "outer facade" had 18 structural support columns making any natural free-fall impossible.

@Rayzor.
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 04:05:20 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 03:59:31 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 03:54:44 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 03:33:41 AM
You still haven't addressed your post trying to debunk Newton. Do you stand by it?

You seriously think I'm trying to debunk Newton?

I do, yes.

See.
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 10:00:14 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 09:51:48 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 09:50:33 PM
We'll soon see about that.

Yes,  Hulsey's  simultaneous collapse theory.   What a joke.

In order for the building to collapse at free-fall the entire core had to fail nearly simultaneously. Structural resistance slows fall acceleration. If you don't like it take it up with Newton, not me.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Newt.html

Ah, I see where you went wrong,  you forgot that the center had already collapsed / was collapsing BEFORE the facade came down.  I really can't keep holding you hand while you work through these things, you have to start to think for yourself if you are going to be a good anon campaigner.

Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 04:10:35 AM
Thats not true that's the conclusions of the fraudulent NIST report. That is merely the lie we were sold.

Furthermore, even if the entire inner core collapsed leaving the entire "facade" intact (which is impossible because of the cross bracing) there were still 18 support columns around the exterior.

(https://s26.postimg.org/iegp2ilix/images-43.jpg)

A free fall collapse even under your fairytale conditions is still impossible without a controlled demolition. You are trying to debunk Newton.

Q.E.D.

Edit.
Video evidence.
[Youtube][/youtube]

For reference Rayzor believes this debunks it. Notice he says it's "been debunked" since his first post on the topic.

Quote from: Rayzor on February 13, 2017, 11:18:08 PM
We already debunked that free-fall argument.   But just to recap,  how is it possible for the rooftop of a building to fall?   Doesn't the fact that it collapsed at all mean that the building structure supporting the roof is collapsing,    why would you be surprised that it fell at a free fall rate.   At least until it hit ground and other debris piled up,   The graph in the NIST shows it quite clearly.   

You say you work in the industry,  you mean the building industry?   In what capacity?

What caused the core to collapse at free-fall

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:43:13 PM
Quote from: Bullwinkle on September 21, 2017, 07:40:41 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:35:45 PM

What caused the core to collapse at free-fall



Opposed to hovering in place?

Watch the video. When the west penthouse fails the building immediately collapses.

Video evidence.
[Youtube][/youtube]

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:54:14 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 21, 2017, 07:49:46 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:43:13 PM
When the west penthouse fails the building immediately collapses.

Gee, I wonder what was holding up the penthouse?

The core. Therefore as soon as the core failed the building came down. Hulsey is right.
Video evidence.
[Youtube][/youtube]

Quote from: disputeone on September 24, 2017, 07:40:40 PM
Quote from: sokarul on September 24, 2017, 07:10:03 PM
Unbalanced forces are a problem aren't they.

Please elaborate on what you mean by unbalanced forces. Using the information in your short post it's hard to understand your meaning.

http://study.com/academy/lesson/unbalanced-force-definition-example-quiz.html

Seems like you're on the right track, keep researching.

Quote
Unbalanced forces are forces that cause a change in the motion of an object.

Very good.

Now this article shows us why a 2.25 second symmetrical free-fall of wtc 7 is impossible.

Quote
Any push or pull is a force. To describe a force, you must know two things. You must know the size of the force and the direction of the force. Suppose two teams are playing tug of war. Each team is pulling with equal force, but in opposite directions. Neither team can make the other team move. Forces that are equal in size but opposite in direction are called balanced forces.

Newtons third does debunk the idea of a fire induced natural collapse of wtc 7, no doubt about that.

Quote
If two forces are in opposite directions, then the net force is the difference between the two forces, and it is in the direction of the larger force. Consider two dogs playing tug of war with a short piece of rope. Each is exerting a force, but in opposite directions.

So we could look at gravitational potential energy, inertia and structural resistance to calculate the predicted fall acceleration of wtc 7 if the NIST conclusions were correct and the collapse was progressive starting with the failure of column 79 on floor 13.

Spoiler.
It isnt 2.25 seconds of very close to 9.8m/s2.

If I'm going to put in the effort show me it's worth it.
Recognise that
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: MicroBeta on November 01, 2017, 02:55:23 AM
Quote from: disputeone on October 31, 2017, 07:03:46 PM
If you cannot cite what you claim please dont make the claim in the future.

Thanks.
So, not allowed to express an opinion...ok, got it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Crouton on November 01, 2017, 05:51:25 AM
Quote from: MicroBeta on November 01, 2017, 02:55:23 AM
Quote from: disputeone on October 31, 2017, 07:03:46 PM
If you cannot cite what you claim please dont make the claim in the future.

Thanks.
So, not allowed to express an opinion...ok, got it.

Not if it hurts d1's fee fees.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on November 01, 2017, 06:45:37 PM
Quote from: MicroBeta on November 01, 2017, 02:55:23 AM
Quote from: disputeone on October 31, 2017, 07:03:46 PM
If you cannot cite what you claim please dont make the claim in the future.

Thanks.
So, not allowed to express an opinion...ok, got it.

He claimed that a poster said something that the poster didn't say.

He has had months to present the quote he claims exists.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Symptom on November 01, 2017, 08:12:33 PM
Quote from: disputeone on October 30, 2017, 06:08:08 AM
After I was harrassed by symptom about it. This thread is about 9/11.

Specifically how the entire core of wtc 7 had to fail simultaneously to match observations which is incompatible with the NIST report.

You are correct in asserting the rules aren't enforced.

Lol, "harrassed".  ;D
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on November 01, 2017, 09:33:01 PM
Quote from: Symptom on November 01, 2017, 08:12:33 PM
Quote from: disputeone on October 30, 2017, 06:08:08 AM
After I was harrassed by symptom about it. This thread is about 9/11.

Specifically how the entire core of wtc 7 had to fail simultaneously to match observations which is incompatible with the NIST report.

You are correct in asserting the rules aren't enforced.

Lol, "harrassed".  ;D

>what is asking the same question in every thread a user posts in regardless of the topic after they already answered?
Quote
Harass
transitive v. To irritate or torment persistently.
transitive v. To wear out; exhaust.
transitive v. To impede and exhaust (an enemy) by repeated attacks or raids.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Crouton on November 01, 2017, 09:49:13 PM
Quote from: disputeone on November 01, 2017, 09:33:01 PM
Quote from: Symptom on November 01, 2017, 08:12:33 PM
Quote from: disputeone on October 30, 2017, 06:08:08 AM
After I was harrassed by symptom about it. This thread is about 9/11.

Specifically how the entire core of wtc 7 had to fail simultaneously to match observations which is incompatible with the NIST report.

You are correct in asserting the rules aren't enforced.

Lol, "harrassed".  ;D

>what is asking the same question in every thread a user posts in regardless of the topic after they already answered?
Quote
Harass
transitive v. To irritate or torment persistently.
transitive v. To wear out; exhaust.
transitive v. To impede and exhaust (an enemy) by repeated attacks or raids.

Gee, we have no idea how that feels.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Symptom on November 01, 2017, 09:53:27 PM
It's all new to me
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bullwinkle on November 01, 2017, 10:42:49 PM
Quote from: disputeone on October 31, 2017, 07:03:46 PM
If you cannot cite what you claim please dont make the claim in the future.

Thanks.

Us agree, one must present links and videos and links and links and videos and links and videos and links and links and links and videos and go bat shit insane claiming to be part of an after school nut job ensemble of retarted kids.


They are immature
They are indignant
They are pathetic
They can't think for themselves
They claim to be MMA Battlebots.
They provide low level entertainment


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on November 01, 2017, 11:39:37 PM
5. Flaming and Harassment
Do not use insulting or denigrating personal attacks against other members. Harassment or bullying of other members is forbidden.


6. Profanity
Do not use excessive profanity, or create threads with profane titles.


7. Troublemaking
Do not post or behave in a manner obviously intended to start a fight, get a reaction, or cause problems (e.g. making facetious complaints, adjusting/creating a profile so as to impersonate other members, etc.).


8. Low-content Posting/Derailment
Do not make spammy, non-contributive or low-quality posts, or derail threads by deliberately dragging discussion away from the original topic.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bullwinkle on November 01, 2017, 11:56:18 PM
Quote from: disputeone on November 01, 2017, 11:39:37 PM

5. Flaming and Harassment
Do not use insulting or denigrating personal attacks against other members. Harassment or bullying of other members is forbidden.


Didn't mention you, dumb ass.


Quote from: disputeone on November 01, 2017, 11:39:37 PM

6. Profanity
Do not use excessive profanity, or create threads with profane titles.


Didn't swear, dumb ass.


Quote from: disputeone on November 01, 2017, 11:39:37 PM

7. Troublemaking
Do not post or behave in a manner obviously intended to start a fight, get a reaction, or cause problems (e.g. making facetious complaints, adjusting/creating a profile so as to impersonate other members, etc.).


Like re-writing others posts? Dumb ass


Quote from: disputeone on November 01, 2017, 11:39:37 PM

8. Low-content Posting/Derailment
Do not make spammy, non-contributive or low-quality posts, or derail threads by deliberately dragging discussion away from the original topic.


911 was done by Saudi terrorists.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on November 02, 2017, 12:17:04 AM
Wtc7 was a controlled demolition.
Maybe the Saudi terrorists planted the bombs in it? You never know.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bullwinkle on November 02, 2017, 12:25:00 AM
A decade of MMA.

How many times did you get kicked in the head?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on November 02, 2017, 12:27:10 AM
A fair few.

5. Flaming and Harassment
Do not use insulting or denigrating personal attacks against other members. Harassment or bullying of other members is forbidden.

7. Troublemaking
Do not post or behave in a manner obviously intended to start a fight, get a reaction, or cause problems (e.g. making facetious complaints, adjusting/creating a profile so as to impersonate other members, etc.).

8. Low-content Posting/Derailment
Do not make spammy, non-contributive or low-quality posts, or derail threads by deliberately dragging discussion away from the original topic.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bullwinkle on November 02, 2017, 12:30:53 AM
Quote from: disputeone on November 02, 2017, 12:27:10 AM

A fair few.



You lost count?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on November 02, 2017, 12:34:20 AM
Yeah never bothered keeping count.

5. Flaming and Harassment
Do not use insulting or denigrating personal attacks against other members. Harassment or bullying of other members is forbidden.

7. Troublemaking
Do not post or behave in a manner obviously intended to start a fight, get a reaction, or cause problems (e.g. making facetious complaints, adjusting/creating a profile so as to impersonate other members, etc.).

8. Low-content Posting/Derailment
Do not make spammy, non-contributive or low-quality posts, or derail threads by deliberately dragging discussion away from the original topic.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bullwinkle on November 02, 2017, 12:40:54 AM
Quote from: disputeone on November 02, 2017, 12:34:20 AM

Yeah never bothered keeping count.


Estimate.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on November 02, 2017, 12:48:46 AM
More times than you've had sex with a woman that wanted you.

5. Flaming and Harassment
Do not use insulting or denigrating personal attacks against other members. Harassment or bullying of other members is forbidden.

7. Troublemaking
Do not post or behave in a manner obviously intended to start a fight, get a reaction, or cause problems (e.g. making facetious complaints, adjusting/creating a profile so as to impersonate other members, etc.).

8. Low-content Posting/Derailment
Do not make spammy, non-contributive or low-quality posts, or derail threads by deliberately dragging discussion away from the original topic.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bullwinkle on November 02, 2017, 01:05:22 AM
Quote from: disputeone on November 02, 2017, 12:48:46 AM

More times than you've had sex with a woman that wanted you.



You realize that leaves the possibility of an infinite number of kicks to your head, right?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on November 02, 2017, 01:17:05 AM
Impossible since you haven't lived an infinite amount of time.
How drunk are you?

5. Flaming and Harassment
Do not use insulting or denigrating personal attacks against other members. Harassment or bullying of other members is forbidden.

7. Troublemaking
Do not post or behave in a manner obviously intended to start a fight, get a reaction, or cause problems (e.g. making facetious complaints, adjusting/creating a profile so as to impersonate other members, etc.).

8. Low-content Posting/Derailment
Do not make spammy, non-contributive or low-quality posts, or derail threads by deliberately dragging discussion away from the original topic.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bullwinkle on November 02, 2017, 01:20:26 AM
Blup, blup, blup, blup, blup, blup, blup, blup, blup, blup, blup, blup, blup, blup, blup, blup, blup, blup, blup, blup, blup, blup, blup, blup, blup, blup, blup, blup, someone kick him upside the head and reboot him.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on November 02, 2017, 01:21:01 AM
5. Flaming and Harassment
Do not use insulting or denigrating personal attacks against other members. Harassment or bullying of other members is forbidden.

7. Troublemaking
Do not post or behave in a manner obviously intended to start a fight, get a reaction, or cause problems (e.g. making facetious complaints, adjusting/creating a profile so as to impersonate other members, etc.).

8. Low-content Posting/Derailment
Do not make spammy, non-contributive or low-quality posts, or derail threads by deliberately dragging discussion away from the original topic.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bullwinkle on November 02, 2017, 01:49:59 AM
Anonymous has lesions
Anonymous can't heal
Anonymous does not remember to forget
Anonymous hangs out at the Mall
Anonymous has internet access
Anonymous is gunna git you

Anonymous gets to stay up till 11:30


Expect anonymous; prepare to laugh
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: MicroBeta on November 02, 2017, 02:14:41 AM
Turtles
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bullwinkle on November 02, 2017, 02:20:52 AM
Quote from: MicroBeta on November 02, 2017, 02:14:41 AM
Turtles


Yep.    ;D
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: MicroBeta on November 02, 2017, 03:31:08 AM
Beware the Turtles!
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on November 02, 2017, 05:28:05 AM
5. Flaming and Harassment
Do not use insulting or denigrating personal attacks against other members. Harassment or bullying of other members is forbidden.

7. Troublemaking
Do not post or behave in a manner obviously intended to start a fight, get a reaction, or cause problems (e.g. making facetious complaints, adjusting/creating a profile so as to impersonate other members, etc.).

8. Low-content Posting/Derailment
Do not make spammy, non-contributive or low-quality posts, or derail threads by deliberately dragging discussion away from the original topic.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Crouton on November 02, 2017, 05:39:47 AM
Quote from: MicroBeta on November 02, 2017, 03:31:08 AM
Beware the Turtles!

So they're the real terrorists!
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on November 02, 2017, 05:43:34 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:35:45 PM
This post debunks your assertion that the entire core collapsed leaving the outside intact and then the "outer facade" collapsing at free-fall.

Please read it and respond to it.
Here.
Can you debunk this post? If it's as stupid and I'm as stupid as you all claim surely a smart guy like you can debunk it.

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 05:46:15 PM
No the video of the collapse shows the failure of columns 79, 80, and 81, causing a partial building collapse. (The collapse of the east penthouse.)

None of these were core columns and then after a few seconds, the entire core failed nearly simultaneously causing a 2.25 second symmetrical free-fall of the entire bulding. Remeber the "outer facade" had 18 structural support columns making any natural free-fall impossible.

@Rayzor.
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 04:05:20 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 03:59:31 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 03:54:44 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 03:33:41 AM
You still haven't addressed your post trying to debunk Newton. Do you stand by it?

You seriously think I'm trying to debunk Newton?

I do, yes.

See.
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 10:00:14 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 09:51:48 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 09:50:33 PM
We'll soon see about that.

Yes,  Hulsey's  simultaneous collapse theory.   What a joke.

In order for the building to collapse at free-fall the entire core had to fail nearly simultaneously. Structural resistance slows fall acceleration. If you don't like it take it up with Newton, not me.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Newt.html

Ah, I see where you went wrong,  you forgot that the center had already collapsed / was collapsing BEFORE the facade came down.  I really can't keep holding you hand while you work through these things, you have to start to think for yourself if you are going to be a good anon campaigner.

Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 04:10:35 AM
Thats not true that's the conclusions of the fraudulent NIST report. That is merely the lie we were sold.

Furthermore, even if the entire inner core collapsed leaving the entire "facade" intact (which is impossible because of the cross bracing) there were still 18 support columns around the exterior.

(https://s26.postimg.org/iegp2ilix/images-43.jpg)

A free fall collapse even under your fairytale conditions is still impossible without a controlled demolition. You are trying to debunk Newton.

Q.E.D.

Edit.
Video evidence.
[Youtube][/youtube]

For reference Rayzor believes this debunks it. Notice he says it's "been debunked" since his first post on the topic.

Quote from: Rayzor on February 13, 2017, 11:18:08 PM
We already debunked that free-fall argument.   But just to recap,  how is it possible for the rooftop of a building to fall?   Doesn't the fact that it collapsed at all mean that the building structure supporting the roof is collapsing,    why would you be surprised that it fell at a free fall rate.   At least until it hit ground and other debris piled up,   The graph in the NIST shows it quite clearly.   

You say you work in the industry,  you mean the building industry?   In what capacity?

What caused the core to collapse at free-fall

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:43:13 PM
Quote from: Bullwinkle on September 21, 2017, 07:40:41 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:35:45 PM

What caused the core to collapse at free-fall



Opposed to hovering in place?

Watch the video. When the west penthouse fails the building immediately collapses.

Video evidence.
[Youtube][/youtube]

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:54:14 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 21, 2017, 07:49:46 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:43:13 PM
When the west penthouse fails the building immediately collapses.

Gee, I wonder what was holding up the penthouse?

The core. Therefore as soon as the core failed the building came down. Hulsey is right.
Video evidence.
[Youtube][/youtube]

Quote from: disputeone on September 24, 2017, 07:40:40 PM
Quote from: sokarul on September 24, 2017, 07:10:03 PM
Unbalanced forces are a problem aren't they.

Please elaborate on what you mean by unbalanced forces. Using the information in your short post it's hard to understand your meaning.

http://study.com/academy/lesson/unbalanced-force-definition-example-quiz.html

Seems like you're on the right track, keep researching.

Quote
Unbalanced forces are forces that cause a change in the motion of an object.

Very good.

Now this article shows us why a 2.25 second symmetrical free-fall of wtc 7 is impossible.

Quote
Any push or pull is a force. To describe a force, you must know two things. You must know the size of the force and the direction of the force. Suppose two teams are playing tug of war. Each team is pulling with equal force, but in opposite directions. Neither team can make the other team move. Forces that are equal in size but opposite in direction are called balanced forces.

Newtons third does debunk the idea of a fire induced natural collapse of wtc 7, no doubt about that.

Quote
If two forces are in opposite directions, then the net force is the difference between the two forces, and it is in the direction of the larger force. Consider two dogs playing tug of war with a short piece of rope. Each is exerting a force, but in opposite directions.

So we could look at gravitational potential energy, inertia and structural resistance to calculate the predicted fall acceleration of wtc 7 if the NIST conclusions were correct and the collapse was progressive starting with the failure of column 79 on floor 13.

Spoiler.
It isnt 2.25 seconds of very close to 9.8m/s2.

If I'm going to put in the effort show me it's worth it.
Recognise that
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Crouton on November 02, 2017, 05:47:14 AM
Have a cold today.

I shall heal it with the traditional medicines of my people, diet mountain dew and leftover Halloween candy.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on November 02, 2017, 05:49:09 AM
8. Low-content Posting/Derailment
Do not make spammy, non-contributive or low-quality posts, or derail threads by deliberately dragging discussion away from the original topic.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Crouton on November 02, 2017, 05:52:36 AM
I think it's relevant.

It's possible that diet mountain dew and Halloween candy could have been used for controlled demolition.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sokarul on November 02, 2017, 08:57:14 AM
Quote from: disputeone on October 30, 2017, 10:35:12 PM
You haven't explained how unbalanced forces can bring a building down?
Ever stand on a soda can?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: MicroBeta on November 02, 2017, 09:15:19 AM
Quote from: crutonius on November 02, 2017, 05:52:36 AM
I think it's relevant.

It's possible that diet mountain dew and Halloween candy could have been used for controlled demolition.
I had a Master Chief on my boat who maintained that as long as the stack of donuts was not taller than the can of diet soda you were ok.  It must apply to candy too. ;D

Mike
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: hoppy on November 02, 2017, 09:21:15 AM
Quote from: Bullwinkle on November 01, 2017, 10:42:49 PM
Quote from: disputeone on October 31, 2017, 07:03:46 PM
If you cannot cite what you claim please dont make the claim in the future.

Thanks.

Us agree, one must present links and videos and links and links and videos and links and videos and links and links and links and videos and go bat shit insane claiming to be part of an after school nut job ensemble of retarted kids.


They are immature
They are indignant
They are pathetic
They can't think for themselves
They claim to be MMA Battlebots.
They provide low level entertainment
Hummmm, all of this sounds strangly familiar.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on November 02, 2017, 08:48:28 PM
8. Low-content Posting/Derailment
Do not make spammy, non-contributive or low-quality posts, or derail threads by deliberately dragging discussion away from the original topic.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on November 02, 2017, 08:49:39 PM
Quote from: MicroBeta on November 02, 2017, 09:15:19 AM
Quote from: crutonius on November 02, 2017, 05:52:36 AM
I think it's relevant.

It's possible that diet mountain dew and Halloween candy could have been used for controlled demolition.
I had a Master Chief on my boat who maintained that as long as the stack of donuts was not taller than the can of diet soda you were ok.  It must apply to candy too. ;D

Mike

I thought you were a structural engineer. :(

I thought you were a good one too.

Just debunk my post. Don't you pressure test submarines?

Grow up, man.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on November 02, 2017, 10:21:58 PM
Quote from: sokarul on November 02, 2017, 08:57:14 AM
Quote from: disputeone on October 30, 2017, 10:35:12 PM
You haven't explained how unbalanced forces can bring a building down?
Ever stand on a soda can?

So dumb when I hear this analogy. I mean seriously..... surely people can not actually mean this.

If there was a 2500000000 ton giant that stepped on the building I would agree.

Was there one that got caught on camera?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on November 02, 2017, 10:59:25 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on November 02, 2017, 10:21:58 PM
Quote from: sokarul on November 02, 2017, 08:57:14 AM
Quote from: disputeone on October 30, 2017, 10:35:12 PM
You haven't explained how unbalanced forces can bring a building down?
Ever stand on a soda can?

So dumb when I hear this analogy. I mean seriously..... surely people can not actually mean this.

If there was a 2500000000 ton giant that stepped on the building I would agree.

Was there one that got caught on camera?


;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: MicroBeta on November 03, 2017, 04:40:28 AM
Quote from: disputeone on November 02, 2017, 08:49:39 PM
Quote from: MicroBeta on November 02, 2017, 09:15:19 AM
Quote from: crutonius on November 02, 2017, 05:52:36 AM
I think it's relevant.

It's possible that diet mountain dew and Halloween candy could have been used for controlled demolition.
I had a Master Chief on my boat who maintained that as long as the stack of donuts was not taller than the can of diet soda you were ok.  It must apply to candy too. ;D

Mike

I thought you were a structural engineer. :(

I thought you were a good one too.

Just debunk my post. Don't you pressure test submarines?

Grow up, man.
Actually, I’m a mechanical engineer (BSME from UCONN, go Huskies!).

1. Debunk which post?  I’ve no idea what you’re talking about.
2. I never said anything about pressure testing submarines.  I don’t know the heck you even mean by “pressure test submarines” .

I have to grow old but I do not have to grow up. 

Lighten up already.

Mike
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on November 03, 2017, 05:57:03 AM
Oh my bad, Bhs is also a mechanical engineer.

The post asserting that in order to match obssrvations the entire core of wtc 7 had to fail nearly simultaneously.

Go on.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sokarul on November 03, 2017, 08:33:15 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on November 02, 2017, 10:21:58 PM
Quote from: sokarul on November 02, 2017, 08:57:14 AM
Quote from: disputeone on October 30, 2017, 10:35:12 PM
You haven't explained how unbalanced forces can bring a building down?
Ever stand on a soda can?

So dumb when I hear this analogy. I mean seriously..... surely people can not actually mean this.

If there was a 2500000000 ton giant that stepped on the building I would agree.

Was there one that got caught on camera?
In this case the "can" contains the weight.
Were the 50 explosions caught on camera?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on November 03, 2017, 08:46:45 AM
Quote from: sokarul on November 03, 2017, 08:33:15 AM
In this case the "can" contains the weight.

So you "admit" your "example" is a "fairytale"?

A self crushing can? You should patent it.

@Bhs that's the example they are told to parrot and he is clearly incapable of independent thought so he will keep saying wtc 7 was a giant coke can.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sokarul on November 03, 2017, 08:48:12 AM
No. It's a simple demonstration to show how a support structure can lose support when becoming unbalanced.

Now about those 50+ explosions?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on November 03, 2017, 08:49:28 AM
A self crushing can? You should patent it.

@Bhs that's the example they are told to parrot and he is clearly incapable of independent thought so he will keep saying wtc 7 was a giant coke can.

There's some audio evidence already presented and the people on the scence testified to explosives used on wtc 7.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sokarul on November 03, 2017, 08:51:32 AM
You are confused.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on November 03, 2017, 08:52:49 AM
There's some audio evidence already presented and the people on the scene testified to explosives used on wtc 7.

Too late someones already done it.


In your example the can is crushed by magic and not science so your magic self crushing can is way more impressive.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sokarul on November 03, 2017, 08:55:05 AM
Quote from: disputeone on November 03, 2017, 08:52:49 AM
There's some audio evidence already presented and the people on the scene testified to explosives used on wtc 7.

Too late someones already done it.


In your example the can is crushed by magic and not science so your magic self crushing can is way more impressive.

I already debunked your "explosion" video.

Air pressure is not "nithing".

Try harder.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on November 03, 2017, 09:05:43 AM
There's some audio evidence already presented and the people on the scene testified to explosives used on wtc 7.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sokarul on November 03, 2017, 09:08:05 AM
Post the video again. You will see the truth.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on November 03, 2017, 09:12:49 AM
Quote from: sokarul on November 03, 2017, 09:08:05 AM
Post the video again. You will see the truth.

Audio Evidence.


Witness on scene.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on November 03, 2017, 09:17:05 AM
Is the truth that the TV was right all along and would never lie to us?

Of course it is, right sokarul?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on November 03, 2017, 09:18:27 AM
Quote from: disputeone on November 03, 2017, 09:17:05 AM
Is the truth that the TV was right all along and would never lie to us?

Of course it is, right sokarul?
If you have no arguments, you blame the TV for everything, is that your way of a honest debate?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on November 03, 2017, 09:22:21 AM
User at this point I have proven a collapse caused by ordinary office fires of wtc7 is incompatible with Newtons laws.

The television did not report on explosives, correct. I understand you and sock think this is a bulletproof argument.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on November 03, 2017, 09:27:43 AM
We can leave it at that guys.

The official report didn't mention explosives therefore explosives weren't used therefore the official report is the truth therefore it doesn't matter Newtons laws were broken on 9/11 because the official report didn't mention explosives.

Nothing wrong with this logic. It's slightly circular but it's enough to be successful today.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: MicroBeta on November 03, 2017, 09:32:13 AM
Quote from: disputeone on November 03, 2017, 05:57:03 AM
Oh my bad, Bhs is also a mechanical engineer.

The post asserting that in order to match obssrvations the entire core of wtc 7 had to fail nearly simultaneously.

Go on.
BTW, I’m not really sure what you mean by unbalanced loads.  However, when a system/structure is not in equilibrium, that is reaction loads don’t equal the applied loads, the system will go to a state of static equilibrium.  That can mean part of the structure yielding and work hardening spreading load to adjacent structures.  It could also mean part of the structure goes fully plastic and collapses which increases the load on the adjacent members causing structural failure.

From an engineering standpoint, if internal structure fails in WTC-7 it is entirely possible for the remaining structure to begin yield and give way.

Personally, I think the failure mode was neither what NIST posits or what the controlled demolition theorists believe.  IMHO, both of those theories have a few pretty big holes.  Mind you I have nothing but opinion to base this on so take it with a grain or two of salt.

There was never a full damage assessment of WTC-7 prior to its collapse.   There just wasn’t time for the proper inspections and NDT to be done. 

In addition to all the debris, the collapse of the towers also induced huge vibrations into the surrounding area.  People all over lower Manhattan could feel them.  It is likely that the vibrations exceeded the seismic criteria for zone 2A.  I also think it’s possible that there could easily have been localized, large amplitude shifting of the ground.  I was at Shea Stadium, in the upper deck, when the Mets clinched a playoff berth.  You could visibly see the end of the upper deck moving up and down from everyone jumping up and down.  It was at least ±6 inches.  I was actually a little nervous. 

The very same thing had to have happened as sections of the towers impacted the ground.  People think the ground is rock solid but it’s not.  It’s more fluid like that rock like.  Even more so under vibrational loading.  We know there was structural and foundation damage found on adjacent buildings when more thorough inspections could be done.   I believe the vibrational loading of the collapse of the towers could have compromised the foundation WTC-7 and the extent wouldn’t have been apparent for days.

Additionally, it’s also possible the thermal expansion from the fires could have caused eccentric loading that normally would have easily been supported by adjacent structure.  But, if there was enough compromise to cause a partial collapse of internal structure and if the foundation was compromised more than anyone thought, further damaged by the internal collapse then it could have been all it took the whole thing down.

Yeah, I’ve got nothing to back it up but it makes more sense to me than any other theory I’ve read...FWIW

Mike
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on November 03, 2017, 09:37:41 AM
Quote from: MicroBeta on November 03, 2017, 09:32:13 AM
From an engineering standpoint, if internal structure fails in WTC-7 it is entirely possible for the remaining structure to begin yield and give way.

No one denies that.

The symmetrical 2.25 second free-fall is impossible due to a fire caused collapse.

If you want to start measuring dicks on "from an engineering standpoint the official story is right cause I am scared it's not." Bhs has a PhD M.E Makes yours look pretty small and flaccid desu.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on November 03, 2017, 09:40:56 AM
Then they classified the inputs for their FEA mike.

Wake the f*ck up you sheep.

Sorry.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: MicroBeta on November 03, 2017, 09:50:50 AM
Quote from: disputeone on November 03, 2017, 09:37:41 AM
Quote from: MicroBeta on November 03, 2017, 09:32:13 AM
From an engineering standpoint, if internal structure fails in WTC-7 it is entirely possible for the remaining structure to begin yield and give way.

No one denies that.

The symmetrical 2.25 second free-fall is impossible due to a fire caused collapse.

If you want to start measuring dicks on "from an engineering standpoint the official story is right cause I am scared it's not." Bhs has a PhD M.E Makes yours look pretty small and flaccid desu.
I didn't said the fire was the cause and if you read my post you'd see I didn't believe NIST's account. AAMOF, it was full of holes.

What's your fucking problem today?

Mike
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on November 03, 2017, 11:41:30 AM
Quote from: sokarul on November 03, 2017, 08:33:15 AM
In this case the "can" contains the weight.
Were the 50 explosions caught on camera?

Yes if 99, percent of mass and support was at the top floor while the other 40 plus only had 1 percent of mass and support, then this could be true. Though, obviously the structure would not be able to be constructed and violates engineering principal and physics.

As for unbalanced?? Where and when did that happen? It stood, then fell perfectly symmetrical at free fall. This again violates engineering principal and physics.

Also, as for explosions, there is nothing in the official report because any account of explosions heard or seen was not allowed in the report.

I could shoot someone in the head, in front of a 1000 witnesses, however, if no witness is allowed to testify what they saw, then I actually didn't shoot someone in the head on paper.

Fyi, you would not need that many explosives with the building design. There are other ways to bring buildings down with preparation.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Symptom on November 03, 2017, 05:14:06 PM
Bullwinkle is my spirit animal.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on November 03, 2017, 07:06:41 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on November 03, 2017, 11:41:30 AM
Quote from: sokarul on November 03, 2017, 08:33:15 AM
In this case the "can" contains the weight.
Were the 50 explosions caught on camera?

Yes if 99, percent of mass and support was at the top floor while the other 40 plus only had 1 percent of mass and support, then this could be true. Though, obviously the structure would not be able to be constructed and violates engineering principal and physics.

As for unbalanced?? Where and when did that happen? It stood, then fell perfectly symmetrical at free fall. This again violates engineering principal and physics.

Also, as for explosions, there is nothing in the official report because any account of explosions heard or seen was not allowed in the report.

I could shoot someone in the head, in front of a 1000 witnesses, however, if no witness is allowed to testify what they saw, then I actually didn't shoot someone in the head on paper.

Fyi, you would not need that many explosives with the building design. There are other ways to bring buildings down with preparation.

So coke can argument completely nuked. Very nice. No one can say wtc 7 was a giant coke can anymore.

Quote from: MicroBeta on November 03, 2017, 09:50:50 AM
What's your fucking problem today?

Sorry man just how you were teaming up with the morons that are seeking to derail the threads with personal attacks.

You are too inteligent to sink to the level of Symptom and Bullwinkle.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Symptom on November 03, 2017, 07:29:28 PM
Quote from: disputeone on November 03, 2017, 07:06:41 PM
You are too inteligent to sink to the level of Symptom and Bullwinkle.

Dawww, so cute!  ;D
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on December 03, 2017, 10:15:14 PM
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/12/03/us/detroit-silverdome-implosion-attempt/index.html

They should have used jet fuel instead of explosives apparently.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on December 03, 2017, 10:16:59 PM
not this thread again.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on December 03, 2017, 10:57:37 PM
Quote from: User324 on December 03, 2017, 10:16:59 PM
not this thread again.

Oh it's back....

Thank Detroit
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on December 04, 2017, 01:28:25 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on December 03, 2017, 10:57:37 PM
Quote from: User324 on December 03, 2017, 10:16:59 PM
not this thread again.

Oh it's back....

Thank Detroit
You really want to lose the whole discussion once again?

Meeeh, waste of time if you ask me.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on December 04, 2017, 01:59:29 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on December 03, 2017, 10:15:14 PM
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/12/03/us/detroit-silverdome-implosion-attempt/index.html

They should have used jet fuel instead of explosives apparently.

Cheap shot,  you are smarter than that,  no one seriously thinks jet fuel did anything other than initiate and spread the fires in the early stages.

We covered this already.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on December 04, 2017, 05:54:53 PM
Quote from: User324 on December 04, 2017, 01:28:25 AM
You really want to lose the whole discussion once again?

Meeeh, waste of time if you ask me.

Lol...and when did I lose? Posted a bunch of things that could not be debunked, and works within the realm of reality, physics and science.

But really you cannot say anything as you literally added NOTHING to the debate. I think it goes over your head, so your judgement of winner/loser would be invalid from lack of info.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on December 04, 2017, 09:39:22 PM
And here we go again ... for the 1232 time.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on December 04, 2017, 09:44:26 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on December 04, 2017, 01:59:29 AM
Cheap shot,  you are smarter than that,  no one seriously thinks jet fuel did anything other than initiate and spread the fires in the early stages.

We covered this already.

I thought it was funny...that stadium has been a disaster since the beginning, it is a fitting end.

But they should have used jet fuel, turn regular office furniture into metal cutting blow torches...and you can just dump it on with no rhyme or rhythm, works 100 percent of the time.

Stupid not to use it.

Quote from: User324 on December 04, 2017, 09:39:22 PM
And here we go again ... for the 1232 time.

Well...you have never actually contributed anything to this thread. If you did, it would be here we go...for the first time.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on December 04, 2017, 10:19:32 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on December 04, 2017, 09:44:26 PM
Well...you have never actually contributed anything to this thread.
But still exactely as much as you have contributed. We both know your only arguments are 'but I feel like this shouldn't have happened ike it did, and mah feelz matter much more than yours'.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on December 04, 2017, 10:43:37 PM
Quote from: User324 on December 04, 2017, 10:19:32 PM
But still exactely as much as you have contributed. We both know your only arguments are 'but I feel like this shouldn't have happened ike it did, and mah feelz matter much more than yours'.

This is all you contribute to this thread...just insults and conjecture. I have provided solid evidence backed by facts. Plus it's part of my profession, so I can speak from real world experience.

If it's over your head just don't comment. If you want to just start nonsense or troll, do it in a subject that is less important.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on December 04, 2017, 10:51:59 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on December 04, 2017, 10:43:37 PM
Quote from: User324 on December 04, 2017, 10:19:32 PM
But still exactely as much as you have contributed. We both know your only arguments are 'but I feel like this shouldn't have happened ike it did, and mah feelz matter much more than yours'.

This is all you contribute to this thread...just insults and conjecture. I have provided solid evidence backed by facts. Plus it's part of my profession, so I can speak from real world experience.

If it's over your head just don't comment. If you want to just start nonsense or troll, do it in a subject that is less important.
Oh right, because this forum is so important and has so much impact. We better all be serious on the FLAT EARTH SOCIETY!

Also: last time I checked you were no civil engineer. And even if you were, there are still tons of engineers that don't share your OPINION.

Also II: you shared some facts and your opinion on them. Nothing more.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on December 04, 2017, 11:08:08 PM
Quote from: User324 on December 04, 2017, 10:51:59 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on December 04, 2017, 10:43:37 PM
Quote from: User324 on December 04, 2017, 10:19:32 PM
But still exactely as much as you have contributed. We both know your only arguments are 'but I feel like this shouldn't have happened ike it did, and mah feelz matter much more than yours'.

This is all you contribute to this thread...just insults and conjecture. I have provided solid evidence backed by facts. Plus it's part of my profession, so I can speak from real world experience.

If it's over your head just don't comment. If you want to just start nonsense or troll, do it in a subject that is less important.
Oh right, because this forum is so important and has so much impact. We better all be serious on the FLAT EARTH SOCIETY!

Also: last time I checked you were no civil engineer. And even if you were, there are still tons of engineers that don't share your OPINION.

Also II: you shared some facts and your opinion on them. Nothing more.

I did more than that. You didn't join in till much later in the thread with your shit tossing.

Yes, I am not a civil engineer. However, there are many aspects in my profession that is shared with that. As well as extracurricular certifications in structural engineering. The deadly apartment fire here in Dallas a bit ago I was on the team that determined the building safe or unsafe to enter. Unfortunately it wasn't especially with the fact it involved fatalities. They ended up searching it with a drone.

Have done many different projects with teams on structures. Not my main cup of tea, but certainly a part of my profession.


Also there are many many engineers that do agree with me. More than people know actually, more than just the thousands of outspoken ones. Many either don't care enough to do anything or don't want to get in the cross fire. There is a reason "more jet fuel" is a joke among engineers when something is not working correctly, failing, or being a bitch

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on December 05, 2017, 04:03:52 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on December 04, 2017, 01:59:29 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on December 03, 2017, 10:15:14 PM
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/12/03/us/detroit-silverdome-implosion-attempt/index.html

They should have used jet fuel instead of explosives apparently.

Cheap shot,  you are smarter than that,  no one seriously thinks jet fuel did anything other than initiate and spread the fires in the early stages.

We covered this already.
No...

What we covered was...

Jet fuel fires "weakened," structural steel to the point of COMPLETE and UTTER failure!

Which it cannot.

Not only that, the COMPLETE and UTTER failure just so happened to look like a classic demolition in progress, in not just one instance, but TWO!

And the COMPLETE and UTTER failure of the first two, subsequently caused other fires in another building, resulting in a weakening of structural steel to the point of COMPLETE and UTTER failure, the results of which also happening to look like a classic demolition in progress.

That is what we covered here.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on December 05, 2017, 04:11:26 AM
Quote from: totallackey on December 05, 2017, 04:03:52 AM
What we covered was...

Jet fuel fires "weakened," structural steel to the point of COMPLETE and UTTER failure!

Which it cannot.
No evidence shown.
Argument dismissed as an argument from ignorance.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on December 05, 2017, 11:43:17 AM
Quote from: User324 on December 05, 2017, 04:11:26 AM
Quote from: totallackey on December 05, 2017, 04:03:52 AM
What we covered was...

Jet fuel fires "weakened," structural steel to the point of COMPLETE and UTTER failure!

Which it cannot.
No evidence shown.
Argument dismissed as an argument from ignorance.

I have shown plenty of evidence for this.

You don't have to have a PhD to figure it out either, just a little common sense and live in reality.

Though you have admitted to being a troll so you words are given no merit...this also explains your nonsensical gas lighting posts on this thread.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on December 05, 2017, 12:10:06 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on December 05, 2017, 11:43:17 AM
You don't have to have a PhD to figure it out either, just a little common sense and live in reality.
Oh, that's funny. Because my common sense tells me the exact opposite.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on December 05, 2017, 11:43:17 AM
Though you have admitted to being a troll so you words are given no merit...this also explains your nonsensical gas lighting posts on this thread.
Oh have I? Show me where, thank you.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on December 05, 2017, 12:22:20 PM
Quote from: User324 on December 05, 2017, 12:10:06 PM
Oh, that's funny. Because my common sense tells me the exact opposite.

Really? So you can remove 100 percent of the resistance of a structure by weakening 2 percent of the total mass? Not to mention, heat distribution modeling shows the metal did not get near as hot as the official account states. A possible increase of 120 degrees in some areas. That is nothing.

The official account and your opinion is based in fantasy not reality.

Quote
Oh have I? Show me where, thank you.

Just a bit ago in complete nonsense.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on December 05, 2017, 12:25:05 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on December 05, 2017, 12:22:20 PM
Quote from: User324 on December 05, 2017, 12:10:06 PM
Oh, that's funny. Because my common sense tells me the exact opposite.

Really? So you can remove 100 percent of the resistance of a structure by weakening 2 percent of the total mass? Not to mention, heat distribution modeling shows the metal did not get near as hot as the official account states. A possible increase of 120 degrees in some areas. That is nothing.

The official account and your opinion is based in fantasy not reality.
We have discussed that / I discussed that with dispute about 10 times already. Not going for it again, kiddo.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on December 05, 2017, 12:22:20 PM
Just a bit ago in complete nonsense.
In complete nonsense, you say?
Hmmm.
Odd.
That sounds like a place where people post quality information! So I guess it has to be true then.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on December 05, 2017, 12:32:17 PM
Quote from: User324 on December 05, 2017, 12:25:05 PM
We have discussed that / I discussed that with dispute about 10 times already. Not going for it again, kiddo.

Number one, not your kiddo... especially not going to hear that from someone that is still a teenager with no knowledge.

Number two, YOU discussed nothing besides your gaslighting and name calling.

So please debunk what I said as well as why thermal load and distribution calculations do not even come close to match what the official fairy tale said...

And remember, calculations such as that are 100 percent part of my profession so it needs to be an actual coherent answer, not just insulting deflecting verbage .
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on December 05, 2017, 12:40:26 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on December 05, 2017, 12:32:17 PM
Quote from: User324 on December 05, 2017, 12:25:05 PM
We have discussed that / I discussed that with dispute about 10 times already. Not going for it again, kiddo.

Number one, not your kiddo... especially not going to hear that from someone that is still a teenager with no knowledge.

Number two, YOU discussed nothing besides your gaslighting and name calling.

So please debunk what I said as well as why thermal load and distribution calculations do not even come close to match what the official fairy tale said...

And remember, calculations such as that are 100 percent part of my profession so it needs to be an actual coherent answer, not just insulting deflecting verbage .
Number one, you are wrong again, I'm not a teenager. I start to see the pattern now, you beeing wrong seems key to it.

Number two, I did, perhaps you already suppressed it deep in to your unconsciousness.

And remember, your sarcasm/trolling/irony detector still sucks bad. I could exactely 100 percent anticipate that you're going to be ultra triggered if I call you kiddo. Guess I was right (as I usually am).

Also, I had some engineering class today,  it was pretty cool.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on December 05, 2017, 12:53:14 PM
Quote from: User324 on December 05, 2017, 12:40:26 PM
Number one, you are wrong again, I'm not a teenager. I start to see the pattern now, you beeing wrong seems key to it.

Number two, I did, perhaps you already suppressed it deep in to your unconsciousness.

And remember, your sarcasm/trolling/irony detector still sucks bad. I could exactely 100 percent anticipate that you're going to be ultra triggered if I call you kiddo. Guess I was right (as I usually am).

Also, I had some engineering class today,  it was pretty cool.

You said you are 19 or 20. That is still a teenager. I was already in college for 3 1/2 years by then, but I was still an idiot that didn't know anything. I thought I did at the time of course.

Usually people who think they are right all the time suffer from delusional thinking.

I am willing to change my mind on the official story if faced with evidence supporting it. I will always change my mind for facts over ego... however, I will never agree with something that is not true either.

Even cowgirl changed my mind on parts of feminism...if a logical argument is presented I will certainly entertain all ideas.

So, instead of deflecting and derailing, can you answer my question and prove me incorrect?

Congrats on the engineering class, I have went to a couple myself ;)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on December 05, 2017, 01:10:15 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on December 05, 2017, 12:53:14 PM
Quote from: User324 on December 05, 2017, 12:40:26 PM
Number one, you are wrong again, I'm not a teenager. I start to see the pattern now, you beeing wrong seems key to it.

Number two, I did, perhaps you already suppressed it deep in to your unconsciousness.

And remember, your sarcasm/trolling/irony detector still sucks bad. I could exactely 100 percent anticipate that you're going to be ultra triggered if I call you kiddo. Guess I was right (as I usually am).

Also, I had some engineering class today,  it was pretty cool.

You said you are 19 or 20. That is still a teenager. I was already in college for 3 1/2 years by then
Funny, because I never said that. Making up facts is your speciality I guess? Learned that from trump?
Also, I'm not in college but university.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on December 05, 2017, 12:53:14 PM
Usually people who think they are right all the time suffer from delusional thinking
This sounds like you are talking to yourself.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on December 05, 2017, 12:53:14 PM
So, instead of deflecting and derailing, can you answer my question and prove me incorrect?
I can't but neither can you prove any conspiracy. It's a stalemate. You can argue all you want, in the end it's just your interpretation of the facts given, and most engineers and universities tend to disagree with your interpretation.

Quote
Congrats on the engineering class, I have went to a couple myself ;)
Yeah, I thought so. It wasn't a real engineering class though, no maths involved.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on December 05, 2017, 01:38:03 PM
Quote from: User324 on December 05, 2017, 01:10:15 PM
I can't but neither can you prove any conspiracy. It's a stalemate. You can argue all you want, in the end it's just your interpretation of the facts given, and most engineers and universities tend to disagree with your interpretation.

So you didn't debunk it previously....don't lie and said you did.

I can debunk it with basic engineering principles, physics and common sense. It takes magic and lies to prove the official story that is why you can only deflect.

Also, it is not most engineers....at first it was, however, as time has passed, the minority believe in the official story. And most of those haven't even taken the time or care to research it. I used to be on the official side many moons ago before I actually looked at it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on December 05, 2017, 01:43:54 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on December 05, 2017, 01:38:03 PM
Quote from: User324 on December 05, 2017, 01:10:15 PM
I can't but neither can you prove any conspiracy. It's a stalemate. You can argue all you want, in the end it's just your interpretation of the facts given, and most engineers and universities tend to disagree with your interpretation.

So you didn't debunk it previously....don't lie and said you did.

I can debunk it with basic engineering principles, physics and common sense. It takes magic and lies to prove the official story that is why you can only deflect.

Also, it is not most engineers....at first it was, however, as time has passed, the minority believe in the official story. And most of those haven't even taken the time or care to research it. I used to be on the official side many moons ago before I actually looked at it.

Yeah right.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on December 06, 2017, 10:07:14 AM
Quote from: User324 on December 05, 2017, 04:11:26 AM
Quote from: totallackey on December 05, 2017, 04:03:52 AM
What we covered was...

Jet fuel fires "weakened," structural steel to the point of COMPLETE and UTTER failure!

Which it cannot.
No evidence shown.
Argument dismissed as an argument from ignorance.
I agree there has been no evidence shown that fires left burning for hours can weaken structural steel to the point of complete and utter failure.

So, you disagree with the story provided by the US Government, 9/11 Commission, and NIST, correct?

These three entities are the ones who claim that jet planes/fires can bring down skyscrapers.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on December 06, 2017, 11:03:35 AM
Quote from: totallackey on December 06, 2017, 10:07:14 AM
Quote from: User324 on December 05, 2017, 04:11:26 AM
Quote from: totallackey on December 05, 2017, 04:03:52 AM
What we covered was...

Jet fuel fires "weakened," structural steel to the point of COMPLETE and UTTER failure!

Which it cannot.
No evidence shown.
Argument dismissed as an argument from ignorance.
I agree there has been no evidence shown that fires left burning for hours can weaken structural steel to the point of complete and utter failure.

So, you disagree with the story provided by the US Government, 9/11 Commission, and NIST, correct?

These three entities are the ones who claim that jet planes/fires can bring down skyscrapers.
tl, dr.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on December 06, 2017, 11:52:56 AM
Totallackey

User has no answers, he is either a troll or this goes entirely over his head. All he can do is make fun of people or say meaningless quips in hopes people will bite at the deflection. Though when someone needs to use magic and exit reality to defend a story, what other option is there?

Sad
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on December 06, 2017, 11:54:35 AM
Babybullshit

It has all been discussed multiple times. I'm not wasting my time just because you have too much free time.

Sad.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on December 06, 2017, 01:13:35 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on December 06, 2017, 11:52:56 AM
Totallackey

User has no answers, he is either a troll or this goes entirely over his head. All he can do is make fun of people or say meaningless quips in hopes people will bite at the deflection. Though when someone needs to use magic and exit reality to defend a story, what other option is there?

Sad
On this we totally agree!

User324 = Dead Parrot for OS
(http://)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on December 06, 2017, 02:36:24 PM
Quote from: User324 on December 06, 2017, 11:03:35 AM
Quote from: totallackey on December 06, 2017, 10:07:14 AM
Quote from: User324 on December 05, 2017, 04:11:26 AM
Quote from: totallackey on December 05, 2017, 04:03:52 AM
What we covered was...

Jet fuel fires "weakened," structural steel to the point of COMPLETE and UTTER failure!

Which it cannot.
No evidence shown.
Argument dismissed as an argument from ignorance.
I agree there has been no evidence shown that fires left burning for hours can weaken structural steel to the point of complete and utter failure.

So, you disagree with the story provided by the US Government, 9/11 Commission, and NIST, correct?

These three entities are the ones who claim that jet planes/fires can bring down skyscrapers.
tl, dr.
GFY...

Incessantly...

Please...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on December 08, 2017, 03:24:02 PM
Quote from: totallackey on December 06, 2017, 10:07:14 AM
I agree there has been no evidence shown that fires left burning for hours can weaken structural steel to the point of complete and utter failure.

Not true.   What's more if you don't even know such basic simple facts about steel structures, you can't possibly be engaged in a sensible discussion.



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on December 08, 2017, 05:58:12 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on December 08, 2017, 03:24:02 PM
Not true.   What's more if you don't even know such basic simple facts about steel structures, you can't possibly be engaged in a sensible discussion.

So you are saying, after thermal load distribution models, we have a possible 115-135 f degree raise in temp on the absolute highest end in the hottest spots, that will cause a full collapse with zero resistance?

This is somehow justified? Yet when people speak out against it they are called the idiots? That they don't "science bro"....seems the other way around. Seems basic engineering, physics and reality have the "idiots" side.

Not to mention, we have thermal distribution models of similar structures that have caught fire, burned for days, and have hot spots that reached almost 500 degrees without a collapse. We have one structure that had a partial collapse, and that is what you would expect (burned for close to 3 days)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on December 08, 2017, 07:59:07 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on December 08, 2017, 05:58:12 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on December 08, 2017, 03:24:02 PM
Not true.   What's more if you don't even know such basic simple facts about steel structures, you can't possibly be engaged in a sensible discussion.

So you are saying, after thermal load distribution models, we have a possible 115-135 f degree raise in temp on the absolute highest end in the hottest spots, that will cause a full collapse with zero resistance?

This is somehow justified? Yet when people speak out against it they are called the idiots? That they don't "science bro"....seems the other way around. Seems basic engineering, physics and reality have the "idiots" side.

Not to mention, we have thermal distribution models of similar structures that have caught fire, burned for days, and have hot spots that reached almost 500 degrees without a collapse. We have one structure that had a partial collapse, and that is what you would expect (burned for close to 3 days)

I linked to papers describing the temperature profiles of high rise office fires, and described in some detail the time/temperature profiles of near field temperature.  A "normal office fire" can produce near field temperatures of  over 1000 C,  which significantly reduces the strength of steel structures. 

I also linked to the NIST  fire tests carried on the steel from the WTC,   the tests were done as part of a program to verify the steel used was as specified. 

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.1014.8949&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Also,  stop talking degrees F,  stick to C,  only backward countries still use fahrenheit.

PS.  I never actually called totallackey an idiot,  but if that's your opinion of him, I won't argue. 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on December 08, 2017, 08:12:29 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on December 08, 2017, 07:59:07 PM
I also linked to the NIST  fire tests carried on the steel from the WTC,   the tests were done as part of a program to verify the steel used was as specified. 

Here it is again,  since you seem to have forgotten.

Actual test data from WTC Steels http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0711/banovic-0711.html

(http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0711/fig5.jpg)

The high-temperature yield strength, normalized to the room-temperature value, of WTC steels compared to literature data for structural steels.

Note that at 600-800 C the yield strength has dropped to around 20%,  more than enough to collapse.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on December 08, 2017, 08:27:00 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on December 08, 2017, 07:59:07 PM
I linked to papers describing the temperature profiles of high rise office fires, and described in some detail the time/temperature profiles of near field temperature.  A "normal office fire" can produce near field temperatures of  over 1000 C,  which significantly reduces the strength of steel structures. 

I also linked to the NIST  fire tests carried on the steel from the WTC,   the tests were done as part of a program to verify the steel used was as specified. 

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.1014.8949&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Also,  stop talking degrees F,  stick to C,  only backward countries still use fahrenheit.

PS.  I never actually called totallackey an idiot,  but if that's your opinion of him, I won't argue.

Sorry, the world I live in is Fahrenheit, just a simple conversion if you would like Celsius.

However, thermal load models I am speaking of is the supporting structure itself. Not the room temp itself. I am sure it got hotter than 500 degrees Fahrenheit in certain parts of the building, speaking of the room temperature.

Edit spelling
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Heiwa on December 08, 2017, 08:44:24 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on December 08, 2017, 08:12:29 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on December 08, 2017, 07:59:07 PM
I also linked to the NIST  fire tests carried on the steel from the WTC,   the tests were done as part of a program to verify the steel used was as specified. 

Here it is again,  since you seem to have forgotten.

Actual test data from WTC Steels http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0711/banovic-0711.html

(http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0711/fig5.jpg)

The high-temperature yield strength, normalized to the room-temperature value, of WTC steels compared to literature data for structural steels.

Note that at 600-800 C the yield strength has dropped to around 20%,  more than enough to collapse.
Hm, but the complete structure below the floors on fire were only 20 C with intact strength keeping everything above it in place. You don't suggest that the melting, hot, weak top part full of smoke crushed the cold, solid, strong bottom full of cold air by gravity?

(http://heiwaco.com/wtcall.gif)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Twerp on December 08, 2017, 09:31:39 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on December 08, 2017, 08:27:00 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on December 08, 2017, 07:59:07 PM
I linked to papers describing the temperature profiles of high rise office fires, and described in some detail the time/temperature profiles of near field temperature.  A "normal office fire" can produce near field temperatures of  over 1000 C,  which significantly reduces the strength of steel structures. 

I also linked to the NIST  fire tests carried on the steel from the WTC,   the tests were done as part of a program to verify the steel used was as specified. 

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.1014.8949&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Also,  stop talking degrees F,  stick to C,  only backward countries still use fahrenheit.

PS.  I never actually called totallackey an idiot,  but if that's your opinion of him, I won't argue.

Sorry, the world I live in is Fahrenheit, just a simple conversion if you would like Celsius.

However, thermal load models I am speaking of is the supporting structure itself. Not the room temp itself. I am sure it got hotter than 500 degrees Fahrenheit in certain parts of the building, speaking of the room temperature.

Edit spelling

Didn't you learn Celsius when studying engineering?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on December 08, 2017, 09:40:48 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on December 08, 2017, 08:27:00 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on December 08, 2017, 07:59:07 PM
I linked to papers describing the temperature profiles of high rise office fires, and described in some detail the time/temperature profiles of near field temperature.  A "normal office fire" can produce near field temperatures of  over 1000 C,  which significantly reduces the strength of steel structures. 

I also linked to the NIST  fire tests carried on the steel from the WTC,   the tests were done as part of a program to verify the steel used was as specified. 

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.1014.8949&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Also,  stop talking degrees F,  stick to C,  only backward countries still use fahrenheit.

PS.  I never actually called totallackey an idiot,  but if that's your opinion of him, I won't argue.

Sorry, the world I live in is Fahrenheit, just a simple conversion if you would like Celsius.

However, thermal load models I am speaking of is the supporting structure itself. Not the room temp itself. I am sure it got hotter than 500 degrees Fahrenheit in certain parts of the building, speaking of the room temperature.

Edit spelling

ok, lets go there,  you claim temperature rises of 115 to 135 F,   that's about a hot summer day in Australia, we get up to 45 C ( 113 F ) on a good day,  yet here you are claiming the steel never got hotter than a summers day.   I call BS. 

Show me the source of this ridiculous claim.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on December 08, 2017, 09:44:56 PM
Quote from: Heiwa on December 08, 2017, 08:44:24 PM
Hm, but the complete structure below the floors on fire were only 20 C with intact strength keeping everything above it in place. You don't suggest that the melting, hot, weak top part full of smoke crushed the cold, solid, strong bottom full of cold air by gravity?

I think we already did enough laps on that merry-go-round.  By all means keep going round,  but count me out.

Remember Verinage, and the fact that you didn't understand it?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Heiwa on December 08, 2017, 10:01:27 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on December 08, 2017, 09:44:56 PM
Quote from: Heiwa on December 08, 2017, 08:44:24 PM
Hm, but the complete structure below the floors on fire were only 20 C with intact strength keeping everything above it in place. You don't suggest that the melting, hot, weak top part full of smoke crushed the cold, solid, strong bottom full of cold air by gravity?

I think we already did enough laps on that merry-go-round.  By all means keep going round,  but count me out.

Remember Verinage, and the fact that you didn't understand it?
But I understand the French system Vérinage very well. Destroy the bottom of a structure so the top drops down and destroys itself on the rubble of the destroyed bottom. It is a controlled demolition system hardly used.
The 911 collapses were completely different - some floors in the tops were on fire, so they started to melt and then ... suddenly ... the whole cold, solid, strong, intact bottom parts became dust.
Some experts suggest the top crushed the intact bottom but I don't see it on the photo I provided above.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on December 08, 2017, 10:58:24 PM
Quote from: Boots on December 08, 2017, 09:31:39 PM
Didn't you learn Celsius when studying engineering?

Obviously. I use it depending in project. I just use Fahrenheit naturally. Plus Rayzor made a big deal about it.

Quote from: Rayzor on December 08, 2017, 09:40:48 PM

yet here you are claiming the steel never got hotter than a summers day.


I meant that much of an increase of temp above it's ambient temp.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on December 08, 2017, 11:16:54 PM
And the useless discussion started once again...
Also bhs seems like an obvious troll here. 45deg increase, lol.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on December 09, 2017, 01:20:50 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on December 08, 2017, 10:58:24 PM
Quote from: Boots on December 08, 2017, 09:31:39 PM
Didn't you learn Celsius when studying engineering?

Obviously. I use it depending in project. I just use Fahrenheit naturally. Plus Rayzor made a big deal about it.

Quote from: Rayzor on December 08, 2017, 09:40:48 PM

yet here you are claiming the steel never got hotter than a summers day.


I meant that much of an increase of temp above it's ambient temp.

You still haven't cited a source.   Or are you just plucking numbers out of fresh air.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on December 09, 2017, 02:58:45 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on December 09, 2017, 01:20:50 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on December 08, 2017, 10:58:24 PM
Quote from: Boots on December 08, 2017, 09:31:39 PM
Didn't you learn Celsius when studying engineering?

Obviously. I use it depending in project. I just use Fahrenheit naturally. Plus Rayzor made a big deal about it.

Quote from: Rayzor on December 08, 2017, 09:40:48 PM

yet here you are claiming the steel never got hotter than a summers day.


I meant that much of an increase of temp above it's ambient temp.

You still haven't cited a source.   Or are you just plucking numbers out of fresh air.
Well, you know him and his way of debating. He engineer, he smart, he knows all.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on December 09, 2017, 01:38:53 PM
Quote from: User324 on December 09, 2017, 02:58:45 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on December 09, 2017, 01:20:50 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on December 08, 2017, 10:58:24 PM
Quote from: Boots on December 08, 2017, 09:31:39 PM
Didn't you learn Celsius when studying engineering?

Obviously. I use it depending in project. I just use Fahrenheit naturally. Plus Rayzor made a big deal about it.

Quote from: Rayzor on December 08, 2017, 09:40:48 PM

yet here you are claiming the steel never got hotter than a summers day.


I meant that much of an increase of temp above it's ambient temp.

You still haven't cited a source.   Or are you just plucking numbers out of fresh air.
Well, you know him and his way of debating. He engineer, he smart, he knows all.

He never provides sources, or backs up his argument with evidence,  he claims he doesn't use internet search, all information he provides is just his personal experience.   

Then when pressed he runs away and hides, like he is doing now.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on December 10, 2017, 09:21:38 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on December 08, 2017, 07:59:07 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on December 08, 2017, 05:58:12 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on December 08, 2017, 03:24:02 PM
Not true.   What's more if you don't even know such basic simple facts about steel structures, you can't possibly be engaged in a sensible discussion.

So you are saying, after thermal load distribution models, we have a possible 115-135 f degree raise in temp on the absolute highest end in the hottest spots, that will cause a full collapse with zero resistance?

This is somehow justified? Yet when people speak out against it they are called the idiots? That they don't "science bro"....seems the other way around. Seems basic engineering, physics and reality have the "idiots" side.

Not to mention, we have thermal distribution models of similar structures that have caught fire, burned for days, and have hot spots that reached almost 500 degrees without a collapse. We have one structure that had a partial collapse, and that is what you would expect (burned for close to 3 days)

I linked to papers describing the temperature profiles of high rise office fires, and described in some detail the time/temperature profiles of near field temperature.  A "normal office fire" can produce near field temperatures of  over 1000 C,  which significantly reduces the strength of steel structures. 

I also linked to the NIST  fire tests carried on the steel from the WTC,   the tests were done as part of a program to verify the steel used was as specified. 

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.1014.8949&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Also,  stop talking degrees F,  stick to C,  only backward countries still use fahrenheit.

PS.  I never actually called totallackey an idiot,  but if that's your opinion of him, I won't argue.
And the presence of live humanity mere minutes after these so-called "hundreds of degree fires," screams bull shit on the claim the fires were anywhere near hot enough to initiate collapse.

Plus, top down collapse is not possible unless the entirety of the bottom is weakened in some form or fashion first.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on December 10, 2017, 11:17:06 AM
Quote from: totallackey on December 10, 2017, 09:21:38 AM
Plus, top down collapse is not possible unless the entirety of the bottom is weakened in some form or fashion first.
How you know that, are you god or something?

Oh wait, I forgot, it's just your opinion :)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on December 10, 2017, 02:16:47 PM
Quote from: User324 on December 09, 2017, 02:58:45 AM
Well, you know him and his way of debating. He engineer, he smart, he knows all.

I see it is impossible for you to add anything of substance. Either a troll or just lacking that much intelligence.

People like yourself is the perfect​friend to the government and people alike. Don't understand something, but accept as fact and make fun of those that question it on solid ground.

You should be proud of yourself monkey.

Quote from: Rayzor on December 09, 2017, 01:38:53 PM

He never provides sources, or backs up his argument with evidence,  he claims he doesn't use internet search, all information he provides is just his personal experience.   

Then when pressed he runs away and hides, like he is doing now.

I use internet searches all the time on things I don't know or attempting to find info.

Just this information, alot of it comes from hard copies. And the knowledge I use comes from years of college and a decade of experience.

I don't think it would be good if a doctor had to Google "how to remove and replace kidney" before an operation.

You don't have to take my word or the models I and others have run seeing the thermal transfer (Husley is just one of many that have run them)..do the math yourself if you are truly looking for truth.

It won't be as accurate as a model, but it will get you to the point of seeing the temp of the structural steel proposed in the official story is bogus.

If you need a place to start, just look at the length, thickness, and metallurgical properties of the supporting structure. The core and the connecting floor trusses. Look at where the fires were, possible temp of the fires etc.

Then start running your distribution numbers on 1 2 and 7.

Quote from: User324 on December 10, 2017, 11:17:06 AM
Quote from: totallackey on December 10, 2017, 09:21:38 AM
Plus, top down collapse is not possible unless the entirety of the bottom is weakened in some form or fashion first.
How you know that, are you god or something?

Oh wait, I forgot, it's just your opinion :)

And useless again...can we change your screen name to useless for user?

No one is God, just engineering, physics and reality disagree with the official story. No need for a higher power to get involved.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on December 10, 2017, 10:10:23 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on December 10, 2017, 02:16:47 PM
No one is God, just engineering, physics and reality disagree with the official story. No need for a higher power to get involved.
Your opinion disagrees, not physics/reality/engineering.
You shouldn't confuse that...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on December 11, 2017, 04:52:32 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on December 10, 2017, 02:16:47 PM
Quote from: User324 on December 09, 2017, 02:58:45 AM
Well, you know him and his way of debating. He engineer, he smart, he knows all.

I see it is impossible for you to add anything of substance. Either a troll or just lacking that much intelligence.

People like yourself is the perfect​friend to the government and people alike. Don't understand something, but accept as fact and make fun of those that question it on solid ground.

You should be proud of yourself monkey.

Quote from: Rayzor on December 09, 2017, 01:38:53 PM

He never provides sources, or backs up his argument with evidence,  he claims he doesn't use internet search, all information he provides is just his personal experience.   

Then when pressed he runs away and hides, like he is doing now.

I use internet searches all the time on things I don't know or attempting to find info.

Just this information, alot of it comes from hard copies. And the knowledge I use comes from years of college and a decade of experience.

I don't think it would be good if a doctor had to Google "how to remove and replace kidney" before an operation.

You don't have to take my word or the models I and others have run seeing the thermal transfer (Husley is just one of many that have run them)..do the math yourself if you are truly looking for truth.

It won't be as accurate as a model, but it will get you to the point of seeing the temp of the structural steel proposed in the official story is bogus.

If you need a place to start, just look at the length, thickness, and metallurgical properties of the supporting structure. The core and the connecting floor trusses. Look at where the fires were, possible temp of the fires etc.

Then start running your distribution numbers on 1 2 and 7.

Quote from: User324 on December 10, 2017, 11:17:06 AM
Quote from: totallackey on December 10, 2017, 09:21:38 AM
Plus, top down collapse is not possible unless the entirety of the bottom is weakened in some form or fashion first.
How you know that, are you god or something?

Oh wait, I forgot, it's just your opinion :)

And useless again...can we change your screen name to useless for user?

No one is God, just engineering, physics and reality disagree with the official story. No need for a higher power to get involved.

So cite the references, and stop waffling.   

BTW Hulsey used NIST's thermal modelling,  If you have data that says otherwise, let's see it.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on December 12, 2017, 10:08:15 PM
Quote from: User324 on December 10, 2017, 10:10:23 PM
Your opinion disagrees, not physics/reality/engineering.
You shouldn't confuse that...

Can you ever add anything of substance?

That's ok, I am sure you know better than thousands upon thousands of actual engineers. We are all making it up right?

If you can add anything to this discussion above double digit brain dead rhetoric then I would love to discuss.

Quote from: Rayzor on December 11, 2017, 04:52:32 AM
So cite the references, and stop waffling.   

BTW Hulsey used NIST's thermal modelling,  If you have data that says otherwise, let's see it.



As far as I know he used his own thermal modeling report, I may be mistaken. I haven't spent alot of time reviewing his report. Went through it some when dispute put it up. Will go through it more thoroughly.

I told you to do the math yourself if you don't believe me. It is not super complex to do, fairly basic math. You already know what the support structures specs and design as far as I know.

If not I can start listing it out. I want to see if you are honest with the math or just wanting to stump for the official story.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Heiwa on December 12, 2017, 10:34:06 PM
Quote from: User324 on December 10, 2017, 11:17:06 AM
Quote from: totallackey on December 10, 2017, 09:21:38 AM
Plus, top down collapse is not possible unless the entirety of the bottom is weakened in some form or fashion first.
How you know that, are you god or something?

Oh wait, I forgot, it's just your opinion :)
Well, it is quite simple to show that a top down collapse is not possible - http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on December 12, 2017, 10:41:02 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on December 12, 2017, 10:08:15 PM
Quote from: User324 on December 10, 2017, 10:10:23 PM
Your opinion disagrees, not physics/reality/engineering.
You shouldn't confuse that...

Can you ever add anything of substance?

That's ok, I am sure you know better than thousands upon thousands of actual engineers. We are all making it up right?

If you can add anything to this discussion above double digit brain dead rhetoric then I would love to discuss.

Quote from: Rayzor on December 11, 2017, 04:52:32 AM
So cite the references, and stop waffling.   

BTW Hulsey used NIST's thermal modelling,  If you have data that says otherwise, let's see it.



As far as I know he used his own thermal modeling report, I may be mistaken. I haven't spent alot of time reviewing his report. Went through it some when dispute put it up. Will go through it more thoroughly.

I told you to do the math yourself if you don't believe me. It is not super complex to do, fairly basic math. You already know what the support structures specs and design as far as I know.

If not I can start listing it out. I want to see if you are honest with the math or just wanting to stump for the official story.
All I hear is mimimi.

It has all been discussed 10x. I'm not wasting my time on it, and you shouldn't either.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on December 12, 2017, 11:17:21 PM
Quote from: User324 on December 12, 2017, 10:41:02 PM
All I hear is mimimi.

It has all been discussed 10x. I'm not wasting my time on it, and you shouldn't either.

Yes and the points raised have not been debunked just a whole lot of insults and name calling such as this.

You haven't been able to form a single rebuttal as of yet.

Do you have a comment on the thermal modelling? Can you debunk what I have said? Would you like to do the math yourself? I can tell you the way to or you can look it up and do it yourself.

I would love to see you use your brain for once other than insults and low brow banter!
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on December 13, 2017, 01:17:39 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on December 12, 2017, 11:17:21 PM
mimimi

Hmm.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on December 13, 2017, 02:33:19 AM
Quote from: User324 on December 13, 2017, 01:17:39 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on December 12, 2017, 11:17:21 PM
mimimi

Hmm.

So you can't do the math? You aren't willing to investigate anything on your own? Yet you claim to be in search or truth... however, you state things as a fact you know nothing about.

You are either a complete moron, a troll, simply just not intelligent enough to understand, brainwashed or a shill...

I don't get you.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on December 13, 2017, 03:31:47 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on December 13, 2017, 02:33:19 AM
Quote from: User324 on December 13, 2017, 01:17:39 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on December 12, 2017, 11:17:21 PM
mimimi

Hmm.

So you can't do the math? You aren't willing to investigate anything on your own? Yet you claim to be in search or truth... however, you state things as a fact you know nothing about.

You are either a complete moron, a troll, simply just not intelligent enough to understand, brainwashed or a shill...

I don't get you.
Well, ain't nobody got time for that.
Not everyone is unemployed my dear.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on December 13, 2017, 03:34:14 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on December 12, 2017, 10:08:15 PM
Quote from: User324 on December 10, 2017, 10:10:23 PM
Your opinion disagrees, not physics/reality/engineering.
You shouldn't confuse that...

Can you ever add anything of substance?

That's ok, I am sure you know better than thousands upon thousands of actual engineers. We are all making it up right?

If you can add anything to this discussion above double digit brain dead rhetoric then I would love to discuss.

Quote from: Rayzor on December 11, 2017, 04:52:32 AM
So cite the references, and stop waffling.   

BTW Hulsey used NIST's thermal modelling,  If you have data that says otherwise, let's see it.



As far as I know he used his own thermal modeling report, I may be mistaken. I haven't spent alot of time reviewing his report. Went through it some when dispute put it up. Will go through it more thoroughly.

I told you to do the math yourself if you don't believe me. It is not super complex to do, fairly basic math. You already know what the support structures specs and design as far as I know.

If not I can start listing it out. I want to see if you are honest with the math or just wanting to stump for the official story.

You made a claim that is contrary to common sense and all the thermal modelling I'm aware of, and this is your best answer?

The near field temperatures were in excess of 1000C ( convert it to F yourself)  I have cited my references,  why don't you offer something to support your claim of temperature rises of less than 150F.   

Last chance.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Heiwa on December 13, 2017, 07:58:46 AM
Soon it is Christmas with burning candles.
A lit candle is very hot at the top but it never collapses by gravity.
http://heiwaco.com/emi2013.htm
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on December 13, 2017, 08:13:56 AM
Quote from: User324 on December 13, 2017, 03:31:47 AM
Well, ain't nobody got time for that.
Not everyone is unemployed my dear.

Such an idiot.

Also, don't be jealous that I can afford to sit on my ass and do nothing if desired. Plus, it doesn't take that long to do the math if you are working with a full deck.

Quote from: Rayzor on December 13, 2017, 03:34:14 AM
You made a claim that is contrary to common sense and all the thermal modelling I'm aware of, and this is your best answer?

The near field temperatures were in excess of 1000C ( convert it to F yourself)  I have cited my references,  why don't you offer something to support your claim of temperature rises of less than 150F.   

Last chance.


Number one I was talking about the support structure itself, not the room temp or fire temp.

First of all, in what world can a normal diffuse flame of burning paper and office furniture get to 1000c? Common sense and all things studied on such fires say from 340c-600c as the average temp (using Celsius just for you)...is this another magic quality that just happened this one time for that day as so many other things?

How though?

Then you have to take into account where and how wide spread the fires are...then the transfer ability between the air medium to the actual support structure itself. At that point you have to start looking how the support structure is going to diffuse and transfer the thermal load through out the structure as a whole to attain an accurate account.

There is a reason no steel structured building has had a total from fire no matter how wide spread. Even those that cover 90 plus percent of the building and burn for days on end.

Simple office fires cannot generate enough heat and transfer it effectively enough. Also, remember these numbers for temps of these fires are at the hottest part at the flame. Diffuse fires are very inefficient at producing heat and transferring.

You should try actually looking at things instead of simply making up your mind and all else be damned. If you are honest that is.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on December 13, 2017, 09:04:54 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on December 13, 2017, 08:13:56 AM
Quote from: User324 on December 13, 2017, 03:31:47 AM
Well, ain't nobody got time for that.
Not everyone is unemployed my dear.

Such an idiot.

Also, don't be jealous that I can afford to sit on my ass and do nothing if desired. Plus, it doesn't take that long to do the math if you are working with a full deck.
Boy... after all the time we were talking to eachother you are still triggered faster than any SJW could ever be...
You kind of remind me of my cat chasing after the laserpointer. Never realizing what's going on while running straight into a wall (I'm kidding. I wouldn't do that to my cate (if I had one)).

But seriously, why shouldn't I be jealous of you sitting around 24/7 and earning more money than I ever will?

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on December 13, 2017, 01:55:37 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on December 13, 2017, 08:13:56 AM

Number one I was talking about the support structure itself, not the room temp or fire temp.

First of all, in what world can a normal diffuse flame of burning paper and office furniture get to 1000c? Common sense and all things studied on such fires say from 340c-600c as the average temp (using Celsius just for you)...is this another magic quality that just happened this one time for that day as so many other things?

How though?

Then you have to take into account where and how wide spread the fires are...then the transfer ability between the air medium to the actual support structure itself. At that point you have to start looking how the support structure is going to diffuse and transfer the thermal load through out the structure as a whole to attain an accurate account.

There is a reason no steel structured building has had a total from fire no matter how wide spread. Even those that cover 90 plus percent of the building and burn for days on end.

Simple office fires cannot generate enough heat and transfer it effectively enough. Also, remember these numbers for temps of these fires are at the hottest part at the flame. Diffuse fires are very inefficient at producing heat and transferring.

You should try actually looking at things instead of simply making up your mind and all else be damned. If you are honest that is.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.1014.8949&rep=rep1&type=pdf

How about you read it this time.  Just a friendly suggestion.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Heiwa on December 13, 2017, 11:31:11 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on December 13, 2017, 01:55:37 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on December 13, 2017, 08:13:56 AM

Number one I was talking about the support structure itself, not the room temp or fire temp.

First of all, in what world can a normal diffuse flame of burning paper and office furniture get to 1000c? Common sense and all things studied on such fires say from 340c-600c as the average temp (using Celsius just for you)...is this another magic quality that just happened this one time for that day as so many other things?

How though?

Then you have to take into account where and how wide spread the fires are...then the transfer ability between the air medium to the actual support structure itself. At that point you have to start looking how the support structure is going to diffuse and transfer the thermal load through out the structure as a whole to attain an accurate account.

There is a reason no steel structured building has had a total from fire no matter how wide spread. Even those that cover 90 plus percent of the building and burn for days on end.

Simple office fires cannot generate enough heat and transfer it effectively enough. Also, remember these numbers for temps of these fires are at the hottest part at the flame. Diffuse fires are very inefficient at producing heat and transferring.

You should try actually looking at things instead of simply making up your mind and all else be damned. If you are honest that is.

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.1014.8949&rep=rep1&type=pdf

How about you read it this time.  Just a friendly suggestion.
Interesting. 1990 a steel ship caught fire in the port of Marseille, France:

https://www.humanite.fr/node/8504

(http://www.marine-marchande.net/Jourlejour/A-000-1000/569-saint_clair-3-v.jpg)

A container full of butter on the main deck caught fire. After five days the fire was extinguished! The complete cargo hold and deck house were destroyed but no steel melted, just deformed a little and ... the engine room was intact! And the steel hull was only bent like a banana. Interesting case.
A friend of mine bought the wreck at low cost and we fixed everything. Ship is still trading.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on December 14, 2017, 03:22:19 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on December 13, 2017, 01:55:37 PM
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.1014.8949&rep=rep1&type=pdf

How about you read it this time.  Just a friendly suggestion.

I did the last time, for a free abstract I can appreciate it. Though I have read much more detailed that didn't leave so many variables untouched. However, even this paper actually gives credit to the "truther" side and removes credibility from the official report.

Have you truly studied what it was explaining and the dynamics posed? Or did you just see the heat figures in the chart and get excited?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on December 14, 2017, 05:40:30 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on December 14, 2017, 03:22:19 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on December 13, 2017, 01:55:37 PM
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.1014.8949&rep=rep1&type=pdf

How about you read it this time.  Just a friendly suggestion.

I did the last time, for a free abstract I can appreciate it. Though I have read much more detailed that didn't leave so many variables untouched. However, even this paper actually gives credit to the "truther" side and removes credibility from the official report.

Have you truly studied what it was explaining and the dynamics posed? Or did you just see the heat figures in the chart and get excited?

Once again you duck the question I asked,  where is the material that supports your claim of less than 150 F temperature rise,  after 3 or 4 requests,  that have yielded zero answers,  I conclude you haven't actually got a clue about fires.

It's been a long time since I worked in the high rise fire control business,  but I can remember enough to know that you are full of bullshit. 

I'm done asking. You are a know nothing blowhard.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on December 14, 2017, 06:22:54 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on December 14, 2017, 05:40:30 AM
Once again you duck the question I asked,  where is the material that supports your claim of less than 150 F temperature rise,  after 3 or 4 requests,  that have yielded zero answers,  I conclude you haven't actually got a clue about fires.

Lol, I bet Babybullshit thinks spongebob's fire under water is real
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DLlFG_eVAAAOs7p.jpg)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on December 14, 2017, 10:35:17 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on December 14, 2017, 05:40:30 AM
Once again you duck the question I asked,  where is the material that supports your claim of less than 150 F temperature rise,  after 3 or 4 requests,  that have yielded zero answers,  I conclude you haven't actually got a clue about fires.

It's been a long time since I worked in the high rise fire control business,  but I can remember enough to know that you are full of bullshit. 

I'm done asking. You are a know nothing blowhard.

So cute when you get red in the face and call me names. I have just been speaking normally to you. As for blow hard, I have proven everything I have said about myself, even a damn picture on here. You have proven and refused to prove nothing about yourself because there is nothing.

And for the last time, I am talking about the support structure, not room temp, so let's get that correct.

The problem with people like you that do nothing, only look up an article on google and then make up your mind is you can only think very limited in 2D.

This is just another example of why you got schooled on that thread of load sharing after God knows how many pages of you and company calling me an idiot and every other name in the book. Then at the end I was right. I think in 3D from actually having experience, schooling and working with related things in the real world. I am not a useless Google warrior.


So in the case of the fires, you have to model it as such. I could light a 10x10x10 fire in my shop, hell it could be 2500 degrees and most of the supporting structure would gain very little thermal increase.

Even if I lit a piece of structure on fire directly, there are many variables. The material, the length, width, density, amount of connections, flanges (this are especially troublesome as they tend to hold heat then expand) etc etc etc.

It would be alot to type to explain everything and it has been obvious you care not for finding the truth.

But if you really want to search I can help.

Quote from: User324 on December 14, 2017, 06:22:54 AM
Lol, I bet Babybullshit thinks spongebob's fire under water is real

I really do feel bad for you and your future.

Please don't be a typical empty, useless millennial. Strive to be better before it's too late.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on December 14, 2017, 10:43:27 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on December 14, 2017, 10:35:17 AM
Quote from: User324 on December 14, 2017, 06:22:54 AM
Lol, I bet Babybullshit thinks spongebob's fire under water is real

I really do feel bad for you and your future.

Please don't be a typical empty, useless millennial. Strive to be better before it's too late.
In which way do you think my future is bad? Is it because I study sociology? I don't think that's a problem...
Also, I'm pretty sure I'm not that empty, nor am I typical or useless. But what about you?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Pezevenk on December 14, 2017, 11:20:05 AM
What? This thread is still going? And still as angry? Shit...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on December 14, 2017, 11:28:54 AM
Quote from: Definitely Not Official on December 14, 2017, 11:20:05 AM
What? This thread is still going? And still as angry? Shit...

To be fair, I have tried to turn over a new leaf and communicate normal in this thread, it has not been reciprocated as of yet. Maybe one day...

Tear
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on December 14, 2017, 11:47:38 AM
Quote from: Definitely Not Official on December 14, 2017, 11:20:05 AM
What? This thread is still going? And still as angry? Shit...
I think this thread will make it to 1000 pages, without anything new found out.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on December 14, 2017, 11:57:52 AM
Quote from: User324 on December 14, 2017, 11:47:38 AM
Quote from: Definitely Not Official on December 14, 2017, 11:20:05 AM
What? This thread is still going? And still as angry? Shit...
I think this thread will make it to 1000 pages, without anything new found out.

Only in your world and head. You have no intention to listen, try or investigate yourself.

So yes, nothing new will be discovered by you.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on December 14, 2017, 12:15:28 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on December 14, 2017, 11:57:52 AM
Quote from: User324 on December 14, 2017, 11:47:38 AM
Quote from: Definitely Not Official on December 14, 2017, 11:20:05 AM
What? This thread is still going? And still as angry? Shit...
I think this thread will make it to 1000 pages, without anything new found out.

Only in your world and head. You have no intention to listen, try or investigate yourself.

So yes, nothing new will be discovered by you.
Wow, your so good at insulting me instead of delivering any facts. Meanwhile you blame everyone else for namecalling.
Pathetic.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on December 14, 2017, 12:30:40 PM
Quote from: User324 on December 14, 2017, 12:15:28 PM
Wow, your so good at insulting me instead of delivering any facts. Meanwhile you blame everyone else for namecalling.
Pathetic.

Why don't you read through the recent posts. I answer a question, try to elaborate, you reply with insults.

The posts don't lie unless you delete them. I finally respond in kind, and you get butt hurt.

Though really I haven't insulted you...just told you the truth hoping for you to pull a U turn.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on December 14, 2017, 12:40:06 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on December 14, 2017, 12:30:40 PM
Why don't you read through the recent posts. I answer a question, try to elaborate, you reply with insults.
Hmm, where have I insulted you?

Quote
Though really I haven't insulted you...just told you the truth hoping for you to pull a U turn.
U turn on what?
As I have said:
Quote
In which way do you think my future is bad? Is it because I study sociology? I don't think that's a problem...
Also, I'm pretty sure I'm not that empty, nor am I typical or useless.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on December 14, 2017, 12:59:55 PM
Quote from: User324 on December 14, 2017, 12:40:06 PM

Hmm, where have I insulted you?


Just read through the posts, it is quite often.

If they aren't insults then it is just general stupidity/trolling that adds nothing to the conversation.

Then I ask you to research or explain yourself and you will not do either, yet somehow you know the truth.

Very ignorant and undeserved arrogance.

Quote
U turn on what?

Your present course, it is unhealthy and will lead you nowhere unless you get lucky, but you cannot count on luck. It's a fickle bitch

Quote
In which way do you think my future is bad? Is it because I study sociology? I don't think that's a problem...
Also, I'm pretty sure I'm not that empty, nor am I typical or useless.
[/quote]

No, study what you wish.

Your posts are constantly empty, and not just on this thread, so by default, that leads the belief this is you by nature.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on December 14, 2017, 01:08:40 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on December 14, 2017, 12:59:55 PM
Quote from: User324 on December 14, 2017, 12:40:06 PM

Hmm, where have I insulted you?


Just read through the posts, it is quite often.

If they aren't insults then it is just general stupidity/trolling that adds nothing to the conversation.

Then I ask you to research or explain yourself and you will not do either, yet somehow you know the truth.
Well, I know a lot, that's certainly true.
Also, if you want to be 100% serious without some having fun, you should visit a serious forum and not the flat earth society. Also, I try to be quite obvious with all my irony/sarcasm/trolling so that it is easy to detect.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on December 14, 2017, 12:59:55 PM
Your present course, it is unhealthy and will lead you nowhere unless you get lucky, but you cannot count on luck. It's a fickle bitch
What makes you think my forum-persona is representative of my real-life persona?
What makes you think my course in real life will lead to nowhere?
What makes you think you even know my course in real life?

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on December 14, 2017, 12:59:55 PM
No, study what you wish.
I appreciate it.
But anyway, don't worry, I don't study sociolgy.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on December 14, 2017, 12:59:55 PM
Your posts are constantly empty, and not just on this thread, so by default, that leads the belief this is you by nature.
What if my head is so full in real life that pretending it is empty can serve as compensation?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Pezevenk on December 14, 2017, 01:11:42 PM
My mother studied sociology YOU GOT A PROBLEM WITH THAT??? SAY WHAT YOU SAID FOR MY MOTHER AGAIN IF YOU DARE YOU FUCKS!!!

I just thought I'd try to blend in.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on December 14, 2017, 01:14:56 PM
Quote from: Definitely Not Official on December 14, 2017, 01:11:42 PM
My mother studied sociology YOU GOT A PROBLEM WITH THAT??? SAY WHAT YOU SAID FOR MY MOTHER AGAIN IF YOU DARE YOU FUCKS!!!

Shh, me and BHS are having a good conversation.

[Also, no wonder greece is fucked up if everyone studies sociolgy]
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Pezevenk on December 14, 2017, 01:16:38 PM
Quote from: User324 on December 14, 2017, 01:14:56 PM
Quote from: Definitely Not Official on December 14, 2017, 01:11:42 PM
My mother studied sociology YOU GOT A PROBLEM WITH THAT??? SAY WHAT YOU SAID FOR MY MOTHER AGAIN IF YOU DARE YOU FUCKS!!!

Shh, me and BHS are having a good conversation.

[Also, no wonder greece is fucked up if everyone studies sociolgy]

I don't see what's so wrong with sociology, there are professions directly related to it. Also it's pretty uncommon in Greece, everyone wants to be a doctor or a lawyer. Many people used to want to be civil engineers, but now they're all unemployed.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on December 14, 2017, 01:18:37 PM
Quote from: Definitely Not Official on December 14, 2017, 01:16:38 PM
I don't see what's so wrong with sociology, there are professions directly related to it.
Where did I say something is wrong with it?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Pezevenk on December 14, 2017, 01:19:34 PM
Quote from: User324 on December 14, 2017, 01:18:37 PM
Quote from: Definitely Not Official on December 14, 2017, 01:16:38 PM
I don't see what's so wrong with sociology, there are professions directly related to it.
Where did I say something is wrong with it?

You sort of implied it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on December 14, 2017, 01:21:00 PM
Quote from: Definitely Not Official on December 14, 2017, 01:19:34 PM
Quote from: User324 on December 14, 2017, 01:18:37 PM
Quote from: Definitely Not Official on December 14, 2017, 01:16:38 PM
I don't see what's so wrong with sociology, there are professions directly related to it.
Where did I say something is wrong with it?

You sort of implied it.
Actually, you implied it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on December 14, 2017, 01:52:38 PM
Quote from: User324 on December 14, 2017, 01:08:40 PM
Well, I know a lot, that's certainly true.
Also, if you want to be 100% serious without some having fun, you should visit a serious forum and not the flat earth society. Also, I try to be quite obvious with all my irony/sarcasm/trolling so that it is easy to detect.

I am certainly not serious all the time here, you should know that. At times I am.

Quote
What makes you think my forum-persona is representative of my real-life persona?
What makes you think my course in real life will lead to nowhere?
What makes you think you even know my course in real life?

I hope it isn't.

Quote
What if my head is so full in real life that pretending it is empty can serve as compensation?

This I can't argue with...well done...I do this as well sometimes to recharge.

Though, you are empty almost all the time, I hope to see the "real you" one day if I am wrong about you.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on December 14, 2017, 02:01:06 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on December 14, 2017, 01:52:38 PM
Though, you are empty almost all the time, I hope to see the "real you" one day if I am wrong about you.
You see it from time to time.
I think it just happens mostly in threads you are not active.
Rule of thumb:
If I you think it took me more than 2 minutes to write a post, theres a good chance I am being serious.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on December 14, 2017, 05:58:15 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on December 14, 2017, 11:28:54 AM
Quote from: Definitely Not Official on December 14, 2017, 11:20:05 AM
What? This thread is still going? And still as angry? Shit...

To be fair, I have tried to turn over a new leaf and communicate normal in this thread, it has not been reciprocated as of yet. Maybe one day...

Tear

And I have given you every opportunity to back up your assertions about thermal conductivity with evidence and you failed.

Try this experiment.

Get a gas torch ( propane will do )  and get a 2ft  long 1" iron bar and apply the torch to the center of the bar for 15 minutes.   Now measure the temperature of the bar.  See if the temperature is 115 F above ambient. and tell me the results.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sokarul on December 16, 2017, 11:50:50 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on December 03, 2017, 10:15:14 PM
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/12/03/us/detroit-silverdome-implosion-attempt/index.html

They should have used jet fuel instead of explosives apparently.
I'm confused as to why you posted this. Are you claiming that a demolition company with months of proper preparation can't bring a building down with explosives but a company was able to bring down wtc7 without the proper preparation?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on December 17, 2017, 12:00:38 AM
Quote from: sokarul on December 16, 2017, 11:50:50 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on December 03, 2017, 10:15:14 PM
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2017/12/03/us/detroit-silverdome-implosion-attempt/index.html

They should have used jet fuel instead of explosives apparently.
I'm confused as to why you posted this. Are you claiming that a demolition company with months of proper preparation can't bring a building down with explosives but a company was able to bring down wtc7 without the proper preparation?
On 9/11, three perfect demolitions of high rise buildings took place.

All started by two planes, jet fuel, and burning office supplies.

If I was in charge of a demolition company, I would simply use the full text of the NIST report...

(Oops, sorry...cannot obtain the input data for modeling)

Anyway, on my next demolition contract, just buy a plane, leave in the paper and office supplies, crash the plane somewhere near the top of the building, leave a gaping hole, wait for the fire to burn, and VOILA!!! Guaranteed results!!! 100 PERCENT PERFECTION!!!
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sokarul on December 17, 2017, 12:05:28 AM
totallacking strikes again

Why buy a plane to demolish buildings when you can use completely silent explosives?  Imagine how rich you could be if you sold quiet explosives? Will you share your secrets?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on December 17, 2017, 12:18:19 AM
Quote from: sokarul on December 17, 2017, 12:05:28 AM
totallacking strikes again

Why buy a plane to demolish buildings when you can use completely silent explosives?  Imagine how rich you could be if you sold quiet explosives? Will you share your secrets?

Several reasons.

Silent explosives sometimes only give the results you saw in the video.

In other words,they do not always get you 100 percent results.

Two, drama...

Drama-filled TV...

Got any more stupid questions, you moran?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sokarul on December 17, 2017, 12:21:03 AM
Can you show a silent explosion?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on December 17, 2017, 12:25:37 AM
Quote from: sokarul on December 17, 2017, 12:21:03 AM
Can you show a silent explosion?
Can you show any drama TV?

Look, I could spend all day beating you upside your already deformed and misshapen lump you call a head on this topic...

Why don't you go lay down in the corner with the pork chop tied around your neck and play with the dog like a good little RE-tard?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on December 17, 2017, 12:39:51 AM
Quote from: sokarul on December 17, 2017, 12:21:03 AM
Can you show a silent explosion?

They weren't....all reports of hearing explosions was stricken from the official report. They already had a story that was decided on, no matter how far from reality it was.

Quote from: totallackey on December 17, 2017, 12:00:38 AM

On 9/11, three perfect demolitions of high rise buildings took place.

All started by two planes, jet fuel, and burning office supplies.

If I was in charge of a demolition company, I would simply use the full text of the NIST report...

(Oops, sorry...cannot obtain the input data for modeling)

Anyway, on my next demolition contract, just buy a plane, leave in the paper and office supplies, crash the plane somewhere near the top of the building, leave a gaping hole, wait for the fire to burn, and VOILA!!! Guaranteed results!!! 100 PERCENT PERFECTION!!!

Building 7 shows you only need to set some desks and paper on fire to get a perfect demo. Don't even need planes.

They were just there for theatrical effect and to piss the American populous off so they will be like butter in doing what the government wanted.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on December 17, 2017, 12:46:56 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on December 17, 2017, 12:39:51 AM
Quote from: sokarul on December 17, 2017, 12:21:03 AM
Can you show a silent explosion?

They weren't....all reports of hearing explosions was stricken from the official report. They already had a story that was decided on, no matter how far from reality it was.

Quote from: totallackey on December 17, 2017, 12:00:38 AM

On 9/11, three perfect demolitions of high rise buildings took place.

All started by two planes, jet fuel, and burning office supplies.

If I was in charge of a demolition company, I would simply use the full text of the NIST report...

(Oops, sorry...cannot obtain the input data for modeling)

Anyway, on my next demolition contract, just buy a plane, leave in the paper and office supplies, crash the plane somewhere near the top of the building, leave a gaping hole, wait for the fire to burn, and VOILA!!! Guaranteed results!!! 100 PERCENT PERFECTION!!!

Building 7 shows you only need to set some desks and paper on fire to get a perfect demo. Don't even need planes.

They were just there for theatrical effect and to piss the American populous off so they will be like butter in doing what the government wanted.
^+1
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on December 17, 2017, 01:06:21 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on December 14, 2017, 05:58:15 PM

And I have given you every opportunity to back up your assertions about thermal conductivity with evidence and you failed.

Try this experiment.

Get a gas torch ( propane will do )  and get a 2ft  long 1" iron bar and apply the torch to the center of the bar for 15 minutes.   Now measure the temperature of the bar.  See if the temperature is 115 F above ambient. and tell me the results.

I am assuming you are talking about a gas only torch and not an oxygen fed one?

A one inch thick iron bar that is two feet long, with the flame tip about 3/4s of an inch away for 15 mins....you would be very close to melting temp at that point.

The ends would be about 400 degrees cooler. These are round numbers, as I am at a party right now and don't feel like doing the math.

I can officially do it tomorrow, if you care.

But what is the point in comparing a torch directly placed upon iron to a diffuse fire in a office tower?

Quote from: totallackey on December 17, 2017, 12:46:56 AM
^+1

One thing I have always wondered, why is it the people that know the least and have done nothing have the loudest voice for the official story?

It is a very strange phenomenon
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on December 17, 2017, 01:16:58 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on December 17, 2017, 01:06:21 AM
One thing I have always wondered, why is it the people that know the least and have done nothing have the loudest voice for the official story?

It is a very strange phenomenon
I find it strange the ones trumpeting loudest for the OS claim citizenship outside the US.

But you are right.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on December 18, 2017, 02:43:56 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on December 17, 2017, 01:06:21 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on December 14, 2017, 05:58:15 PM

And I have given you every opportunity to back up your assertions about thermal conductivity with evidence and you failed.

Try this experiment.

Get a gas torch ( propane will do )  and get a 2ft  long 1" iron bar and apply the torch to the center of the bar for 15 minutes.   Now measure the temperature of the bar.  See if the temperature is 115 F above ambient. and tell me the results.

I am assuming you are talking about a gas only torch and not an oxygen fed one?

A one inch thick iron bar that is two feet long, with the flame tip about 3/4s of an inch away for 15 mins....you would be very close to melting temp at that point.

The ends would be about 400 degrees cooler. These are round numbers, as I am at a party right now and don't feel like doing the math.

I can officially do it tomorrow, if you care.

But what is the point in comparing a torch directly placed upon iron to a diffuse fire in a office tower?

Quote from: totallackey on December 17, 2017, 12:46:56 AM
^+1

One thing I have always wondered, why is it the people that know the least and have done nothing have the loudest voice for the official story?

It is a very strange phenomenon

It would be nowhere near melting.  That would take oxy.   

Also,  you have now made two contradictory claims about the thermal conductivity of steel,  want to guess what they are?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on December 18, 2017, 03:27:51 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on December 18, 2017, 02:43:56 AM
It would be nowhere near melting.  That would take oxy.   

Also,  you have now made two contradictory claims about the thermal conductivity of steel,  want to guess what they are?

You said a 1 inch thick two feet long piece of iron. Also assuming you are placing the flame dead center.

I assumed gas only torch, but even those can get hot enough to melt iron. Sure, with those it depends on the conditions and things will vary. I didn't say it would melt in the 15 minutes time, and the torch may not be able to generate enough energy, there are alot of variables in play and the torch it's self.

Just said it would be close in that time frame. Unless you are talking about using a tiny butane torch, I was assuming an industrial sized one with decent tank flow and nozzle size. You know how I am with variables...also gave a very general answer to temp at the ends. An oxy torch would be able to melt the iron in that area before the 15 minutes is up though.


So where are we going with this?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on December 18, 2017, 03:54:19 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on December 18, 2017, 03:27:51 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on December 18, 2017, 02:43:56 AM
It would be nowhere near melting.  That would take oxy.   

Also,  you have now made two contradictory claims about the thermal conductivity of steel,  want to guess what they are?

You said a 1 inch thick two feet long piece of iron. Also assuming you are placing the flame dead center.

I assumed gas only torch, but even those can get hot enough to melt iron. Sure, with those it depends on the conditions and things will vary. I didn't say it would melt in the 15 minutes time, and the torch may not be able to generate enough energy, there are alot of variables in play and the torch it's self.

Just said it would be close in that time frame. Unless you are talking about using a tiny butane torch, I was assuming an industrial sized one with decent tank flow and nozzle size. You know how I am with variables...also gave a very general answer to temp at the ends. An oxy torch would be able to melt the iron in that area before the 15 minutes is up though.


So where are we going with this?

So you made two claims.

1. You claim that the steel structure of the  building would conduct the heat away sufficiently to limit the temperature rise to 115 F.

2. Then you claimed that a steel bar didn't have sufficient thermal conductivity to transfer heat to the ends of a two foot bar within 15 minutes.  But it would melt in the middle.  ( That's a temperature rise of 1500 C,  (2700 F)

These claims can't both be true.

Which one are you going with?   115F or 2700F?



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on December 18, 2017, 04:12:31 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on December 18, 2017, 03:54:19 AM
So you made two claims.

1. You claim that the steel structure of the  building would conduct the heat away sufficiently to limit the temperature rise to 115 F.

2. Then you claimed that a steel bar didn't have sufficient thermal conductivity to transfer heat to the ends of a two foot bar within 15 minutes.  But it would melt in the middle.  ( That's a temperature rise of 1500 C,  (2700 F)

These claims can't both be true.

Which one are you going with?   115F or 2700F?

Comparing apples and oranges here.

One is a superstructure dealing with a diffuse fire of office furniture, carpet papers etc...

The other is a two foot piece of iron an inch thick with a blow torch in the center. Hell the flame alone is a 24th the size of the entire piece of metal.

Hell let me cover a 24th of the center of any of the world trade centers with  a concentrated flame close to 3500 degrees for a few hours (should take less than 30 minutes at that point) and we will certainly have some sort of failure/collapse. It would be asymmetrical and not mimic what we saw, but certainly a failure will happen.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on December 18, 2017, 04:25:18 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on December 18, 2017, 04:12:31 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on December 18, 2017, 03:54:19 AM
So you made two claims.

1. You claim that the steel structure of the  building would conduct the heat away sufficiently to limit the temperature rise to 115 F.

2. Then you claimed that a steel bar didn't have sufficient thermal conductivity to transfer heat to the ends of a two foot bar within 15 minutes.  But it would melt in the middle.  ( That's a temperature rise of 1500 C,  (2700 F)

These claims can't both be true.

Which one are you going with?   115F or 2700F?

Comparing apples and oranges here.

One is a superstructure dealing with a diffuse fire of office furniture, carpet papers etc...

The other is a two foot piece of iron an inch thick with a blow torch in the center. Hell the flame alone is a 24th the size of the entire piece of metal.

Hell let me cover a 24th of the center of any of the world trade centers with  a concentrated flame close to 3500 degrees for a few hours (should take less than 30 minutes at that point) and we will certainly have some sort of failure/collapse. It would be asymmetrical and not mimic what we saw, but certainly a failure will happen.

So what is the fuel load for a high rise office fire?   Give your answer in MW/sqm  or whatever units you prefer.
 
You seem unaware of the basics of heat transfer,  but I guess this is not your area of expertise.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on December 18, 2017, 04:41:34 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on December 18, 2017, 04:25:18 AM
So what is the fuel load for a high rise office fire?   Give your answer in MW/sqm  or whatever units you prefer.
 
You seem unaware of the basics of heat transfer,  but I guess this is not your area of expertise.

Would have to know exactly what was in there...so it seems many of the areas hit was fairly empty or completely empty. To determine actual temp, we can only go off fire studies (real world tests) and the history of previous​ similar events. Form the models to the best of our ability.

There is much more than just raw heat as I explained before. You have the air medium, fire coating, where the fire actually is and position to what substructure. Then the actual structure itself, thickness, density, length, width and height...how many bolts, flanges, connections, altitude etc etc etc I could rattle on and on. Plus we are dealing with a diffuse fire here, they are piss poor at heat transfer. Especially in an area that will become quickly oxygen starved.

Just as the example of setting a fire at my shop. My first building is about 12,000 sq feet, 20 foot ceilings...if I sat a few desks on fire in the middle of the shop, how much of that thermal load would be transferred to the supporting structure? Very little, maybe a few degrees after many hours..with the hottest area being directly above the burning desks.

However, if I were to set that same fire in the office of that building, which has 10 foot ceilings and only about 400 sq feet we have a completely​ different situation.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on December 18, 2017, 03:44:17 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on December 18, 2017, 03:54:19 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on December 18, 2017, 03:27:51 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on December 18, 2017, 02:43:56 AM
It would be nowhere near melting.  That would take oxy.   

Also,  you have now made two contradictory claims about the thermal conductivity of steel,  want to guess what they are?
So where are we going with this?

So you made two claims.

1. You claim that the steel structure of the  building would conduct the heat away sufficiently to limit the temperature rise to 115 F.

2. Then you claimed that a steel bar didn't have sufficient thermal conductivity to transfer heat to the ends of a two foot bar within 15 minutes.  But it would melt in the middle.  ( That's a temperature rise of 1500 C,  (2700 F)

These claims can't both be true.

Which one are you going with?   115F or 2700F?
Here is where he is going with this.

He is going to use IRON...

VS.

STEEL!

Moran!!!

Jesus, what a loon!

As if you offered a valid comparative test to begin with.

Just give it up already, ffs...

YOU LOST THE DEBATE! THE OS IS FULL OF FUCKING HOLES!!
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sokarul on December 18, 2017, 05:07:11 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on December 17, 2017, 12:39:51 AM
Quote from: sokarul on December 17, 2017, 12:21:03 AM
Can you show a silent explosion?

They weren't....all reports of hearing explosions was stricken from the official report. They already had a story that was decided on, no matter how far from reality it was.
Of course, edited out. Just like the months of prep work to place the explosives. All edited out of people's minds.

Quote
Quote from: totallackey on December 17, 2017, 12:00:38 AM

On 9/11, three perfect demolitions of high rise buildings took place.

All started by two planes, jet fuel, and burning office supplies.

If I was in charge of a demolition company, I would simply use the full text of the NIST report...

(Oops, sorry...cannot obtain the input data for modeling)

Anyway, on my next demolition contract, just buy a plane, leave in the paper and office supplies, crash the plane somewhere near the top of the building, leave a gaping hole, wait for the fire to burn, and VOILA!!! Guaranteed results!!! 100 PERCENT PERFECTION!!!

Building 7 shows you only need to set some desks and paper on fire to get a perfect demo. Don't even need planes.

They were just there for theatrical effect and to piss the American populous off so they will be like butter in doing what the government wanted.
Yes a uncontrolled fire.

Did you decide yet if you think unbalanced forces can bring a building down?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on December 19, 2017, 06:37:01 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on December 18, 2017, 04:41:34 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on December 18, 2017, 04:25:18 AM
So what is the fuel load for a high rise office fire?   Give your answer in MW/sqm  or whatever units you prefer.
 
You seem unaware of the basics of heat transfer,  but I guess this is not your area of expertise.

Would have to know exactly what was in there...so it seems many of the areas hit was fairly empty or completely empty. To determine actual temp, we can only go off fire studies (real world tests) and the history of previous​ similar events. Form the models to the best of our ability.

There is much more than just raw heat as I explained before. You have the air medium, fire coating, where the fire actually is and position to what substructure. Then the actual structure itself, thickness, density, length, width and height...how many bolts, flanges, connections, altitude etc etc etc I could rattle on and on. Plus we are dealing with a diffuse fire here, they are piss poor at heat transfer. Especially in an area that will become quickly oxygen starved.

Just as the example of setting a fire at my shop. My first building is about 12,000 sq feet, 20 foot ceilings...if I sat a few desks on fire in the middle of the shop, how much of that thermal load would be transferred to the supporting structure? Very little, maybe a few degrees after many hours..with the hottest area being directly above the burning desks.

However, if I were to set that same fire in the office of that building, which has 10 foot ceilings and only about 400 sq feet we have a completely​ different situation.

No you are missing the point,  the critical factor in fires is fuel and air supply,  supply enough fuel and air and your steel building will collapse like a pile of spaghetti. 

Now go back and justify your claim of 115 degrees temperature rise.  I don't believe you can make your case.
 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on December 19, 2017, 06:40:35 AM
Quote from: totallackey on December 18, 2017, 03:44:17 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on December 18, 2017, 03:54:19 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on December 18, 2017, 03:27:51 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on December 18, 2017, 02:43:56 AM
It would be nowhere near melting.  That would take oxy.   

Also,  you have now made two contradictory claims about the thermal conductivity of steel,  want to guess what they are?
So where are we going with this?

So you made two claims.

1. You claim that the steel structure of the  building would conduct the heat away sufficiently to limit the temperature rise to 115 F.

2. Then you claimed that a steel bar didn't have sufficient thermal conductivity to transfer heat to the ends of a two foot bar within 15 minutes.  But it would melt in the middle.  ( That's a temperature rise of 1500 C,  (2700 F)

These claims can't both be true.

Which one are you going with?   115F or 2700F?
Here is where he is going with this.

He is going to use IRON...

VS.

STEEL!

Moran!!!

Jesus, what a loon!

As if you offered a valid comparative test to begin with.

Just give it up already, ffs...

YOU LOST THE DEBATE! THE OS IS FULL OF FUCKING HOLES!!

Your comment makes no sense,  but then you usually don't manage coherent thought at the best of times. 

What are you on about with comparing iron and steel?   
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on December 19, 2017, 07:49:23 AM
Rayzor calm your tits ok.
You will make them all cry...they're not that good at handling facts  ;D
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on December 19, 2017, 08:20:10 AM
Quote from: sokarul on December 18, 2017, 05:07:11 PM
Of course, edited out. Just like the months of prep work to place the explosives. All edited out of people's minds.

This makes no sense...it is a fact they were not allowed in the official story. Any account that disagreed with the agenda they had to keep was stricken. We can see what was not allowed in the official story. Nor did they investigate any claims This is not a mystery.

Quote
Yes a uncontrolled fire.

Did you decide yet if you think unbalanced forces can bring a building down?

That is an ambiguous statement...of course they can, high rises are just giant sea buoys stuck in the dirt.

However, an unbalanced load bringing down a building symmetrically? No... especially 3 times in a row perfectly. Unless of course structural support and mass were removed to help with this.

Quote from: Rayzor on December 19, 2017, 06:37:01 AM
No you are missing the point,  the critical factor in fires is fuel and air supply,  supply enough fuel and air and your steel building will collapse like a pile of spaghetti. 

Now go back and justify your claim of 115 degrees temperature rise.  I don't believe you can make your case.
 

How am I missing the point...I always look at the specifics...I was just talking about them, as well as used a hypothetical example.

I mentioned oxygen supply and fuel already. You asked how much fuel was there and I said it is impossible to calculate the exact amount because we don't know the exact amount of material/desks/paper etc etc the areas struck contained. Many sections struck were under "repair" and had no office tiles or carpet.

However, we can look at the video and go off previous situations and experience. Look at the smoke and other visual cues. Due to the properties of the kerosene based fuel used, we can write that off as a variable, so we are back to an office fire.

The variables present with how many desks, chairs, papers, how much carpet, ceiling tiles etc...though we cannot know 100 percent for sure the exact number, we can estimate...though even with a +/- margin, we are still dealing with a diffuse office fire (which we have much real world experience, studies, training etc dealing with)...so we can still model it fairly well when combining photographic evidence.


Now we cannot take into account of something that should not have been there being present (such as the mystery melted "metal" being dumped from the building and other strange unknown visual evidence) ..but that goes right back into the conspiracy and supports the "inside job" ideal.

As I said from the beginning, I doubt I will ever know the truth, as I am not privy to such black info...so I never want to speculate, all I do is debunk the official fairy tale, everything else is just open thought.

Quote from: User324 on December 19, 2017, 07:49:23 AM
Rayzor calm your tits ok.
You will make them all cry...they're not that good at handling facts  ;D

You really are useless. I am PMing John Davis to change your screen name.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on December 19, 2017, 08:21:44 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on December 19, 2017, 08:20:10 AM
You really are useless. I am PMing John Davis to change your screen name.
That's really kind, because since quite some time I feel like I am user325 :/
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on December 19, 2017, 03:04:04 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on December 19, 2017, 06:40:35 AM

Your comment makes no sense,  but then you usually don't manage coherent thought at the best of times. 

What are you on about with comparing iron and steel?
You told BHS to use an IRON BAR.

You want to compare the results of applying an open flame to an IRON bar to that of a semi-contained fire on structural STEEL.

You are a joke!
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on December 19, 2017, 03:47:28 PM
Quote from: totallackey on December 19, 2017, 03:04:04 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on December 19, 2017, 06:40:35 AM

Your comment makes no sense,  but then you usually don't manage coherent thought at the best of times. 

What are you on about with comparing iron and steel?
You told BHS to use an IRON BAR.

You want to compare the results of applying an open flame to an IRON bar to that of a semi-contained fire on structural STEEL.

You are a joke!

LOL.  you think there is that much of a difference in thermal conductivity.   Actually IRON melts at a much higher temperature that STEEL, but that's irrelevant to the discussion. 

Come to think of it you, are making yourself irrelevant to this discussion by your dumbass comments.  Go play somewhere else.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on December 19, 2017, 03:49:56 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on December 19, 2017, 08:20:10 AM
Quote from: sokarul on December 18, 2017, 05:07:11 PM
Of course, edited out. Just like the months of prep work to place the explosives. All edited out of people's minds.

This makes no sense...it is a fact they were not allowed in the official story. Any account that disagreed with the agenda they had to keep was stricken. We can see what was not allowed in the official story. Nor did they investigate any claims This is not a mystery.

Quote
Yes a uncontrolled fire.

Did you decide yet if you think unbalanced forces can bring a building down?

That is an ambiguous statement...of course they can, high rises are just giant sea buoys stuck in the dirt.

However, an unbalanced load bringing down a building symmetrically? No... especially 3 times in a row perfectly. Unless of course structural support and mass were removed to help with this.

Quote from: Rayzor on December 19, 2017, 06:37:01 AM
No you are missing the point,  the critical factor in fires is fuel and air supply,  supply enough fuel and air and your steel building will collapse like a pile of spaghetti. 

Now go back and justify your claim of 115 degrees temperature rise.  I don't believe you can make your case.
 

How am I missing the point...I always look at the specifics...I was just talking about them, as well as used a hypothetical example.

I mentioned oxygen supply and fuel already. You asked how much fuel was there and I said it is impossible to calculate the exact amount because we don't know the exact amount of material/desks/paper etc etc the areas struck contained. Many sections struck were under "repair" and had no office tiles or carpet.

However, we can look at the video and go off previous situations and experience. Look at the smoke and other visual cues. Due to the properties of the kerosene based fuel used, we can write that off as a variable, so we are back to an office fire.

The variables present with how many desks, chairs, papers, how much carpet, ceiling tiles etc...though we cannot know 100 percent for sure the exact number, we can estimate...though even with a +/- margin, we are still dealing with a diffuse office fire (which we have much real world experience, studies, training etc dealing with)...so we can still model it fairly well when combining photographic evidence.


Now we cannot take into account of something that should not have been there being present (such as the mystery melted "metal" being dumped from the building and other strange unknown visual evidence) ..but that goes right back into the conspiracy and supports the "inside job" ideal.

As I said from the beginning, I doubt I will ever know the truth, as I am not privy to such black info...so I never want to speculate, all I do is debunk the official fairy tale, everything else is just open thought.

Quote from: User324 on December 19, 2017, 07:49:23 AM
Rayzor calm your tits ok.
You will make them all cry...they're not that good at handling facts  ;D

You really are useless. I am PMing John Davis to change your screen name.

I'm still waiting for the thermal modelling that shows near field temperaure rises of 115F.   If you can't provide evidence, then I guess your argument can't be supported.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on December 22, 2017, 04:23:00 PM


Be removed, and be cast into the sea.
The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.

And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder.

For one is your Teacher, and all you are brothers. You fools and blind: for which is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifies the gold?

For you make clean the outside of the cup and of the platter, but within they are full of extortion and excess. Cleanse first that which is within the cup and platter, that the outside of them may be clean also.

For you are like unto whitewashed sepulchers, which indeed appear beautiful outwardly but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness.

Even so you also outwardly appear righteous unto men, but within you are full of hypocrisy and iniquity.

See you not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.

For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes.
All these are the beginning of sorrows.

And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another.
And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall grow cold.

But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bullwinkle on December 22, 2017, 04:33:11 PM
Dude, where you been?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on December 22, 2017, 04:39:41 PM
Banned for intentional racism. See my thread in AR.

Actually the mods just want me to stop talking about sensitive subjects I think.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Space Cowgirl on December 22, 2017, 04:51:08 PM
Quote from: disputeone on December 22, 2017, 04:39:41 PM
Banned for intentional racism. See my thread in AR.

Actually the mods just want me to stop talking about sensitive subjects I think.

Exactly, it's why we permanently banned you.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on December 22, 2017, 05:05:21 PM
Quote from: Space Cowgirl on December 22, 2017, 04:51:08 PM
Quote from: disputeone on December 22, 2017, 04:39:41 PM
Banned for intentional racism. See my thread in AR.

Actually the mods just want me to stop talking about sensitive subjects I think.

Exactly, it's why we permanently banned you.

What? Did you ban him again permanently?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on December 22, 2017, 05:11:37 PM
Quote from: Space Cowgirl on December 22, 2017, 04:51:08 PM
Quote from: disputeone on December 22, 2017, 04:39:41 PM
Banned for intentional racism. See my thread in AR.

Actually the mods just want me to stop talking about sensitive subjects I think.

Exactly, it's why we permanently banned you.

Obvs not.





Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:35:45 PM
This post debunks your assertion that the entire core collapsed leaving the outside intact and then the "outer facade" collapsing at free-fall.

Please read it and respond to it.
Here.
Can you debunk this post? If it's as stupid and I'm as stupid as you all claim surely a smart guy like you can debunk it.

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 05:46:15 PM
No the video of the collapse shows the failure of columns 79, 80, and 81, causing a partial building collapse. (The collapse of the east penthouse.)

None of these were core columns and then after a few seconds, the entire core failed nearly simultaneously causing a 2.25 second symmetrical free-fall of the entire bulding. Remeber the "outer facade" had 18 structural support columns making any natural free-fall impossible.

@Rayzor.
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 04:05:20 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 03:59:31 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 03:54:44 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 03:33:41 AM
You still haven't addressed your post trying to debunk Newton. Do you stand by it?

You seriously think I'm trying to debunk Newton?

I do, yes.

See.
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 10:00:14 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 09:51:48 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 09:50:33 PM
We'll soon see about that.

Yes,  Hulsey's  simultaneous collapse theory.   What a joke.

In order for the building to collapse at free-fall the entire core had to fail nearly simultaneously. Structural resistance slows fall acceleration. If you don't like it take it up with Newton, not me.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Newt.html

Ah, I see where you went wrong,  you forgot that the center had already collapsed / was collapsing BEFORE the facade came down.  I really can't keep holding you hand while you work through these things, you have to start to think for yourself if you are going to be a good anon campaigner.

Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 04:10:35 AM
Thats not true that's the conclusions of the fraudulent NIST report. That is merely the lie we were sold.

Furthermore, even if the entire inner core collapsed leaving the entire "facade" intact (which is impossible because of the cross bracing) there were still 18 support columns around the exterior.

(https://s26.postimg.org/iegp2ilix/images-43.jpg)

A free fall collapse even under your fairytale conditions is still impossible without a controlled demolition. You are trying to debunk Newton.

Q.E.D.

Edit.
Video evidence.
[Youtube][/youtube]

For reference Rayzor believes this debunks it. Notice he says it's "been debunked" since his first post on the topic.

Quote from: Rayzor on February 13, 2017, 11:18:08 PM
We already debunked that free-fall argument.   But just to recap,  how is it possible for the rooftop of a building to fall?   Doesn't the fact that it collapsed at all mean that the building structure supporting the roof is collapsing,    why would you be surprised that it fell at a free fall rate.   At least until it hit ground and other debris piled up,   The graph in the NIST shows it quite clearly.   

You say you work in the industry,  you mean the building industry?   In what capacity?

What caused the core to collapse at free-fall

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:43:13 PM
Quote from: Bullwinkle on September 21, 2017, 07:40:41 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:35:45 PM

What caused the core to collapse at free-fall



Opposed to hovering in place?

Watch the video. When the west penthouse fails the building immediately collapses.

Video evidence.
[Youtube][/youtube]

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:54:14 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 21, 2017, 07:49:46 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:43:13 PM
When the west penthouse fails the building immediately collapses.

Gee, I wonder what was holding up the penthouse?

The core. Therefore as soon as the core failed the building came down. Hulsey is right.
Video evidence.
[Youtube][/youtube]

Quote from: disputeone on September 24, 2017, 07:40:40 PM
Quote from: sokarul on September 24, 2017, 07:10:03 PM
Unbalanced forces are a problem aren't they.

Please elaborate on what you mean by unbalanced forces. Using the information in your short post it's hard to understand your meaning.

http://study.com/academy/lesson/unbalanced-force-definition-example-quiz.html

Seems like you're on the right track, keep researching.

Quote
Unbalanced forces are forces that cause a change in the motion of an object.

Very good.

Now this article shows us why a 2.25 second symmetrical free-fall of wtc 7 is impossible.

Quote
Any push or pull is a force. To describe a force, you must know two things. You must know the size of the force and the direction of the force. Suppose two teams are playing tug of war. Each team is pulling with equal force, but in opposite directions. Neither team can make the other team move. Forces that are equal in size but opposite in direction are called balanced forces.

Newtons third does debunk the idea of a fire induced natural collapse of wtc 7, no doubt about that.

Quote
If two forces are in opposite directions, then the net force is the difference between the two forces, and it is in the direction of the larger force. Consider two dogs playing tug of war with a short piece of rope. Each is exerting a force, but in opposite directions.

So we could look at gravitational potential energy, inertia and structural resistance to calculate the predicted fall acceleration of wtc 7 if the NIST conclusions were correct and the collapse was progressive starting with the failure of column 79 on floor 13.

Spoiler.
It isnt 2.25 seconds of very close to 9.8m/s2.

If I'm going to put in the effort show me it's worth it.

[Youtube][/youtube]

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on December 22, 2017, 05:13:02 PM
/thread
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Space Cowgirl on December 22, 2017, 05:22:40 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on December 22, 2017, 05:05:21 PM
Quote from: Space Cowgirl on December 22, 2017, 04:51:08 PM
Quote from: disputeone on December 22, 2017, 04:39:41 PM
Banned for intentional racism. See my thread in AR.

Actually the mods just want me to stop talking about sensitive subjects I think.

Exactly, it's why we permanently banned you.

What? Did you ban him again permanently?

No, he was bammed permanently the first time. It's his ghost posting now.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on December 22, 2017, 05:31:34 PM
8. Low-content Posting/Derailment
Do not make spammy, non-contributive or low-quality posts, or derail threads by deliberately dragging discussion away from the original topic.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Space Cowgirl on December 22, 2017, 06:03:32 PM
Well, I'm glad to see you're reporting yourself now.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on December 22, 2017, 06:04:31 PM
Quote from: Space Cowgirl on December 22, 2017, 06:03:32 PM
Well, I'm glad to see you're reporting yourself now.

Quote from: disputeone on December 22, 2017, 05:31:34 PM
8. Low-content Posting/Derailment
Do not make spammy, non-contributive or low-quality posts, or derail threads by deliberately dragging discussion away from the original topic.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Space Cowgirl on December 22, 2017, 06:06:40 PM
Have you solved the 9/11 mystery during your vacation? Or just the same copy pasta?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on December 22, 2017, 06:14:07 PM
Quote from: Space Cowgirl on December 22, 2017, 05:22:40 PM
No, he was bammed permanently the first time. It's his ghost posting now.

Quote from: disputeone on December 22, 2017, 05:31:34 PM
8. Low-content Posting/Derailment
Do not make spammy, non-contributive or low-quality posts, or derail threads by deliberately dragging discussion away from the original topic.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on December 22, 2017, 06:03:32 PM
Well, I'm glad to see you're reporting yourself now.

Quote from: disputeone on December 22, 2017, 06:04:31 PM
Quote from: Space Cowgirl on December 22, 2017, 06:03:32 PM
Well, I'm glad to see you're reporting yourself now.

Quote from: disputeone on December 22, 2017, 05:31:34 PM
8. Low-content Posting/Derailment
Do not make spammy, non-contributive or low-quality posts, or derail threads by deliberately dragging discussion away from the original topic.

I am sorry, this interaction made me laugh.

Quote from: Space Cowgirl on December 22, 2017, 06:06:40 PM
Have you solved the 9/11 mystery during your vacation? Or just the same copy pasta?

Well it is a mystery I suppose since the official explanation solved  absolutely nothing and answered zero questions...

Plus don't lie, you know you are happy to have dispute back. Look how late you are posting, you never post this late.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on December 22, 2017, 06:16:55 PM
Quote from: Space Cowgirl on December 22, 2017, 06:06:40 PM
Have you solved 9/11?

Wtc 7 was a controlled demolition, as proven in the post no one will respond to for some reason.

Is it still 20c a post or are you on vacation rates?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sokarul on December 22, 2017, 06:24:51 PM
Where were the explosions?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on December 22, 2017, 06:31:31 PM
Quote from: sokarul on December 22, 2017, 06:24:51 PM
Where were the explosions?

People heard explosions, their accounts were stricken from the official story. You can read them though...they are all public records.

Also, remember, you are dealing with a fully intact building with Windows, sound deading material etc etc. A normal demo is completely stripped to the core.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on December 22, 2017, 06:40:45 PM
Quote from: sokarul on December 22, 2017, 06:24:51 PM
Where were the explosions?

Bot.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bullwinkle on December 22, 2017, 07:33:33 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on December 22, 2017, 06:31:31 PM

People heard explosions, their accounts were stricken from the official story.



Oh, F me, I can't help it . . .   

Is there an official record of their accounts being stricken from the official story?   ;)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on December 22, 2017, 07:37:00 PM
Yeah man do you want me to spoon-feed you?
I'm happy to.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bullwinkle on December 22, 2017, 07:40:43 PM
Will it be yummy?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on December 22, 2017, 07:42:05 PM
No it will be too bitter for you to swallow, you will get very angry with me for ever trying to feed it to you in the first place.

Give me five.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bullwinkle on December 22, 2017, 08:02:01 PM
Quote from: disputeone on December 22, 2017, 07:42:05 PM
No it will be too bitter for you to swallow, you will get very angry with me for ever trying to feed it to you in the first place.

Give me five.


*smack*  high five!

You can sugar coat it if you feel you need to.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on December 22, 2017, 08:06:56 PM
Here is NIST claiming there were no witnesses or evidence for explosions.

(https://s9.postimg.org/j210zf8vj/20171223_115409.jpg)

(https://s9.postimg.org/ajrkv62dr/20171223_115305.jpg)

Here is a substantial amount of eyewitness testimony for explosives in wtc 1, 2 and 7 that wasn't included in the official report.

http://911truth.org/explosive-testimony-revelations-twin-towers-911-oral-histories/

Wtc 7 wasn't even mentioned in the original report and was added in years later quietly while snopes claimed it "put conspiracy theories to rest."

I am not sure what you mean by official, I can give you reports from first responders and winesses on the ground. However I fear that "official" now means "reported on the news" I've said from page one I cant give a CNN article saying 9/11 was an inside job.

I will also remind you that you have given up trying to debunk Newton. I think you have conceded freefall of wtc 7 is impossible to be caused by fire. Now you are asking for a government report saying that bombs were used.

The government has not yet admitted it was complicit in 9/11 so there's nothing to worry about, I am still a crazy conspiracy theorist and there is no need to use your brain, we still have the news for that.

Is it still 20c a post or are you on holiday rates?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on December 23, 2017, 01:01:00 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on December 22, 2017, 06:31:31 PM
Quote from: sokarul on December 22, 2017, 06:24:51 PM
Where were the explosions?

People heard explosions, their accounts were stricken from the official story. You can read them though...they are all public records.

Also, remember, you are dealing with a fully intact building with Windows, sound deading material etc etc. A normal demo is completely stripped to the core.

Nope.   No explosions recorded on any seismographs,   no sound recordings of explosions either,   but there was a lot of noise,   collapsing skyscrapers tend to be noisy affairs.   

I can't believe you are seriously suggesting that sound deadening  material would have muffled an explosion(s),  that tells me that you know jack shit about explosions and sound propagation,  probably on a par with your demonstrated lack of understanding about thermal conductivity and fire fuel loads.  In short, you are a walking advertisment for ignorance and stupidity.    ( take that as an insult and let's have some pretend outrage, or man up and deal with the evidence.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on December 23, 2017, 01:52:17 AM
http://911truth.org/explosive-testimony-revelations-twin-towers-911-oral-histories/

How did wtc 7 violate Newtons laws on 9/11 Rayzor?

Was John Podesta and the elites spoopy black budget alternative energy and propulsion systems ayyliums involved?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on December 23, 2017, 02:02:52 AM
Yo, dispute bro, give this thread up, rayzor owns you all :/
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on December 23, 2017, 02:10:26 AM
If that were true he could debunk my points.

You seem to equate ad homimems with "owning". I assume mainly due to your age and demographic.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on December 23, 2017, 07:17:23 AM
Quote from: User324 on December 23, 2017, 02:02:52 AM
Yo, dispute bro, give this thread up, rayzor owns you all :/

Quote from: disputeone on December 23, 2017, 02:10:26 AM
If that were true he could debunk my points.

You seem to equate ad homimems with "owning". I assume mainly due to your age and demographic.

Not really a better way to answer here.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on December 23, 2017, 03:53:46 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on December 23, 2017, 07:17:23 AM
Not really a better way to answer here.

Got an answer to my question yet?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on December 23, 2017, 04:28:23 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on December 23, 2017, 03:53:46 PM
Got an answer to my question yet?

That question is?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on December 23, 2017, 05:03:36 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on December 23, 2017, 04:28:23 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on December 23, 2017, 03:53:46 PM
Got an answer to my question yet?

That question is?

How can you justify the claim that the steel structure only rose by 115 F.   Or are you now retracting that statement?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on December 23, 2017, 05:21:27 PM
Shilling this hard.
(https://s14.postimg.org/yiyoaiew1/20171224_092152.jpg)
The games you try to play here couldn't be more obvious.

You focus on minor inconsequential details and personal attacks while ignoring the elephant in the room which is the mountains of evidence you haven't dared touch.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on December 23, 2017, 05:23:07 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on December 23, 2017, 05:03:36 PM

How can you justify the claim that the steel structure only rose by 115 F.   Or are you now retracting that statement?

No, but I also said that was a generalized figure based on my models and others. It has varied +/- between the actual temps as well as diffusion rates in a 50 foot span, because we don't know everything​ that was in there nor where every single fire was. Can only use educated guesses from video evidence. However, all models have shown that their figures are completely incorrect. Nor can we look at their models because they will not disclose them.

Nor do they take into account fireproofing material or the concrete that guarded the floor trusses and other sections of the support structure.

However...

Let's say I concede on one of the towers, shall use 2 as an example. Let's say someone had a blow torch directly on one of the floor trusses and it released from expansion or failure. This cannot cause a resistance free symmetrical collapse...there was no vertical compression on the floor trusses. All vertical compression was on the outside exoskeleton and core. The trusses were used for floor support as well as sheer of the structure itself. So the removal of floors would increase the chances of an asymmetrical collapse in any of the Cardinal directions.... certainly not into it's own footprint without resistance as the support structure for supporting the vertical load was still fully intact excluding a small percentage on the upper floors.

This is why I say the official story violates physics, reality, engineering law and principal...it just can't happen. Any attempt to reconcile it fails.

Can you reconcile just this small portion?


I also said I would work with you on the equations so you can come with your own answer since you do not have modeling software.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on December 23, 2017, 11:25:02 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on December 23, 2017, 05:23:07 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on December 23, 2017, 05:03:36 PM

How can you justify the claim that the steel structure only rose by 115 F.   Or are you now retracting that statement?

No, but I also said that was a generalized figure based on my models and others. It has varied +/- between the actual temps as well as diffusion rates in a 50 foot span, because we don't know everything​ that was in there nor where every single fire was. Can only use educated guesses from video evidence. However, all models have shown that their figures are completely incorrect. Nor can we look at their models because they will not disclose them.

Nor do they take into account fireproofing material or the concrete that guarded the floor trusses and other sections of the support structure.

However...

Let's say I concede on one of the towers, shall use 2 as an example. Let's say someone had a blow torch directly on one of the floor trusses and it released from expansion or failure. This cannot cause a resistance free symmetrical collapse...there was no vertical compression on the floor trusses. All vertical compression was on the outside exoskeleton and core. The trusses were used for floor support as well as sheer of the structure itself. So the removal of floors would increase the chances of an asymmetrical collapse in any of the Cardinal directions.... certainly not into it's own footprint without resistance as the support structure for supporting the vertical load was still fully intact excluding a small percentage on the upper floors.

This is why I say the official story violates physics, reality, engineering law and principal...it just can't happen. Any attempt to reconcile it fails.

Can you reconcile just this small portion?


I also said I would work with you on the equations so you can come with your own answer since you do not have modeling software.

The starting point is to look at the fuel  density in terms of  Mj/sqm,  ( we know this for a typical office is or the order of 500-600 Mj/sqm )   then look at the air (oxygen) supply,  large gaping holes from the aircraft impact  provided an ample air supply,   and unlike a "normal" hi-rise fire, there was no opportunity to create sandwich zones or limit the burn rate, so the fire was completely uncontrolled unlike a "normal" hi-rise fire might be.  The jet fuel is not a relevant factor in the longer term burn but was definitely a factor in initiating the fire.

The WTC2 fires are classed as travelling fires, and with reasonable assumptions about air supply, we can take 500 kW/sqm as a reasonable assumption giving a burn time of 20 minute or so, as it moves.

So with an input of 500 kW/sq/m  what temperature rise do you calculate for near field temperatures?

We could start here if you like,  http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1260/2040-2317.1.2.115  From the Journal of Stuctural Fire Engineering,
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on December 24, 2017, 12:20:27 AM
Quote from: disputeone on December 23, 2017, 02:10:26 AM
If that were true he could debunk my points.

You seem to equate ad homimems with "owning". I assume mainly due to your age and demographic.
That's EXACTELY what someone would say that has just been owned pretty hard.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on December 24, 2017, 05:22:59 PM
Quote from: User324 on December 24, 2017, 12:20:27 AM
That's EXACTELY what someone would say that has just been owned pretty hard.

You really are an idiot. I will pray for you.

Quote from: Rayzor on December 23, 2017, 11:25:02 PM
The starting point is to look at the fuel  density in terms of  Mj/sqm,  ( we know this for a typical office is or the order of 500-600 Mj/sqm )   then look at the air (oxygen) supply,  large gaping holes from the aircraft impact  provided an ample air supply,   and unlike a "normal" hi-rise fire, there was no opportunity to create sandwich zones or limit the burn rate, so the fire was completely uncontrolled unlike a "normal" hi-rise fire might be.  The jet fuel is not a relevant factor in the longer term burn but was definitely a factor in initiating the fire.

The WTC2 fires are classed as travelling fires, and with reasonable assumptions about air supply, we can take 500 kW/sqm as a reasonable assumption giving a burn time of 20 minute or so, as it moves.

So with an input of 500 kW/sq/m  what temperature rise do you calculate for near field temperatures?

We could start here if you like,  http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1260/2040-2317.1.2.115  From the Journal of Stuctural Fire Engineering,


I am aware of the starting point and perfectly aware of the basics.

Though the fire was not completely out of control, we can look at the video evidence of the smoke as well as fire fighter testimonies. Even that gut wrenching communication from the fire fighter before the first collapse.  Multiple fire fighters were not only reporting not finding people, they were reporting fires under control.

We can already see from records the areas hit were vacant, however, fires dying down so quickly supports the fact there were very little materials present in the areas struck.

Also, you keep skipping past the subject of the thermal load being transferred to the supporting structure itself. I can bring you back to my example of a 10x10 fire in the middle of a warehouse or the middle of a small office...

Also, you have not answered my question of how you can reconcile the collapse even with fire causing a failure of a floor truss. I can quote if you do not remember.

There are many things that must be reconciled. The official story did not, maybe you can
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sokarul on December 24, 2017, 07:18:51 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on December 22, 2017, 06:31:31 PM
Quote from: sokarul on December 22, 2017, 06:24:51 PM
Where were the explosions?

People heard explosions, their accounts were stricken from the official story. You can read them though...they are all public records.
Yet you somehow have secret knowledge? Do write a book for us all.

Quote
Also, remember, you are dealing with a fully intact building with Windows, sound deading material etc etc. A normal demo is completely stripped to the core.
Yes, to assess support columns and such. Yet they couldn't do that with any of the WTC building. So tell us all how they were able to plant explosives with no prep work.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on December 24, 2017, 07:31:56 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on December 24, 2017, 05:22:59 PM
Quote from: User324 on December 24, 2017, 12:20:27 AM
That's EXACTELY what someone would say that has just been owned pretty hard.

You really are an idiot. I will pray for you.

Quote from: Rayzor on December 23, 2017, 11:25:02 PM
The starting point is to look at the fuel  density in terms of  Mj/sqm,  ( we know this for a typical office is or the order of 500-600 Mj/sqm )   then look at the air (oxygen) supply,  large gaping holes from the aircraft impact  provided an ample air supply,   and unlike a "normal" hi-rise fire, there was no opportunity to create sandwich zones or limit the burn rate, so the fire was completely uncontrolled unlike a "normal" hi-rise fire might be.  The jet fuel is not a relevant factor in the longer term burn but was definitely a factor in initiating the fire.

The WTC2 fires are classed as travelling fires, and with reasonable assumptions about air supply, we can take 500 kW/sqm as a reasonable assumption giving a burn time of 20 minute or so, as it moves.

So with an input of 500 kW/sq/m  what temperature rise do you calculate for near field temperatures?

We could start here if you like,  http://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/pdfplus/10.1260/2040-2317.1.2.115  From the Journal of Stuctural Fire Engineering,


I am aware of the starting point and perfectly aware of the basics.

Though the fire was not completely out of control, we can look at the video evidence of the smoke as well as fire fighter testimonies. Even that gut wrenching communication from the fire fighter before the first collapse.  Multiple fire fighters were not only reporting not finding people, they were reporting fires under control.

We can already see from records the areas hit were vacant, however, fires dying down so quickly supports the fact there were very little materials present in the areas struck.

Also, you keep skipping past the subject of the thermal load being transferred to the supporting structure itself. I can bring you back to my example of a 10x10 fire in the middle of a warehouse or the middle of a small office...

Also, you have not answered my question of how you can reconcile the collapse even with fire causing a failure of a floor truss. I can quote if you do not remember.

There are many things that must be reconciled. The official story did not, maybe you can

The near field temperature of 1300 C  for 20 minutes would weaken the steel to the point of collapse,  I already tried to explain heat transfer using a propane torch and a one inch iron bar,  which,  as I recall you contradicted yourself by first saying steel was sufficiently conductive to transfer the heat away and the bar wouldn't get hot,  then you said the bar would melt ( another stupid suggestion).   In short, you shot yourself in the foot several times.  Do you really not understand that if you apply a flame of 1300C for 20 minutes the steel gets hot enough to lose it's strength.

(https://s14.postimg.org/oc8mbbe9t/bhs.jpg)


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on December 24, 2017, 08:00:02 PM
Quote from: sokarul on December 24, 2017, 07:18:51 PM
Yet you somehow have secret knowledge? Do write a book for us all.

I see you just want to be a sarcastic moron....fyi, it's not secret knowledge whatsoever. The testimonies stricken from the record are public information.

Quote
Yes, to assess support columns and such. Yet they couldn't do that with any of the WTC building. So tell us all how they were able to plant explosives with no prep work.

The six months of maintenance work, floor closures, power outages etc that people reported would provide the perfect opportunity.

Not to mention, most of the building was unoccupied...the reason the foot traffic was so high in the main entrance was from the subway underneath. PATH records and COs can verify this.

I know you don't give a shit, but the truth is there if you want it.

Quote from: Rayzor on December 24, 2017, 07:31:56 PM
The near field temperature of 1300 C  for 20 minutes would weaken the steel to the point of collapse,  I already tried to explain heat transfer using a propane torch and a one inch iron bar,  which,  as I recall you contradicted yourself by first saying steel was sufficiently conductive to transfer the heat away and the bar wouldn't get hot,  then you said the bar would melt ( another stupid suggestion).   In short, you shot yourself in the foot several times.  Do you really not understand that if you apply a flame of 1300C for 20 minutes the steel gets hot enough to lose it's strength.

(https://s14.postimg.org/oc8mbbe9t/bhs.jpg)




You really are a lying little shit aren't you. I suppose that is all people like you have. Even when I try to communicate normally you can't help yourself.

I never said the bar would melt, and I also gave estimated diffusion temps. Nor did I contradict myself, you were talking about directly applying a gas only blow torch to the iron rod, while I was talking about a diffuse fire in an open room. I could keep going with the errors and lies in your post.

I will not continue this conversation until you recant your lies and communicate like a human (if you can)...we have all tolerated as well as played into your lies, gaslighting and empty rhetoric long enough.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Symptom on December 24, 2017, 10:02:56 PM
Daww, look at the adorable little Yule-tide twoofers.  ;D
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on December 24, 2017, 10:03:47 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on December 17, 2017, 01:06:21 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on December 14, 2017, 05:58:15 PM

And I have given you every opportunity to back up your assertions about thermal conductivity with evidence and you failed.

Try this experiment.

Get a gas torch ( propane will do )  and get a 2ft  long 1" iron bar and apply the torch to the center of the bar for 15 minutes.   Now measure the temperature of the bar.  See if the temperature is 115 F above ambient. and tell me the results.

I am assuming you are talking about a gas only torch and not an oxygen fed one?

A one inch thick iron bar that is two feet long, with the flame tip about 3/4s of an inch away for 15 mins....you would be very close to melting temp at that point.

The ends would be about 400 degrees cooler. These are round numbers, as I am at a party right now and don't feel like doing the math.

I can officially do it tomorrow, if you care.

But what is the point in comparing a torch directly placed upon iron to a diffuse fire in a office tower?

Quote from: totallackey on December 17, 2017, 12:46:56 AM
^+1

One thing I have always wondered, why is it the people that know the least and have done nothing have the loudest voice for the official story?

It is a very strange phenomenon

The evidence says you are the liar.

Also if the middle was "close to melting"  ( you really are ignorant )  and the ends were 400 degrees cooler,  that's still over 1000C at the ends.   You can bend steel like a pretzel at 1000C.  Or maybe you don't know that.

Quote
I will not continue this conversation until you recant your lies and communicate like a human (if you can)...we have all tolerated as well as played into your lies, gaslighting and empty rhetoric long enough.

Translation:  your knowledge of fires,  thermal conductivity and structural steel properties is severely lacking and you are giving up without presenting anything of substance in support of your stupid ideas about temperatures.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on December 25, 2017, 07:32:45 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on December 24, 2017, 10:03:47 PM
The evidence says you are the liar.

Also if the middle was "close to melting"  ( you really are ignorant )  and the ends were 400 degrees cooler,  that's still over 1000C at the ends.   You can bend steel like a pretzel at 1000C.  Or maybe you don't know that.

Yes, it would, that would close to the estimated temp? And? What is your point? We are talking about a 2 feet piece of iron being heated by a blow torch that is close to 1900c being held directly to the metal for 15 minutes.

Why did you choose iron? Why not steel that transfers thermal load better and bleeds it's temp quicker than iron?

Quote
Translation:  your knowledge of fires,  thermal conductivity and structural steel properties is severely lacking and you are giving up without presenting anything of substance in support of your stupid ideas about temperatures.

No, just tired of your word play and lies to avoid answering questions. You deflect to dumb things that have zero bearing of the conversation then claim victory or simply just name call then claim victory.

Either you know nothing on the subject, or just google headlines (so still nothing)...this would explain why you cannot prove anything about yourself and say such stupid things.

Either that or you have skin in the game to push a narrative as dispute suspects.


So are you done deflecting about an iron bar and a blow torch? Ready to talk about a diffuse office fire?

Ever going to answer my question how the towers could fall as we saw even if there were a failure in a floor truss from fire?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sokarul on December 25, 2017, 11:57:44 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on December 24, 2017, 08:00:02 PM
Quote from: sokarul on December 24, 2017, 07:18:51 PM
Yet you somehow have secret knowledge? Do write a book for us all.

I see you just want to be a sarcastic moron....fyi, it's not secret knowledge whatsoever. The testimonies stricken from the record are public information.
No, I want evidence. That doesn't make me a moron. If it was public knowledge then it would-be available, where is it?

Quote
Quote
Yes, to assess support columns and such. Yet they couldn't do that with any of the WTC building. So tell us all how they were able to plant explosives with no prep work.

The six months of maintenance work, floor closures, power outages etc that people reported would provide the perfect opportunity.
Maybe. So you think common Americans could plant explosives with no regret? Any evidence or just necessity?

Quote
Not to mention, most of the building was unoccupied...the reason the foot traffic was so high in the main entrance was from the subway underneath. PATH records and COs can verify this.

I know you don't give a shit, but the truth is there if you want it.

My problem is you require explosives for everything you claim but there is no evidence for them. Just necessity.
 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on December 25, 2017, 12:16:35 PM
Quote from: sokarul on December 25, 2017, 11:57:44 AM
No, I want evidence. That doesn't make me a moron. If it was public knowledge then it would-be available, where is it?

Just Google it..not hard if you look for a second. Many of the government officials that claimed to hearing explosives or a few that was in 7 that got blown off their feet met very "questionable" deaths... Coincidences, especially that many together are very peculiar. There was even a few employees in the building that toured telling the truth, funded by a millionaire looking for truth.

They ended up stopped for few of their safety, as things started to get weird.

Quote
Maybe. So you think common Americans could plant explosives with no regret? Any evidence or just necessity?

It has been shown about 40 percent or so of military people would fire on their own citizens if ordered. So yes, they would. Perhaps they were told the building was going to be empty, or brainwashed to think they were Patriots. Many possibilities can happen.

But no, I don't think Americans did it. I think people from another country did, quite possibly Israelis since their were many of them in and out of the building during those 6 months.

I also think the hub is those strange Israeli art students that had a few floors, nothing about that or their actions made any sense.

Quote
My problem is you require explosives for everything you claim but there is no evidence for them. Just necessity.

Yes, I think there were some used, I believe they were fired off slowly so the noise could be hidden in the chaos (this also matches witness statements) I think most were fired in unison with the planes hitting. I also think the people who prepped the buildings sabotaged key supports in preparation.

Something this large, the people who planned it are going to be far from stupid and very creative.

I have questioned nano thermite, it is plausible, but very hard to control the timing. The highest plausible idea, is it was used to heat already sabotaged structural supports to failure.

No one has been able to explain the video evidence of what looks to be cutting torches going off through the entire video. There is nothing that should have been there that can cause that.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on December 25, 2017, 03:38:32 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on December 25, 2017, 07:32:45 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on December 24, 2017, 10:03:47 PM
The evidence says you are the liar.

Also if the middle was "close to melting"  ( you really are ignorant )  and the ends were 400 degrees cooler,  that's still over 1000C at the ends.   You can bend steel like a pretzel at 1000C.  Or maybe you don't know that.

Yes, it would, that would close to the estimated temp? And? What is your point? We are talking about a 2 feet piece of iron being heated by a blow torch that is close to 1900c being held directly to the metal for 15 minutes.

Why did you choose iron? Why not steel that transfers thermal load better and bleeds it's temp quicker than iron?

Quote
Translation:  your knowledge of fires,  thermal conductivity and structural steel properties is severely lacking and you are giving up without presenting anything of substance in support of your stupid ideas about temperatures.

No, just tired of your word play and lies to avoid answering questions. You deflect to dumb things that have zero bearing of the conversation then claim victory or simply just name call then claim victory.

Either you know nothing on the subject, or just google headlines (so still nothing)...this would explain why you cannot prove anything about yourself and say such stupid things.

Either that or you have skin in the game to push a narrative as dispute suspects.


So are you done deflecting about an iron bar and a blow torch? Ready to talk about a diffuse office fire?

Ever going to answer my question how the towers could fall as we saw even if there were a failure in a floor truss from fire?

For the record, it was you who started the name calling and de-railing after being caught out lying you try to recover by accusing me of lying instead.  WTF?

1. The thermal conductvity of steel and iron aren't that much different.   

2. If you think you can melt iron/steel with a just a normal propane torch,  then you've never none a cast iron pour,  I can melt cast iron but it needs forced air in a well insulated furnace.   I find it funny that you think it can be done with just an open propane torch.   But I suppose I shouldn't laugh at your ignorance.

3. The collapse mechanism is well known,  and was discussed at length earlier in this thread,  the closest examples are the verinage demolition method,  no explosives required and top down collapse initiated by mechanical failure.

4. Haven't you read Greenings papers, or any other literature on the collapse mechanism? 


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on December 25, 2017, 04:18:35 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on December 25, 2017, 03:38:32 PM
For the record, it was you who started the name calling and de-railing after being caught out lying you try to recover by accusing me of lying instead.  WTF?

Show me this lie you speak of and me starting such nonsense. Will be waiting for your reply

Quote
1. The thermal conductvity of steel and iron aren't that much different.

They are different, though this is just defection and no need to discuss.   

Quote
2. If you think you can melt iron/steel with a just a normal propane torch,  then you've never none a cast iron pour,  I can melt cast iron but it needs forced air in a well insulated furnace.   I find it funny that you think it can be done with just an open propane torch.   But I suppose I shouldn't laugh at your ignorance.

I said close liar, with a high flow head and bottle.. industrial unit, not a hardware store special.

This will only be in the direct spot of contact, because it does not have oxy the diffusion rate is quick. Even though you can get around 1900c to the tip, it is tough to transfer that efficiently with it being just gas.

This is why I said close, you can try and twist all you want..in the end you are lying.

Quote
3. The collapse mechanism is well known,  and was discussed at length earlier in this thread,  the closest examples are the verinage demolition method,  no explosives required and top down collapse initiated by mechanical failure.

We have already discussed the Verinage method...you have to do extreme modifications to the support structure. This is not a valid explanation.

Quote
4. Haven't you read Greenings papers, or any other literature on the collapse mechanism?

Yes I have and I find them lacking.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on December 25, 2017, 05:44:34 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on December 25, 2017, 04:18:35 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on December 25, 2017, 03:38:32 PM
For the record, it was you who started the name calling and de-railing after being caught out lying you try to recover by accusing me of lying instead.  WTF?

Show me this lie you speak of and me starting such nonsense. Will be waiting for your reply

Quote
1. The thermal conductvity of steel and iron aren't that much different.

They are different, though this is just defection and no need to discuss.   

Quote
2. If you think you can melt iron/steel with a just a normal propane torch,  then you've never none a cast iron pour,  I can melt cast iron but it needs forced air in a well insulated furnace.   I find it funny that you think it can be done with just an open propane torch.   But I suppose I shouldn't laugh at your ignorance.

I said close liar, with a high flow head and bottle.. industrial unit, not a hardware store special.

This will only be in the direct spot of contact, because it does not have oxy the diffusion rate is quick. Even though you can get around 1900c to the tip, it is tough to transfer that efficiently with it being just gas.

This is why I said close, you can try and twist all you want..in the end you are lying.

Quote
3. The collapse mechanism is well known,  and was discussed at length earlier in this thread,  the closest examples are the verinage demolition method,  no explosives required and top down collapse initiated by mechanical failure.

We have already discussed the Verinage method...you have to do extreme modifications to the support structure. This is not a valid explanation.

Quote
4. Haven't you read Greenings papers, or any other literature on the collapse mechanism?

Yes I have and I find them lacking.

Ok, I'll ignore the insults, tell me what you found lacking in Greenings paper.   The comparison of WTC1 fall rates vs WTC2 and the earlier collapse initiation fits perfectly with verinage style collapse.  Do you have a better theory that perfectly explains why the one hit second collapsed first?

Just for the record,  I assume you were drunk posting when you wrote the following?

Quote from: BHS
You really are a lying little shit aren't you. I suppose that is all people like you have. Even when I try to communicate normally you can't help yourself.

I never said the bar would melt, and I also gave estimated diffusion temps. Nor did I contradict myself, you were talking about directly applying a gas only blow torch to the iron rod, while I was talking about a diffuse fire in an open room. I could keep going with the errors and lies in your post.

I will not continue this conversation until you recant your lies and communicate like a human (if you can)...we have all tolerated as well as played into your lies, gaslighting and empty rhetoric long enough.

Says more about your lies than I ever could. 

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on December 25, 2017, 07:24:54 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on December 25, 2017, 05:44:34 PM
Ok, I'll ignore the insults, tell me what you found lacking in Greenings paper.   The comparison of WTC1 fall rates vs WTC2 and the earlier collapse initiation fits perfectly with verinage style collapse.  Do you have a better theory that perfectly explains why the one hit second collapsed first?

The partial or even complete collapse of a floor is not going to cause a vertical collapse into it's own footprint.

There was no vertical compression on floor trusses. They were used to control sheer and twist.

Also in order to fall completely they would have to release from the core and exoskeleton..

All of this supports an asymmetrical collapse with it falling in a cardinal direction. Not into it's footprint, the path of greatest resistance at near free fall speed.

Quote
Says more about your lies than I ever could.

I will say it again and again...the bar would not melt. I explained why it wouldn't.

I will also explain again over and over...the area at the tip of the flame would be close to it as the tip will be around 1900c, which as you know (or should know) is well enough to melt iron.

However, with it being only gas, it is poor at transferring it's energy. Plus it will be just at the tip..so you would have an area close to melting, but with the piss poor heat transfer and the two foot 1 inch think bar absorbing the thermal load it never would or could, even at 15 minutes.

So what are you going on about?

Can you control yourself?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on December 25, 2017, 08:09:51 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on December 25, 2017, 07:24:54 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on December 25, 2017, 05:44:34 PM
Ok, I'll ignore the insults, tell me what you found lacking in Greenings paper.   The comparison of WTC1 fall rates vs WTC2 and the earlier collapse initiation fits perfectly with verinage style collapse.  Do you have a better theory that perfectly explains why the one hit second collapsed first?

The partial or even complete collapse of a floor is not going to cause a vertical collapse into it's own footprint.

There was no vertical compression on floor trusses. They were used to control sheer and twist.

Also in order to fall completely they would have to release from the core and exoskeleton..

All of this supports an asymmetrical collapse with it falling in a cardinal direction. Not into it's footprint, the path of greatest resistance at near free fall speed.

Quote
Says more about your lies than I ever could.

I will say it again and again...the bar would not melt. I explained why it wouldn't.

I will also explain again over and over...the area at the tip of the flame would be close to it as the tip will be around 1900c, which as you know (or should know) is well enough to melt iron.

However, with it being only gas, it is poor at transferring it's energy. Plus it will be just at the tip..so you would have an area close to melting, but with the piss poor heat transfer and the two foot 1 inch think bar absorbing the thermal load it never would or could, even at 15 minutes.

So what are you going on about?

Can you control yourself?

Ignoring the insults, once again,  I will remind you that if you continue with the insults I'll respond in kind, and  I promise you won't like that.

I asked what precisely did you object to in Greenings analysis, he shows that the kinetic energy of the upper floors is more than sufficient to pulverize to dust ( 60 microns or less) the lower floors as the collapse progresses, the potential gravitational energy of the upper floors actually accelerates the collapse.

The only question you have ever raised is what initiated the collapse, and the combination of aircraft impact damage and fire weakening the structure is more than sufficient to trigger the verinage style demolition.   The footprint argument is not relevant.

I ask again,  be specific,  what do you think is wrong with Greenings paper?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on December 30, 2017, 09:48:58 AM
Has BHS gone into hibbernation?
Quote
I ask again,  be specific,  what do you think is wrong with Greenings paper?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on December 30, 2017, 06:12:30 PM
Quote from: User324 on December 30, 2017, 09:48:58 AM
Has BHS gone into hibbernation?
Quote
I ask again,  be specific,  what do you think is wrong with Greenings paper?

He always goes to ground when faced with difficult questions.   Then he comes back a week later and pretends he already answered it.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on December 30, 2017, 06:32:51 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on December 30, 2017, 06:12:30 PM
He always goes to ground when faced with difficult questions.   Then he comes back a week later and pretends he already answered it.

Explain to me how the collapse of a floor that's​ sole purpose of existence is to provide sheer support to the exoskeleton and core? Flooring that has no vertical compression...how can the collapse of one or multiples provide the catalyst to a near free fall vertical collapse into it's own footprint?

Even if some floors collapsed, in order to do so they would need to be released from the exoskeleton and core to do so, which would have little effect until many multiples would follow suit. At that point, there would not be enough sheer resistance to support the structure.

At that point we would have a semi asymmetrical collapse, or even a semi collapse in a cardinal direction. Then we have the issue of the boxed and much increased mass/ density present in the lower floors...the increase was many times of the higher floors.

These are just a few of my issues.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on December 30, 2017, 11:30:38 PM
You forgot to actually answer the question.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on December 31, 2017, 12:45:54 AM
Quote from: User324 on December 30, 2017, 11:30:38 PM
You forgot to actually answer the question.

I did in the post above, and that was just one part. I don't expect you to understand
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on December 31, 2017, 01:00:33 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on December 30, 2017, 06:12:30 PM
He always goes to ground when faced with difficult questions.   Then he comes back a week later and pretends he already answered it.
Q.e.d.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on December 31, 2017, 07:18:55 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on December 30, 2017, 06:32:51 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on December 30, 2017, 06:12:30 PM
He always goes to ground when faced with difficult questions.   Then he comes back a week later and pretends he already answered it.

Explain to me how the collapse of a floor that's​ sole purpose of existence is to provide sheer support to the exoskeleton and core? Flooring that has no vertical compression...how can the collapse of one or multiples provide the catalyst to a near free fall vertical collapse into it's own footprint?

Even if some floors collapsed, in order to do so they would need to be released from the exoskeleton and core to do so, which would have little effect until many multiples would follow suit. At that point, there would not be enough sheer resistance to support the structure.

At that point we would have a semi asymmetrical collapse, or even a semi collapse in a cardinal direction. Then we have the issue of the boxed and much increased mass/ density present in the lower floors...the increase was many times of the higher floors.

These are just a few of my issues.

Gravitational potential energy converted into kinetic energy.    All it takes is for one or more floors to collapse and the rest follows.   That's covered in detail by the Greening paper you refuse to discuss.


Try to relate your answer to the question being asked,  not waffle on about stuff that's already been said a hundred times.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on January 01, 2018, 11:42:03 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on December 31, 2017, 07:18:55 PM
All it takes is for one or more floors to collapse and the rest follows.   That's covered in detail by the Greening paper you refuse to discuss.

I stated my issue with his paper and the official fairy tale. I explained the issue with the floors...it would not produce such a collapse as we saw. I have typed it many times, you can see my posts stating my issue with such a theory.

It violates the design of the buildings. If the floors supported vertical compression I would have a different opinion.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on January 02, 2018, 12:23:11 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on January 01, 2018, 11:42:03 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on December 31, 2017, 07:18:55 PM
All it takes is for one or more floors to collapse and the rest follows.   That's covered in detail by the Greening paper you refuse to discuss.

I stated my issue with his paper and the official fairy tale. I explained the issue with the floors...it would not produce such a collapse as we saw. I have typed it many times, you can see my posts stating my issue with such a theory.

It violates the design of the buildings. If the floors supported vertical compression I would have a different opinion.

You seem unaware that a fully loaded 767 crashed through the main supporting structure and started fires which led to collapse.  The kinetic energy of the upper floors is easily sufficient to crush the lower floors, and the collapse actually accelerates as more floors collapse.   

That's what happened.   You saying you don't understand the physics is not a rational starting point,  go re-read the paper,  and if you think it's wrong, then point out where you disagree.

Just in case you lost the link,  here it is again.  http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on January 02, 2018, 12:27:48 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on January 02, 2018, 12:23:11 AM
a fully loaded 767 crashed through the main supporting structure and started fires

I bet you are a NSA agent as you are having such insider information!
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on January 02, 2018, 01:18:45 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on January 02, 2018, 12:23:11 AM
You seem unaware that a fully loaded 767 crashed through the main supporting structure and started fires which led to collapse.  The kinetic energy of the upper floors is easily sufficient to crush the lower floors, and the collapse actually accelerates as more floors collapse.   

That's what happened.   You saying you don't understand the physics is not a rational starting point,  go re-read the paper,  and if you think it's wrong, then point out where you disagree.

Just in case you lost the link,  here it is again.  http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf

Again, the floors were used for sheer of the exoskeleton, not vertical compression. You have not rectified this issue.

The difference of dropping a ball on a building or a ball inside a building.

Quote from: User324 on January 02, 2018, 12:27:48 AM
I bet you are a NSA agent as you are having such insider information!

Here is a red ball...this will keep you busy.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Twerp on January 02, 2018, 01:26:53 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on January 02, 2018, 01:18:45 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on January 02, 2018, 12:23:11 AM
You seem unaware that a fully loaded 767 crashed through the main supporting structure and started fires which led to collapse.  The kinetic energy of the upper floors is easily sufficient to crush the lower floors, and the collapse actually accelerates as more floors collapse.   

That's what happened.   You saying you don't understand the physics is not a rational starting point,  go re-read the paper,  and if you think it's wrong, then point out where you disagree.

Just in case you lost the link,  here it is again.  http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf

Again, the floors were used for sheer of the exoskeleton, not vertical compression. You have not rectified this issue.

The difference of dropping a ball on a building or a ball inside a building.

Quote from: User324 on January 02, 2018, 12:27:48 AM
I bet you are a NSA agent as you are having such insider information!

Here is a red ball...this will keep you busy.

(http://excentrix.seventh-angel.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/bouncing-ball-1.gif)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on January 02, 2018, 02:04:31 AM
Quote from: Boots on January 02, 2018, 01:26:53 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on January 02, 2018, 01:18:45 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on January 02, 2018, 12:23:11 AM
You seem unaware that a fully loaded 767 crashed through the main supporting structure and started fires which led to collapse.  The kinetic energy of the upper floors is easily sufficient to crush the lower floors, and the collapse actually accelerates as more floors collapse.   

That's what happened.   You saying you don't understand the physics is not a rational starting point,  go re-read the paper,  and if you think it's wrong, then point out where you disagree.

Just in case you lost the link,  here it is again.  http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf

Again, the floors were used for sheer of the exoskeleton, not vertical compression. You have not rectified this issue.

The difference of dropping a ball on a building or a ball inside a building.

Quote from: User324 on January 02, 2018, 12:27:48 AM
I bet you are a NSA agent as you are having such insider information!

Here is a red ball...this will keep you busy.

(http://excentrix.seventh-angel.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/09/bouncing-ball-1.gif)

LOL,  I almost choked on my glass of red.   :)

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on January 02, 2018, 02:44:43 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on January 02, 2018, 01:18:45 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on January 02, 2018, 12:23:11 AM
You seem unaware that a fully loaded 767 crashed through the main supporting structure and started fires which led to collapse.  The kinetic energy of the upper floors is easily sufficient to crush the lower floors, and the collapse actually accelerates as more floors collapse.   

That's what happened.   You saying you don't understand the physics is not a rational starting point,  go re-read the paper,  and if you think it's wrong, then point out where you disagree.

Just in case you lost the link,  here it is again.  http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf

Again, the floors were used for sheer of the exoskeleton, not vertical compression. You have not rectified this issue.

The difference of dropping a ball on a building or a ball inside a building.


Huh?  now I know you aren't interested in a serious discussion.   The energy required to collapse a floor is a fraction of the available energy,  and it dimishes as the collapse progresses.

Please try to address the question,  what is it that you disagree with in Greenings paper?   If you can't stick to a simple question, then I have to conclude you simply don't know.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on January 02, 2018, 05:57:35 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on January 02, 2018, 12:23:11 AM
You seem unaware that a fully loaded 767 crashed through the main supporting structure...
Lying sack of fucking shit...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on January 02, 2018, 07:54:00 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on January 02, 2018, 02:44:43 AM
Huh?  now I know you aren't interested in a serious discussion.   The energy required to collapse a floor is a fraction of the available energy,  and it dimishes as the collapse progresses.

Please try to address the question,  what is it that you disagree with in Greenings paper?   If you can't stick to a simple question, then I have to conclude you simply don't know.

I was trying to put it as simply as possible.

You can keep saying floors falling this and that. However, one more time they controlled sheer of the exoskeleton...they carried no vertical compression of the structure. Remove 5 floors and the building would be fine..remove 5 floors of the core and exoskeleton, then you would have a case of stored energy attempting to crush the remaining lower structure such as the demolition technique you mention. Even then you would need to weaken the lower half for a footprint demo. Could get real ugly with a topple otherwise (such as they do with the demo technique you always mention)

Even if you removed all floors inside the exoskeleton, the structure would wilt like a flower, twist and topple, not collapse into it's own footprint.

Quit saying nuh uh and trying answering the question posed.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bullwinkle on January 02, 2018, 08:19:26 AM
Floors are engineered to support a couple hundred people, their desks and some drywall.
They are not designed to support an upper floor dropping onto them.
Dropping a concrete floor onto a lower floor will cause the lower floor to sheer off and drop onto the floor beneath, so on and so forth, all the way down until there are no more floors left.

Typically, when something happens for the first time, it has never happened before.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Crouton on January 02, 2018, 08:23:00 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on January 02, 2018, 07:54:00 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on January 02, 2018, 02:44:43 AM
Huh?  now I know you aren't interested in a serious discussion.   The energy required to collapse a floor is a fraction of the available energy,  and it dimishes as the collapse progresses.

Please try to address the question,  what is it that you disagree with in Greenings paper?   If you can't stick to a simple question, then I have to conclude you simply don't know.

I was trying to put it as simply as possible.

You can keep saying floors falling this and that. However, one more time they controlled sheer of the exoskeleton...they carried no vertical compression of the structure. Remove 5 floors and the building would be fine..remove 5 floors of the core and exoskeleton, then you would have a case of stored energy attempting to crush the remaining lower structure such as the demolition technique you mention. Even then you would need to weaken the lower half for a footprint demo. Could get real ugly with a topple otherwise (such as they do with the demo technique you always mention)

Even if you removed all floors inside the exoskeleton, the structure would wilt like a flower, twist and topple, not collapse into it's own footprint.

Quit saying nuh uh and trying answering the question posed.

I'm a little confused.  So you're saying that WTC1 and 2 were held up mostly by their exoskeletons and a core?  But wouldn't the same principles of the "official story" still apply here?  The exoskeleton and the core are still steel that would have been weakened to the point of failure on the parts of the tower that were hit by the aircraft right?

I'm not trying to fist fight here.  Just trying to understand.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on January 02, 2018, 08:34:34 AM
Quote from: Bullwinkle on January 02, 2018, 08:19:26 AM
Floors are engineered to support a couple hundred people, their desks and some drywall.
They are not designed to support an upper floor dropping onto them.
Dropping a concrete floor onto a lower floor will cause the lower floor to sheer off and drop onto the floor beneath, so on and so forth, all the way down until there are no more floors left.

Typically, when something happens for the first time, it has never happened before.
Sorry moose...you are flat out wrong.

I do not care if you would have dropped the top fifty floors on the bottom fifty...


The bottom fifty would remain standing unless the support structured suffered some sort of prior damage.

Collapses do not work that way.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bullwinkle on January 02, 2018, 09:31:57 AM
Quote from: totallackey on January 02, 2018, 08:34:34 AM
Quote from: Bullwinkle on January 02, 2018, 08:19:26 AM
Floors are engineered to support a couple hundred people, their desks and some drywall.
They are not designed to support an upper floor dropping onto them.
Dropping a concrete floor onto a lower floor will cause the lower floor to sheer off and drop onto the floor beneath, so on and so forth, all the way down until there are no more floors left.

Typically, when something happens for the first time, it has never happened before.
Sorry moose...you are flat out wrong.

I do not care if you would have dropped the top fifty floors on the bottom fifty...


The bottom fifty would remain standing unless the support structured suffered some sort of prior damage.

Collapses do not work that way.


"Nuh uh" is less than a compelling argument.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on January 02, 2018, 09:47:18 AM
Quote from: Bullwinkle on January 02, 2018, 09:31:57 AM
Quote from: totallackey on January 02, 2018, 08:34:34 AM
Quote from: Bullwinkle on January 02, 2018, 08:19:26 AM
Floors are engineered to support a couple hundred people, their desks and some drywall.
They are not designed to support an upper floor dropping onto them.
Dropping a concrete floor onto a lower floor will cause the lower floor to sheer off and drop onto the floor beneath, so on and so forth, all the way down until there are no more floors left.

Typically, when something happens for the first time, it has never happened before.
Sorry moose...you are flat out wrong.

I do not care if you would have dropped the top fifty floors on the bottom fifty...


The bottom fifty would remain standing unless the support structured suffered some sort of prior damage.

Collapses do not work that way.


"Nuh uh" is less than a compelling argument.
Oh, I wholehearterdly agree!!!

So, you go ahead and get your structure built of any material known to humanity...

I do not care what it is.

You take one third of that material and drop it and progressively crush the other two-thirds.

Let me know when you achieve a progressive crush of those remaining two thirds.

When you do, then you can come back here and write, "I told you so."

Until then, I think you have a better shot at growing actual antlers...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on January 02, 2018, 10:08:42 AM
Quote from: totallackey on January 02, 2018, 09:47:18 AM
So, you go ahead and get your structure built of any material known to humanity...

I do not care what it is.

You take one third of that material and drop it and progressively crush the other two-thirds.

Let me know when you achieve a progressive crush of those remaining two thirds.

When you do, then you can come back here and write, "I told you so."

Until then, I think you have a better shot at growing actual antlers...
Actually, with the right material and structure you could achieve a progressive crush of the remaining structure with less than 1/3 dropped onto it. With good accuracy probably less than 1% would be possible. You'd just have to chose the right structure, the material doesn't even matter that much.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on January 02, 2018, 11:53:19 AM
Quote from: Bullwinkle on January 02, 2018, 08:19:26 AM
Floors are engineered to support a couple hundred people, their desks and some drywall.
They are not designed to support an upper floor dropping onto them.
Dropping a concrete floor onto a lower floor will cause the lower floor to sheer off and drop onto the floor beneath, so on and so forth, all the way down until there are no more floors left.

Typically, when something happens for the first time, it has never happened before.

Quote from: crutonius on January 02, 2018, 08:23:00 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on January 02, 2018, 07:54:00 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on January 02, 2018, 02:44:43 AM
Huh?  now I know you aren't interested in a serious discussion.   The energy required to collapse a floor is a fraction of the available energy,  and it dimishes as the collapse progresses.

Please try to address the question,  what is it that you disagree with in Greenings paper?   If you can't stick to a simple question, then I have to conclude you simply don't know.

I was trying to put it as simply as possible.

You can keep saying floors falling this and that. However, one more time they controlled sheer of the exoskeleton...they carried no vertical compression of the structure. Remove 5 floors and the building would be fine..remove 5 floors of the core and exoskeleton, then you would have a case of stored energy attempting to crush the remaining lower structure such as the demolition technique you mention. Even then you would need to weaken the lower half for a footprint demo. Could get real ugly with a topple otherwise (such as they do with the demo technique you always mention)

Even if you removed all floors inside the exoskeleton, the structure would wilt like a flower, twist and topple, not collapse into it's own footprint.

Quit saying nuh uh and trying answering the question posed.

I'm a little confused.  So you're saying that WTC1 and 2 were held up mostly by their exoskeletons and a core?  But wouldn't the same principles of the "official story" still apply here?  The exoskeleton and the core are still steel that would have been weakened to the point of failure on the parts of the tower that were hit by the aircraft right?

I'm not trying to fist fight here.  Just trying to understand.

This answer will address both of these question/comment...and I don't get crabby with most people when asking genuine questions with genuine interest (such as when the architect appeared and a few other users that participated in this thread)..

Yes crutonius, the floors themselves, their entire job was to support people/office equipment etc...and sheer/rigidity/twist/sway of the exoskeleton/core.

The core/exoskeleton, it's soul purpose in life was to support downward compression of it's own weight as well as that of the floors and their content.

Imagine building a 10x10 box 50 feet high with the frame sunk 50 feet in the ground with the correct mass to maintain it's cg. Yet you only connect it up top. It would be unstable, more than likely will topple over.

How, put a cross braced box every 4 feet inside the boxed tower, you would have a solid unit that could handle wind and other sheering forces
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on January 02, 2018, 11:55:05 AM
Quote from: User324 on January 02, 2018, 10:08:42 AM
Actually, with the right material and structure you could achieve a progressive crush of the remaining structure with less than 1/3 dropped onto it. With good accuracy probably less than 1% would be possible. You'd just have to chose the right structure, the material doesn't even matter that much.
Instead of just writing crap, why don't you perform the task, film it under controlled conditions, and submit the results for further testing.

Because you are full of shit.

Maybe it is your special kind of shit you are writing about.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on January 02, 2018, 12:03:13 PM
Quote from: totallackey on January 02, 2018, 11:55:05 AM
Quote from: User324 on January 02, 2018, 10:08:42 AM
Actually, with the right material and structure you could achieve a progressive crush of the remaining structure with less than 1/3 dropped onto it. With good accuracy probably less than 1% would be possible. You'd just have to chose the right structure, the material doesn't even matter that much.
Instead of just writing crap, why don't you perform the task, film it under controlled conditions, and submit the results for further testing.

Because you are full of shit.

Maybe it is your special kind of shit you are writing about.
I don't have the time to proof that you're stupid.
Everyone with half a brain can see I'm right and you're wrong, so it's anyway not even necessary to perform any experiment.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on January 02, 2018, 12:29:45 PM
Quote from: User324 on January 02, 2018, 12:03:13 PM
I don't have the time to proof that you're stupid.
Everyone with half a brain can see I'm right and you're wrong, so it's anyway not even necessary to perform any experiment.
Been sucking the Pokey cock juice again...

You are such a waste of fucking space.

You seek and adore validation from persons with half a brain.

Did your parents have any children that survived?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on January 02, 2018, 12:30:36 PM
Quote from: totallackey on January 02, 2018, 12:29:45 PM
Did your parents have any children that survived?
Lol, this is epic. Love it!
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on January 02, 2018, 05:46:31 PM
Quote from: totallackey on January 02, 2018, 09:47:18 AM

Oh, I wholehearterdly agree!!!

So, you go ahead and get your structure built of any material known to humanity...

I do not care what it is.

You take one third of that material and drop it and progressively crush the other two-thirds.

Let me know when you achieve a progressive crush of those remaining two thirds.

When you do, then you can come back here and write, "I told you so."

Until then, I think you have a better shot at growing actual antlers...

Here you go.   



I'll accept your apology now.

Gee lookit that, they collapse into their own footprint through the path of greatest resistance,  who woulda thunk it.

The score so far.
BabyHighSpeed    0
Physics               100

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bullwinkle on January 02, 2018, 06:52:44 PM
Quote from: totallackey on January 02, 2018, 09:47:18 AM
Quote from: Bullwinkle on January 02, 2018, 09:31:57 AM
Quote from: totallackey on January 02, 2018, 08:34:34 AM
Quote from: Bullwinkle on January 02, 2018, 08:19:26 AM
Floors are engineered to support a couple hundred people, their desks and some drywall.
They are not designed to support an upper floor dropping onto them.
Dropping a concrete floor onto a lower floor will cause the lower floor to sheer off and drop onto the floor beneath, so on and so forth, all the way down until there are no more floors left.

Typically, when something happens for the first time, it has never happened before.
Sorry moose...you are flat out wrong.

I do not care if you would have dropped the top fifty floors on the bottom fifty...


The bottom fifty would remain standing unless the support structured suffered some sort of prior damage.

Collapses do not work that way.


"Nuh uh" is less than a compelling argument.
Oh, I wholehearterdly agree!!!

So, you go ahead and get your structure built of any material known to humanity...

I do not care what it is.

You take one third of that material and drop it and progressively crush the other two-thirds.

Let me know when you achieve a progressive crush of those remaining two thirds.

When you do, then you can come back here and write, "I told you so."

Until then, I think you have a better shot at growing actual antlers...


I told you so.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Crouton on January 02, 2018, 10:41:23 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on January 02, 2018, 11:53:19 AM
Quote from: Bullwinkle on January 02, 2018, 08:19:26 AM
Floors are engineered to support a couple hundred people, their desks and some drywall.
They are not designed to support an upper floor dropping onto them.
Dropping a concrete floor onto a lower floor will cause the lower floor to sheer off and drop onto the floor beneath, so on and so forth, all the way down until there are no more floors left.

Typically, when something happens for the first time, it has never happened before.

Quote from: crutonius on January 02, 2018, 08:23:00 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on January 02, 2018, 07:54:00 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on January 02, 2018, 02:44:43 AM
Huh?  now I know you aren't interested in a serious discussion.   The energy required to collapse a floor is a fraction of the available energy,  and it dimishes as the collapse progresses.

Please try to address the question,  what is it that you disagree with in Greenings paper?   If you can't stick to a simple question, then I have to conclude you simply don't know.

I was trying to put it as simply as possible.

You can keep saying floors falling this and that. However, one more time they controlled sheer of the exoskeleton...they carried no vertical compression of the structure. Remove 5 floors and the building would be fine..remove 5 floors of the core and exoskeleton, then you would have a case of stored energy attempting to crush the remaining lower structure such as the demolition technique you mention. Even then you would need to weaken the lower half for a footprint demo. Could get real ugly with a topple otherwise (such as they do with the demo technique you always mention)

Even if you removed all floors inside the exoskeleton, the structure would wilt like a flower, twist and topple, not collapse into it's own footprint.

Quit saying nuh uh and trying answering the question posed.

I'm a little confused.  So you're saying that WTC1 and 2 were held up mostly by their exoskeletons and a core?  But wouldn't the same principles of the "official story" still apply here?  The exoskeleton and the core are still steel that would have been weakened to the point of failure on the parts of the tower that were hit by the aircraft right?

I'm not trying to fist fight here.  Just trying to understand.

This answer will address both of these question/comment...and I don't get crabby with most people when asking genuine questions with genuine interest (such as when the architect appeared and a few other users that participated in this thread)..

Yes crutonius, the floors themselves, their entire job was to support people/office equipment etc...and sheer/rigidity/twist/sway of the exoskeleton/core.

The core/exoskeleton, it's soul purpose in life was to support downward compression of it's own weight as well as that of the floors and their content.

Imagine building a 10x10 box 50 feet high with the frame sunk 50 feet in the ground with the correct mass to maintain it's cg. Yet you only connect it up top. It would be unstable, more than likely will topple over.

How, put a cross braced box every 4 feet inside the boxed tower, you would have a solid unit that could handle wind and other sheering forces

No disrespect was intended.  I hope that none was perceived.  You have enough people here waiting to disrespect you.  I'm just trying to understand.

I'll think about this.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on January 03, 2018, 02:59:46 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on January 02, 2018, 05:46:31 PM
i POST DUMB FUCKING SHIT LIKE THIS ALL THE TIME!!!

"You seem unaware that a fully loaded 767 crashed through the main supporting structure..."
FTFY.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on January 03, 2018, 04:11:35 AM
Quote from: totallackey on January 03, 2018, 02:59:46 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on January 02, 2018, 05:46:31 PM
i POST DUMB FUCKING SHIT LIKE THIS ALL THE TIME!!!

"You seem unaware that a fully loaded 767 crashed through the main supporting structure..."
FTFY.

So, is your shitty mood because your asian girlfriend is playing around on you again?   You deserve worse.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on January 03, 2018, 04:14:38 AM
Oh no, totallackey has gone crazy. Sad.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on January 03, 2018, 04:48:50 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on January 03, 2018, 04:11:35 AM
Quote from: totallackey on January 03, 2018, 02:59:46 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on January 02, 2018, 05:46:31 PM
i POST DUMB FUCKING SHIT LIKE THIS ALL THE TIME!!!

"You seem unaware that a fully loaded 767 crashed through the main supporting structure..."
FTFY.

So, is your shitty mood because your asian girlfriend is playing around on you again?   You deserve worse.
Hey, I got a girlfriend capable of playing...what do you got?

Fantasies about blowing things up...probably includes dolls...

You going to address your major fuck up or just leave the fucking lie alone?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on January 03, 2018, 05:09:40 AM
Quote from: totallackey on January 03, 2018, 04:48:50 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on January 03, 2018, 04:11:35 AM
Quote from: totallackey on January 03, 2018, 02:59:46 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on January 02, 2018, 05:46:31 PM
i POST DUMB FUCKING SHIT LIKE THIS ALL THE TIME!!!

"You seem unaware that a fully loaded 767 crashed through the main supporting structure..."
FTFY.

So, is your shitty mood because your asian girlfriend is playing around on you again?   You deserve worse.
Hey, I got a girlfriend capable of playing...what do you got?

Fantasies about blowing things up...probably includes dolls...

You going to address your major fuck up or just leave the fucking lie alone?
Take your pills and/or talk to your health care provider.
It's better for everyone.
Thank you.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: markjo on January 03, 2018, 09:33:38 AM
Quote from: totallackey on January 03, 2018, 04:48:50 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on January 03, 2018, 04:11:35 AM
Quote from: totallackey on January 03, 2018, 02:59:46 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on January 02, 2018, 05:46:31 PM
i POST DUMB FUCKING SHIT LIKE THIS ALL THE TIME!!!

"You seem unaware that a fully loaded 767 crashed through the main supporting structure..."
FTFY.

So, is your shitty mood because your asian girlfriend is playing around on you again?   You deserve worse.
Hey, I got a girlfriend capable of playing...what do you got?
Having a girlfriend that cheats on you is not something to be proud of.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on January 03, 2018, 03:44:13 PM
Quote from: markjo on January 03, 2018, 09:33:38 AM
Quote from: totallackey on January 03, 2018, 04:48:50 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on January 03, 2018, 04:11:35 AM
Quote from: totallackey on January 03, 2018, 02:59:46 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on January 02, 2018, 05:46:31 PM
i POST DUMB FUCKING SHIT LIKE THIS ALL THE TIME!!!

"You seem unaware that a fully loaded 767 crashed through the main supporting structure..."
FTFY.

So, is your shitty mood because your asian girlfriend is playing around on you again?   You deserve worse.
Hey, I got a girlfriend capable of playing...what do you got?
Having a girlfriend that cheats on you is not something to be proud of.

I suspect he has mental issues,  probably extends to lack of self control and violent outbursts. 

That would go some way towards explaining his inability to post things that are comprehensible.

As User says,  he needs his meds.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on January 03, 2018, 03:48:21 PM
Quote from: totallackey on January 03, 2018, 04:48:50 AM
You going to address your major fuck up or just leave the fucking lie alone?

What are you babbling about?

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Wolvaccine on January 03, 2018, 08:35:33 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on January 03, 2018, 04:11:35 AM
So, is your shitty mood because your asian girlfriend is playing around on you again?   You deserve worse.


This is why, in the nicest possible way of saying, you are a cunt. Who the fuck says that to another but the lowest of the low of arseholes. Have you no other way to back yourself up or is this shit your 'go to' when you are caught out and proven wrong.


Quote from: totallackey on January 03, 2018, 04:48:50 AM

Hey, I got a girlfriend capable of playing...what do you got?

Fantasies about blowing things up...probably includes dolls...

I suspect dolls are the only thing Rayzor gets to blow. I bet he cant wait for the model that shoots jizz to come out

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on January 03, 2018, 08:48:31 PM
Quote from: Shifter on January 03, 2018, 08:35:33 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on January 03, 2018, 04:11:35 AM
So, is your shitty mood because your asian girlfriend is playing around on you again?   You deserve worse.


This is why, in the nicest possible way of saying, you are a cunt. Who the fuck says that to another but the lowest of the low of arseholes. Have you no other way to back yourself up or is this shit your 'go to' when you are caught out and proven wrong.


Quote from: totallackey on January 03, 2018, 04:48:50 AM

Hey, I got a girlfriend capable of playing...what do you got?

Fantasies about blowing things up...probably includes dolls...

I suspect dolls are the only thing Rayzor gets to blow. I bet he cant wait for the model that shoots jizz to come out

You are wrong on all counts,  it's  totallackey that was just made to look like the idiot that he is.   And just for future reference,  I respond to insults like yours in a like fashion,  so I'll let you off this once, but keep it up and I'll respond in kind.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Wolvaccine on January 03, 2018, 09:05:54 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on January 03, 2018, 08:48:31 PM
Quote from: Shifter on January 03, 2018, 08:35:33 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on January 03, 2018, 04:11:35 AM
So, is your shitty mood because your asian girlfriend is playing around on you again?   You deserve worse.


This is why, in the nicest possible way of saying, you are a cunt. Who the fuck says that to another but the lowest of the low of arseholes. Have you no other way to back yourself up or is this shit your 'go to' when you are caught out and proven wrong.


Quote from: totallackey on January 03, 2018, 04:48:50 AM

Hey, I got a girlfriend capable of playing...what do you got?

Fantasies about blowing things up...probably includes dolls...

I suspect dolls are the only thing Rayzor gets to blow. I bet he cant wait for the model that shoots jizz to come out

You are wrong on all counts,  it's  totallackey that was just made to look like the idiot that he is.   And just for future reference,  I respond to insults like yours in a like fashion,  so I'll let you off this once, but keep it up and I'll respond in kind.


The mark of a truly 0w3nd loser

Honestly my opinion of you is beyond low right now, any pathetic insult you wish to lay on me has no effect at all. Why should it? A sad nobody wants to insult me lol. Give it your best shot if it pleases you to do so but know I don't give 2 shits about what words you think you can string together. You are beaten
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on January 03, 2018, 09:42:28 PM
Quote from: Shifter on January 03, 2018, 09:05:54 PM
The mark of a truly 0w3nd loser

Honestly my opinion of you is beyond low right now, any pathetic insult you wish to lay on me has no effect at all. Why should it? A sad nobody wants to insult me lol. Give it your best shot if it pleases you to do so but know I don't give 2 shits about what words you think you can string together. You are beaten

Welcome to the ignore bin.   

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on January 03, 2018, 09:46:40 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on January 02, 2018, 05:46:31 PM
Quote from: totallackey on January 02, 2018, 09:47:18 AM

Oh, I wholehearterdly agree!!!

So, you go ahead and get your structure built of any material known to humanity...

I do not care what it is.

You take one third of that material and drop it and progressively crush the other two-thirds.

Let me know when you achieve a progressive crush of those remaining two thirds.

When you do, then you can come back here and write, "I told you so."

Until then, I think you have a better shot at growing actual antlers...

Here you go.   



I'll accept your apology now.

Gee lookit that, they collapse into their own footprint through the path of greatest resistance,  who woulda thunk it.

The score so far.
BabyHighSpeed    0
Physics               100

Still no response from BabyHighSpeed on being proven wrong so clearly.    Totallackey didn't take it too well either.  :)

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Wolvaccine on January 03, 2018, 10:02:55 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on January 03, 2018, 09:42:28 PM
Quote from: Shifter on January 03, 2018, 09:05:54 PM
The mark of a truly 0w3nd loser

Honestly my opinion of you is beyond low right now, any pathetic insult you wish to lay on me has no effect at all. Why should it? A sad nobody wants to insult me lol. Give it your best shot if it pleases you to do so but know I don't give 2 shits about what words you think you can string together. You are beaten

Welcome to the ignore bin.

Yes, that is probably for the best and the only move you have available at this point. Perhaps you don't like it when people point out your contemptuous flaws or when you are presented with the truth about yourself either.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on January 03, 2018, 10:24:34 PM
Quote from: Shifter on January 03, 2018, 10:02:55 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on January 03, 2018, 09:42:28 PM
Quote from: Shifter on January 03, 2018, 09:05:54 PM
The mark of a truly 0w3nd loser

Honestly my opinion of you is beyond low right now, any pathetic insult you wish to lay on me has no effect at all. Why should it? A sad nobody wants to insult me lol. Give it your best shot if it pleases you to do so but know I don't give 2 shits about what words you think you can string together. You are beaten

Welcome to the ignore bin.

Yes, that is probably for the best and the only move you have available at this point. Perhaps you don't like it when people point out your contemptuous flaws or when you are presented with the truth about yourself either.
I don't think you have presented one single legitimate argument here.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Wolvaccine on January 03, 2018, 10:31:51 PM
Quote from: User324 on January 03, 2018, 10:24:34 PM
Quote from: Shifter on January 03, 2018, 10:02:55 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on January 03, 2018, 09:42:28 PM
Quote from: Shifter on January 03, 2018, 09:05:54 PM
The mark of a truly 0w3nd loser

Honestly my opinion of you is beyond low right now, any pathetic insult you wish to lay on me has no effect at all. Why should it? A sad nobody wants to insult me lol. Give it your best shot if it pleases you to do so but know I don't give 2 shits about what words you think you can string together. You are beaten

Welcome to the ignore bin.

Yes, that is probably for the best and the only move you have available at this point. Perhaps you don't like it when people point out your contemptuous flaws or when you are presented with the truth about yourself either.
I don't think you have presented one single legitimate argument here.

Neither have you. What's your point?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on January 03, 2018, 11:45:55 PM
Quote from: Shifter on January 03, 2018, 10:31:51 PM
Quote from: User324 on January 03, 2018, 10:24:34 PM
Quote from: Shifter on January 03, 2018, 10:02:55 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on January 03, 2018, 09:42:28 PM
Quote from: Shifter on January 03, 2018, 09:05:54 PM
The mark of a truly 0w3nd loser

Honestly my opinion of you is beyond low right now, any pathetic insult you wish to lay on me has no effect at all. Why should it? A sad nobody wants to insult me lol. Give it your best shot if it pleases you to do so but know I don't give 2 shits about what words you think you can string together. You are beaten

Welcome to the ignore bin.

Yes, that is probably for the best and the only move you have available at this point. Perhaps you don't like it when people point out your contemptuous flaws or when you are presented with the truth about yourself either.
I don't think you have presented one single legitimate argument here.

Neither have you. What's your point?
My point is that you have no point but pretend to have one and blame rayzor for not adressing your imaginary argument.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Wolvaccine on January 03, 2018, 11:56:46 PM
I didn't state any argument. I called him out for being a cunt to others. Please state what argument I presented here or are you making things up and imagining things yourself?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on January 04, 2018, 03:09:40 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on January 03, 2018, 03:48:21 PM
Quote from: totallackey on January 03, 2018, 04:48:50 AM
You going to address your major fuck up or just leave the fucking lie alone?

What are you babbling about?
This fucking lie you wrote here on the board...
Quote from: Rayzor on January 02, 2018, 12:23:11 AM
You seem unaware that a fully loaded 767 crashed through the main supporting structure...
You lying sack of fucking shit...
Quote from: Rayzor on January 03, 2018, 09:46:40 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on January 02, 2018, 05:46:31 PM
Quote from: totallackey on January 02, 2018, 09:47:18 AM

Oh, I wholehearterdly agree!!!

So, you go ahead and get your structure built of any material known to humanity...

I do not care what it is.

You take one third of that material and drop it and progressively crush the other two-thirds.

Let me know when you achieve a progressive crush of those remaining two thirds.

When you do, then you can come back here and write, "I told you so."

Until then, I think you have a better shot at growing actual antlers...

Here you go.   



I'll accept your apology now.

Gee lookit that, they collapse into their own footprint through the path of greatest resistance,  who woulda thunk it.

The score so far.
BabyHighSpeed    0
Physics               100

Still no response from BabyHighSpeed on being proven wrong so clearly.    Totallackey didn't take it too well either.  :)
Cannot see the video right now, but I bet you posted a video of WTC 1 and 2 coming down, acting like that is going to happen in the real world of physics.

Sorry, but in the real world, any building not subjected to any prior structural damage will not collapse under the weight of dropping a third of the building on top of the bottom two-thirds...

Just ain't gonna happen.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on January 04, 2018, 03:19:10 AM
Quote from: markjo on January 03, 2018, 09:33:38 AM
Quote from: totallackey on January 03, 2018, 04:48:50 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on January 03, 2018, 04:11:35 AM
Quote from: totallackey on January 03, 2018, 02:59:46 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on January 02, 2018, 05:46:31 PM
i POST DUMB FUCKING SHIT LIKE THIS ALL THE TIME!!!

"You seem unaware that a fully loaded 767 crashed through the main supporting structure..."
FTFY.

So, is your shitty mood because your asian girlfriend is playing around on you again?   You deserve worse.
Hey, I got a girlfriend capable of playing...what do you got?
Having a girlfriend that cheats on you is not something to be proud of.
Who says she is cheating?

Learning to understand other persons are free to live their lives empowered to do as they see fit, when they see fit, without judgment from others, especially those who claim to "love them," leads to the best relationships.

You, however, are just one sick fuck who thinks they got it all fucking down pat.

Just STFU and mind your own fucking business, okay Opus?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on January 04, 2018, 03:36:41 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on January 03, 2018, 08:48:31 PM
You are wrong on all counts,  it's  totallackey that was just made to look like the idiot that he is...
Like I wrote earlier, numbnuts...

You suck now, you sucked then, and you will continue to suck for the rest of your fucked up life...

Your admitted presence here is to "SAVE THE WORLD!," for science!

Yet, you willingly accept AND PROMOTE the NIST report for WTC 7!

Fuck you and others of your ilk who are such fucking hypocrites.

I have a good mind to send my asian girlfriend over to kick your ass...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on January 04, 2018, 03:44:05 AM
Quote from: totallackey on January 04, 2018, 03:36:41 AM
I have a good mind to send my asian girlfriend over to kick your ass...

LOL,  I'd watch out,  I think shifter has the hots for her.  He got his knickers in a twist about her fidelity earlier.

Keep up your logical well researched arguments, it's always good for a laugh.

Quote from: totallackey on January 04, 2018, 03:09:40 AM

Cannot see the video right now, but I bet you posted a video of WTC 1 and 2 coming down, acting like that is going to happen in the real world of physics.

Sorry, but in the real world, any building not subjected to any prior structural damage will not collapse under the weight of dropping a third of the building on top of the bottom two-thirds...

Just ain't gonna happen.

I'd stop saying that if I were you, the video I linked to proves you wrong.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on January 04, 2018, 03:49:01 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on January 04, 2018, 03:44:05 AM
tl:dr bullshit as usual...I will not address the lie I posted...
Thanks for admitting you lie like a rug...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on January 04, 2018, 04:07:29 AM
Quote from: totallackey on January 04, 2018, 03:49:01 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on January 04, 2018, 03:44:05 AM
tl:dr bullshit as usual...I will not address the lie I posted...
Thanks for admitting you lie like a rug...

Tell me what you think I said was a lie?  I'm genuinely curious.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on January 04, 2018, 04:11:59 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on January 04, 2018, 04:07:29 AM
Tell me what you think I said was a lie?  I'm genuinely curious.
Quote from: Rayzor on January 02, 2018, 12:23:11 AM
You seem unaware that a fully loaded 767 crashed through the main supporting structure...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on January 04, 2018, 04:44:27 AM
Quote from: totallackey on January 04, 2018, 04:11:59 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on January 04, 2018, 04:07:29 AM
Tell me what you think I said was a lie?  I'm genuinely curious.
Quote from: Rayzor on January 02, 2018, 12:23:11 AM
You seem unaware that a fully loaded 767 crashed through the main supporting structure...

That's exactly what happened, twice in fact.  AA11 and UA175  what makes you think that i'm lying.   

United 175 was a 767-200,  and American 11 was a 767-223. 

Both impacts severely damaged central columns and main supporting structure.

I'm surprised you didn't know this already.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on January 04, 2018, 04:50:36 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on January 04, 2018, 04:44:27 AM

That's exactly what happened, twice in fact.  AA11 and UA175  what makes you think that i'm lying.   

United 175 was a 767-200,  and American 11 was a 767-223. 

Both impacts severely damaged central columns and main supporting structure.

I'm surprised you didn't know this already.
Neither one of those planes were "fully loaded," you dumb fuck...

As a matter of fact, neither of the planes were even "half-loaded."
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on January 04, 2018, 04:57:44 AM
Totallackey is having a mental breakdown.
Sad to see.

You should take a break (no offense meant, just my honest advice).
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on January 04, 2018, 05:01:41 AM
Quote from: totallackey on January 04, 2018, 04:50:36 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on January 04, 2018, 04:44:27 AM

That's exactly what happened, twice in fact.  AA11 and UA175  what makes you think that i'm lying.   

United 175 was a 767-200,  and American 11 was a 767-223. 

Both impacts severely damaged central columns and main supporting structure.

I'm surprised you didn't know this already.
Neither one of those planes were "fully loaded," you dumb fuck...

Both were long distance flights with large fuel loads.  If you want the numbers..

The respective airlines provided "estimates" of the quantity and distribution of fuel at the time of impact. AA 11 - 66081 lbs. or 9717 gallons evenly distributed between left and right wing tanks; UA 175 62,000 lbs. or 9118 gallons evenly distributed between both main tanks.

Last warning for you on insults.  If you aren't capable of a rational discussion then I'll throw you in the bin with shifter.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on January 04, 2018, 05:04:58 AM
Quote from: User324 on January 04, 2018, 04:57:44 AM
Totallackey is having a mental breakdown.
Sad to see.

You should take a break (no offense meant, just my honest advice).
And you should go to your room and continue to masturbate to animal porn, like you normally do...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Wolvaccine on January 04, 2018, 05:10:49 AM
No one gives a shit about your bin Rayzor, in fact given what a nasty piece of lying scum you are, it's not really a bin, but a sanctuary away from you. If you do one good thing 8n your miserable life it would be to put everyone in your ignore list. Both in this forum and the real world

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on January 04, 2018, 05:15:58 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on January 04, 2018, 05:01:41 AM
Quote from: totallackey on January 04, 2018, 04:50:36 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on January 04, 2018, 04:44:27 AM

That's exactly what happened, twice in fact.  AA11 and UA175  what makes you think that i'm lying.   

United 175 was a 767-200,  and American 11 was a 767-223. 

Both impacts severely damaged central columns and main supporting structure.

I'm surprised you didn't know this already.
Neither one of those planes were "fully loaded," you dumb fuck...

Both were long distance flights with large fuel loads.  If you want the numbers..

The respective airlines provided "estimates" of the quantity and distribution of fuel at the time of impact. AA 11 - 66081 lbs. or 9717 gallons evenly distributed between left and right wing tanks; UA 175 62,000 lbs. or 9118 gallons evenly distributed between both main tanks.

Last warning for you on insults.  If you aren't capable of a rational discussion then I'll throw you in the bin with shifter.
And neither plane was "fully loaded." "On the day of the attacks, the flight carried only 56 passengers and 9 crew members, which represented a 33 percent load factor..." - Flight 175
"but the September 11 flight carried 81 passengers and 11 crew members. This was a light load at 58.2 percent capacity..." Flight 11

Again, you wrote "fully loaded."

NGAF about the amount of fuel, moran...

The fuel on both planes would have been consumed in the immediate fireballs anyway; there is no evidence to indicate otherwise.

Whatever the temperatures were at the site of impacts were soon cool enough to allow the presence of LIVE HUMAN BEINGS within minutes of the explosions and not a single one of them were on fire...

Like I wrote earlier, give me your address via PM and I am going to send my "asian girlfriend," down there to kick your ass...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on January 04, 2018, 05:20:12 AM
Quote from: totallackey on January 04, 2018, 05:15:58 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on January 04, 2018, 05:01:41 AM
Quote from: totallackey on January 04, 2018, 04:50:36 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on January 04, 2018, 04:44:27 AM

That's exactly what happened, twice in fact.  AA11 and UA175  what makes you think that i'm lying.   

United 175 was a 767-200,  and American 11 was a 767-223. 

Both impacts severely damaged central columns and main supporting structure.

I'm surprised you didn't know this already.
Neither one of those planes were "fully loaded," you dumb fuck...

Both were long distance flights with large fuel loads.  If you want the numbers..

The respective airlines provided "estimates" of the quantity and distribution of fuel at the time of impact. AA 11 - 66081 lbs. or 9717 gallons evenly distributed between left and right wing tanks; UA 175 62,000 lbs. or 9118 gallons evenly distributed between both main tanks.

Last warning for you on insults.  If you aren't capable of a rational discussion then I'll throw you in the bin with shifter.
And neither plane was "fully loaded."

NGAF about the amount of fuel, moran...

You wrote, "fully loaded."

The fuel on both planes would have been consumed in the immediate fireballs anyway; there is no evidence to indicate otherwise.

Whatever the temperatures were at the site of impacts were soon cool enough to allow the presence of LIVE HUMAN BEINGS within minutes of the explosions and not a single one of them were on fire...

Like I wrote earlier, give me your address via PM and I am going to send my "asian girlfriend," down there to kick your ass...

So all you've got left is clutching at straws.   Have you watched the verinage demolition video yet?


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on January 04, 2018, 05:30:56 AM
Quote from: totallackey on January 04, 2018, 05:04:58 AM
Quote from: User324 on January 04, 2018, 04:57:44 AM
Totallackey is having a mental breakdown.
Sad to see.

You should take a break (no offense meant, just my honest advice).
And you should go to your room and continue to masturbate to animal porn, like you normally do...
I'm in the library. I don't think people would like it if I started masturbating to animal porn.

Also, I was honest about the take a break.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on January 04, 2018, 05:33:21 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on January 04, 2018, 05:20:12 AM
So all you've got left is clutching at straws.
You wrote "fully loaded."

I posted clear evidence you fucking lied and now, all of a sudden, I am the one "grasping at straws..."

What a fucking asswipe you are!!!
Quote from: Rayzor on January 04, 2018, 05:20:12 AM
Have you watched the verinage demolition video yet?
Why should I?

You are trying to lay claim to a method of "controlled demolition," is evidence that a "controlled demolition," did not take place on 9/11?

How goofy do you need to be?

http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2012/02/reflecting-on-verinage-demolition.html (http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2012/02/reflecting-on-verinage-demolition.html)
"I recently came across debunker vids on YouTube, such as this that boast of the Verinage demolition technique used to bring down buildings without explosives. According to Wikipedia, “The technique. . .is used in France to weaken and buckle the supports of central floors promoting the collapse of the top part of a building onto the bottom resulting in a rapid, symmetrical collapse” . This is offered as a refutation to the 9/11 Truth claim that the WTC buildings were brought down via controlled demolition, arguing that gravity alone can cause a symmetrical, freefall collapse without the use of explosives.
Do they have a case here? A moment’s reflection will reveal that not only does this NOT support their case (that fire weakened steel causing gravitational collapse), but rather it strongly supports the controlled demolition theory regarding the towers. How so?
Consider their example. What is the Verinage method? It is controlled demolition! So they are using an example of controlled demolition in order to refute the controlled demolition theory!! This is obviously self-refuting. In order for them to have a case, it would seem to me that they would have to provide examples of fire alone initiating specific and simultaneous structural failure in order to cause a symmetrical collapse that resemble anything like the WTC buildings. Consider that the Verinage method employs a team of structural engineers who “rig the physics” in a purposeful and deliberate manner in order to accomplish the desired result; a symmetrical, rapid collapse. This strongly supports the controlled demolition theory, NOT a fire initiated, gravitational collapse theory. To say that fire can do exactly what a team of engineers and demolition experts do is not only absurd, but it is an insult to their profession in my opinion. It is argued that the Verinage method emulates the WTC conditions for this kind of collapse. But how can that be without fire? This is question begging as the whole debate is centered on whether random office fires can bring down buildings in the exact manner as controlled demolition, exhibiting all, or most of, their characteristics. The Verinage example refutes their own case.
Also, a closer look at theVerinage method reveals other problems for the debunkers. For example, what type of building is the method used for? Are any steel framed high rises? No.
To bring down steel framed buildings, explosives are generally used.
Does the method employ a gravitational collapse of the top 15 % of the building in order to crush the bottom 85%, like we see in the WTC’s? No, they weaken the columns on the CENTRAL floors and let physics do the work.
Lastly, it is argued, in the WTC collapses, that the squibs were the result of pressurized air, not explosives. In the Verinage example, no explosives were used so wouldn’t westill expect to see many squibs like in the WTC’s, assuming they are the samekind of destructive event? Compare the WTC squibs with these Verinage examples . Where are the squibs in the lower floors in the Verinage examples? . The squibs in the WTC’s, in contrast, look exactly like those seen in controlled demolitions using explosives.
So, does the Verinage example carry any weight for the debunkers? Not at all. It not only does NOT support their case but rather it’s a strong support for the controlled demolition theory in that it takes HUMAN AGENCY, a team of EXPERTS, to set up the NECESSARY CONDITIONS in order to accomplish this kind ofcollapse. For more detailed info on the problems of the Verinage method brought up by debunkers, see here and here."
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on January 04, 2018, 05:37:04 AM
Quote from: User324 on January 04, 2018, 05:30:56 AM
Quote from: totallackey on January 04, 2018, 05:04:58 AM
Quote from: User324 on January 04, 2018, 04:57:44 AM
Totallackey is having a mental breakdown.
Sad to see.

You should take a break (no offense meant, just my honest advice).
And you should go to your room and continue to masturbate to animal porn, like you normally do...
I'm in the library. I don't think people would like it if I started masturbating to animal porn.
Just show them your membership card to one of those websites...I am sure they will understand...
Quote from: User324 on January 04, 2018, 05:30:56 AM
Also, I was honest about the take a break.
WGAS?

Anybody?

"Bueller???...Bueller???..."

Nope...

I was right...

NGAS about what you write...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on January 04, 2018, 05:55:36 AM
Having a bad week?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on January 04, 2018, 06:00:36 AM
Quote from: totallackey on January 04, 2018, 05:33:21 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on January 04, 2018, 05:20:12 AM
So all you've got left is clutching at straws.
You wrote "fully loaded."

I posted clear evidence you fucking lied and now, all of a sudden, I am the one "grasping at straws..."


No you posted clear evidence that you didn't understand what I said or the context in the discussion.  Your stupidity is not my problem. 

Did you watch the video yet?   



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on January 04, 2018, 06:14:09 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on January 04, 2018, 06:00:36 AM
Quote from: totallackey on January 04, 2018, 05:33:21 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on January 04, 2018, 05:20:12 AM
So all you've got left is clutching at straws.
You wrote "fully loaded."

I posted clear evidence you fucking lied and now, all of a sudden, I am the one "grasping at straws..."


No you posted clear evidence that you didn't understand what I said or the context in the discussion.  Your stupidity is not my problem.
Go ahead and explain how, "fully loaded," DOES NOT MEAN,"fully loaded."

You keep asking everyone here to be some sort of "stand up," guy in terms of morality and honesty...

How about you just be a "stand up guy," and admit you were wrong when you when wrote "fully loaded 767?" Hmmmm?

Because you cannot, that is why...

You are incapable of admitting you are fallible, even when you make a simple mistake!
Quote from: Rayzor on January 04, 2018, 06:00:36 AM
Did you watch the video yet?
Why should I?

http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2012/02/reflecting-on-verinage-demolition.html
"I recently came across debunker vids on YouTube, such as this that boast of the Verinage demolition technique used to bring down buildings without explosives. According to Wikipedia, “The technique. . .is used in France to weaken and buckle the supports of central floors promoting the collapse of the top part of a building onto the bottom resulting in a rapid, symmetrical collapse” . This is offered as a refutation to the 9/11 Truth claim that the WTC buildings were brought down via controlled demolition, arguing that gravity alone can cause a symmetrical, freefall collapse without the use of explosives.
Do they have a case here? A moment’s reflection will reveal that not only does this NOT support their case (that fire weakened steel causing gravitational collapse), but rather it strongly supports the controlled demolition theory regarding the towers. How so?
Consider their example. What is the Verinage method? It is controlled demolition! So they are using an example of controlled demolition in order to refute the controlled demolition theory!! This is obviously self-refuting. In order for them to have a case, it would seem to me that they would have to provide examples of fire alone initiating specific and simultaneous structural failure in order to cause a symmetrical collapse that resemble anything like the WTC buildings. Consider that the Verinage method employs a team of structural engineers who “rig the physics” in a purposeful and deliberate manner in order to accomplish the desired result; a symmetrical, rapid collapse. This strongly supports the controlled demolition theory, NOT a fire initiated, gravitational collapse theory. To say that fire can do exactly what a team of engineers and demolition experts do is not only absurd, but it is an insult to their profession in my opinion. It is argued that the Verinage method emulates the WTC conditions for this kind of collapse. But how can that be without fire? This is question begging as the whole debate is centered on whether random office fires can bring down buildings in the exact manner as controlled demolition, exhibiting all, or most of, their characteristics. The Verinage example refutes their own case.
Also, a closer look at theVerinage method reveals other problems for the debunkers. For example, what type of building is the method used for? Are any steel framed high rises? No.
To bring down steel framed buildings, explosives are generally used.
Does the method employ a gravitational collapse of the top 15 % of the building in order to crush the bottom 85%, like we see in the WTC’s? No, they weaken the columns on the CENTRAL floors and let physics do the work.
Lastly, it is argued, in the WTC collapses, that the squibs were the result of pressurized air, not explosives. In the Verinage example, no explosives were used so wouldn’t westill expect to see many squibs like in the WTC’s, assuming they are the samekind of destructive event? Compare the WTC squibs with these Verinage examples . Where are the squibs in the lower floors in the Verinage examples? . The squibs in the WTC’s, in contrast, look exactly like those seen in controlled demolitions using explosives.
So, does the Verinage example carry any weight for the debunkers? Not at all. It not only does NOT support their case but rather it’s a strong support for the controlled demolition theory in that it takes HUMAN AGENCY, a team of EXPERTS, to set up the NECESSARY CONDITIONS in order to accomplish this kind ofcollapse. For more detailed info on the problems of the Verinage method brought up by debunkers, see here and here."
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on January 04, 2018, 06:50:57 AM
Quote from: totallackey on January 04, 2018, 06:14:09 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on January 04, 2018, 06:00:36 AM
Quote from: totallackey on January 04, 2018, 05:33:21 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on January 04, 2018, 05:20:12 AM
So all you've got left is clutching at straws.
You wrote "fully loaded."

I posted clear evidence you fucking lied and now, all of a sudden, I am the one "grasping at straws..."


No you posted clear evidence that you didn't understand what I said or the context in the discussion.  Your stupidity is not my problem.
Go ahead and explain how, "fully loaded," DOES NOT MEAN,"fully loaded."

You keep asking everyone here to be some sort of "stand up," guy in terms of morality and honesty...

How about you just be a "stand up guy," and admit you were wrong when you when wrote "fully loaded 767?" Hmmmm?

Because you cannot, that is why...

You are incapable of admitting you are fallible, even when you make a simple mistake!

It wasn't a mistake, both aircraft had fuel loads for long distance flights,  and that's part of the reason the hijackers chose those particular flights,  and the fact that you can't understand it,  makes no difference to the facts.  Or the argument that impact damage and subsequent fires caused the collapse.

As far as the verinage demolition method goes,  here's what you asked for an example of

Quote from: totallackey on January 02, 2018, 09:47:18 AM

So, you go ahead and get your structure built of any material known to humanity...

I do not care what it is.

You take one third of that material and drop it and progressively crush the other two-thirds.

Let me know when you achieve a progressive crush of those remaining two thirds.

When you do, then you can come back here and write, "I told you so."

Until then, I think you have a better shot at growing actual antlers...

The video that you refuse to watch shows exactly that.   




Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sokarul on January 04, 2018, 08:23:00 AM
Quote from: Shifter on January 03, 2018, 10:02:55 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on January 03, 2018, 09:42:28 PM
Quote from: Shifter on January 03, 2018, 09:05:54 PM
The mark of a truly 0w3nd loser

Honestly my opinion of you is beyond low right now, any pathetic insult you wish to lay on me has no effect at all. Why should it? A sad nobody wants to insult me lol. Give it your best shot if it pleases you to do so but know I don't give 2 shits about what words you think you can string together. You are beaten

Welcome to the ignore bin.

Yes, that is probably for the best and the only move you have available at this point. Perhaps you don't like it when people point out your contemptuous flaws or when you are presented with the truth about yourself either.

You will find ride totallacking's dick will not get you far.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on January 04, 2018, 08:54:13 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on January 04, 2018, 06:50:57 AM
Quote from: totallackey on January 04, 2018, 06:14:09 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on January 04, 2018, 06:00:36 AM
Quote from: totallackey on January 04, 2018, 05:33:21 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on January 04, 2018, 05:20:12 AM
So all you've got left is clutching at straws.
You wrote "fully loaded."

I posted clear evidence you fucking lied and now, all of a sudden, I am the one "grasping at straws..."


No you posted clear evidence that you didn't understand what I said or the context in the discussion.  Your stupidity is not my problem.
Go ahead and explain how, "fully loaded," DOES NOT MEAN,"fully loaded."

You keep asking everyone here to be some sort of "stand up," guy in terms of morality and honesty...

How about you just be a "stand up guy," and admit you were wrong when you when wrote "fully loaded 767?" Hmmmm?

Because you cannot, that is why...

You are incapable of admitting you are fallible, even when you make a simple mistake!

It wasn't a mistake, both aircraft had fuel loads for long distance flights,  and that's part of the reason the hijackers chose those particular flights,  and the fact that you can't understand it,  makes no difference to the facts.  Or the argument that impact damage and subsequent fires caused the collapse.

As far as the verinage demolition method goes,  here's what you asked for an example of

Quote from: totallackey on January 02, 2018, 09:47:18 AM

So, you go ahead and get your structure built of any material known to humanity...

I do not care what it is.

You take one third of that material and drop it and progressively crush the other two-thirds.

Let me know when you achieve a progressive crush of those remaining two thirds.

When you do, then you can come back here and write, "I told you so."

Until then, I think you have a better shot at growing actual antlers...

The video that you refuse to watch shows exactly that.
Like I thought...

In your fucked up world, FULLY LOADED DOES NOT MEAN FULLY LOADED.

Fuck you, fuck everyone you hold dear.

Ignore me from now on because not only do I WISH to be unrecognized by you from this point henceforth, I do not DESERVE to be recognized by you nor your kind.

I am far, far above you and your kind.

Verinage totally requires the weakening of the lower structure first...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on January 04, 2018, 08:56:24 AM
Quote from: sokarul on January 04, 2018, 08:23:00 AM
Quote from: Shifter on January 03, 2018, 10:02:55 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on January 03, 2018, 09:42:28 PM
Quote from: Shifter on January 03, 2018, 09:05:54 PM
The mark of a truly 0w3nd loser

Honestly my opinion of you is beyond low right now, any pathetic insult you wish to lay on me has no effect at all. Why should it? A sad nobody wants to insult me lol. Give it your best shot if it pleases you to do so but know I don't give 2 shits about what words you think you can string together. You are beaten

Welcome to the ignore bin.

Yes, that is probably for the best and the only move you have available at this point. Perhaps you don't like it when people point out your contemptuous flaws or when you are presented with the truth about yourself either.

You will find ride totallacking's dick will not get you far.
The only person riding any dick is you, you little bitch.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on January 04, 2018, 12:17:05 PM
(http://)

This settles verinage...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on January 04, 2018, 12:40:28 PM
Quote from: totallackey on January 04, 2018, 12:17:05 PM
(http://)

This settles verinage...
This experiment is about as retarded as the average conspiracy theorist.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on January 04, 2018, 01:28:55 PM
Wow step away for a few and this thread gets started again.

Quote from: Rayzor on January 03, 2018, 09:46:40 PM
Still no response from BabyHighSpeed on being proven wrong so clearly.    Totallackey didn't take it too well either.  :)

You mean you constantly stating a French technique for demolition that involves heavily reducing structural support at the lower levels then collapsing multiple floors with explosives in the upper third to use the intact upper portion's stored energy to crush the lower severely weakend half?

A technique used for only certain buildings, typically under 15 stories and reinforced concrete based? Also, as I have stated many times, SEVERELY weakend lower portions prepared months before hand.... Typically symmetrical buildings are preferred...

Or maybe where I have asked you the same question for pages and pages...yet all you have is insults and deflection??

Where was this owning princess? Just curious

Quote from: Rayzor on January 03, 2018, 09:42:28 PM
Welcome to the ignore bin.

Ha ha...shifter plays Rayzor's game and wins..
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on January 04, 2018, 02:38:10 PM
Quote from: totallackey on January 04, 2018, 08:54:13 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on January 04, 2018, 06:50:57 AM
The video that you refuse to watch shows exactly that.
Like I thought...

In your fucked up world, FULLY LOADED DOES NOT MEAN FULLY LOADED.

Fuck you, fuck everyone you hold dear.


LOL  You know you are sounding more like your asian girlfriend every day.

Quote from: totallackey on January 04, 2018, 08:54:13 AM
Ignore me from now on because not only do I WISH to be unrecognized by you from this point henceforth, I do not DESERVE to be recognized by you nor your kind.

I am far, far above you and your kind.

Verinage totally requires the weakening of the lower structure first...

Nope,  that's  three things wrong.    Why should I ignore you,  you are always good for a laugh.

Please cite a reference that says Verinage requires weakening of the lower structure.

In the case of the WTC1 and 2,  there was no need for the underlying structure to be weakened,  see Greenings paper. 


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on January 04, 2018, 02:43:25 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on January 04, 2018, 01:28:55 PM
Wow step away for a few and this thread gets started again.

Quote from: Rayzor on January 03, 2018, 09:46:40 PM
Still no response from BabyHighSpeed on being proven wrong so clearly.    Totallackey didn't take it too well either.  :)

You mean you constantly stating a French technique for demolition that involves heavily reducing structural support at the lower levels then collapsing multiple floors with explosives in the upper third to use the intact upper portion's stored energy to crush the lower severely weakend half?

A technique used for only certain buildings, typically under 15 stories and reinforced concrete based? Also, as I have stated many times, SEVERELY weakend lower portions prepared months before hand.... Typically symmetrical buildings are preferred...


Please cite a reference that says Verinage requires weakening of the lower structure.

In any event,  the case of the WTC1 and 2,  there was no need for the underlying structure to be weakened,  see Greenings paper. 


Quote from: Babyhighspeed on January 04, 2018, 01:28:55 PM
Or maybe where I have asked you the same question for pages and pages...yet all you have is insults and deflection??

Where was this owning princess? Just curious

I've refrained from insulting you, since you are so thin skinned you can't handle it.   Anyway what question is it that I haven't answered?


Quote from: Babyhighspeed on January 04, 2018, 01:28:55 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on January 03, 2018, 09:42:28 PM
Welcome to the ignore bin.

Ha ha...shifter plays Rayzor's game and wins..


Some trolls,  the more stupid ones like shifter for example,  aren't worth the time and trouble.   Rubbish bin is their rightful home.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Wolvaccine on January 04, 2018, 03:11:36 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on January 04, 2018, 02:43:25 PM
Some trolls,  the more stupid ones like shifter for example,  aren't worth the time and trouble.   Rubbish bin is their rightful home.

You specifically target what you hope to be somebodies weakness in their own personal life (whether its tailoring an insult to make fun or light of someone's mental illness or what you hope are personal problems or tragedies) and attack people in a disgusting manner, and saying they 'deserve' it or worse. For what? Not agreeing with you? That's pretty hideous behaviour and I called you out and responded in kind to you.

If by doing that, that makes me a 'stupid troll' what are you then? You are the worst kind of troll. I don't give 2 shits if you think I'm a stupid troll. I happily call out atrocious and needless personal attacks on people. I merely for a moment had you face the disgusting reality of yourself like holding a mirror to your face. Clearly you did not like the person looking back at you and think shutting me out validates your utterly deplorable manner of speaking to others. You have proven you are incapable of debating on any level of courtesy or intellect and thus have only made yourself in the eyes of everyone here, look like a 'stupid troll'.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sokarul on January 04, 2018, 06:32:30 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on January 04, 2018, 01:28:55 PM
Wow step away for a few and this thread gets started again.

Quote from: Rayzor on January 03, 2018, 09:46:40 PM
Still no response from BabyHighSpeed on being proven wrong so clearly.    Totallackey didn't take it too well either.  :)

You mean you constantly stating a French technique for demolition that involves heavily reducing structural support at the lower levels then collapsing multiple floors with explosives in the upper third to use the intact upper portion's stored energy to crush the lower severely weakend half?

A technique used for only certain buildings, typically under 15 stories and reinforced concrete based? Also, as I have stated many times, SEVERELY weakend lower portions prepared months before hand.... Typically symmetrical buildings are preferred...

Or maybe where I have asked you the same question for pages and pages...yet all you have is insults and deflection??

Where was this owning princess? Just curious

Quote from: Rayzor on January 03, 2018, 09:42:28 PM
Welcome to the ignore bin.

Ha ha...shifter plays Rayzor's game and wins..

So now every floor in the towers had explosives? That seems different then saying some floors were vacant and could have had explosives.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on January 05, 2018, 12:12:55 AM
Quote from: sokarul on January 04, 2018, 06:32:30 PM
So now every floor in the towers had explosives? That seems different then saying some floors were vacant and could have had explosives.

No, where did I say this. Don't put words in my mouth if you have no other argument.

Quote from: Rayzor on January 04, 2018, 02:43:25 PM
Please cite a reference that says Verinage requires weakening of the lower structure.

In any event,  the case of the WTC1 and 2,  there was no need for the underlying structure to be weakened,  see Greenings paper. 

Basic engineering principles of engineering and the method itself...try reading something other than headlines.

I stated a few issues with greenings paper...it is lacking, one dimensional and not based in reality or the design of the buildings. Basic math gymnastics.

I have posed very basic questions to his paper over and over again you either dodge or insult your way out of.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on January 05, 2018, 04:27:50 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on January 05, 2018, 12:12:55 AM
Quote from: sokarul on January 04, 2018, 06:32:30 PM
So now every floor in the towers had explosives? That seems different then saying some floors were vacant and could have had explosives.

No, where did I say this. Don't put words in my mouth if you have no other argument.

Quote from: Rayzor on January 04, 2018, 02:43:25 PM
Please cite a reference that says Verinage requires weakening of the lower structure.

In any event,  the case of the WTC1 and 2,  there was no need for the underlying structure to be weakened,  see Greenings paper. 

Basic engineering principles of engineering and the method itself...try reading something other than headlines.

I stated a few issues with greenings paper...it is lacking, one dimensional and not based in reality or the design of the buildings. Basic math gymnastics.

I have posed very basic questions to his paper over and over again you either dodge or insult your way out of.

Your only argument so far has been that a collapse through the path of greatest resistance is impossible,  that clearly is not true.  And if that's all you've got then you misunderstand the basic physics of energy transfer.

What questions do you think I'm dodging,  and, while you are at it,  point out where you think I've insulted you. 

Meantime,  why don't you state specific arguments as to why you disagree with Greenings analysis.  Please quote the exact section of the paper you disagree with.  I've been asking for over a week and you've run away every time.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on January 05, 2018, 04:41:06 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on January 04, 2018, 02:38:10 PM
Quote from: totallackey on January 04, 2018, 08:54:13 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on January 04, 2018, 06:50:57 AM
The video that you refuse to watch shows exactly that.
Like I thought...

In your fucked up world, FULLY LOADED DOES NOT MEAN FULLY LOADED.

Fuck you, fuck everyone you hold dear.


LOL  You know you are sounding more like your asian girlfriend every day.

Quote from: totallackey on January 04, 2018, 08:54:13 AM
Ignore me from now on because not only do I WISH to be unrecognized by you from this point henceforth, I do not DESERVE to be recognized by you nor your kind.

I am far, far above you and your kind.

Verinage totally requires the weakening of the lower structure first...

Nope,  that's  three things wrong.    Why should I ignore you,  you are always good for a laugh.

Please cite a reference that says Verinage requires weakening of the lower structure.

In the case of the WTC1 and 2,  there was no need for the underlying structure to be weakened,  see Greenings paper.
I am going to write this as succinctly and as clearly as possible.

You can go fuck yourself, your sister, your brother, your cousin and anyone else I may have forgot.

You are a disgusting lying piece of filth who deserves zero recognition from me or any other person taking the time to post here.

I am done with you.

You lying sack of shit.

Fuck Greening and Bazant, as they are lying assholes...the videos you post demonstrate adequately enough the amount of weakening necessary for total collapse to take plkace.

BUt look, anyone labelinga plane at 33 percent capacity as fully loasded?


Not worth fucking arguing with...

You are too fucking stupid and too fucking disingenuous to waste any more time on Rayzor, except to ridicule.

That is all you deserve.

You suck.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on January 05, 2018, 05:03:49 AM
What's wrong with you?
Take a deep breath and listen to some music to calm down.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bullwinkle on January 05, 2018, 05:59:15 AM
Quote from: User324 on January 05, 2018, 05:03:49 AM
What's wrong with you?
Take a deep breath and listen to some music to calm down.

He is Bubba Legbone. 'nuf said.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on January 05, 2018, 04:18:27 PM
Quote from: totallackey on January 05, 2018, 04:41:06 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on January 04, 2018, 02:38:10 PM
Quote from: totallackey on January 04, 2018, 08:54:13 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on January 04, 2018, 06:50:57 AM
The video that you refuse to watch shows exactly that.
Like I thought...

In your fucked up world, FULLY LOADED DOES NOT MEAN FULLY LOADED.

Fuck you, fuck everyone you hold dear.


LOL  You know you are sounding more like your asian girlfriend every day.

Quote from: totallackey on January 04, 2018, 08:54:13 AM
Ignore me from now on because not only do I WISH to be unrecognized by you from this point henceforth, I do not DESERVE to be recognized by you nor your kind.

I am far, far above you and your kind.

Verinage totally requires the weakening of the lower structure first...

Nope,  that's  three things wrong.    Why should I ignore you,  you are always good for a laugh.

Please cite a reference that says Verinage requires weakening of the lower structure.

In the case of the WTC1 and 2,  there was no need for the underlying structure to be weakened,  see Greenings paper.
I am going to write this as succinctly and as clearly as possible.

You can go fuck yourself, your sister, your brother, your cousin and anyone else I may have forgot.

You are a disgusting lying piece of filth who deserves zero recognition from me or any other person taking the time to post here.

I am done with you.

You lying sack of shit.

Fuck Greening and Bazant, as they are lying assholes...the videos you post demonstrate adequately enough the amount of weakening necessary for total collapse to take plkace.

BUt look, anyone labelinga plane at 33 percent capacity as fully loasded?


Not worth fucking arguing with...

You are too fucking stupid and too fucking disingenuous to waste any more time on Rayzor, except to ridicule.

That is all you deserve.

You suck.

Is that smoke I can see smoke coming out his ears?   

That's what happens when someone with low self control loses an argument.   That means you finally watched the video.   So now I can say

I told you so!

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on January 05, 2018, 07:03:16 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on January 05, 2018, 04:27:50 AM
Your only argument so far has been that a collapse through the path of greatest resistance is impossible,  that clearly is not true.  And if that's all you've got then you misunderstand the basic physics of energy transfer.

What questions do you think I'm dodging,  and, while you are at it,  point out where you think I've insulted you. 

Meantime,  why don't you state specific arguments as to why you disagree with Greenings analysis.  Please quote the exact section of the paper you disagree with.  I've been asking for over a week and you've run away every time.

It is simple...if a supports x and b supports y...if you have a failure in a, how can there be a complete failure in b?

This makes zero sense. Please explain
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on January 05, 2018, 08:35:05 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on January 05, 2018, 07:03:16 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on January 05, 2018, 04:27:50 AM
Your only argument so far has been that a collapse through the path of greatest resistance is impossible,  that clearly is not true.  And if that's all you've got then you misunderstand the basic physics of energy transfer.

What questions do you think I'm dodging,  and, while you are at it,  point out where you think I've insulted you. 

Meantime,  why don't you state specific arguments as to why you disagree with Greenings analysis.  Please quote the exact section of the paper you disagree with.  I've been asking for over a week and you've run away every time.

It is simple...if a supports x and b supports y...if you have a failure in a, how can there be a complete failure in b?

This makes zero sense. Please explain

I assume you mean the following.

(a) is the floor which was hit by the aircraft, and fires.
(x) represents the floors above (a)
(b) represents the floors below (a)

Not sure what (y) is?

But in any case the gravitational potential energy of the floors above (a)  is converted into kinetic energy after the failure of (a), that kinetic energy is greater than the energy required to crush one or more of the floors (b).  The collapse progresses down the building gaining momentum and energy as it goes.

Maybe you could draw a diagram to make your question clearer.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on January 05, 2018, 10:14:14 PM
BHS, your diagram will need to make sense to someone who believes that 33 + 58 = 200.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on January 05, 2018, 10:33:12 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on January 05, 2018, 08:35:05 PM
I assume you mean the following.

(a) is the floor which was hit by the aircraft, and fires.
(x) represents the floors above (a)
(b) represents the floors below (a)

Not sure what (y) is?

But in any case the gravitational potential energy of the floors above (a)  is converted into kinetic energy after the failure of (a), that kinetic energy is greater than the energy required to crush one or more of the floors (b).  The collapse progresses down the building gaining momentum and energy as it goes.

Maybe you could draw a diagram to make your question clearer.

I am out right now, can't make diagram on phone and out.

I understand what you are saying about stored kinetic energy...I am not disregarding that.

However, the floors had nothing to do with storing or controlling that energy. The exoskeleton and core was what handled that responsibility, the floors did not. They were responsible for sheer and rigidity of the building.

Also, the mass and rigidity of the structure was not static but dynamic. Especially below the 35th....there was barely room for the elevator shafts, there were actually less elevators than there should have been for this reason.

Below the 30th nothing was tubular but completely solid, almost a foot thick in some areas, reinforced with boxed skeletons...pretty nuts from an engineering perspective

Edit typo
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on January 05, 2018, 11:21:13 PM
Wow, this discussion keeps being very productive.
Perhaps 200 more pages and you guys find a solution (just kidding, you'd rather kill eachother than finding a solution).
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on January 05, 2018, 11:40:08 PM
Quote from: User324 on January 05, 2018, 11:21:13 PM
Wow, this discussion keeps being very productive.
Perhaps 200 more pages and you guys find a solution (just kidding, you'd rather kill eachother than finding a solution).

The day user actually adds something to a conversation is the day I buy a lottery ticket.

Fyi, there was nothing mean about my last reply to rayzor, a simple answer and question.

Please stop proving all the generalist right about your generation.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on January 06, 2018, 12:11:02 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on January 05, 2018, 11:40:08 PM
Quote from: User324 on January 05, 2018, 11:21:13 PM
Wow, this discussion keeps being very productive.
Perhaps 200 more pages and you guys find a solution (just kidding, you'd rather kill eachother than finding a solution).

The day user actually adds something to a conversation is the day I buy a lottery ticket.

Oh wow, so I guess you buy a lot of lottery tickets. Already won something?

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on January 05, 2018, 11:40:08 PM
Fyi, there was nothing mean about my last reply to rayzor, a simple answer and question.
I never claimed there was.
Unproductive discussion =/= mean answer

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on January 05, 2018, 11:40:08 PM
Please stop proving all the generalist right about your generation.
You don't even know in which generation I am, kiddo.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on January 06, 2018, 02:23:59 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on January 05, 2018, 10:33:12 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on January 05, 2018, 08:35:05 PM
I assume you mean the following.

(a) is the floor which was hit by the aircraft, and fires.
(x) represents the floors above (a)
(b) represents the floors below (a)

Not sure what (y) is?

But in any case the gravitational potential energy of the floors above (a)  is converted into kinetic energy after the failure of (a), that kinetic energy is greater than the energy required to crush one or more of the floors (b).  The collapse progresses down the building gaining momentum and energy as it goes.

Maybe you could draw a diagram to make your question clearer.

I am out right now, can't make diagram on phone and out.

I understand what you are saying about stored kinetic energy...I am not disregarding that.

However, the floors had nothing to do with storing or controlling that energy. The exoskeleton and core was what handled that responsibility, the floors did not. They were responsible for sheer and rigidity of the building.

Also, the mass and rigidity of the structure was not static but dynamic. Especially below the 35th....there was barely room for the elevator shafts, there were actually less elevators than there should have been for this reason.

Below the 30th nothing was tubular but completely solid, almost a foot thick in some areas, reinforced with boxed skeletons...pretty nuts from an engineering perspective

Edit typo

This has been covered pretty extensively over the years,  the tube in tube construction is great for creating large open floor space,  but it's a fatal design flaw. The floor to exterior joints aren't strong enough to withstand the weight of 10-20 floors above dropping on them.

You are right about the lower sections,  if the plane had hit lower down it probably would have bounced off.  Also the videos show the lower 30 or so floors of the central core still standing ( at least for a short time)  after the rest has come down.

But do a diagram showing your argument,  and why you think Greenings analysis is wrong.
 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on January 06, 2018, 04:58:28 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on January 05, 2018, 04:18:27 PM
Is that smoke I see rising from the heaping pile of dung I posted on the boards here?
Yes.
Quote from: Rayzor on January 05, 2018, 04:18:27 PM
That's what happens when I lose an argument. I post "fully loaded," 33 percent load + 58 percent load = 200 percent load for both planes, then when that is called out, simply write the other person is grasping at straws...

Yes, we all know, bitch...
Quote from: Rayzor on January 05, 2018, 04:18:27 PM
That means you finally watched the video.   So now I can say

I told you I had no argument and that I will go to my grave clutching non-scientific analysis close to my tiny little teats!
No shit, you lying c_ _ _...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on January 06, 2018, 07:32:53 AM
WTC 1 and 2 were architecturally and physically designed to withstand the impact force of a fully loaded 727-200, without collapsing.

Average speed of a 727-200 = 865km/h - 953km/h

Fully loaded 727-200 = 209,500 lbs.

Specs of the 767's impacting WTC 1 and 2

Average speed of 767 = 850km/h - 900km/h

Load of AA11 = 183,330 lbs

Load of UA175 = 103,290 lbs
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on January 06, 2018, 03:44:23 PM
Quote from: totallackey on January 06, 2018, 07:32:53 AM
WTC 1 and 2 were architecturally and physically designed to withstand the impact force of a fully loaded 727-200, without collapsing.

Average speed of a 727-200 = 865km/h - 953km/h

Fully loaded 727-200 = 209,500 lbs.

Specs of the 767's impacting WTC 1 and 2

Average speed of 767 = 850km/h - 900km/h

Load of AA11 = 183,330 lbs

Load of UA175 = 103,290 lbs

You got some things right,  but it wasn't designed for 727 impact, it was designed to withstand impact from the heaviest aircraft of the time which was a 707, but they don't say what speed of impact they designed for.

The design worked fine,  and both buildings stood for a fair while,  if it hadn't been for the fires, they might still be standing.

The weight of UA175 at impact was estimated to be about 283,600 lbs  and  travelling at 590 mph.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on January 06, 2018, 04:36:35 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on January 06, 2018, 02:23:59 AM
This has been covered pretty extensively over the years,  the tube in tube construction is great for creating large open floor space,  but it's a fatal design flaw. The floor to exterior joints aren't strong enough to withstand the weight of 10-20 floors above dropping on them.

You are right about the lower sections,  if the plane had hit lower down it probably would have bounced off.  Also the videos show the lower 30 or so floors of the central core still standing ( at least for a short time)  after the rest has come down.

But do a diagram showing your argument,  and why you think Greenings analysis is wrong.

With only a small overall percentage of the structure that is responsible for vertical compression being damaged how can the building collapse as we saw?

Also, how can the collapse speed be static when there is substantially more mass and rigidity on the lower floors, especially when we saw the tower basically "pulverize"...it was not carrying the mass with it.


We also keep talking about the floors, however, they were not responsible for vertical compression, only sheer, rigidity and holding whatever content per floor.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sokarul on January 06, 2018, 05:10:02 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on January 05, 2018, 12:12:55 AM
Quote from: sokarul on January 04, 2018, 06:32:30 PM
So now every floor in the towers had explosives? That seems different then saying some floors were vacant and could have had explosives.

No, where did I say this. Don't put words in my mouth if you have no other argument.

You said explosives were used. Then you just said if the top started falling it wouldn't collapse the floors below. So you see why I think you think every floor had explosives. Or is that if the tower fell from fire it can't collapse lower floors but if explosives were used, it can?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on January 06, 2018, 07:27:19 PM
Quote from: sokarul on January 06, 2018, 05:10:02 PM
You said explosives were used. Then you just said if the top started falling it wouldn't collapse the floors below. So you see why I think you think every floor had explosives. Or is that if the tower fell from fire it can't collapse lower floors but if explosives were used, it can?

I already answered this. The months of work and floor closures before the event would give people time to plant what they needed. I also believe parts of the structure was weakened during this time to minimize the need for alot of explosives. I have been back and forth on the possible use of thermite though possible. However, it's time is hard to control.

Though a combo of the three I see a large possibility. We still don't have a remote answer to what was at the impact site that looked like welding.

I believe they detonated many of the explosives during and directly before the plane impact. Then detonated explosives sporadically throughout rescue efforts, as much noise and chaos this would be the perfect time. This also fits witness statements of the explosions they heard.

The only way to get the towers to collapse as we saw would be to attack the lower levels and base. The rest is for theatrics.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on January 06, 2018, 07:28:57 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on January 06, 2018, 04:36:35 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on January 06, 2018, 02:23:59 AM
This has been covered pretty extensively over the years,  the tube in tube construction is great for creating large open floor space,  but it's a fatal design flaw. The floor to exterior joints aren't strong enough to withstand the weight of 10-20 floors above dropping on them.

You are right about the lower sections,  if the plane had hit lower down it probably would have bounced off.  Also the videos show the lower 30 or so floors of the central core still standing ( at least for a short time)  after the rest has come down.

But do a diagram showing your argument,  and why you think Greenings analysis is wrong.

With only a small overall percentage of the structure that is responsible for vertical compression being damaged how can the building collapse as we saw?

Also, how can the collapse speed be static when there is substantially more mass and rigidity on the lower floors, especially when we saw the tower basically "pulverize"...it was not carrying the mass with it.


We also keep talking about the floors, however, they were not responsible for vertical compression, only sheer, rigidity and holding whatever content per floor.

The fires only had to weaken the floor supports sufficiently for the connections to the outer tube to fail,  this is now an acknowledged weakness in the tube in tube design, the long floor spans give you plenty of open space,  but can be vulnerable to fire.

This was posted earlier in the thread,  but since it's relevant to the current discussion I'll repost it.

https://www.engineering.unsw.edu.au/civil-engineering/file/world-trade-center-and-how-it-collapsed

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on January 06, 2018, 07:47:40 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on January 06, 2018, 07:28:57 PM
The fires only had to weaken the floor supports sufficiently for the connections to the outer tube to fail,  this is now an acknowledged weakness in the tube in tube design, the long floor spans give you plenty of open space,  but can be vulnerable to fire.

This was posted earlier in the thread,  but since it's relevant to the current discussion I'll repost it.

https://www.engineering.unsw.edu.au/civil-engineering/file/world-trade-center-and-how-it-collapsed

It would need to do more than just weaken a portion of the floor to cause a full collapse of the entire floor itself, especially since the area that was hit was mostly empty, so there was little load on it.

I have never argued that a floor could have collapsed. My argument is how can a portion of the structure collapsing that had nothing to do with vertical compression cause a structure to collapse into it's own footprint? Especially at a static speed when the building's mass, density and rigitity was dynamic?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on January 06, 2018, 07:58:09 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on January 06, 2018, 07:47:40 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on January 06, 2018, 07:28:57 PM
The fires only had to weaken the floor supports sufficiently for the connections to the outer tube to fail,  this is now an acknowledged weakness in the tube in tube design, the long floor spans give you plenty of open space,  but can be vulnerable to fire.

This was posted earlier in the thread,  but since it's relevant to the current discussion I'll repost it.

https://www.engineering.unsw.edu.au/civil-engineering/file/world-trade-center-and-how-it-collapsed

It would need to do more than just weaken a portion of the floor to cause a full collapse of the entire floor itself, especially since the area that was hit was mostly empty, so there was little load on it.

I have never argued that a floor could have collapsed. My argument is how can a portion of the structure collapsing that had nothing to do with vertical compression cause a structure to collapse into it's own footprint?[b] Especially at a static speed when the building's mass, density and rigitity was dynamic?[/b]

Not sure I understand what you are getting at with the highlighted sentence? 

What do you mean "static speed"?   
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on January 06, 2018, 08:22:31 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on January 06, 2018, 07:58:09 PM
Not sure I understand what you are getting at with the highlighted sentence? 

What do you mean "static speed"?

The speed of collapse stayed the same as it went down. Even though it was not gaining mass as it made its way down as most was being "pulverized" and the lower levels mass, density and rigitity was many times over the upper areas.

Do you have any comment on the rest of the post?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on January 06, 2018, 08:51:04 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on January 06, 2018, 08:22:31 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on January 06, 2018, 07:58:09 PM
Not sure I understand what you are getting at with the highlighted sentence? 

What do you mean "static speed"?

The speed of collapse stayed the same as it went down. Even though it was not gaining mass as it made its way down as most was being "pulverized" and the lower levels mass, density and rigitity was many times over the upper areas.

Do you have any comment on the rest of the post?

The velocity of collapse wasn't constant,  it accelerated as the collapse progresses,  but slower that free fall velocities.

(https://s18.postimg.org/jjuy8vsu1/WTCCollapse_Times.jpg)

I agree that just weakening a portion of a floor wouldn't be sufficient to initiate collapse, that's why I mentioned the floor to outer column connections.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Twerp on January 06, 2018, 08:53:43 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on January 06, 2018, 08:51:04 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on January 06, 2018, 08:22:31 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on January 06, 2018, 07:58:09 PM
Not sure I understand what you are getting at with the highlighted sentence? 

What do you mean "static speed"?

The speed of collapse stayed the same as it went down. Even though it was not gaining mass as it made its way down as most was being "pulverized" and the lower levels mass, density and rigitity was many times over the upper areas.

Do you have any comment on the rest of the post?

The velocity of collapse wasn't constant,  it accelerated as the collapse progresses,  but slower that free fall velocities.

(https://s18.postimg.org/jjuy8vsu1/WTCCollapse_Times.jpg)

I agree that just weakening a portion of a floor wouldn't be sufficient to initiate collapse, that's why I mentioned the floor to outer column connections.

What are your thoughts on the fact that is was almost indistinguishable from free fall for two whole seconds?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on January 06, 2018, 09:08:49 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on January 06, 2018, 08:51:04 PM
The velocity of collapse wasn't constant,  it accelerated as the collapse progresses,  but slower that free fall velocities.

(https://s18.postimg.org/jjuy8vsu1/WTCCollapse_Times.jpg)

I agree that just weakening a portion of a floor wouldn't be sufficient to initiate collapse, that's why I mentioned the floor to outer column connections.

Almost indistinguishable from a free fall, especially for a structure falling through the path of least resistance.

From an engineering and physics perspective this doesn't make sense on a structure that was almost completely intact. This would be hard to do with a building prepped for demo and quite the accomplishment.

We also keep skipping over the fact the floors were not responsible for vertical compression. Even if you destroyed every floor, it would not produce what we saw visually. The structure would most certainly collapse, but it would topple in a cardinal direction.

How do you explain this?

We also don't have to look at engineering principal or physics...we can look at real life scenarios...we have plenty of examples of large fires in tall buildings as well as plane crashes into similar buildings as well.

Why was this one day so special and something happened 3 times in a row that has never happened before nor after? I don't believe in coincidences much, especially 3 in a row.

As judge judy would say "if it doesn't make sense it's not true"
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on January 06, 2018, 09:23:23 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on January 06, 2018, 09:08:49 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on January 06, 2018, 08:51:04 PM
The velocity of collapse wasn't constant,  it accelerated as the collapse progresses,  but slower that free fall velocities.

(https://s18.postimg.org/jjuy8vsu1/WTCCollapse_Times.jpg)

I agree that just weakening a portion of a floor wouldn't be sufficient to initiate collapse, that's why I mentioned the floor to outer column connections.

Almost indistinguishable from a free fall, especially for a structure falling through the path of least resistance.

From an engineering and physics perspective this doesn't make sense on a structure that was almost completely intact. This would be hard to do with a building prepped for demo and quite the accomplishment.

We also keep skipping over the fact the floors were not responsible for vertical compression. Even if you destroyed every floor, it would not produce what we saw visually. The structure would most certainly collapse, but it would topple in a cardinal direction.

How do you explain this?

We also don't have to look at engineering principal or physics...we can look at real life scenarios...we have plenty of examples of large fires in tall buildings as well as plane crashes into similar buildings as well.

Why was this one day so special and something happened 3 times in a row that has never happened before nor after? I don't believe in coincidences much, especially 3 in a row.

As judge judy would say "if it doesn't make sense it's not true"

Makes perfect sense to me.  The physics of the energy transfer is irrefutable,  and explains clearly why WTC2 fell first and faster that WTC1 even though it was hit second. 

I know a bit about fire, and fire control in high rise,  I see no evidence of explosive demolition. 

As to why it hasn't been seen before,  there haven't ever been other examples of 767 sized aircraft flying into skyscrapers. Particularly this type of tube in tube construction.  I'm willing to bet that no-one ever builds this type of construction for skyscrapers again.  Why would that be?
 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on January 06, 2018, 09:48:52 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on January 06, 2018, 09:23:23 PM
Makes perfect sense to me.  The physics of the energy transfer is irrefutable,  and explains clearly why WTC2 fell first and faster that WTC1 even though it was hit second. 

I know a bit about fire, and fire control in high rise,  I see no evidence of explosive demolition. 

As to why it hasn't been seen before,  there haven't ever been other examples of 767 sized aircraft flying into skyscrapers. Particularly this type of tube in tube construction.  I'm willing to bet that no-one ever builds this type of construction for skyscrapers again.  Why would that be?

I feel like I am beating a dead horse...either you are being intentionally​ obtuse or missing my question.

As simple as I can put it, how can the tower go straight down when all the support that keeps it from going straight down is still intact? The floors have nothing to do with keeping it from going down.

So how does this happen? How can said stored energy be transferred when the structure is intact?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on January 06, 2018, 10:46:46 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on January 06, 2018, 09:48:52 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on January 06, 2018, 09:23:23 PM
Makes perfect sense to me.  The physics of the energy transfer is irrefutable,  and explains clearly why WTC2 fell first and faster that WTC1 even though it was hit second. 

I know a bit about fire, and fire control in high rise,  I see no evidence of explosive demolition. 

As to why it hasn't been seen before,  there haven't ever been other examples of 767 sized aircraft flying into skyscrapers. Particularly this type of tube in tube construction.  I'm willing to bet that no-one ever builds this type of construction for skyscrapers again.  Why would that be?

I feel like I am beating a dead horse...either you are being intentionally​ obtuse or missing my question.

As simple as I can put it, how can the tower go straight down when all the support that keeps it from going straight down is still intact? The floors have nothing to do with keeping it from going down.

So how does this happen? How can said stored energy be transferred when the structure is intact?

No, I missed your question,  I thought it was obvious. 

let's take a simple example.   Imagine a wooden box.  I put a 300 lb anvil on top of the box,  it' sits there just fine, the box takes the static loads.
Ok now I lift up the anvil 20 ft,  and drop it on the box,  the box collapses, it can't handle the energy of the impact. 

If I know how much energy it takes to crush the box, I can calculate how high I have to lift the anvil to crush the box,   lifting it a small amount only gives the anvil a small amount of potential energy,  lifting it higher gives it more gravitational potential energy. 


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on January 06, 2018, 11:08:36 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on January 06, 2018, 03:44:23 PM
Quote from: totallackey on January 06, 2018, 07:32:53 AM
WTC 1 and 2 were architecturally and physically designed to withstand the impact force of a fully loaded 727-200, without collapsing.

Average speed of a 727-200 = 865km/h - 953km/h

Fully loaded 727-200 = 209,500 lbs.

Specs of the 767's impacting WTC 1 and 2

Average speed of 767 = 850km/h - 900km/h

Load of AA11 = 183,330 lbs

Load of UA175 = 103,290 lbs

You got some things right,  but it wasn't designed for 727 impact, it was designed to withstand impact from the heaviest aircraft of the time which was a 707, but they don't say what speed of impact they designed for.

The design worked fine,  and both buildings stood for a fair while,  if it hadn't been for the fires, they might still be standing.

The weight of UA175 at impact was estimated to be about 283,600 lbs  and  travelling at 590 mph.
"The flight was operated with a Boeing 767-200, registration number N612UA, built and delivered in 1983,[4] with capacity of 168 passengers. It had 168 seats (10 in first class, 32 in business class, and 126 in economy class). On the day of the attacks, the flight carried only 56 passengers and 9 crew members, which represented a 33 percent load factor — well below the average load factor of 49 percent in the three months preceding September 11.[5] The nine crew members included Captain Victor Saracini, First Officer Michael Horrocks, and flight attendants Robert Fangman, Amy Jarret, Amy King, Kathryn Laborie, Alfred Marchand, Michael Tarrou, and Alicia Titus.[6] Excluding the hijackers, the passengers on the flight included 35 men, 12 women, and three children who were all under the age of 5,[7] and included Garnet "Ace" Bailey, the director of pro scouting for the Los Angeles Kings and a former National Hockey League player. " - Wikipedia

Wikipedia states

MTOW of a Boeing 767-200 = 315,000 lbs

315,000 * .33 = 103,290 lbs
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on January 06, 2018, 11:15:30 PM
Quote from: totallackey on January 06, 2018, 11:08:36 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on January 06, 2018, 03:44:23 PM
Quote from: totallackey on January 06, 2018, 07:32:53 AM
WTC 1 and 2 were architecturally and physically designed to withstand the impact force of a fully loaded 727-200, without collapsing.

Average speed of a 727-200 = 865km/h - 953km/h

Fully loaded 727-200 = 209,500 lbs.

Specs of the 767's impacting WTC 1 and 2

Average speed of 767 = 850km/h - 900km/h

Load of AA11 = 183,330 lbs

Load of UA175 = 103,290 lbs

You got some things right,  but it wasn't designed for 727 impact, it was designed to withstand impact from the heaviest aircraft of the time which was a 707, but they don't say what speed of impact they designed for.

The design worked fine,  and both buildings stood for a fair while,  if it hadn't been for the fires, they might still be standing.

The weight of UA175 at impact was estimated to be about 283,600 lbs  and  travelling at 590 mph.
"The flight was operated with a Boeing 767-200, registration number N612UA, built and delivered in 1983,[4] with capacity of 168 passengers. It had 168 seats (10 in first class, 32 in business class, and 126 in economy class). On the day of the attacks, the flight carried only 56 passengers and 9 crew members, which represented a 33 percent load factor — well below the average load factor of 49 percent in the three months preceding September 11.[5] The nine crew members included Captain Victor Saracini, First Officer Michael Horrocks, and flight attendants Robert Fangman, Amy Jarret, Amy King, Kathryn Laborie, Alfred Marchand, Michael Tarrou, and Alicia Titus.[6] Excluding the hijackers, the passengers on the flight included 35 men, 12 women, and three children who were all under the age of 5,[7] and included Garnet "Ace" Bailey, the director of pro scouting for the Los Angeles Kings and a former National Hockey League player. " - Wikipedia

Wikipedia states

MTOW of a Boeing 767-200 = 315,000 lbs

315,000 * .33 = 103,290 lbs

You forgot to add the weight of the unloaded aircraft.   approx 177,000 lbs, depends on options and engine types fitted.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on January 06, 2018, 11:26:49 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on January 06, 2018, 11:15:30 PM
Quote from: totallackey on January 06, 2018, 11:08:36 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on January 06, 2018, 03:44:23 PM
Quote from: totallackey on January 06, 2018, 07:32:53 AM
WTC 1 and 2 were architecturally and physically designed to withstand the impact force of a fully loaded 727-200, without collapsing.

Average speed of a 727-200 = 865km/h - 953km/h

Fully loaded 727-200 = 209,500 lbs.

Specs of the 767's impacting WTC 1 and 2

Average speed of 767 = 850km/h - 900km/h

Load of AA11 = 183,330 lbs

Load of UA175 = 103,290 lbs

You got some things right,  but it wasn't designed for 727 impact, it was designed to withstand impact from the heaviest aircraft of the time which was a 707, but they don't say what speed of impact they designed for.

The design worked fine,  and both buildings stood for a fair while,  if it hadn't been for the fires, they might still be standing.

The weight of UA175 at impact was estimated to be about 283,600 lbs  and  travelling at 590 mph.
"The flight was operated with a Boeing 767-200, registration number N612UA, built and delivered in 1983,[4] with capacity of 168 passengers. It had 168 seats (10 in first class, 32 in business class, and 126 in economy class). On the day of the attacks, the flight carried only 56 passengers and 9 crew members, which represented a 33 percent load factor — well below the average load factor of 49 percent in the three months preceding September 11.[5] The nine crew members included Captain Victor Saracini, First Officer Michael Horrocks, and flight attendants Robert Fangman, Amy Jarret, Amy King, Kathryn Laborie, Alfred Marchand, Michael Tarrou, and Alicia Titus.[6] Excluding the hijackers, the passengers on the flight included 35 men, 12 women, and three children who were all under the age of 5,[7] and included Garnet "Ace" Bailey, the director of pro scouting for the Los Angeles Kings and a former National Hockey League player. " - Wikipedia

Wikipedia states

MTOW of a Boeing 767-200 = 315,000 lbs

315,000 * .33 = 103,290 lbs

You forgot to add the weight of the unloaded aircraft.   approx 177,000 lbs, depends on options and engine types fitted.
MTOW already includes aircraft weight (Fuel, passengers,luggage, etc.)

You do not go back and add that weight back in...

UA175 was a 767-200.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on January 06, 2018, 11:30:08 PM
Quote from: totallackey on January 06, 2018, 11:26:49 PM

MTOW already includes aircraft weight (Fuel, passengers,luggage, etc.)

You do not go back and add that weight back in...

UA175 was a 767-200.
I don't think loading percentage refers to the plane weight.
If I had to make a guess, I'd say it's about the total payload.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/af/Takeoff_weight_diagram.svg/400px-Takeoff_weight_diagram.svg.png)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on January 06, 2018, 11:43:42 PM
Quote from: totallackey on January 06, 2018, 11:26:49 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on January 06, 2018, 11:15:30 PM
Quote from: totallackey on January 06, 2018, 11:08:36 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on January 06, 2018, 03:44:23 PM
Quote from: totallackey on January 06, 2018, 07:32:53 AM
WTC 1 and 2 were architecturally and physically designed to withstand the impact force of a fully loaded 727-200, without collapsing.

Average speed of a 727-200 = 865km/h - 953km/h

Fully loaded 727-200 = 209,500 lbs.

Specs of the 767's impacting WTC 1 and 2

Average speed of 767 = 850km/h - 900km/h

Load of AA11 = 183,330 lbs

Load of UA175 = 103,290 lbs

You got some things right,  but it wasn't designed for 727 impact, it was designed to withstand impact from the heaviest aircraft of the time which was a 707, but they don't say what speed of impact they designed for.

The design worked fine,  and both buildings stood for a fair while,  if it hadn't been for the fires, they might still be standing.

The weight of UA175 at impact was estimated to be about 283,600 lbs  and  travelling at 590 mph.
"The flight was operated with a Boeing 767-200, registration number N612UA, built and delivered in 1983,[4] with capacity of 168 passengers. It had 168 seats (10 in first class, 32 in business class, and 126 in economy class). On the day of the attacks, the flight carried only 56 passengers and 9 crew members, which represented a 33 percent load factor — well below the average load factor of 49 percent in the three months preceding September 11.[5] The nine crew members included Captain Victor Saracini, First Officer Michael Horrocks, and flight attendants Robert Fangman, Amy Jarret, Amy King, Kathryn Laborie, Alfred Marchand, Michael Tarrou, and Alicia Titus.[6] Excluding the hijackers, the passengers on the flight included 35 men, 12 women, and three children who were all under the age of 5,[7] and included Garnet "Ace" Bailey, the director of pro scouting for the Los Angeles Kings and a former National Hockey League player. " - Wikipedia

Wikipedia states

MTOW of a Boeing 767-200 = 315,000 lbs

315,000 * .33 = 103,290 lbs

You forgot to add the weight of the unloaded aircraft.   approx 177,000 lbs, depends on options and engine types fitted.
MTOW already includes aircraft weight (Fuel, passengers,luggage, etc.)

You do not go back and add that weight back in...

UA175 was a 767-200.

Nope.  that's not how you calculate it. 

The load factor you are quoting is passenger numbers, you can't apply that percentage to the MTOW,  you are ignoring the fuel load, and the unloaded weight as well as crew and luggage.

The way you are calculating it would mean that the plane would weigh nothing if there were no passengers.

The 33% you are using incorrectly is just passenger numbers, it comes from the fact that only 56 passengers were on board out of a possible 168.

To calculate it correctly,  you need to start with the unloaded weight,  177,000 + fuel load + passengers + crew + luggage

The impact weight of UA175 is estimated to be around 286,000 lbs.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on January 06, 2018, 11:46:09 PM
Quote from: User324 on January 06, 2018, 11:30:08 PM
If I had to make a guess, I'd say it's about the total payload.

Just passenger numbers,  56/168 =  0.33
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on January 07, 2018, 12:40:20 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on January 06, 2018, 11:43:42 PM
The impact weight of UA175 is estimated to be around 286,000 lbs.
Source?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on January 07, 2018, 12:41:44 AM
Quote from: totallackey on January 07, 2018, 12:40:20 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on January 06, 2018, 11:43:42 PM
The impact weight of UA175 is estimated to be around 286,000 lbs.
Source?
Just deal with it, you were, once again, totally wrong.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on January 07, 2018, 12:54:14 AM
Quote from: User324 on January 07, 2018, 12:41:44 AM
Quote from: totallackey on January 07, 2018, 12:40:20 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on January 06, 2018, 11:43:42 PM
The impact weight of UA175 is estimated to be around 286,000 lbs.
Source?
Just deal with it, you were, once again, totally wrong.
Not hardly.

Rayzor is playing his lying sack of shit games with words...

Maximum Take off Weight is the chart you posted above.

That includes the plane, passengers, crew, fuel, luggage, the whole ball of wax...otherwise known as LOAD!

UA175 was at THIRTY-THREE PERCENT LOAD CAPACITY, meaning 33 percent of the passengers also translates to thirty three percent of the luggage.

You just go back to sucking dick in the corner.

NGAF about you, NEHGAF about you, NEWGAF about you.

I know that is a hard reality to come to terms with, but somebody has to be honest with you and give you the facts...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on January 07, 2018, 01:16:30 AM
Quote from: totallackey on January 07, 2018, 12:54:14 AM
Quote from: User324 on January 07, 2018, 12:41:44 AM
Quote from: totallackey on January 07, 2018, 12:40:20 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on January 06, 2018, 11:43:42 PM
The impact weight of UA175 is estimated to be around 286,000 lbs.
Source?
Just deal with it, you were, once again, totally wrong.
Not hardly.

Rayzor is playing his lying sack of shit games with words...

Maximum Take off Weight is the chart you posted above.

That includes the plane, passengers, crew, fuel, luggage, the whole ball of wax...otherwise known as LOAD!

UA175 was at THIRTY-THREE PERCENT LOAD CAPACITY, meaning 33 percent of the passengers also translates to thirty three percent of the luggage.

You just go back to sucking dick in the corner.

NGAF about you, NEHGAF about you, NEWGAF about you.

I know that is a hard reality to come to terms with, but somebody has to be honest with you and give you the facts...
So you were both wrong, but you were off by FAR MORE thinking 33% refers to the total take off weight.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on January 07, 2018, 02:14:01 AM
Quote from: totallackey on January 07, 2018, 12:40:20 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on January 06, 2018, 11:43:42 PM
The impact weight of UA175 is estimated to be around 286,000 lbs.
Source?

Various places,  here's one,

Quote from: http://metaljeeper.wixsite.com/global-facts/united-airlines-flight-175
Velocity = speed + direction
Momentum = mass x velocity   (amount of resistance needed to stop an object in motion)
Force = mass x acceleration
 
Science is pretty cool, isn’t it?
UA 175 (weight 286.000 lbs ie. .. 286 tons) collides with WTC 2 (weight 5.000.000 lbs ie. 500.000 tons) at 500 mph.
The building core didn’t shatter during impact, but it was violently hit, sending an oscillation through the building like you would experience with a tuning fork. Together with the momentum and the release of the kinetic energy from the initial impact, the top of the building oscillated upward, and downward. But it was only seen at the top of the building.
The aircraft mass of 286.000 lbs travelling at 500 mph and colliding with a motionless building weighing 5.000.000 lbs will create so much force, that the kinetic energy released through the momentum caused is enough to create extensive damage.
In fact, had that center structure not been there, I think the aircraft would have cut right through the building entirely and ended up in WTC 5 and 7. However, UA 175 did NOT cut the center structure in half. But it probably weakened it greatly.
All this tells us is that the heavy aircraft (people tend to focus on the material it was built from) collided at high speed with a motionless object, and the massive kinetic energy released did a whole lot of damage to the aircraft and the building.
In no way was it enough to bring the building down, but it DID weaken the interior structure enough to at least order an evacuation of the building.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on January 07, 2018, 02:15:04 AM
Quote from: User324 on January 07, 2018, 01:16:30 AM
Quote from: totallackey on January 07, 2018, 12:54:14 AM
Quote from: User324 on January 07, 2018, 12:41:44 AM
Quote from: totallackey on January 07, 2018, 12:40:20 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on January 06, 2018, 11:43:42 PM
The impact weight of UA175 is estimated to be around 286,000 lbs.
Source?
Just deal with it, you were, once again, totally wrong.
Not hardly.

Rayzor is playing his lying sack of shit games with words...

Maximum Take off Weight is the chart you posted above.

That includes the plane, passengers, crew, fuel, luggage, the whole ball of wax...otherwise known as LOAD!

UA175 was at THIRTY-THREE PERCENT LOAD CAPACITY, meaning 33 percent of the passengers also translates to thirty three percent of the luggage.

You just go back to sucking dick in the corner.

NGAF about you, NEHGAF about you, NEWGAF about you.

I know that is a hard reality to come to terms with, but somebody has to be honest with you and give you the facts...
So you were both wrong, but you were off by FAR MORE thinking 33% refers to the total take off weight.

Hey I object,  where was I wrong?   
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on January 07, 2018, 02:17:19 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on January 07, 2018, 02:15:04 AM
Quote from: User324 on January 07, 2018, 01:16:30 AM
Quote from: totallackey on January 07, 2018, 12:54:14 AM
Quote from: User324 on January 07, 2018, 12:41:44 AM
Quote from: totallackey on January 07, 2018, 12:40:20 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on January 06, 2018, 11:43:42 PM
The impact weight of UA175 is estimated to be around 286,000 lbs.
Source?
Just deal with it, you were, once again, totally wrong.
Not hardly.

Rayzor is playing his lying sack of shit games with words...

Maximum Take off Weight is the chart you posted above.

That includes the plane, passengers, crew, fuel, luggage, the whole ball of wax...otherwise known as LOAD!

UA175 was at THIRTY-THREE PERCENT LOAD CAPACITY, meaning 33 percent of the passengers also translates to thirty three percent of the luggage.

You just go back to sucking dick in the corner.

NGAF about you, NEHGAF about you, NEWGAF about you.

I know that is a hard reality to come to terms with, but somebody has to be honest with you and give you the facts...
So you were both wrong, but you were off by FAR MORE thinking 33% refers to the total take off weight.

Hey I object,  where was I wrong?
I think you said 'fully loaded', when it wasn't (33% of passenger capacity =/= fully loaded).
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on January 07, 2018, 02:23:05 AM
Quote from: User324 on January 07, 2018, 02:17:19 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on January 07, 2018, 02:15:04 AM
Quote from: User324 on January 07, 2018, 01:16:30 AM
Quote from: totallackey on January 07, 2018, 12:54:14 AM
Quote from: User324 on January 07, 2018, 12:41:44 AM
Quote from: totallackey on January 07, 2018, 12:40:20 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on January 06, 2018, 11:43:42 PM
The impact weight of UA175 is estimated to be around 286,000 lbs.
Source?
Just deal with it, you were, once again, totally wrong.
Not hardly.

Rayzor is playing his lying sack of shit games with words...

Maximum Take off Weight is the chart you posted above.

That includes the plane, passengers, crew, fuel, luggage, the whole ball of wax...otherwise known as LOAD!

UA175 was at THIRTY-THREE PERCENT LOAD CAPACITY, meaning 33 percent of the passengers also translates to thirty three percent of the luggage.

You just go back to sucking dick in the corner.

NGAF about you, NEHGAF about you, NEWGAF about you.

I know that is a hard reality to come to terms with, but somebody has to be honest with you and give you the facts...
So you were both wrong, but you were off by FAR MORE thinking 33% refers to the total take off weight.

Hey I object,  where was I wrong?
I think you said 'fully loaded', when it wasn't (33% of passenger capacity =/= fully loaded).

Nope, that confused totallackey as well, I was referring to the fuel load, and the fact that the hijackers deliberately chose long distance flights with high fuel loads, in this case both flights were Boston to LA. 

Airlines are very particular about the amount of fuel they carry, it directly impacts the operating cost. Short haul flights generally have lower fuel loads.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on January 07, 2018, 03:13:06 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on January 07, 2018, 02:14:01 AM
Quote from: totallackey on January 07, 2018, 12:40:20 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on January 06, 2018, 11:43:42 PM
The impact weight of UA175 is estimated to be around 286,000 lbs.
Source?

Various places,  here's one,

Quote from: http://metaljeeper.wixsite.com/global-facts/united-airlines-flight-175
Velocity = speed + direction
Momentum = mass x velocity   (amount of resistance needed to stop an object in motion)
Force = mass x acceleration
 
Science is pretty cool, isn’t it?
UA 175 (weight 286.000 lbs ie. .. 286 tons) collides with WTC 2 (weight 5.000.000 lbs ie. 500.000 tons) at 500 mph.
The building core didn’t shatter during impact, but it was violently hit, sending an oscillation through the building like you would experience with a tuning fork. Together with the momentum and the release of the kinetic energy from the initial impact, the top of the building oscillated upward, and downward. But it was only seen at the top of the building.
The aircraft mass of 286.000 lbs travelling at 500 mph and colliding with a motionless building weighing 5.000.000 lbs will create so much force, that the kinetic energy released through the momentum caused is enough to create extensive damage.
In fact, had that center structure not been there, I think the aircraft would have cut right through the building entirely and ended up in WTC 5 and 7. However, UA 175 did NOT cut the center structure in half. But it probably weakened it greatly.
All this tells us is that the heavy aircraft (people tend to focus on the material it was built from) collided at high speed with a motionless object, and the massive kinetic energy released did a whole lot of damage to the aircraft and the building.
In no way was it enough to bring the building down, but it DID weaken the interior structure enough to at least order an evacuation of the building.

Here's another,  http://www.us-jpri.org/pdf/en/tsukuba_20150930.pdf

From page 5,  The estimated weight at impact is  112.5 tons aircraft + 30 tons fuel  = 142.5 tons.    142.5 * 2000 = 285,000 lbs


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: totallackey on January 07, 2018, 08:49:53 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on January 07, 2018, 02:23:05 AM
Nope, that confused totallackey as well, I was referring to the fuel load, and the fact that the hijackers deliberately chose long distance flights with high fuel loads, in this case both flights were Boston to LA, YET NOWHERE IN THE ORIGINAL POST DID I INDICATE I WAS ONLY REFERRING TO THE FUEL LOAD.

ALLOW ME TO POST THIS MEANINGLESS TIDBIT OF INFORMATION...Airlines are very particular about the amount of fuel they carry, it directly impacts the operating cost. Short haul flights generally have lower fuel loads.
I fixed that heaping pile of dung shit for you, you lying little bitch...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on January 07, 2018, 08:56:45 AM
Quote from: totallackey on January 07, 2018, 08:49:53 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on January 07, 2018, 02:23:05 AM
Nope, that confused totallackey as well, I was referring to the fuel load, and the fact that the hijackers deliberately chose long distance flights with high fuel loads, in this case both flights were Boston to LA, YET NOWHERE IN THE ORIGINAL POST DID I INDICATE I WAS ONLY REFERRING TO THE FUEL LOAD.

ALLOW ME TO POST THIS MEANINGLESS TIDBIT OF INFORMATION...Airlines are very particular about the amount of fuel they carry, it directly impacts the operating cost. Short haul flights generally have lower fuel loads.
I fixed that heaping pile of dung shit for you, you lying little bitch...
So that's how you deal with being wrong.
Pathetic.
If I were moderation, I'd give you at least 1 month off time.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sokarul on January 07, 2018, 02:37:51 PM
What do you mean? You know if a plane weights 177,000 pounds empty, with only 33 percent of max passengers it weighs even less at 100,000 pounds.  Durrr
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on January 07, 2018, 04:22:35 PM
Quote from: sokarul on January 07, 2018, 02:37:51 PM
What do you mean? You know if a plane weights 177,000 pounds empty, with only 33 percent of max passengers it weighs even less at 100,000 pounds.  Durrr

LOL,  Zero passengers and it would be weightless. 

He's always making simple mistakes and then going bat shit crazy when he realizes.   Must be a real problem in other areas of his life.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on January 08, 2018, 07:36:01 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on January 06, 2018, 10:46:46 PM
No, I missed your question,  I thought it was obvious. 

let's take a simple example.   Imagine a wooden box.  I put a 300 lb anvil on top of the box,  it' sits there just fine, the box takes the static loads.
Ok now I lift up the anvil 20 ft,  and drop it on the box,  the box collapses, it can't handle the energy of the impact. 

If I know how much energy it takes to crush the box, I can calculate how high I have to lift the anvil to crush the box,   lifting it a small amount only gives the anvil a small amount of potential energy,  lifting it higher gives it more gravitational potential energy.

Yes, again I firmly understand velocity and stored gravitational​ energy... however, the point keeps being missed...the part of the structure that controlled that was intact.

So how did this happen?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on January 08, 2018, 07:38:39 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on January 08, 2018, 07:36:01 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on January 06, 2018, 10:46:46 PM
No, I missed your question,  I thought it was obvious. 

let's take a simple example.   Imagine a wooden box.  I put a 300 lb anvil on top of the box,  it' sits there just fine, the box takes the static loads.
Ok now I lift up the anvil 20 ft,  and drop it on the box,  the box collapses, it can't handle the energy of the impact. 

If I know how much energy it takes to crush the box, I can calculate how high I have to lift the anvil to crush the box,   lifting it a small amount only gives the anvil a small amount of potential energy,  lifting it higher gives it more gravitational potential energy.

Yes, again I firmly understand velocity and stored gravitational​ energy... however, the point keeps being missed...the part of the structure that controlled that was intact.

So how did this happen?

Sorry, I don't understand,  what part of the structure are you saying was intact?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on January 08, 2018, 08:32:38 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on January 08, 2018, 07:38:39 PM
Sorry, I don't understand,  what part of the structure are you saying was intact?

The core and exoskeleton.

The official story speaks of floors collapsing, but those did not deal with the vertical load. We would need to remove a large amount of the vertical support to get a "pulverizing" collapse into it's own footprint.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on January 08, 2018, 09:01:15 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on January 08, 2018, 08:32:38 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on January 08, 2018, 07:38:39 PM
Sorry, I don't understand,  what part of the structure are you saying was intact?

The core and exoskeleton.

The official story speaks of floors collapsing, but those did not deal with the vertical load. We would need to remove a large amount of the vertical support to get a "pulverizing" collapse into it's own footprint.

That's the question that Greening's paper sets out to answer,  how much energy is required to pulverize a floor.  Turns out that it's a small fraction of the total kinetic energy impact of the floors above. 

You don't need to remove any of the vertical support, it just can't take the impact energy.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on January 09, 2018, 01:26:47 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on January 08, 2018, 09:01:15 PM
That's the question that Greening's paper sets out to answer,  how much energy is required to pulverize a floor.  Turns out that it's a small fraction of the total kinetic energy impact of the floors above. 

You don't need to remove any of the vertical support, it just can't take the impact energy.

His paper was a math exercise, it does not work in reality with the design of the building.

It does matter the condition of the vertical supports as that is the main factor of determining how a structure will fall. Especially if you want it to go through the path of greatest resistance (it's own footprint)...

Take your box example....let's say it's 10 feet wide 10 feet long and 20 feet high. Let's say this 20 foot tall box has "floors" spaced every 2 feet. Let's drop a 50k pound weight from 5 feet above the top that is a square foot in size dead center of this box..

The weight will plow through the top and floors all the way to the bottom, however, your structure will still stand.

Take this same test with the same weight, but have it be 10 by 10...it will crush the structure and cause a collapse for the most part into it's own footprint. However, even then, the weight would not be able to collapse the box to the ground and would be bucked off to the side once all the material of the box forms enough density to resist the weight enough to change it's decent direction.


What happened to the towers is a good example of the first example...so it absolutely does matter if the vertical supporting mechanism is intact in this situation. This is also why floors collapsing could not cause what we saw on video. It goes against engineering and physics principals.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on January 09, 2018, 02:06:13 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on January 09, 2018, 01:26:47 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on January 08, 2018, 09:01:15 PM
That's the question that Greening's paper sets out to answer,  how much energy is required to pulverize a floor.  Turns out that it's a small fraction of the total kinetic energy impact of the floors above. 

You don't need to remove any of the vertical support, it just can't take the impact energy.

His paper was a math exercise, it does not work in reality with the design of the building.

It does matter the condition of the vertical supports as that is the main factor of determining how a structure will fall. Especially if you want it to go through the path of greatest resistance (it's own footprint)...

Take your box example....let's say it's 10 feet wide 10 feet long and 20 feet high. Let's say this 20 foot tall box has "floors" spaced every 2 feet. Let's drop a 50k pound weight from 5 feet above the top that is a square foot in size dead center of this box..

The weight will plow through the top and floors all the way to the bottom, however, your structure will still stand.

Take this same test with the same weight, but have it be 10 by 10...it will crush the structure and cause a collapse for the most part into it's own footprint. However, even then, the weight would not be able to collapse the box to the ground and would be bucked off to the side once all the material of the box forms enough density to resist the weight enough to change it's decent direction.


What happened to the towers is a good example of the first example...so it absolutely does matter if the vertical supporting mechanism is intact in this situation. This is also why floors collapsing could not cause what we saw on video. It goes against engineering and physics principals.

What's going to keep the exterior columns in place once the top truss has gone and the connections to the inner core ( the floor beams ) collapse?

They come down with the rest of the structure, there's nothing to stop it.

As for tilting,  I don't think they both came straight down,  one tilted significantly,  but it's hard to pick through the debris cloud.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 09, 2018, 01:56:05 AM
Got motivated again on this thread for the time being...

Now, where we left off...

Quote from: Rayzor on January 09, 2018, 02:06:13 AM
What's going to keep the exterior columns in place once the top truss has gone and the connections to the inner core ( the floor beams ) collapse?

They come down with the rest of the structure, there's nothing to stop it.

As for tilting,  I don't think they both came straight down,  one tilted significantly,  but it's hard to pick through the debris cloud.

Well my box example, if you took the first box with only a cross brace/lid on the top, it would topple or be in danger of toppling. Honestly a lid would make little difference.

However, in attempts to answer your question I believe you are asking...what would happen say on tower one if you removed all the floors and you just had the core and exoskeleton standing?

Simple, it would topple in a cardinal direction, like cutting down a tree. Not from the base, but from one of the lower floors..estimates without a model, I would put an educated guess around the 10th floor give or take.

It certainly would not go straight down, that would be it's direction of greatest strength (path of greatest resistance), especially with the floors removed as that would be a great deal of mass gone.

In a mathematical exercise, it is plausible the core and exoskeleton could stand alone and separated without the floors on a day with zero wind....though it would be iffy, as the floors removed yes it takes away it's sheer resistance, but the mass removed actually deletes a ton of stability as well as throwing off the CG of the base. Downward directed mass and base CG are the two greatest allies keeping high rises from turning to falling disasters.

However, long story short, not down...fall like tree.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Heiwa on February 09, 2018, 02:17:18 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 09, 2018, 01:56:05 AM
Got motivated again on this thread for the time being...

Now, where we left off...

Quote from: Rayzor on January 09, 2018, 02:06:13 AM
What's going to keep the exterior columns in place once the top truss has gone and the connections to the inner core ( the floor beams ) collapse?

They come down with the rest of the structure, there's nothing to stop it.

As for tilting,  I don't think they both came straight down,  one tilted significantly,  but it's hard to pick through the debris cloud.

Well my box example, if you took the first box with only a cross brace/lid on the top, it would topple or be in danger of toppling. Honestly a lid would make little difference.

However, in attempts to answer your question I believe you are asking...what would happen say on tower one if you removed all the floors and you just had the core and exoskeleton standing?

Simple, it would topple in a cardinal direction, like cutting down a tree. Not from the base, but from one of the lower floors..estimates without a model, I would put an educated guess around the 10th floor give or take.

It certainly would not go straight down, that would be it's direction of greatest strength (path of greatest resistance), especially with the floors removed as that would be a great deal of mass gone.

In a mathematical exercise, it is plausible the core and exoskeleton could stand alone and separated without the floors on a day with zero wind....though it would be iffy, as the floors removed yes it takes away it's sheer resistance, but the mass removed actually deletes a ton of stability as well as throwing off the CG of the base. Downward directed mass and base CG are the two greatest allies keeping high rises from turning to falling disasters.

However, long story short, not down...fall like tree.

Thanks for an intelligent post. I know that in USA, when cutting down a tree at the base, the tree falls down by gravity and it becomes dust ... POUFF, POUFF, POUFF in contact with something.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 09, 2018, 02:19:55 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on February 09, 2018, 02:17:18 AM
in USA, when cutting down a tree at the base, the tree falls down by gravity and it becomes dust ... POUFF, POUFF, POUFF in contact with something.

A loggers worst nightmare
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 09, 2018, 03:14:10 AM
Great for the sawdust industry however.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on February 09, 2018, 03:15:55 AM
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-3Igm__G1Nsc/VInhe6_80yI/AAAAAAAAjCw/Ze05zw05-ik/s1600/it's%2Bpopcorn%2Btime.jpg)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on February 11, 2018, 11:33:38 PM
I am making a mistake getting on to this thread. I have real work to do . . .

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 09, 2018, 01:56:05 AM
Well my box example, if you took the first box with only a cross brace/lid on the top, it would topple or be in danger of toppling. Honestly a lid would make little difference.

However, in attempts to answer your question I believe you are asking...what would happen say on tower one if you removed all the floors and you just had the core and exoskeleton standing?

Simple, it would topple in a cardinal direction, like cutting down a tree. Not from the base, but from one of the lower floors..estimates without a model, I would put an educated guess around the 10th floor give or take.

It certainly would not go straight down, that would be it's direction of greatest strength (path of greatest resistance), especially with the floors removed as that would be a great deal of mass gone.

In a mathematical exercise, it is plausible the core and exoskeleton could stand alone and separated without the floors on a day with zero wind....though it would be iffy, as the floors removed yes it takes away it's sheer resistance, but the mass removed actually deletes a ton of stability as well as throwing off the CG of the base. Downward directed mass and base CG are the two greatest allies keeping high rises from turning to falling disasters.

However, long story short, not down...fall like tree.

That would be incorrect.
I seem to be reading many analogies for the tower, like trees and boxes to help recreate an image for how it fell. But I feel that these analogies also may lead you astray. Unfortunately we build our intuition from the things we know (like falling trees) but when things are not trees, that intuition may be wrong.

If we are talking about building 10, with an external load bearing structure and you removed the internal floors. the building will twist around a central vertical axis. Shortly after this happens, the loads of the building are no longer running right down the columns, but off centre to each of them. This will cause the columns to twist and buckle, and the building will fall right down. Columns are terrible in dealing with twisting, especially if they where only designed to take vertical loads, as most would be.

If you want to imagine WTC 10 building, imagine building a toothpick tower loaded on every level.

All said and done, this is not how WTC 10 fell. And WTC 1 & 2 had a central core where WTC did not.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Papa Legba on February 12, 2018, 12:15:17 AM
Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on February 11, 2018, 11:33:38 PM
I am making a mistake getting on to this thread. I have real work to do . . .

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 09, 2018, 01:56:05 AM
Well my box example, if you took the first box with only a cross brace/lid on the top, it would topple or be in danger of toppling. Honestly a lid would make little difference.

However, in attempts to answer your question I believe you are asking...what would happen say on tower one if you removed all the floors and you just had the core and exoskeleton standing?

Simple, it would topple in a cardinal direction, like cutting down a tree. Not from the base, but from one of the lower floors..estimates without a model, I would put an educated guess around the 10th floor give or take.

It certainly would not go straight down, that would be it's direction of greatest strength (path of greatest resistance), especially with the floors removed as that would be a great deal of mass gone.

In a mathematical exercise, it is plausible the core and exoskeleton could stand alone and separated without the floors on a day with zero wind....though it would be iffy, as the floors removed yes it takes away it's sheer resistance, but the mass removed actually deletes a ton of stability as well as throwing off the CG of the base. Downward directed mass and base CG are the two greatest allies keeping high rises from turning to falling disasters.

However, long story short, not down...fall like tree.

That would be incorrect.
I seem to be reading many analogies for the tower, like trees and boxes to help recreate an image for how it fell. But I feel that these analogies also may lead you astray. Unfortunately we build our intuition from the things we know (like falling trees) but when things are not trees, that intuition may be wrong.

If we are talking about building 10, with an external load bearing structure and you removed the internal floors. the building will twist around a central vertical axis. Shortly after this happens, the loads of the building are no longer running right down the columns, but off centre to each of them. This will cause the columns to twist and buckle, and the building will fall right down. Columns are terrible in dealing with twisting, especially if they where only designed to take vertical loads, as most would be.

If you want to imagine WTC 10 building, imagine building a toothpick tower loaded on every level.

All said and done, this is not how WTC 10 fell. And WTC 1 & 2 had a central core where WTC did not.

Good example of deep learning AI algorithm post.

Sounds reasonable and informed, but when examined closely is found to be total nonsense, concerning a building (WTC 10) that never even existed.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 12, 2018, 12:44:19 AM
Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on February 11, 2018, 11:33:38 PM
That would be incorrect.
I seem to be reading many analogies for the tower, like trees and boxes to help recreate an image for how it fell. But I feel that these analogies also may lead you astray. Unfortunately we build our intuition from the things we know (like falling trees) but when things are not trees, that intuition may be wrong.

If we are talking about building 10, with an external load bearing structure and you removed the internal floors. the building will twist around a central vertical axis. Shortly after this happens, the loads of the building are no longer running right down the columns, but off centre to each of them. This will cause the columns to twist and buckle, and the building will fall right down. Columns are terrible in dealing with twisting, especially if they where only designed to take vertical loads, as most would be.

If you want to imagine WTC 10 building, imagine building a toothpick tower loaded on every level.

All said and done, this is not how WTC 10 fell. And WTC 1 & 2 had a central core where WTC did not.

I am trying not to say anything about "building 10"...at first I thought it was a typo, but you keep speaking about it so what are you talking about?

In attempts to converse with you, first of all you need to read multiple posts from me to understand the box analogy Rayzor was speaking about. However, let's forget the box, let's go to tower one and compare what you described.

First off, I am not comparing the towers to a tree because that is how I see it, I use it as an example for those that do not understand structural dynamics and theory...it is an easy thing to compare to.

In your more complex approach, I will further explain myself. Again, using tower one, let's assume we removed all the floors magically and we have just the core and exoskeleton standing. Of course this would take a miracle to stand for even a brief time, even saying we have zero wind, not even molecules movement...zero sheer from base displacement etc etc...let's say we hit the .01 percent we have the core and exoskeleton standing separate of each other. How would it fall when it inevitably collapses.

Theory says the core would collapse first, it would fall into the exoskeleton causing it to collapse. Doesn't really matter as both would have the same epicenter of failure. As I said around the 10th floor give or take as that is the central convergence for mass, density and rigitity...I would need to actually make a model to give a more accurate measure, but off the cuff the 10th ish is fairly close.

At this area, once it succumbed to shear it would buckle, twist and bend in a cardinal direction. As soon as the area buckled the remaining structure above would come chasing down at a downward slightly angled approach. As it faced the resistance of the structure below the buckled area and ground, the remaining structure would partially be destroyed close to the structure's base, as the rest went to the Cardinal direction of the original epicenter of the buckle...It would fall outwards, downward in a slightly twisted fashion.

So by tree I don't completely mean timber like a tree...it would resemble a tree to an untrained eye. If you want to get more accurate, considering the epicenter of the original failure here should be about 180-200 feet up the structure, we would have about 1500 feet ish of remaining structure to collapse....your radius of impact would be about 800-900 feet from the base.

Certainly not a clean timber of a tree.... however​, it certainly is not collapsing into it's own footprint like we saw. Tower 7 is a different design so different discussion, as well as a different supposed mode of failure. It is equally as far fetched though.

I hope this clears up my original elementary representation in attempts to avoid a TL;DR
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on February 12, 2018, 01:34:08 AM
Quote
I am trying not to say anything about "building 10"...at first I thought it was a typo, but you keep speaking about it so what are you talking about?In attempts to converse with you, first of all you need to read multiple posts from me to understand the box analogy Rayzor was speaking about. However, let's forget the box, let's go to tower one and compare what you described
I was just picking up pieces. So sorry about the confusion. And yes, Building 7 and not 10 . . oops, was a mental typo.


Admittedly I have only briefly looked at simple sections and drawings of WTC 1 & 2. No details.


I agree, If you simply removed the floors to tower 1 the core would fall over as you described.
The central core providing structural support. notably in the vertical direction.
On its own it was far to slender to support the structure on its own. it would just fall over "like a tree" without some kind of lateral support.


Not the curtain-wall/exoskeleton however. It would collapse almost directly downwards. (lots of buckling would provide a lot of deflection from the vertical collapse)
Due to its much broader foot print, the exoskeleton would hold its self together much better in lateral directions, but not as much in the vertical direction. As it was designed to do this. Also, the exoskeleton was partially suspended from a "top hat" structure on the roof of WTC 1 & 2. This was to offset the vertical loads away from the exoskeleton to lighten the structure (for the benefit of having larger windows)


The whole structure acted together as one. Removing any of the components would result in collapse of some kind.
[/size][/font]
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Papa Legba on February 12, 2018, 01:44:34 AM
Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on February 12, 2018, 01:34:08 AM
The central core providing structural support. notably in the vertical direction.
On its own it was far to slender to support the structure on its own. it would just fall over "like a tree" without some kind of lateral support.

Self contradictory nonsense from the bot that claimed WTC 10 was a real building.

It has no idea how steel frame buildings are constructed and is just spamming bullshit stored in its block chain.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 12, 2018, 02:31:37 AM
Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on February 12, 2018, 01:34:08 AM
Quote
I am trying not to say anything about "building 10"...at first I thought it was a typo, but you keep speaking about it so what are you talking about?In attempts to converse with you, first of all you need to read multiple posts from me to understand the box analogy Rayzor was speaking about. However, let's forget the box, let's go to tower one and compare what you described
I was just picking up pieces. So sorry about the confusion. And yes, Building 7 and not 10 . . oops, was a mental typo.


Admittedly I have only briefly looked at simple sections and drawings of WTC 1 & 2. No details.


I agree, If you simply removed the floors to tower 1 the core would fall over as you described.
The central core providing structural support. notably in the vertical direction.
On its own it was far to slender to support the structure on its own. it would just fall over "like a tree" without some kind of lateral support.


Not the curtain-wall/exoskeleton however. It would collapse almost directly downwards. (lots of buckling would provide a lot of deflection from the vertical collapse)
Due to its much broader foot print, the exoskeleton would hold its self together much better in lateral directions, but not as much in the vertical direction. As it was designed to do this. Also, the exoskeleton was partially suspended from a "top hat" structure on the roof of WTC 1 & 2. This was to offset the vertical loads away from the exoskeleton to lighten the structure (for the benefit of having larger windows)


The whole structure acted together as one. Removing any of the components would result in collapse of some kind.
[/size][/font]

There's no question, that WTC 1 and 2 collapsed straight down.  (  I have video )  The question is was it a verinage style collapse, or was it some hitherto unknown type of demolition.

In favour of the verinage type collapse, is the timing difference between WTC1 and WTC2,  the plane hit lower on WTC2, and although it was the second tower to be hit it collapsed first. This is consistent with more floors, and therefore more mass above the failure initiation point,  than WTC1 which was hit first but collapsed last.

The gravitational potential energy was more than sufficient to progressively collapse the floors and pulverize the concrete as shown by Greening et al. 

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Papa Legba on February 12, 2018, 02:40:36 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 12, 2018, 02:31:37 AM
Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on February 12, 2018, 01:34:08 AM
Quote
I am trying not to say anything about "building 10"...at first I thought it was a typo, but you keep speaking about it so what are you talking about?In attempts to converse with you, first of all you need to read multiple posts from me to understand the box analogy Rayzor was speaking about. However, let's forget the box, let's go to tower one and compare what you described
I was just picking up pieces. So sorry about the confusion. And yes, Building 7 and not 10 . . oops, was a mental typo.


Admittedly I have only briefly looked at simple sections and drawings of WTC 1 & 2. No details.


I agree, If you simply removed the floors to tower 1 the core would fall over as you described.
The central core providing structural support. notably in the vertical direction.
On its own it was far to slender to support the structure on its own. it would just fall over "like a tree" without some kind of lateral support.


Not the curtain-wall/exoskeleton however. It would collapse almost directly downwards. (lots of buckling would provide a lot of deflection from the vertical collapse)
Due to its much broader foot print, the exoskeleton would hold its self together much better in lateral directions, but not as much in the vertical direction. As it was designed to do this. Also, the exoskeleton was partially suspended from a "top hat" structure on the roof of WTC 1 & 2. This was to offset the vertical loads away from the exoskeleton to lighten the structure (for the benefit of having larger windows)


The whole structure acted together as one. Removing any of the components would result in collapse of some kind.
[/size][/font]

There's no question, that WTC 1 and 2 collapsed straight down.  (  I have video )  The question is was it a verinage style collapse, or was it some hitherto unknown type of demolition.

In favour of the verinage type collapse, is the timing difference between WTC1 and WTC2,  the plane hit lower on WTC2, and although it was the second tower to be hit it collapsed first. This is consistent with more floors, and therefore more mass above the failure initiation point,  than WTC1 which was hit first but collapsed last.

The gravitational potential energy was more than sufficient to progressively collapse the floors and pulverize the concrete as shown by Greening et al.

Verinage requires careful preparation by a team of experts using specialist equipment such as cables, pulleys and hydraulic rams.

So if you are claiming that the WTC collapsed due to verinage you are also stating that it was a controlled demolition prepared by a team of experts.

QED,  botty boy.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 12, 2018, 02:41:15 AM
Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on February 12, 2018, 01:34:08 AM
Admittedly I have only briefly looked at simple sections and drawings of WTC 1 & 2. No details.

The box analogy was for tower 1 or 2, not 7. Seven would be a different animal.

Quote
I agree, If you simply removed the floors to tower 1 the core would fall over as you described.
The central core providing structural support. notably in the vertical direction.
On its own it was far to slender to support the structure on its own. it would just fall over "like a tree" without some kind of lateral support.

Yes it would fall like a tree...though it would not leave a foot print the entire length of the structure as it would not buckle at the base, nor would it even leave a foot print the length of the falling portion.

The values I presented come from experience in modeling as well as know structural dynamics and theory. I feel the values I presented, if modeled in a hypothetical situation would be accurate to a +/- 10%.

Quote
Not the curtain-wall/exoskeleton however. It would collapse almost directly downwards. (lots of buckling would provide a lot of deflection from the vertical collapse)
Due to its much broader foot print, the exoskeleton would hold its self together much better in lateral directions, but not as much in the vertical direction. As it was designed to do this. Also, the exoskeleton was partially suspended from a "top hat" structure on the roof of WTC 1 & 2. This was to offset the vertical loads away from the exoskeleton to lighten the structure (for the benefit of having larger windows)


The whole structure acted together as one. Removing any of the components would result in collapse of some kind.
[/size][/font]

I am certainly not attempting to say you could remove portions of building one or two and think it would not collapse. The exoskeleton/core needed the floor supports and vice versa.

However, one, in a perfect world, the exoskeleton/core could stand separate without the floors. This is of course in a fictional perfect world where wind, sediment base shifting, gravitational and rotational forces plus many other variables do not exist. Of course they do in the real world, even on a perfect day they have serious influences on any structure.

The reason I mention this though, is the exoskeleton and core could stand it's on vertical compression with ease, especially if you removed the floors and their mass. The reason it needed the floors is for control of sheer from all the outside forces such as mentioned above. Not to mention the added mass from the floors increased the vertical load which also increased the stability of the building and sheer control.

So how can you reconcile saying a structure with this design would collapse into it's own footprint. Everything we know of principle, theory, design and empirical evidence says this is not possible. As I said, I feel confident if my estimated radius of the fall were modeled, it would be accurate with the given specifications earlier. Especially with the central convergence of mass, density and rigitity specified.


I can think of no way to reconcile such a collapse into it's own footprint with the supposed catalyst given the design of the structures.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 12, 2018, 03:26:54 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 12, 2018, 02:31:37 AM

There's no question, that WTC 1 and 2 collapsed straight down.  (  I have video )  The question is was it a verinage style collapse, or was it some hitherto unknown type of demolition.

In favour of the verinage type collapse, is the timing difference between WTC1 and WTC2,  the plane hit lower on WTC2, and although it was the second tower to be hit it collapsed first. This is consistent with more floors, and therefore more mass above the failure initiation point,  than WTC1 which was hit first but collapsed last.

The gravitational potential energy was more than sufficient to progressively collapse the floors and pulverize the concrete as shown by Greening et al.

You keep speaking of the greening paper, it was a math exercise. It has no bearing in reality. I have discussed just a few of it's flaws there are many more to be discussed.

As for the French demo method you have mentioned many times. I have attempted to explain, this method requires months of prep work just like any other demo method. They don't just blow a few floors and it collapses.

They remove tons and tons of mass in the lower floors, they drill 1000s of holes in key supporting areas to weaken them, they remove entire supports and columns.

This technique is only used with certain buildings (concrete supporting structure) with certain dimensions ( they will only use this method with a building so tall, typically they like to keep the width and length proportional to it's height or close to).

Could this method have been used with building 7... possibly, however, it would be the first building I know of with those dimensions to have this method used. Tower 1 and 2??? No, the math does not work.

I will say this, whoever designed their demo, deserves a medal for ingenuity, right after that being hung for war crimes.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 12, 2018, 03:44:35 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 12, 2018, 03:26:54 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 12, 2018, 02:31:37 AM

There's no question, that WTC 1 and 2 collapsed straight down.  (  I have video )  The question is was it a verinage style collapse, or was it some hitherto unknown type of demolition.

In favour of the verinage type collapse, is the timing difference between WTC1 and WTC2,  the plane hit lower on WTC2, and although it was the second tower to be hit it collapsed first. This is consistent with more floors, and therefore more mass above the failure initiation point,  than WTC1 which was hit first but collapsed last.

The gravitational potential energy was more than sufficient to progressively collapse the floors and pulverize the concrete as shown by Greening et al.

You keep speaking of the greening paper, it was a math exercise. It has no bearing in reality. I have discussed just a few of it's flaws there are many more to be discussed.

As for the French demo method you have mentioned many times. I have attempted to explain, this method requires months of prep work just like any other demo method. They don't just blow a few floors and it collapses.

They remove tons and tons of mass in the lower floors, they drill 1000s of holes in key supporting areas to weaken them, they remove entire supports and columns.

This technique is only used with certain buildings (concrete supporting structure) with certain dimensions ( they will only use this method with a building so tall, typically they like to keep the width and length proportional to it's height or close to).

Could this method have been used with building 7... possibly, however, it would be the first building I know of with those dimensions to have this method used. Tower 1 and 2??? No, the math does not work.

I will say this, whoever designed their demo, deserves a medal for ingenuity, right after that being hung for war crimes.

Do you have a reference to support your view that they remove "tons and tons" from lower floors. I don't have any documentation that supports that, in any event the tube in tube construction of WTC 1 and 2 was pretty unique, and the floors relied on the floor to outer column joints,  if those joints fail the floor collapses.

Also,  you never actually explained what you thought was wrong with Greenings paper,  I did ask about a dozen times but you always backed off.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 12, 2018, 04:25:54 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 12, 2018, 03:44:35 AM

Do you have a reference to support your view that they remove "tons and tons" from lower floors. I don't have any documentation that supports that, in any event the tube in tube construction of WTC 1 and 2 was pretty unique, and the floors relied on the floor to outer column joints,  if those joints fail the floor collapses.

Also,  you never actually explained what you thought was wrong with Greenings paper,  I did ask about a dozen times but you always backed off.

I am not an expert on that method, it isn't used in the states that I am aware of. Though I am familiar with the technique and theory. I don't know where to find it on line, we are getting in to areas only specialization and education can give you info. I can take pictures of certain areas of the curriculum I have stored when I was studying and getting certed for bcm/drm.

It is not what I went to college for, however, as I said I have done alot of extra curricular education and certifications over the decade.

As for greening's paper, I have listed a few issues over it, that is how I got to the box analogy.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: E E K on February 12, 2018, 09:19:05 PM


All elected personnel are under oath - They know who is their enemy. They also know how to protect country but can't tell openly to the public or worldwide in the best interest of citizen and country - You will never ever get the truth unless you have connections with them
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 13, 2018, 12:08:14 AM
Hey Wolf is back.

Yo, can you debunk the post linked to in my sig?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 13, 2018, 12:09:19 AM
Quote from: Papa Legba on February 12, 2018, 02:40:36 AM
if you are claiming that the WTC collapsed due to verinage you are also stating that it was a controlled demolition prepared by a team of experts.

QED,  botty boy.

Checked and rekt.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on February 13, 2018, 12:10:52 AM
That post is so old, it grew a beard.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 13, 2018, 12:13:16 AM
Quote from: User324 on February 13, 2018, 12:10:52 AM
That post is so old, it grew a beard.

Ikr wish someone would try and debunk it.
Maybe Wolf is up for the challenge.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on February 13, 2018, 12:14:35 AM
I think rayzor alone debunked it about a dozen times.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 13, 2018, 12:18:53 AM
Quote from: User324 on February 13, 2018, 12:14:35 AM
I think rayzor alone debunked it about a dozen times.

Could you please cite the post where he debunked it?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 13, 2018, 12:19:25 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 13, 2018, 12:18:53 AM
Quote from: User324 on February 13, 2018, 12:14:35 AM
I think rayzor alone debunked it about a dozen times.

Could you please cite the post where he debunked it?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 13, 2018, 12:33:28 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 12, 2018, 04:25:54 AM
As for greening's paper, I have listed a few issues over it, that is how I got to the box analogy.

Such as?   
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on February 13, 2018, 12:34:14 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 13, 2018, 12:18:53 AM
Quote from: User324 on February 13, 2018, 12:14:35 AM
I think rayzor alone debunked it about a dozen times.

Could you please cite the post where he debunked it?
Is your search function broken?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 13, 2018, 12:36:22 AM
Quote from: User324 on February 13, 2018, 12:34:14 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 13, 2018, 12:18:53 AM
Quote from: User324 on February 13, 2018, 12:14:35 AM
I think rayzor alone debunked it about a dozen times.
Could you please cite the post where he debunked it?
No.

You made a claim that the post linked to in my sig has been debunked by Rayzor.

I asked for a citation.

At this point you either have to cite the post in question or retract your claim.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on February 13, 2018, 12:38:52 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 13, 2018, 12:36:22 AM
Quote from: User324 on February 13, 2018, 12:34:14 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 13, 2018, 12:18:53 AM
Quote from: User324 on February 13, 2018, 12:14:35 AM
I think rayzor alone debunked it about a dozen times.
Could you please cite the post where he debunked it?
No.

You made a claim that the post linked to in my sig has been debunked by Rayzor.

I asked for a citation.

At this point you either have to cite the post in question or retract your claim.
That would be true if it was a scientifical discussion and a new claim had been made.
-Neither one is the case. Also, it (the debunking) has been directly answered to you, so you should be able to find it yourself. Or are you in kindergarten?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 13, 2018, 12:41:08 AM
Quote from: User324 on February 13, 2018, 12:38:52 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 13, 2018, 12:36:22 AM
Quote from: User324 on February 13, 2018, 12:34:14 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 13, 2018, 12:18:53 AM
Quote from: User324 on February 13, 2018, 12:14:35 AM
I think rayzor alone debunked it about a dozen times.
Could you please cite the post where he debunked it?
No.

You made a claim that the post linked to in my sig has been debunked by Rayzor.

I asked for a citation.

At this point you either have to cite the post in question or retract your claim.
That would be true if it was a scientifical discussion and a new claim had been made.
-Neither one is the case. Also, it (the debunking) has been directly answered to you, so you should be able to find it yourself. Or are you in kindergarten?

I can answer that..  LOL.

BTW Whatever happened to Hulsey?   Did he ever release anything other than solicitations for money?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 13, 2018, 12:50:04 AM
Quote from: User324 on February 13, 2018, 12:38:52 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 13, 2018, 12:36:22 AM
Quote from: User324 on February 13, 2018, 12:34:14 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 13, 2018, 12:18:53 AM
Quote from: User324 on February 13, 2018, 12:14:35 AM
I think rayzor alone debunked it about a dozen times.
Could you please cite the post where he debunked it?
No.

You made a claim that the post linked to in my sig has been debunked by Rayzor.

I asked for a citation.

At this point you either have to cite the post in question or retract your claim.
That would be true if we were following the rules of debate.

Agreed.

Scientifical isn't a word. It's scientific.

This topic makes you angry for some reason. If you can't cite a post debunking my points then I will consider your claim retracted.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on February 13, 2018, 12:54:58 AM
I didn't know you were a grammar nazi.

But I guess you identify with everything that has 'nazi' in it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 13, 2018, 12:59:56 AM
That's actually spelling not grammar. Two different things.

Why are you trying to bait me?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 13, 2018, 01:00:29 AM
Quote from: User324 on February 13, 2018, 12:54:58 AM
I didn't know you were a grammar nazi.

But I guess you identify with everything that has 'nazi' in it.

This is the putz you stick up for dispute? I don't see it.

Also, user and I have been through this before. First he said he debunked it, but then couldn't find it and couldn't repeat it. Then he said Rayzor did but couldn't find.

The kid is a special kind of snowflake.


Fyi, there were scientific discussion between wolf and I just yesterday. Even a few posts with Rayzor and myself. I know you don't understand it which is fine, but that does not mean it is not present.

There was alot of scientific discussion in this thread mixed between anger and flaming.

Even a whole other thread of scientific discussion spurred from it that had a fun ended.



There is one thing I can promise I won't find on this thread...and that is a meaningful post from you. Interesting
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on February 13, 2018, 01:01:38 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 13, 2018, 12:59:56 AM
That's actually spelling not grammar. Two different things.

Lol, I'll give that point to you  ;)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: hoppy on February 13, 2018, 03:57:58 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 13, 2018, 12:19:25 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 13, 2018, 12:18:53 AM
Quote from: User324 on February 13, 2018, 12:14:35 AM
I think rayzor alone debunked it about a dozen times.

Could you please cite the post where he debunked it?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 14, 2018, 01:44:20 AM
Quote from: hoppy on February 13, 2018, 03:57:58 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 13, 2018, 12:19:25 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 13, 2018, 12:18:53 AM
Quote from: User324 on February 13, 2018, 12:14:35 AM
I think rayzor alone debunked it about a dozen times.

Could you please cite the post where he debunked it?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on February 14, 2018, 01:47:30 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 14, 2018, 01:44:20 AM
Quote from: hoppy on February 13, 2018, 03:57:58 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 13, 2018, 12:19:25 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 13, 2018, 12:18:53 AM
Quote from: User324 on February 13, 2018, 12:14:35 AM
I think rayzor alone debunked it about a dozen times.

Could you please cite the post where he debunked it?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 14, 2018, 02:21:23 AM
^

Uh, so you cannot cite it? As expected since it does not exist.

Well done
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 14, 2018, 02:59:21 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 14, 2018, 02:21:23 AM
^

Uh, so you cannot cite it? As expected since it does not exist.

Well done

Logical fail.  It's been debunked about a dozen times.   But I think you are just trolling.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 14, 2018, 03:21:24 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 14, 2018, 02:59:21 AM
Logical fail.  It's been debunked about a dozen times.   But I think you are just trolling.

Then it would be easy to post. Why can neither you nor user present the post/s?

I suppose it is hard to post something that doesn't exist maybe?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 14, 2018, 03:30:45 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 14, 2018, 03:21:24 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 14, 2018, 02:59:21 AM
Logical fail.  It's been debunked about a dozen times.   But I think you are just trolling.

Then it would be easy to post. Why can neither you nor user present the post/s?

I suppose it is hard to post something that doesn't exist maybe?

I can't be bothered pandering to dispute's trolling.  I just let him simmer away.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 14, 2018, 03:33:14 AM
I am not dispute

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Papa Legba on February 14, 2018, 03:55:12 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 14, 2018, 03:33:14 AM
I am not dispute

Rayzor is a bot, running through a program of shill tactics.

I don't see how it's disputable at this point.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 14, 2018, 03:55:53 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 14, 2018, 03:33:14 AM
I am not dispute

Here is one of the many times.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1873858#msg1873858

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Papa Legba on February 14, 2018, 04:00:28 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 14, 2018, 03:55:53 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 14, 2018, 03:33:14 AM
I am not dispute

Here is one of the many times.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1873858#msg1873858

See?

It responded within forty seconds with a nonsense link to a typical gish gallop bot post.

Humans can't do that.

It is a bot.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 14, 2018, 04:07:25 AM
Quote from: Papa Legba on February 14, 2018, 04:00:28 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 14, 2018, 03:55:53 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 14, 2018, 03:33:14 AM
I am not dispute

Here is one of the many times.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1873858#msg1873858

See?

It responded within forty seconds with a nonsense link to a typical gish gallop bot post.

Humans can't do that.

It is a bot.

LOL,  It was more like 20 minutes.   Beep,  click,  gurgle.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 14, 2018, 04:15:21 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 14, 2018, 03:55:53 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 14, 2018, 03:33:14 AM
I am not dispute

Here is one of the many times.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1873858#msg1873858

What does this show?

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on February 14, 2018, 04:24:36 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 14, 2018, 04:07:25 AM
Quote from: Papa Legba on February 14, 2018, 04:00:28 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 14, 2018, 03:55:53 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 14, 2018, 03:33:14 AM
I am not dispute

Here is one of the many times.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1873858#msg1873858

See?

It responded within forty seconds with a nonsense link to a typical gish gallop bot post.

Humans can't do that.

It is a bot.

LOL,  It was more like 20 minutes.   Beep,  click,  gurgle.
Lol, pathetic! Proof how those fags are liars 24/7, nice one.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Papa Legba on February 14, 2018, 04:33:05 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 14, 2018, 04:07:25 AM
Quote from: Papa Legba on February 14, 2018, 04:00:28 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 14, 2018, 03:55:53 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 14, 2018, 03:33:14 AM
I am not dispute

Here is one of the many times.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1873858#msg1873858

See?

It responded within forty seconds with a nonsense link to a typical gish gallop bot post.

Humans can't do that.

It is a bot.

LOL,  It was more like 20 minutes.   Beep,  click,  gurgle.

Within forty seconds of MY post, bot.

Because you did not want anyone to read it.

Because you do not want people to know you are a bot.

And, as I said, the post you linked to was nonsense.

Obvious bot distraction tactic, impossible for a human to achieve in the time taken.

Bot proven.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 14, 2018, 04:38:42 AM
Quote from: Papa Legba on February 14, 2018, 04:33:05 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 14, 2018, 04:07:25 AM
Quote from: Papa Legba on February 14, 2018, 04:00:28 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 14, 2018, 03:55:53 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 14, 2018, 03:33:14 AM
I am not dispute

Here is one of the many times.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1873858#msg1873858

See?

It responded within forty seconds with a nonsense link to a typical gish gallop bot post.

Humans can't do that.

It is a bot.

LOL,  It was more like 20 minutes.   Beep,  click,  gurgle.

Within forty seconds of MY post, bot.

Because you did not want anyone to read it.

Because you do not want people to know you are a bot.

And, as I said, the post you linked to was nonsense.

Obvious bot distraction tactic, impossible for a human to achieve in the time taken.

Bot proven.

ROTLFMAO..   wrong again, it was more like 4 minutes not 40 seconds.   I take it all back,  I thought you were good,  actually you are crap at this. 

Plonker.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Papa Legba on February 14, 2018, 04:42:03 AM
It was forty seconds, lying machine.

My post:

Quote from: Papa Legba on February 14, 2018, 03:55:12 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 14, 2018, 03:33:14 AM
I am not dispute

Rayzor is a bot, running through a program of shill tactics.

I don't see how it's disputable at this point.

Forty seconds later:

Quote from: Rayzor on February 14, 2018, 03:55:53 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 14, 2018, 03:33:14 AM
I am not dispute

Here is one of the many times.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1873858#msg1873858



Bot proven.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 14, 2018, 04:44:37 AM
^ That was 40 seconds...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 14, 2018, 04:47:14 AM
Quote from: Papa Legba on February 14, 2018, 04:42:03 AM
It was forty seconds, lying machine.

I wasn't replying to you, I was replying to BHS,  20 minutes plus.

Idiot proven.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Papa Legba on February 14, 2018, 04:49:25 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 14, 2018, 04:44:37 AM
^ That was 40 seconds...

Exactly.

You are arguing with a bot.

It does not want you to know it is a bot.

But it is.



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: hoppy on February 14, 2018, 04:54:54 AM
Legba  1
Rayzor 0
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 14, 2018, 04:56:21 AM
Quote from: hoppy on February 14, 2018, 04:54:54 AM
Legba  1
Rayzor 0

Hoppy -1
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on February 14, 2018, 05:11:39 AM
Quote from: Papa Legba on February 14, 2018, 04:49:25 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 14, 2018, 04:44:37 AM
^ That was 40 seconds...

Exactly.

You are arguing with a bot.

It does not want you to know it is a bot.

But it is.
What a genius flow of arguments! Stunning! Incredible!


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 14, 2018, 02:26:23 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:35:45 PM
This post debunks your assertion that the entire core collapsed leaving the outside intact and then the "outer facade" collapsing at free-fall.

Please read it and respond to it.
Here.
Can you debunk this post? If it's as stupid and I'm as stupid as you all claim surely a smart guy like you can debunk it.

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 05:46:15 PM
No the video of the collapse shows the failure of columns 79, 80, and 81, causing a partial building collapse. (The collapse of the east penthouse.)

None of these were core columns and then after a few seconds, the entire core failed nearly simultaneously causing a 2.25 second symmetrical free-fall of the entire bulding. Remeber the "outer facade" had 18 structural support columns making any natural free-fall impossible.

@Rayzor.
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 04:05:20 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 03:59:31 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 20, 2017, 03:54:44 AM
Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 03:33:41 AM
You still haven't addressed your post trying to debunk Newton. Do you stand by it?

You seriously think I'm trying to debunk Newton?

I do, yes.

See.
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 10:00:14 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 19, 2017, 09:51:48 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 19, 2017, 09:50:33 PM
We'll soon see about that.

Yes,  Hulsey's  simultaneous collapse theory.   What a joke.

In order for the building to collapse at free-fall the entire core had to fail nearly simultaneously. Structural resistance slows fall acceleration. If you don't like it take it up with Newton, not me.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Newt.html

Ah, I see where you went wrong,  you forgot that the center had already collapsed / was collapsing BEFORE the facade came down.  I really can't keep holding you hand while you work through these things, you have to start to think for yourself if you are going to be a good anon campaigner.

Quote from: disputeone on September 20, 2017, 04:10:35 AM
Thats not true that's the conclusions of the fraudulent NIST report. That is merely the lie we were sold.

Furthermore, even if the entire inner core collapsed leaving the entire "facade" intact (which is impossible because of the cross bracing) there were still 18 support columns around the exterior.

(https://s26.postimg.org/iegp2ilix/images-43.jpg)

A free fall collapse even under your fairytale conditions is still impossible without a controlled demolition. You are trying to debunk Newton.

Q.E.D.

Edit.
Video evidence.
[Youtube][/youtube]

For reference Rayzor believes this debunks it. Notice he says it's "been debunked" since his first post on the topic.

Quote from: Rayzor on February 13, 2017, 11:18:08 PM
We already debunked that free-fall argument.   But just to recap,  how is it possible for the rooftop of a building to fall?   Doesn't the fact that it collapsed at all mean that the building structure supporting the roof is collapsing,    why would you be surprised that it fell at a free fall rate.   At least until it hit ground and other debris piled up,   The graph in the NIST shows it quite clearly.   

You say you work in the industry,  you mean the building industry?   In what capacity?

What caused the core to collapse at free-fall

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:43:13 PM
Quote from: Bullwinkle on September 21, 2017, 07:40:41 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:35:45 PM

What caused the core to collapse at free-fall



Opposed to hovering in place?

Watch the video. When the west penthouse fails the building immediately collapses.

Video evidence.
[Youtube][/youtube]

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:54:14 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 21, 2017, 07:49:46 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:43:13 PM
When the west penthouse fails the building immediately collapses.

Gee, I wonder what was holding up the penthouse?

The core. Therefore as soon as the core failed the building came down. Hulsey is right.
Video evidence.
[Youtube][/youtube]

Quote from: disputeone on September 24, 2017, 07:40:40 PM
Quote from: sokarul on September 24, 2017, 07:10:03 PM
Unbalanced forces are a problem aren't they.

Please elaborate on what you mean by unbalanced forces. Using the information in your short post it's hard to understand your meaning.

http://study.com/academy/lesson/unbalanced-force-definition-example-quiz.html

Seems like you're on the right track, keep researching.

Quote
Unbalanced forces are forces that cause a change in the motion of an object.

Very good.

Now this article shows us why a 2.25 second symmetrical free-fall of wtc 7 is impossible.

Quote
Any push or pull is a force. To describe a force, you must know two things. You must know the size of the force and the direction of the force. Suppose two teams are playing tug of war. Each team is pulling with equal force, but in opposite directions. Neither team can make the other team move. Forces that are equal in size but opposite in direction are called balanced forces.

Newtons third does debunk the idea of a fire induced natural collapse of wtc 7, no doubt about that.

Quote
If two forces are in opposite directions, then the net force is the difference between the two forces, and it is in the direction of the larger force. Consider two dogs playing tug of war with a short piece of rope. Each is exerting a force, but in opposite directions.

So we could look at gravitational potential energy, inertia and structural resistance to calculate the predicted fall acceleration of wtc 7 if the NIST conclusions were correct and the collapse was progressive starting with the failure of column 79 on floor 13.

Spoiler.
It isnt 2.25 seconds of very close to 9.8m/s2.

If I'm going to put in the effort show me it's worth it.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sokarul on February 14, 2018, 02:32:17 PM
What are you going on about?

You could just save many lines of text and post a video of the 39 explosions.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 14, 2018, 02:55:11 PM
>Already debubked.
t. Snopes.
(https://s14.postimg.org/3t1p1fx0x/1518614642391.jpg)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sokarul on February 14, 2018, 02:58:46 PM
I'll take that as a "I can't" response.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 14, 2018, 03:31:52 PM
Here.

Video evidence of explosives.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 14, 2018, 03:36:53 PM
Do you also think this couldn't have been a controlled demolition because you can't clearly see the explosions?



Please note this demolition has no where near the symmetry or acceleration of wtc 7s collapse.
Amateurs...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 14, 2018, 03:56:32 PM
Quote from: sokarul on February 14, 2018, 02:32:17 PM
What are you going on about?

Nobody knows,  he has these voices inside his head telling him things.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 14, 2018, 03:59:24 PM
Low content post is low content.

Where are the explosions on the Cather amd Pound demolition? I think you and Sock should email them and tell them it was obviously a collapse caused by localized fire and a single column failure.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 14, 2018, 04:18:38 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 14, 2018, 03:31:52 PM
Here.

Video evidence of explosives.

Nice try,  but don't you think its strange that those "explosions"  happened AFTER the collapse started, and second they don't appear in any other videos.

I call fake.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 14, 2018, 04:30:40 PM
Where are the explosions on the cather demolition?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sokarul on February 14, 2018, 04:41:35 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 14, 2018, 03:31:52 PM
Here.

Video evidence of explosives.

Low content post is low content.

Quote from: disputeone on February 14, 2018, 03:59:24 PM
Low content post is low content.

Where are the explosions on the Cather amd Pound demolition? I think you and Sock should email them and tell them it was obviously a collapse caused by localized fire and a single column failure.



Yo can hear them. Plus the months of prep work also helped.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 14, 2018, 04:49:14 PM
So you can't see explosives on a regular controlled demo. Why would you expect to see them on wtc 7.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 14, 2018, 05:41:44 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 14, 2018, 04:49:14 PM
So you can't see explosives on a regular controlled demo. Why would you expect to see them on wtc 7.

Crickets...
So can anyone debunk Newton and save the official story for wtc 7?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 14, 2018, 05:49:38 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 14, 2018, 05:41:44 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 14, 2018, 04:49:14 PM
So you can't see explosives on a regular controlled demo. Why would you expect to see them on wtc 7.

Crickets...
So can anyone debunk Newton and save the official story for wtc 7?

Stop trolling. 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sokarul on February 14, 2018, 06:19:59 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 14, 2018, 04:49:14 PM
So you can't see explosives on a regular controlled demo. Why would you expect to see them on wtc 7.
Yes you can’t see explosions in”A” controlled demo. You can see them in “B” controlled demo. You can also hear them. You can also see the workers setting them up. You can see all the holes that have to be made to acsess the support columns.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 14, 2018, 06:26:55 PM
Go on, cite the time in which you can see explosions in the controlled demolition. The point stands.

So you can't see explosives on a regular controlled demo. Why would you expect to see them on wtc 7.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 14, 2018, 06:28:47 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 14, 2018, 05:49:38 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 14, 2018, 05:41:44 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 14, 2018, 04:49:14 PM
So you can't see explosives on a regular controlled demo. Why would you expect to see them on wtc 7.

Crickets...
So can anyone debunk Newton and save the official story for wtc 7?

Stop trolling.

Great rebuttal.
You are the one trolling and you're not even good at it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sokarul on February 14, 2018, 06:38:50 PM
Pay attention. You found a video where you can’t see them. Others you can.



And you failed to address the sound issue.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 14, 2018, 06:41:11 PM
So you can't see the explosions in that controlled demolition. Took a while to get you to admit that.



Why do you then claim not seeing explosions on wtc 7 debunks the idea of a controlled demolition?

Botty boy.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sokarul on February 14, 2018, 06:45:35 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 14, 2018, 06:41:11 PM
So you can't see the explosions in that controlled demolition. Took a while to get you to admit that.



Why do you then claim not seeing explosions on wtc 7 debunks the idea of a controlled demolition?

Botty boy.

You have zero reading comprehension.

And I claim that all the things together do. Can't see them, can't hear them, and no reports of a company coming to do prep work for months. Along with the fact that it's been shown explosives weren't required.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 14, 2018, 07:00:28 PM
So basically because explosions weren't reported on the MSM or included in the NIST report it couldn't have been a demolition.

>what is circular logic.

We're done here.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 14, 2018, 07:04:26 PM
Also there were elevator modernization in the towers prior to 9/11. This was the first and last job the elevator company ever did. Don't believe me look it up.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 14, 2018, 07:06:12 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 14, 2018, 07:00:28 PM
So basically because explosions weren't reported on the MSM or included in the NIST report it couldn't have been a demolition.

>what is circular logic.

We're done here.

You assume that explosives are the only way a building can collapse.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 14, 2018, 07:06:54 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 14, 2018, 07:04:26 PM
Also there were elevator modernization in the towers prior to 9/11. This was the first and last job the elevator company ever did. Don't believe me look it up.

Gee, i wonder it that's true.. 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 14, 2018, 07:10:34 PM
Here.
http://911blogger.com/news/2011-06-16/nyc-dept-buildings-no-records-pre-911-wtc-elevator-rebuild-one-largest-most-sophisticated-ever

http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/arch/wtc_elevator_renovation.pdf
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 14, 2018, 07:27:13 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 14, 2018, 07:06:12 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 14, 2018, 07:00:28 PM
So basically because explosions weren't reported on the MSM or included in the NIST report it couldn't have been a demolition.

>what is circular logic.

We're done here.

You assume that explosives are the only way a building can collapse.

That's actually what Sokarul is claiming.
Try to pay attention.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 14, 2018, 07:28:10 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 14, 2018, 07:10:34 PM
Here.
http://911blogger.com/news/2011-06-16/nyc-dept-buildings-no-records-pre-911-wtc-elevator-rebuild-one-largest-most-sophisticated-ever

http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/arch/wtc_elevator_renovation.pdf

Fake news, concocted by conspiracy nutters.

Ace elevator took over from Otis in 1994.   

Quote
Menville was in the Trade Center both during the 1993 bombing and on 9/11. In 1993, he helped police evacuate people down the stairs once the elevators stopped working, then he spent the rest of the day manually moving each stuck elevator to the nearest floor to free the people inside. For the next six months, Menville worked 12 hours a day, seven days a week, to repair damage to the elevators.

On 9/11, Menville was in Tower 2 when the first plane hit. He evacuated and raced to a friend’s store in the Seaport to use the phone, then headed back to the towers to help. He was standing on Church St. when Tower 2 started collapsing.

“There were no thoughts — we just turned around and ran,” Menville said.

Menville was working for ACE Elevator then, which took over for Otis in 1994. All the ACE employees got out alive, he said.

Menville continued working for ACE in New Jersey after 9/11, then he returned to Otis in 2002. At the end of April, around his 66th birthday, Menville will retire from Otis and open a consulting business. He plans to return to the Trade Center site to see the elevator motor once the museum opens.

As Ramirez, the curator, puts together the museum’s exhibits, she noted that the motor deserves an important place in the story of the Trade Center’s vertical city.

“Without Otis Elevator, the World Trade Center would have been an impossibility,” Ramirez said.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 14, 2018, 07:30:01 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 14, 2018, 07:27:13 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 14, 2018, 07:06:12 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 14, 2018, 07:00:28 PM
So basically because explosions weren't reported on the MSM or included in the NIST report it couldn't have been a demolition.

>what is circular logic.

We're done here.

You assume that explosives are the only way a building can collapse.

That's actually what Sokarul is claiming.
Try to pay attention.

Sokarul is right,  explosives are not the only way a building can collapse. 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 14, 2018, 07:30:13 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 14, 2018, 07:28:10 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 14, 2018, 07:10:34 PM
Here.
http://911blogger.com/news/2011-06-16/nyc-dept-buildings-no-records-pre-911-wtc-elevator-rebuild-one-largest-most-sophisticated-ever

http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/arch/wtc_elevator_renovation.pdf

Fake news, conspiracy nutters.

Powerful rebuttal.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 14, 2018, 07:31:12 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 14, 2018, 07:30:01 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 14, 2018, 07:27:13 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 14, 2018, 07:06:12 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 14, 2018, 07:00:28 PM
So basically because explosions weren't reported on the MSM or included in the NIST report it couldn't have been a demolition.

>what is circular logic.

We're done here.

You assume that explosives are the only way a building can collapse.

That's actually what Sokarul is claiming.
Try to pay attention.

Sokarul is right,  explosives are not the only way a building can collapse.

Agreed so not seeing a mushroom cloud over wtc 7 isn't proof of a natural collapse.
You should update your script.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 14, 2018, 07:32:38 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 14, 2018, 07:31:12 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 14, 2018, 07:30:01 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 14, 2018, 07:27:13 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 14, 2018, 07:06:12 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 14, 2018, 07:00:28 PM
So basically because explosions weren't reported on the MSM or included in the NIST report it couldn't have been a demolition.

>what is circular logic.

We're done here.

You assume that explosives are the only way a building can collapse.

That's actually what Sokarul is claiming.
Try to pay attention.

Sokarul is right,  explosives are not the only way a building can collapse.

Agreed so not seeing a mushroom cloud over wtc 7 isn't proof of a natural collapse.
You should update your script.

What?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 14, 2018, 07:36:07 PM
Sokarul claims that because explosions weren't reported or seen then wtc 7s collapse had to be caused by fire.
As you correctly stated not all demolitions use large explosives.
This is circular logic demonstrated by your sock.
You really need to update your script or page your operater when debating me. Either or.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 14, 2018, 07:44:22 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 14, 2018, 07:36:07 PM
Sokarul claims that because explosions weren't reported or seen then wtc 7s collapse had to be caused by fire.
As you correctly stated not all demolitions use large explosives.
This is circular logic demonstrated by your sock.
You really need to update your script or page your operater when debating me. Either or.

Try to follow along.

1. You assert  that WTC7 was a controlled demolition using explosives. 

2. There is no evidence of explosives being used.

Conclusion:  Your assertion is not proven.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sokarul on February 14, 2018, 07:52:46 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 14, 2018, 07:27:13 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 14, 2018, 07:06:12 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 14, 2018, 07:00:28 PM
So basically because explosions weren't reported on the MSM or included in the NIST report it couldn't have been a demolition.

>what is circular logic.

We're done here.

You assume that explosives are the only way a building can collapse.

That's actually what Sokarul is claiming.
Try to pay attention.
I never claimed that. Pay attention.

We are done.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 14, 2018, 08:14:38 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 14, 2018, 07:44:22 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 14, 2018, 07:36:07 PM
Sokarul claims that because explosions weren't reported or seen then wtc 7s collapse had to be caused by fire.
As you correctly stated not all demolitions use large explosives.
This is circular logic demonstrated by your sock.
You really need to update your script or page your operater when debating me. Either or.

Try to follow along.

1. You assert  that WTC7 was a controlled demolition because of the fall acceleration and symmetry. The post in your sig clearly explains this.

Correct.

Update your script.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 14, 2018, 08:19:50 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 14, 2018, 08:14:38 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 14, 2018, 07:44:22 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 14, 2018, 07:36:07 PM
Sokarul claims that because explosions weren't reported or seen then wtc 7s collapse had to be caused by fire.
As you correctly stated not all demolitions use large explosives.
This is circular logic demonstrated by your sock.
You really need to update your script or page your operater when debating me. Either or.

Try to follow along.

1. You assert  that WTC7 was a controlled demolition because of the fall acceleration and symmetry. The post in your sig clearly explains this.

Correct.

Update your script.
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

So are you now retracting your claims about WTC7 being demolished by explosives?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 14, 2018, 08:22:55 PM
I claimed wtc 7 was a controlled demolition, here.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

There is more than one way to skin a cat. I provided video evidence of squibs on wtc 7.

Seriously, call your handler, this is embarrassing.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 14, 2018, 08:59:54 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 14, 2018, 08:22:55 PM
I claimed wtc 7 was a controlled demolition, here.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160

There is more than one way to skin a cat. I provided video evidence of squibs on wtc 7.

Seriously, call your handler, this is embarrassing.

Just make your position clear,  you keep changing.   What sort of controlled demolition are you saying caused the collapse of WTC7

The "squibs" were faked. You know that. 

Stop with the handler bullshit, you make yourself look stupid.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 14, 2018, 10:28:36 PM
A controlled demolition.

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/Controlled+demolition

My position has always been that wtc 7 didn't collapse due to fire. This is at odds with the NIST report and enough to warrant a conspiracy case against NIST and all involved in the investigation.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 14, 2018, 10:33:27 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 14, 2018, 10:28:36 PM
A controlled demolition.

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/Controlled+demolition

My position has always been that wtc 7 didn't collapse due to fire. This is at odds with the NIST report and enough to warrant a conspiracy case against NIST and all involved in the investigation.

So you ducked the question,  big surprise.   
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 14, 2018, 10:36:25 PM
The squibs appear in the NIST FOIA video.

Same same as the video I posted that you called fake.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 14, 2018, 10:37:01 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 14, 2018, 10:33:27 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 14, 2018, 10:28:36 PM
My position has always been that wtc 7 didn't collapse due to fire. This is at odds with the NIST report and enough to warrant a conspiracy case against NIST and all involved in the investigation.

So you ducked the question,  big surprise.

My position has always been that wtc 7 didn't collapse due to fire. This is at odds with the NIST report and enough to warrant a conspiracy case against NIST and all involved in the investigation.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sokarul on February 14, 2018, 10:42:52 PM
Where are these "squibs" in the video?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 14, 2018, 10:47:54 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 14, 2018, 10:36:25 PM
The squibs appear in the NIST FOIA video.

Same same as the video I posted that you called fake.

So explain how come the collapse is almost over when the "squibs"  are seen,  and not even in the area where the collapse initiates.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 14, 2018, 10:48:36 PM
Quote from: sokarul on February 14, 2018, 10:42:52 PM
Where are these "squibs" in the video?

The breaking windows on the right side after the collapse is almost over.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 14, 2018, 10:50:30 PM
Earlier you claimed they were fake. Now you claim they are inconsequential.
Step it up. Keep your sock out of this please.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 14, 2018, 10:53:10 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 14, 2018, 10:50:30 PM
Earlier you claimed they were fake. Now you claim they are inconsequential.
Step it up. Keep your sock out of this please.

Here you go.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 14, 2018, 10:56:29 PM
Update your script. Seriously man.
Are they fake? Or inconsequential?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sokarul on February 14, 2018, 10:57:24 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 14, 2018, 10:56:29 PM
Update your script. Seriously man.
Are they fake? Or inconsequential?

Why do you suppose they were set off after the building was already falling?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 14, 2018, 11:01:33 PM
That's not the point I am making. I'm exposing Rayzor as a liar. They could be lot's of things but they are not fake like Rayzor tried to claim.

Keep your sock out of this please.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sokarul on February 14, 2018, 11:08:05 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 14, 2018, 11:01:33 PM
That's not the point I am making. I'm exposing Rayzor as a liar. They could be lot's of things but they are not fake like Rayzor tried to claim.

Keep your sock out of this please.
lol
Is it a lie when you call us bots?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bullwinkle on February 14, 2018, 11:09:31 PM
Quote from: sokarul on February 14, 2018, 10:57:24 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 14, 2018, 10:56:29 PM
Update your script. Seriously man.
Are they fake? Or inconsequential?

Why do you suppose they were set off after the building was already falling?


To cover up the Pearl Harbor attack on JFK.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sokarul on February 14, 2018, 11:12:13 PM
JFK's limo crashed in Roswell. 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bullwinkle on February 14, 2018, 11:19:36 PM
The coverup started with Custer at Wounded Knee.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 14, 2018, 11:24:05 PM
Oh I hit the shill button when I caught out Rayzor lying.

As expected.

Bullwinkle you are breaking the forum rules.

Keep sliding the thread. I won the debate months ago.

(https://s13.postimg.org/sualp03vr/shillbutton.jpg)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bullwinkle on February 14, 2018, 11:30:43 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 14, 2018, 11:24:05 PM

Bullwinkle you are breaking the forum rules.



How so?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 14, 2018, 11:34:52 PM
Low content posting, derailing.

It's cool the rules are only there for the psyop. Everyone but the shills knows this already.

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=69306.msg1960160#msg1960160
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bullwinkle on February 14, 2018, 11:43:59 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 14, 2018, 11:34:52 PM
Low content posting, derailing.

Is it your contention that my conspiracy theory is less valid than yours?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 15, 2018, 12:01:07 AM
My contention is that Rayzor was caught out lying (again) and now you're trying to slide the thread to draw attention away from it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 15, 2018, 12:03:46 AM
Quote from: sokarul on February 14, 2018, 11:08:05 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 14, 2018, 11:01:33 PM
That's not the point I am making. I'm exposing Rayzor as a liar. They could be lot's of things but they are not fake like Rayzor tried to claim.

Keep your sock out of this please.
lol
Is it a lie when you call us bots?
I think there's a strong possibly that you are a bot because all you can do is one post quips trying to be clever, very similar to Bullwinkle. I think you are used as a sockpuppet to make it look like more people agree with the actual shills. I think Rayzor controls your account.

I might be wrong but I'm not lying. Rayzor could just admit he was wrong but he can't admit when he's wrong for some reason.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bullwinkle on February 15, 2018, 12:12:23 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 15, 2018, 12:01:07 AM
My contention is that Rayzor was caught out lying (again) and now you're trying to slide the thread to draw attention away from it.

What does it mean to 'slide a thread'?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 15, 2018, 12:15:05 AM
Same as derailing, actually there are multiple ways but due to the smaller user base here we could consider it the same as derailing . You're making low content posts like the last few posts you made to try and put a few pages between Rayzor getting caught out lying. You and sock jumped in as soon as Rayzor was caught out lying. I assume we'll hear from Rayzor once a few more shitposts have been made to distract from him being caught red handed lying.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bullwinkle on February 15, 2018, 12:21:22 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 15, 2018, 12:15:05 AM
Same as derailing, actually there are multiple ways but due to the smaller user base here we could consider it the same as derailing . You're making low content posts like the last few posts you made to try and put a few pages between Rayzor getting caught out lying. You and sock jumped in as soon as Rayzor was caught out lying. I assume we'll hear from Rayzor once a few more shitposts have been made to distract from him being caught red handed lying.


and, what is 'sock jumping'?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 15, 2018, 12:25:02 AM
You're making low content posts like the last few posts you made to try and put a few pages between Rayzor getting caught out lying.

Good work Bullwinkle maybe Rayzor will eventually take off your training wheels. Sock is Sockarul.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bullwinkle on February 15, 2018, 12:28:57 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 15, 2018, 12:25:02 AM
Sock is Sockarul.

then, what does it mean to 'Sockarul jump'?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 15, 2018, 12:30:10 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 14, 2018, 04:18:38 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 14, 2018, 03:31:52 PM
Here.

Video evidence of explosives.

They don't appear in any other videos.

I call fake.

Quote from: disputeone on February 14, 2018, 10:36:25 PM
The squibs appear in the NIST FOIA video.

Same same as the video I posted that you called fake.

Quote from: disputeone on February 14, 2018, 10:56:29 PM
Are they fake? Or inconsequential?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 15, 2018, 12:32:44 AM
You're making low content posts like the last few posts you made to try and put a few pages between Rayzor getting caught out lying.

Quote from: Bullwinkle on February 15, 2018, 12:28:57 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 15, 2018, 12:25:02 AM
Sock is Sockarul.

then, what does it mean to 'Sockarul jump'?

You're responding to a post that wasn't made. An unfortunate habit.

Quote from: disputeone on February 15, 2018, 12:15:05 AM
You and sock jumped in as soon as Rayzor was caught out lying.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 15, 2018, 12:36:15 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 15, 2018, 12:25:02 AM
You're making low content posts like the last few posts you made to try and put a few pages between Rayzor getting caught out lying.

Good work Bullwinkle maybe Rayzor will eventually take off your training wheels. Sock is Sockarul.

So calling fake video squibs as fake explosions is lying now is it?    Would you be happier if I said they were inconsequential?

BTW AFLX is not especially exciting.  I was expecting better.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 15, 2018, 12:38:59 AM
If you admit you were wrong here.
I don't think you're allowed to admit when you're wrong but let's see.

Quote from: Rayzor on February 14, 2018, 04:18:38 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 14, 2018, 03:31:52 PM
Here.

Video evidence of explosives.

They don't appear in any other videos.

I call fake.

Quote from: disputeone on February 14, 2018, 10:36:25 PM
The squibs appear in the NIST FOIA video.

Same same as the video I posted that you called fake.

They appear in all the video footage.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 15, 2018, 12:41:42 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 15, 2018, 12:38:59 AM
If you admit you were wrong here.
I don't think you're allowed to admit when you're wrong but let's see.

Quote from: Rayzor on February 14, 2018, 04:18:38 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 14, 2018, 03:31:52 PM
Here.

Video evidence of explosives.

They don't appear in any other videos.

I call fake.

Quote from: disputeone on February 14, 2018, 10:36:25 PM
The squibs appear in the NIST FOIA video.

Same same as the video I posted that you called fake.

They appear in all the video footage.

None of them are explosions.   In most videos they are just windows breaking as the building collapses.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 15, 2018, 12:44:56 AM
That's fine they could be a lot of things but they are real and it's real footage however.

You originally tried to claim they didn't appear on any other video footage and were fake.

I showed you that they appeared on all the video footage and were not fake.

Again, I don't think you're allowed to admit when you're wrong but let's see.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bullwinkle on February 15, 2018, 12:50:14 AM
Quote from: Bullwinkle on February 15, 2018, 12:21:22 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 15, 2018, 12:15:05 AM
Same as derailing, actually there are multiple ways but due to the smaller user base here we could consider it the same as derailing . You're making low content posts like the last few posts you made to try and put a few pages between Rayzor getting caught out lying. You and sock jumped in as soon as Rayzor was caught out lying. I assume we'll hear from Rayzor once a few more shitposts have been made to distract from him being caught red handed lying.


and, what is 'sock jumping'?


Oooops, I missed the word 'and'.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 15, 2018, 12:56:43 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 15, 2018, 12:44:56 AM
That's fine they could be a lot of things but they are real and it's real footage however.

You originally tried to claim they didn't appear on any other video footage and were fake.

I showed you that they appeared on all the video footage and were not fake.

Again, I don't think you're allowed to admit when you're wrong but let's see.

Look more closely, the video you posted first is blurred at that point.  It was intended to deceive, I call fake.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=kqG6v7KZ_s8

let's look a bit more closely.

(https://s9.postimg.org/r87dsdi7j/wtc7fake.png)

Notice how the windows are sharply defined, except for the area that has been deliberately blurred.   

I call fake.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 15, 2018, 01:01:01 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 15, 2018, 12:56:43 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 15, 2018, 12:44:56 AM
That's fine they could be a lot of things but they are real and it's real footage however.

You originally tried to claim they didn't appear on any other video footage and were fake.

I showed you that they appeared on all the video footage and were not fake.

Again, I don't think you're allowed to admit when you're wrong but let's see.

I call fake.
I call fake.

People nearly always think more of you when you admit you're wrong. It's a sign of character.

You said the blown out windows didn't appear in any other footage. They actually appear on all the other footage.

At this point you say, "my bad seems like the video wasn't fake."

I knew you couldnt admit when you're wrong. I can do things you can't because I am free.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 15, 2018, 01:03:56 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 15, 2018, 01:01:01 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 15, 2018, 12:56:43 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 15, 2018, 12:44:56 AM
That's fine they could be a lot of things but they are real and it's real footage however.

You originally tried to claim they didn't appear on any other video footage and were fake.

I showed you that they appeared on all the video footage and were not fake.

Again, I don't think you're allowed to admit when you're wrong but let's see.

I call fake.
I call fake.

People nearly always think more of you when you admit you're wrong. It's a sign of character.

You said the blown out windows didn't appear in any other footage. They actually appear on all the other footage.

At this point you say, "my bad seems like the video wasn't fake."

I knew you couldnt admit when you're wrong. I can do things you can't because I am free.

So you admit they aren't squibs,  they are just broken windows,  why did they blur out that section of the video?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 15, 2018, 01:07:19 AM
Your shilling is so obvious. They could be a lot of things. Squibs usually do blow out windows.

I didn't make the video. If I had to guess the person who made it was a poor video editor.

It appears in every video. The blown out windows you claimed only existed in that "fake" video. They appear in every video.

On that point you were wrong.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 15, 2018, 01:10:58 AM
Actually it was and still is a lie to push a narrative but I thought I'd give you the opportunity to admit you were wrong.

I learned a lot today.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on February 15, 2018, 01:12:11 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 15, 2018, 12:56:43 AM
Notice how the windows are sharply defined, except for the area that has been deliberately blurred.   

I call fake.
I'd say that could be a result of video compression. The more details, the more gets lost; if you film grass, you can see nearly no details, if you film a white wall with a few green blocks on it, they will appear really sharp.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 15, 2018, 01:22:58 AM
Quote from: User324 on February 15, 2018, 01:12:11 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 15, 2018, 12:56:43 AM
Notice how the windows are sharply defined, except for the area that has been deliberately blurred.   

I call fake.
I'd say that could be a result of video compression. The more details, the more gets lost; if you film grass, you can see nearly no details, if you film a white wall with a few green blocks on it, they will appear really sharp.

Maybe, but the window outlines are sharper on either side.  Why would a compression artifact affect only the area where squibs are supposed to be?


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 15, 2018, 01:23:53 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 15, 2018, 01:10:58 AM
Actually it was and still is a lie to push a narrative but I thought I'd give you the opportunity to admit you were wrong.

I learned a lot today.

Why would I admit to being wrong when I'm clearly correct?   You make no sense.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on February 15, 2018, 01:24:34 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 15, 2018, 01:22:58 AM
Quote from: User324 on February 15, 2018, 01:12:11 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 15, 2018, 12:56:43 AM
Notice how the windows are sharply defined, except for the area that has been deliberately blurred.   

I call fake.
I'd say that could be a result of video compression. The more details, the more gets lost; if you film grass, you can see nearly no details, if you film a white wall with a few green blocks on it, they will appear really sharp.

Maybe, but the window outlines are sharper on either side.  Why would a compression artifact affect only the area where squibs are supposed to be?
Because there's more going on in that part of the picture (more details --> more compression).
But whatever, it might aswell be a fake, I can't say for sure.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 15, 2018, 01:30:13 AM
Eddy Current is my hero


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 15, 2018, 01:32:43 AM
@User.

Same thing appears in the NIST video.

The same windows blow out that Rayzor claimed only happend in the fake video and nowhere else.

*Rayzor claimed that video was the only one showing it.
*Every video shows the same thing.
*When Rayzor claimed that they only appeared in that one video he was wrong.

It's not even a big deal it's just interesting he can't admit it was wrong.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 15, 2018, 01:39:05 AM
Stop lying,  I never claimed the other videos didn't show broken windows.

Here is a still from the video you just posted.
(https://s9.postimg.org/3mgcy19nz/wtc7foi.png)

Compare it with this one, that's been altered

(https://s9.postimg.org/r87dsdi7j/wtc7fake.png)

Notice how they blurred out the section where the squibs were claimed to be?   

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 15, 2018, 01:46:15 AM
Why didn't you originally claim the blown out windows were inconsequential instead of fake? The NIST video is of a much higher resolution, no argument.

Quote from: Rayzor
They don't appear in any other videos.

They do, they appear in every other video. You were wrong, it's not a big deal, I make mistakes all the time. I always try to own up to my mistakes.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 15, 2018, 01:51:29 AM
You are just toxic, this has gone on for pages now. You're absolutely abhorrent.

As for your pathetic mind games.

You merely adopted them.
I was born in them, molded by them.

I see right through you.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 15, 2018, 01:53:08 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 15, 2018, 01:46:15 AM
Why didn't you originally claim the blown out windows were inconsequential instead of fake? The NIST video is of a much higher resolution, no argument.

Quote from: Rayzor
They don't appear in any other videos.

They do, they appear in every other video. You were wrong, it's not a big deal, I make mistakes all the time. I always try to own up to my mistakes.

The so called squibs don't appear in other videos,  and the faked video just blurs the broken windows claiming they are squibs ( demolition charges) 

Are broken windows consequential?  not really,  you'd expect windows to break if the whole fucking building was collapsing.   Are you seriously that dense.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 15, 2018, 02:02:32 AM
I am not claiming it as my argument for demolition. Your sock said where are the explosives and I linked to possible squibs. I'm just bringing light to your obvious problems with the truth and admitting you're wrong.

Fyi if you blew out the core with squibs those windows that did break would break. Check out the layout drawings.

You will call something fake until proof of it is shoved under your nose, you then try and play semantics games until the topic is dropped. Then the next time the topic is brought up you go back to calling it fake and pretend proof of it was never shoved under your nose.

Reminder that my argument for wtc 7s demolition is in my sig and no one has touched it. You are taking a gambit to be purposefully disgusting to turn this thread back into a flame war. Which has been your entire game from the start.

We are not so easily fooled. I won't take the bait.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 15, 2018, 02:09:02 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 15, 2018, 02:02:32 AM
I am not claiming it as my argument for demolition. Your sock said where are the explosives and I linked to possible squibs. I'm just bringing light to your obvious problems with the truth and admitting you're wrong.

Fyi if you blew out the core with squibs those windows that did break would break. Check out the layout drawings.

You will call something fake until proof of it is shover under your nose, you then try and play semantics games until the topic is dropped. Then the next time the topic is brought up you go back to calling it fake and pretend proof of it was never shoved under your nose.

Reminder that my argument for wtc 7s demolition is in my sig and no one has touched it. You are taking a gambit to be purposefully disgusting to turn this thread back into a flame war. Which has been your entire game from the start.

We are not so easily fooled. I won't take the bait.

So tell me, brainiac, why did the makers of that video blur out the broken windows claiming that as evidence of explosive demolition ( squibs)  do you understand that was deliberate deception.  ( fake )



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 15, 2018, 02:24:29 AM
It was probably a mix of a low res video, compression artefacts and bad editing.

It's possible that it was set up to decieve but personally I think the higher res versions are better examples of possible squibs.

We can move on, you're willing to be absolutely dishonest and disgusting to push your narrative. There is no point me continuing this.

I think we left it at the post in my sig. I don't believe you have offered a rebuttal to my point of the entire core having to fail nearly simultaneously to achieve the collapse we saw.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 15, 2018, 02:28:16 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 15, 2018, 02:24:29 AM
It was probably a mix of a low res video, compression artefacts and bad editing.

It's possible that it was set up to decieve but personally I think the higher res versions are better examples of possible squibs.

We can move on, you're willing to be absolutely dishonest and disgusting to push your narrative. There is no point me continuing this.

I think we left it at the post in my sig. I don't believe you have offered a rebuttal to my point of the entire core having to fail nearly simultaneously to achieve the collapse we saw.

Actually I debunked you argument about simultaneous collapse of the core many times over.  I get tired of repeating it.   

The facade collapsed at near free-fall speed because the core had already collapsed.   Are you any closer to understanding it yet?

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Papa Legba on February 15, 2018, 02:34:10 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 15, 2018, 02:28:16 AM
The facade collapsed at near free-fall speed because the core had already collapsed.

LMFAO!!!
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 15, 2018, 02:37:01 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 15, 2018, 02:28:16 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 15, 2018, 02:24:29 AM
It was probably a mix of a low res video, compression artefacts and bad editing.

It's possible that it was set up to decieve but personally I think the higher res versions are better examples of possible squibs.

We can move on, you're willing to be absolutely dishonest and disgusting to push your narrative. There is no point me continuing this.

I think we left it at the post in my sig. I don't believe you have offered a rebuttal to my point of the entire core having to fail nearly simultaneously to achieve the collapse we saw.

Actually I debunked you argument about simultaneous collapse of the core many times over.  I get tired of repeating it.   

The facade collapsed at near free-fall speed because the core had already collapsed.   Are you any closer to understanding it yet?

No, The core collapsed when the west penthouse collapsed you admitted it yourself.

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:54:14 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 21, 2017, 07:49:46 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:43:13 PM
When the west penthouse fails the building immediately collapses.

Gee, I wonder what was holding up the penthouse?

The core. Therefore as soon as the core failed the building came down. Hulsey is right.
Video evidence.
[Youtube][/youtube]

The west penthouse collapsed immediately prior to the building collapse the core was still intact until the west penthouse collapsed.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on February 15, 2018, 03:55:38 AM
Even if they where explosions, what you saw on that video was not the cause of the collapse.
If they were you would see the building collapse down from the point of explosion. So you should see pancaking of each floor where the explosions would be as the columns get demolished.

We dont see that, instead we see the building collapsing from somewhere below our view. The point of failure is closer to ground level.

Notice that it seems as if the whole building is sinking together, it means those things you see are not where there major structural collapse is.

Also, explosions are usually very energetic, moving debris at hundreds of meters per second.

Its hard to tell what your seeing there overall, it is blurry.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on February 15, 2018, 04:08:39 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 15, 2018, 02:37:01 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 15, 2018, 02:28:16 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 15, 2018, 02:24:29 AM
It was probably a mix of a low res video, compression artefacts and bad editing.

It's possible that it was set up to decieve but personally I think the higher res versions are better examples of possible squibs.

We can move on, you're willing to be absolutely dishonest and disgusting to push your narrative. There is no point me continuing this.

I think we left it at the post in my sig. I don't believe you have offered a rebuttal to my point of the entire core having to fail nearly simultaneously to achieve the collapse we saw.

Actually I debunked you argument about simultaneous collapse of the core many times over.  I get tired of repeating it.   

The facade collapsed at near free-fall speed because the core had already collapsed.   Are you any closer to understanding it yet?

No, The core collapsed when the west penthouse collapsed you admitted it yourself.

Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:54:14 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on September 21, 2017, 07:49:46 PM
Quote from: disputeone on September 21, 2017, 07:43:13 PM
When the west penthouse fails the building immediately collapses.

Gee, I wonder what was holding up the penthouse?

The core. Therefore as soon as the core failed the building came down. Hulsey is right.
Video evidence.
[Youtube][/youtube]

The west penthouse collapsed immediately prior to the building collapse the core was still intact until the west penthouse collapsed.

I dont think you are disagreeing, the centre "core" (it was not a traditional core structure) collapsed first, then the external structure collapsed. Its shows it so nicely in the video, a pity they jump time there, I would like to see how long the exterior stood before it fell.

Once the core is out, the exterior can essentially just fold in on itself.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 15, 2018, 04:32:47 AM
We are absolutely disagreeing.

I am arguing the core failed uniformly and nearly simultaneously immediately before the building collapse. The core and the exterior collapse at the same time.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 15, 2018, 04:37:37 AM
(https://s13.postimg.org/yzky4bbhj/WTC7-floor-plan-collapse-initial-failure-_NIST-column-79-girder-4.gif)



The collapse of the east penthouse was the failure of column 79, 80 and 81. These are not core columns as you can see.

The core collapsed as the west penthouse collapsed. The core failed nearly simultaneously and the entire building came down symmetrically at free-fall for 2.25 seconds.

Fire can't cause this, only a controlled demolition.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on February 15, 2018, 04:49:05 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 15, 2018, 04:37:37 AM
(https://s13.postimg.org/yzky4bbhj/WTC7-floor-plan-collapse-initial-failure-_NIST-column-79-girder-4.gif)



The collapse of the east penthouse was the failure of column 79, 80 and 81. These are not core columns as you can see.

The core collapsed as the west penthouse collapsed. The core failed nearly simultaneously and the entire building came down symmetrically at free-fall for 2.25 seconds.

Fire can't cause this, only a controlled demolition.


Quote from: disputeone on February 15, 2018, 03:02:37 AM
shitposting is pretty therapeutic.

You're at your therapy again?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 15, 2018, 04:50:29 AM
No, show me where I'm wrong if you can.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on February 15, 2018, 05:07:23 AM
You have a broad definition of symmetrical.


But hey, you can have your opinion, no big deal.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 15, 2018, 05:08:10 AM
Cite a more symmetrical building collapse if you can. A controlled demolition is fine.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on February 15, 2018, 05:36:59 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 15, 2018, 04:32:47 AM
We are absolutely disagreeing.

I am arguing the core failed uniformly and nearly simultaneously immediately before the building collapse. The core and the exterior collapse at the same time.

Okay, I understand the disagreement

Quote
Fire can't cause this, only a controlled demolition.
I agree its improbable, but it is an irrational statement.


Quote from: disputeone on February 15, 2018, 04:37:37 AM
(https://s13.postimg.org/yzky4bbhj/WTC7-floor-plan-collapse-initial-failure-_NIST-column-79-girder-4.gif)



The collapse of the east penthouse was the failure of column 79, 80 and 81. These are not core columns as you can see.

The core collapsed as the west penthouse collapsed. The core failed nearly simultaneously and the entire building came down symmetrically at free-fall for 2.25 seconds.

Fire can't cause this, only a controlled demolition.

As I previously stated, this building did not have a traditional core.

Tall buildings (Actually all buildings) need to be supported for vertical loads in one direction (gravity) and lateral loads in all horizontal directions (winds)
There are many ways of handling these forces, depending on the structural philosophy.

Traditionally in tall buildings, the core handles vertical loads and lateral loads, with additional loads passing to the outer skin. Dealing with lateral loads usually thickens the core a lot to overcome a "slenderness ratio" issue (amongst other issues).
One way to overcome this is to pass the lateral support to the outer skin. Many modern buildings do this, but still have a inner core with lateral support.

WTC 7 over designed their outer skin, due to some strange site conditions, leading them to thin out the structure at the core. If you look at the detailed drawings of the elevator shafts (which I no longer have with me) they provide more of a supportive role for the elevators, and vertical loads. But I did not see any lateral load support. The 1 foot of concrete around some (not all) of the elevator shafts was for fire protection compliance, and certainly not for lateral support.

The lateral loads where to be transferred to the outer skin.
But there is a problem with this, as each facade element can only act against lateral forces in one direction. This is a bit like building a tower out of a fridge box. It wont easily collapse, but it is very wobbly.
To solve this you put bracing through the floors.

The floors then hold the different facade elements together so that the outer skin can act as one structure against lateral forces.

So here we have different forces with 3 different structural elements tied up together. If you remove one of those, you have a collapse

If you look at the video again hold your mouse pointer at the top left corner of the building, and watch what happens as it starts falling.

 - The building twists.

That is because those 3 columns where also holding the floors up. Without the floors, the facade essentially twists, kinks, and drops.

Modern buildings use similar structural systems, but with added lateral support in the core. (also, not always)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 15, 2018, 05:44:28 AM
The building doesn't twist. We can see from the collapse that it falls straight down. If the building did twist you would have a point. There was slight deformation in the roofline before the collapse of the core because the core structure was holding the building up without column 79, 80 and 81 which it easily did.

We can see the core (columns 58 - 78) fail by the west penthouse's collapse. As soon as the core fails the building comes down. This is absolutely clear from the video evidence. The core didn't collapse before the facade, this is just a lie.

Fire can't cause this wolf. Columns 58 - 78 didn't fail nearly simultaneously because column 79 failed. You said yourself you could see the building standing after the collapse of the east penthouse. The collapse shouldn't have progressed farther than that. We can see even on the simple layout drawings that all of the core columns are connected by trusses.

If the building had collapsed due to fire there would have been massive deformity and a collapse nowhere close to free-fall
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on February 15, 2018, 06:04:43 AM
It does twist, but it does not seem like a lot. In reality the top left corner probably moves more than 5m laterally before the fall. Please look at that video from the 13 second mark. There is a lot of movement before it starts to fall.
Why would it do this before the fall? If the columns where severed by simultaneous detonation it would not do this. it would just go straight down right?

Then look at all the beams that are dependant on those 3 columns. all of them would collapse as if those 3 columns fell.
A buildings does not stand simply due to columns, all buildings (tall buildings more specifically so) comprise of structural systems.
This means that at minimal of 25% of the buildings core structural stability is immediately gone. If you removed 25% of a tall buildings lateral support systems it will fail, even 10%

I dont know how this myth of fire not being able to destroy steel buildings started, but its well taught in architecture and engineering that steel needs a lot of additional fire suppression as it loses strength very quickly in the event of fire. This is why most modern buildings have strong concrete cores. The reason why there are few examples of steel buildings that collapse due to fire is because so few buildings where built like this.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Papa Legba on February 15, 2018, 06:40:22 AM
Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on February 15, 2018, 06:04:43 AM
I dont know how this myth of fire not being able to destroy steel buildings started

Probably from shillbots like you.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 15, 2018, 01:52:16 PM
I am absent for one night because of Valentine's day and the shills swarm this thread lol.

Am I not entitled to one day off?

The multiple pages added last night, I only saw one argument worth addressing.

Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on February 15, 2018, 06:04:43 AM
If you removed 25% of a tall buildings lateral support systems it will fail, even 10%

This is not true...it depends on where it is removed...how spaced out etc.

Nor does it guarantee a full collapse...most likely would be an asymmetrical partial collapse.



Everything else added was just Rayzor trying to put words in dispute mouth and goat him..

The no souled ginger sockrual of course added absolutely nothing, but this is usual.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 15, 2018, 04:13:12 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 15, 2018, 01:52:16 PM
Everything else added was just Rayzor trying to put words in dispute mouth and goat him..

So you missed the main parts.   Let me recap for you.

Dispute posted a video which had the broken windows blurred out claiming it was evidence of squibs.   I called fake.  He then posted a second video of an explosive controlled demolition where explosions couldn't be seen, claiming that even if WTC7 was an explosive controlled demolition,  you might not see it.   He then called me a liar for outing his fake squib video with the obvious digital blurring. 

Being unable to prove any evidence of explosive demolition,  he next claimed that he never said WTC7 was explosive controlled demolition, he now claims controlled demolition,  but refuses to say how.   

He then repeats his claims about never being debunked.   FFS,  this guy is as crazy as they come.   You'd get less movement in position from a bowl of jelly.

I wasn't around when the wolf was here, but he raised some interesting points. 

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 15, 2018, 04:57:06 PM
Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on February 15, 2018, 06:04:43 AM
I dont know how this myth of fire not being able to destroy steel buildings started, but its well taught in architecture and engineering that steel needs a lot of additional fire suppression as it loses strength very quickly in the event of fire. This is why most modern buildings have strong concrete cores. The reason why there are few examples of steel buildings that collapse due to fire is because so few buildings where built like this.

Which is why the thermal modelling is one of the keys to understanding the detail of WTC7's collapse.   

Quote
If you removed 25% of a tall buildings lateral support systems it will fail, even 10%

The whole interior of the building had collapsed,  so I'd say it was more like 90-100% of the lateral support had gone.


Wolf's point about the failure being at the bottom, and out of sight of the video, is something that has been raised before,  but we got into twisting coke cans instead of following it further.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bullwinkle on February 16, 2018, 04:15:25 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 15, 2018, 04:50:29 AM
No, show me where I'm wrong if you can.


https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?action=profile;area=showposts;u=1460082
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 17, 2018, 12:34:03 AM
Quote from: Bullwinkle on February 16, 2018, 04:15:25 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 15, 2018, 04:50:29 AM
No, show me where I'm wrong if you can.


https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?action=profile;area=showposts;u=1460082

Has dipstick been bammed again?  Or is he just hiding his head in shame?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Crouton on February 17, 2018, 09:37:37 AM
I don't see anything ban worthy I his recent posts. Unless it was something bad enough that it was quarantined.

Between wolf rejoining this thread and the new Russia indictments he's probably having a difficult time justifying his worldview.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on February 17, 2018, 09:39:19 AM
Yeah, dipstick probably chickened out because he literally run out of arguments.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Space Cowgirl on February 17, 2018, 10:49:40 AM
Before people start cursing at me, no he isn't banned.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Crouton on February 17, 2018, 11:01:03 AM
That reminds me. I need to preemptively bump the "space Cowgirl is a government agent" thread.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: MaNaeSWolf on February 17, 2018, 11:18:53 AM
Its sad that his is not here. At the moment this is the only interesting thread left for me at TFES. The rest of TFES seems to be going through an identity crisis.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Crouton on February 17, 2018, 11:25:44 AM
Quote from: MaNaeSWolf on February 17, 2018, 11:18:53 AM
Its sad that his is not here. At the moment this is the only interesting thread left for me at TFES. The rest of TFES seems to be going through an identity crisis.

I'm sure BHS would be happy to discuss 911 with you. And you would probably get a more productive conversation out of it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Papa Legba on February 17, 2018, 12:24:39 PM
http://www.cleverbot.com/conv/201802172008/WXABLHLIWU_Was-9-11-an-inside-job
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 17, 2018, 12:42:11 PM
Quote from: User324 on February 17, 2018, 09:39:19 AM
Yeah, dipstick probably chickened out because he literally run out of arguments.

Well certainly not from you as you can barely complete a sentence much less provide a post with substance.

Or do you mean Rayzor? Someone that spent pages trying to put words in his mouth and play semantics?

Quote from: crutonius on February 17, 2018, 11:25:44 AM

I'm sure BHS would be happy to discuss 911 with you.

Always am....I just dream of an actual discussion here and not a "NO U" shit fest.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Papa Legba on February 17, 2018, 01:05:34 PM
http://www.eviebot.com/conv/201802172053/MCGF6ZDJHI_Go-on-say-Hello-then-_Who-did-9-11
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 17, 2018, 04:39:30 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 17, 2018, 12:42:11 PM
Or do you mean Rayzor? Someone that spent pages trying to put words in his mouth and play semantics?

That's a pretty distorted view of the conversation, where he repeatedly calls me a liar,  and then backs away from his core belief that explosives were used to demolish WTC7

I guess you weren't paying attention.  So you are excused.

Back on topic.

Do you now agree that the point of failure for the facade on WTC7 was below the portion we can see on the video.
Also that for the facade to collapse in one piece like that the center of the structure had to have already collapsed.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Papa Legba on February 17, 2018, 05:04:15 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 17, 2018, 04:39:30 PM
Back on topic.

Unlikely.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 17, 2018, 05:11:15 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 17, 2018, 04:39:30 PM
Do you now agree that the point of failure for the facade on WTC7 was below the portion we can see on the video.
Also that for the facade to collapse in one piece like that the center of the structure had to have already collapsed.

Can you please rephrase your question especially the bolded area? Not 100 percent sure what you are asking me
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 17, 2018, 05:15:09 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 17, 2018, 05:11:15 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 17, 2018, 04:39:30 PM
Do you now agree that the point of failure for the facade on WTC7 was below the portion we can see on the video.
Also that for the facade to collapse in one piece like that the center of the structure had to have already collapsed.

Can you please rephrase your question especially the bolded area? Not 100 percent sure what you are asking me

The video show the facade falling at close to free fall speed.  For that to be possible the interior supporting structure had to have already collapsed.  This is clear on the video where you can see the rooftop penthouse collapsing before the facade collapses. 

Do you agree so far?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 17, 2018, 06:43:36 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 17, 2018, 05:15:09 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 17, 2018, 05:11:15 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 17, 2018, 04:39:30 PM
Do you now agree that the point of failure for the facade on WTC7 was below the portion we can see on the video.
Also that for the facade to collapse in one piece like that the center of the structure had to have already collapsed.

Can you please rephrase your question especially the bolded area? Not 100 percent sure what you are asking me

The video show the facade falling at close to free fall speed.  For that to be possible the interior supporting structure had to have already collapsed.  This is clear on the video where you can see the rooftop penthouse collapsing before the facade collapses. 

Do you agree so far?

No, but the catalyst of the collapse began in the interior.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 17, 2018, 06:51:34 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 17, 2018, 06:43:36 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 17, 2018, 05:15:09 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 17, 2018, 05:11:15 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 17, 2018, 04:39:30 PM
Do you now agree that the point of failure for the facade on WTC7 was below the portion we can see on the video.
Also that for the facade to collapse in one piece like that the center of the structure had to have already collapsed.

Can you please rephrase your question especially the bolded area? Not 100 percent sure what you are asking me

The video show the facade falling at close to free fall speed.  For that to be possible the interior supporting structure had to have already collapsed.  This is clear on the video where you can see the rooftop penthouse collapsing before the facade collapses. 

Do you agree so far?

No, but the catalyst of the collapse began in the interior.

Isn't that what I just said?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Papa Legba on February 18, 2018, 01:24:38 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 17, 2018, 06:51:34 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 17, 2018, 06:43:36 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 17, 2018, 05:15:09 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 17, 2018, 05:11:15 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 17, 2018, 04:39:30 PM
Do you now agree that the point of failure for the facade on WTC7 was below the portion we can see on the video.
Also that for the facade to collapse in one piece like that the center of the structure had to have already collapsed.

Can you please rephrase your question especially the bolded area? Not 100 percent sure what you are asking me

The video show the facade falling at close to free fall speed.  For that to be possible the interior supporting structure had to have already collapsed.  This is clear on the video where you can see the rooftop penthouse collapsing before the facade collapses. 

Do you agree so far?

No, but the catalyst of the collapse began in the interior.

Isn't that what I just said?

No.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on February 18, 2018, 01:28:55 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 17, 2018, 06:51:34 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 17, 2018, 06:43:36 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 17, 2018, 05:15:09 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 17, 2018, 05:11:15 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 17, 2018, 04:39:30 PM
Do you now agree that the point of failure for the facade on WTC7 was below the portion we can see on the video.
Also that for the facade to collapse in one piece like that the center of the structure had to have already collapsed.

Can you please rephrase your question especially the bolded area? Not 100 percent sure what you are asking me

The video show the facade falling at close to free fall speed.  For that to be possible the interior supporting structure had to have already collapsed.  This is clear on the video where you can see the rooftop penthouse collapsing before the facade collapses. 

Do you agree so far?

No, but the catalyst of the collapse began in the interior.

Isn't that what I just said?
Yes.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Papa Legba on February 18, 2018, 01:45:29 AM
Quote from: User324 on February 18, 2018, 01:28:55 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 17, 2018, 06:51:34 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 17, 2018, 06:43:36 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 17, 2018, 05:15:09 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 17, 2018, 05:11:15 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 17, 2018, 04:39:30 PM
Do you now agree that the point of failure for the facade on WTC7 was below the portion we can see on the video.
Also that for the facade to collapse in one piece like that the center of the structure had to have already collapsed.

Can you please rephrase your question especially the bolded area? Not 100 percent sure what you are asking me

The video show the facade falling at close to free fall speed.  For that to be possible the interior supporting structure had to have already collapsed.  This is clear on the video where you can see the rooftop penthouse collapsing before the facade collapses. 

Do you agree so far?

No, but the catalyst of the collapse began in the interior.

Isn't that what I just said?
Yes.

New thread title: bots engage in circular argumentation for hundreds of pages, yawn!
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 18, 2018, 04:01:34 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 17, 2018, 06:51:34 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 17, 2018, 06:43:36 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 17, 2018, 05:15:09 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 17, 2018, 05:11:15 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 17, 2018, 04:39:30 PM
Do you now agree that the point of failure for the facade on WTC7 was below the portion we can see on the video.
Also that for the facade to collapse in one piece like that the center of the structure had to have already collapsed.

Can you please rephrase your question especially the bolded area? Not 100 percent sure what you are asking me

The video show the facade falling at close to free fall speed.  For that to be possible the interior supporting structure had to have already collapsed.  This is clear on the video where you can see the rooftop penthouse collapsing before the facade collapses. 

Do you agree so far?

No, but the catalyst of the collapse began in the interior.

Isn't that what I just said?

Bump,  still interested in what you think the collapse sequence was.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Wolvaccine on February 19, 2018, 04:01:01 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 18, 2018, 04:01:34 PM
Bump,  still interested in what you think the collapse sequence was.

And here is the bot, right on queue!
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 19, 2018, 04:41:27 PM
Quote from: Shifter on February 19, 2018, 04:01:01 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 18, 2018, 04:01:34 PM
Bump,  still interested in what you think the collapse sequence was.

And here is the bot, right on queue!

cue,  you illiterate bogan.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Wolvaccine on February 19, 2018, 04:43:42 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 19, 2018, 04:41:27 PM
Quote from: Shifter on February 19, 2018, 04:01:01 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 18, 2018, 04:01:34 PM
Bump,  still interested in what you think the collapse sequence was.

And here is the bot, right on queue!

cue,  you illiterate bogan.

see, I am human and make mistakes. Your bot programming cant help but not point them out and correct

^Rayzor shill bot confirmed
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 19, 2018, 04:49:30 PM
Quote from: Shifter on February 19, 2018, 04:43:42 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 19, 2018, 04:41:27 PM
Quote from: Shifter on February 19, 2018, 04:01:01 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 18, 2018, 04:01:34 PM
Bump,  still interested in what you think the collapse sequence was.

And here is the bot, right on queue!

cue,  you illiterate bogan.

see, I am human and make mistakes. Your bot programming cant help but not point them out and correct

^Rayzor shill bot confirmed

LOL,  bogan bots take over the world.    There's a scary thought.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Wolvaccine on February 19, 2018, 04:53:04 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 19, 2018, 04:49:30 PM
Quote from: Shifter on February 19, 2018, 04:43:42 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 19, 2018, 04:41:27 PM
Quote from: Shifter on February 19, 2018, 04:01:01 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 18, 2018, 04:01:34 PM
Bump,  still interested in what you think the collapse sequence was.

And here is the bot, right on queue!

cue,  you illiterate bogan.

see, I am human and make mistakes. Your bot programming cant help but not point them out and correct

^Rayzor shill bot confirmed

So, you're a bogan too?
LOL,  bogan bots take over the world.    There's a scary thought.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 19, 2018, 10:43:30 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 18, 2018, 04:01:34 PM
Bump,  still interested in what you think the collapse sequence was.

As I have said before, and at the beginning of this thread and many times throughout...I don't like to speculate the cause, all I can do is prove what the official cause of collapse is absolutely incorrect.

Though, if I were to speculate from witness statements (at the scene and months before) and visual evidence...I think it was a hybrid verinage style. I think the "workers" that was "renovating" the buildings and closing off floors prepped the building. Used a combination of removing mass, drilling multiple pilot holes in main supports staggered in alternating floors (this is some of the most critical prep that needs to be done for the Verinage method) and using explosives in key areas such as the base and transition floors...by my estimates, with this design you would only need about 5-7 floors with explosives.

With the ambient noise, the building being intact with windows/sound deadening, timing and placement of the explosives...little would be noticed. Though obviously it wasn't perfect because many reported hearing explosions.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Wolvaccine on February 19, 2018, 10:51:09 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 19, 2018, 10:43:30 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 18, 2018, 04:01:34 PM
Bump,  still interested in what you think the collapse sequence was.

As I have said before, and at the beginning of this thread and many times throughout...I don't like to speculate the cause, all I can do is prove what the official cause of collapse is absolutely incorrect.


This here... There is no way any sane, rational, thinking individual would believe the shit out of the government sponsored report

Which then leads you to ask.... What are they hiding? And why?


And why is anyone hanging shit on those that do ask these questions and not follow the government like good little sheep? Does no one want the government scrutinised and held to account here?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 19, 2018, 11:34:55 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 19, 2018, 10:43:30 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 18, 2018, 04:01:34 PM
Bump,  still interested in what you think the collapse sequence was.

As I have said before, and at the beginning of this thread and many times throughout...I don't like to speculate the cause, all I can do is prove what the official cause of collapse is absolutely incorrect.

Though, if I were to speculate from witness statements (at the scene and months before) and visual evidence...I think it was a hybrid verinage style. I think the "workers" that was "renovating" the buildings and closing off floors prepped the building. Used a combination of removing mass, drilling multiple pilot holes in main supports staggered in alternating floors (this is some of the most critical prep that needs to be done for the Verinage method) and using explosives in key areas such as the base and transition floors...by my estimates, with this design you would only need about 5-7 floors with explosives.

With the ambient noise, the building being intact with windows/sound deadening, timing and placement of the explosives...little would be noticed. Though obviously it wasn't perfect because many reported hearing explosions.

The topic being discussed was WTC7.   Not WTC1 or 2.

Anyway,  if you've nothing to say about WTC7,  we'll go back to WTC1 and 2.

I challenge you to prove that the official cause of collapse is absolutely incorrect.   You can't make unsupported claims like that and not be expected to prove them.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on February 19, 2018, 11:38:35 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 19, 2018, 11:34:55 PM
You can't make unsupported claims like that
Well, he can, you just shouldn't value them at all.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 19, 2018, 11:43:26 PM
Quote from: User324 on February 19, 2018, 11:38:35 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 19, 2018, 11:34:55 PM
You can't make unsupported claims like that
Well, he can, you just shouldn't value them at all.

He can try, but I won't let him get away unchallenged.  He should at least once present a logical argument,  which he's so far failed to do.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Wolvaccine on February 19, 2018, 11:45:49 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 19, 2018, 11:34:55 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 19, 2018, 10:43:30 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 18, 2018, 04:01:34 PM
Bump,  still interested in what you think the collapse sequence was.

As I have said before, and at the beginning of this thread and many times throughout...I don't like to speculate the cause, all I can do is prove what the official cause of collapse is absolutely incorrect.

Though, if I were to speculate from witness statements (at the scene and months before) and visual evidence...I think it was a hybrid verinage style. I think the "workers" that was "renovating" the buildings and closing off floors prepped the building. Used a combination of removing mass, drilling multiple pilot holes in main supports staggered in alternating floors (this is some of the most critical prep that needs to be done for the Verinage method) and using explosives in key areas such as the base and transition floors...by my estimates, with this design you would only need about 5-7 floors with explosives.

With the ambient noise, the building being intact with windows/sound deadening, timing and placement of the explosives...little would be noticed. Though obviously it wasn't perfect because many reported hearing explosions.

The topic being discussed was WTC7.   Not WTC1 or 2.

Anyway,  if you've nothing to say about WTC7,  we'll go back to WTC1 and 2.

I challenge you to prove that the official cause of collapse is absolutely incorrect.   You can't make unsupported claims like that and not be expected to prove them.

I challenge you to look us in the eye (well imagine so being on a computer and all and say the following

"The government is benevolent, honourable, has not lied or distorted the truth and had no involvement in any way on the events of September 11, 2001"

If you can say that. Shill confirmed. If you cant/wont say it, then I guess even you believe something is suss

I find it unfathomable that you believe the government is above board in this. No sane person could think otherwise

Lets say for arguments sake the destruction happens just as you say..... The governments hands aren't washed clean.... You see at best, they knew and helped facilitate the hijackers to do the deed. It gave them everything they needed to bog themselves in the Middle East to gain a foothold there. At worst, they actively participated in the towers total destruction. I am not an engineer or physicist, but I do know a shady corrupt government when I see one and the whole administrations of late stink rotten to the core. All of them
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 19, 2018, 11:46:38 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 19, 2018, 11:34:55 PM
The topic being discussed was WTC7.   Not WTC1 or 2.

Anyway,  if you've nothing to say about WTC7,  we'll go back to WTC1 and 2.

I challenge you to prove that the official cause of collapse is absolutely incorrect.   You can't make unsupported claims like that and not be expected to prove them.

I was talking about 7.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 20, 2018, 12:26:19 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 19, 2018, 11:46:38 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 19, 2018, 11:34:55 PM
The topic being discussed was WTC7.   Not WTC1 or 2.

Anyway,  if you've nothing to say about WTC7,  we'll go back to WTC1 and 2.

I challenge you to prove that the official cause of collapse is absolutely incorrect.   You can't make unsupported claims like that and not be expected to prove them.

I was talking about 7.

Have you actually seen the video of WTC7 collapsing,  it was nothing like verinage. 

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on February 20, 2018, 12:29:06 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 19, 2018, 11:46:38 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 19, 2018, 11:34:55 PM
The topic being discussed was WTC7.   Not WTC1 or 2.

Anyway,  if you've nothing to say about WTC7,  we'll go back to WTC1 and 2.

I challenge you to prove that the official cause of collapse is absolutely incorrect.   You can't make unsupported claims like that and not be expected to prove them.

I was talking about 7.
Nice evidence you got there.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 20, 2018, 12:42:52 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 20, 2018, 12:26:19 AM
Have you actually seen the video of WTC7 collapsing,  it was nothing like verinage.

Read my post, the answer to your comment is there.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 20, 2018, 12:53:37 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 20, 2018, 12:42:52 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 20, 2018, 12:26:19 AM
Have you actually seen the video of WTC7 collapsing,  it was nothing like verinage.

Read my post, the answer to your comment is there.

I did,  you are saying that it was an explosive demolition.   You seem unaware that the interior collapsed before the facade.   The east penthouse collapses 8 seconds before the facade collapses. 

Here is the official version of the collapse.

(https://www.metabunk.org//files/WTC7-NIST-Simulation-with-Impact-damage.gif)

It matches reasonably well with the video and eye witness accounts.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 20, 2018, 01:23:43 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 20, 2018, 12:53:37 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 20, 2018, 12:42:52 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 20, 2018, 12:26:19 AM
Have you actually seen the video of WTC7 collapsing,  it was nothing like verinage.

Read my post, the answer to your comment is there.

I did,  you are saying that it was an explosive demolition.   You seem unaware that the interior collapsed before the facade.   The east penthouse collapses 8 seconds before the facade collapses. 

Here is the official version of the collapse.

(https://www.metabunk.org//files/WTC7-NIST-Simulation-with-Impact-damage.gif)

It matches reasonably well with the video and eye witness accounts.

That does not match what we saw. The penthouse dropped only a few feet then stopped...then the entire building came down as one. Though the core's rigitity and vertical strength was compromised as we can see from the kink. Typical visual of CD, and a good sign things are going well.

Even though the model does not accurately present what we saw visually, even that cannot happen in reality. They know this, that is why they won't release the input variables.

Also, I did not count 8 seconds on the penthouse, nor did it go out of sight, just a few feet.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on February 20, 2018, 02:06:51 AM
Nice opinion you got there bhs.

Would be a shame if someone pointed out that you didn' t present any actual proof or evidence.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 20, 2018, 02:21:34 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 20, 2018, 01:23:43 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 20, 2018, 12:53:37 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 20, 2018, 12:42:52 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 20, 2018, 12:26:19 AM
Have you actually seen the video of WTC7 collapsing,  it was nothing like verinage.

Read my post, the answer to your comment is there.

I did,  you are saying that it was an explosive demolition.   You seem unaware that the interior collapsed before the facade.   The east penthouse collapses 8 seconds before the facade collapses. 

Here is the official version of the collapse.

(https://www.metabunk.org//files/WTC7-NIST-Simulation-with-Impact-damage.gif)

It matches reasonably well with the video and eye witness accounts.

That does not match what we saw. The penthouse dropped only a few feet then stopped...then the entire building came down as one. Though the core's rigitity and vertical strength was compromised as we can see from the kink. Typical visual of CD, and a good sign things are going well.

Even though the model does not accurately present what we saw visually, even that cannot happen in reality. They know this, that is why they won't release the input variables.

Also, I did not count 8 seconds on the penthouse, nor did it go out of sight, just a few feet.

The penthouse collapsed at least  far enough that you could see daylight through the top 3 or 4 floor windows.  It's not possible to tell if it continued to fall, but the way the facade buckled inwards suggests strongly that the interior has completely collapsed.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 20, 2018, 02:32:30 AM
We've been through this Rayzor. Only three columns failed when the east penthouse collapsed. We have video evidence of the core failure in the collapse of the west penthouse. The west penthouse collapses immediately prior to the outside "facade".

The NIST model is a joke, as has been explained previously. They don't show the end of the collapse because it wouldn't look anything like the collapse of wtc 7. They won't release the inputs for that model because the instant it was peer reviewed by disinterested parties it would be exposed as a coverup.

In order to match observations the entire core had to fail nearly simultaneously. There is nothing left to debate.

I've been busy researching botnets and AI, it's very interesting.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on February 20, 2018, 02:37:11 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 20, 2018, 02:32:30 AM
I've been busy researching botnets and AI, it's very interesting.
Sounds interesting. Feel free to open a new thread and post what you've found out, I'd read it (but post a link here, I don't browse new topics a lot).
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 20, 2018, 03:02:42 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 20, 2018, 02:32:30 AM
We've been through this Rayzor. Only three columns failed when the east penthouse collapsed. We have video evidence of the core failure in the collapse of the west penthouse. The west penthouse collapses immediately prior to the outside "facade".

The NIST model is a joke, as has been explained previously. They don't show the end of the collapse because it wouldn't look anything like the collapse of wtc 7. They won't release the inputs for that model because the instant it was peer reviewed by disinterested parties it would be exposed as a coverup.

In order to match observations the entire core had to fail nearly simultaneously. There is nothing left to debate.

I've been busy researching botnets and AI, it's very interesting.

The evidence doesn't support your theory,  https://www.metabunk.org/wtc7-penthouse-falling-window-wave.t9398/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=25&v=Wf1HcJ7GKsc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=20&v=Bx2Kx2AkXEg

(https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/wtc7-3-way-compare-with-model-mp4-2018-01-11-13-13-30-jpg.30976/)

Where is the west penthouse?  I'm familiar with the east penthouse,  but not sure about the west penthouse,  I think there was a machine room? 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on February 20, 2018, 03:15:03 AM
Also you can see how the somke geds sucked in. If there were explosives used, the opposite would have happened.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 20, 2018, 03:20:26 AM
Quote from: User324 on February 20, 2018, 03:15:03 AM
Also you can see how the somke geds sucked in. If there were explosives used, the opposite would have happened.

Here's a better side by side, note the east penthouse falling.

(https://media.giphy.com/media/d3erFxr9U2fieVMI/giphy.gif)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 20, 2018, 03:24:08 AM
The plant room then if you want to be technical. I hardly see what that changes. We can see the core failure by the machine room collapse. As you said the core was holding up the plant room, being right above it and all. Bullwinkle then correctly stated that the plant room would not have hovered in place above the core.

The core failed as the plant room collapsed this is in all the video evidence it is undeniable.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 20, 2018, 03:25:56 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 20, 2018, 03:20:26 AM
Quote from: User324 on February 20, 2018, 03:15:03 AM
Also you can see how the somke geds sucked in. If there were explosives used, the opposite would have happened.

Here's a better side by side, note the east penthouse falling.

(https://media.giphy.com/media/d3erFxr9U2fieVMI/giphy.gif)

That is literally the only part that even comes close to the actual collapse. It is accurate to be fair. Why not post the entire model next to the collapse, it looks nothing like it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 20, 2018, 03:32:24 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 20, 2018, 03:24:08 AM
The plant room then if you want to be technical. I hardly see what that changes. We can see the core failure by the machine room collapse. As you said the core was holding up the plant room, being right above it and all. Bullwinkle then correctly stated that the plant room would not have hovered in place above the core.

The core failed as the plant room collapsed this is in all the video evidence it is undeniable.

After the east penthouse has collapsed, and that entire section of the core was gone.   You still don't have any evidence that supports explosive demolition.

Got any evidence at all? 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 20, 2018, 03:40:35 AM
You're the one pushing for explosive demolition. There are a few ways to bring a building down. Fewer to bring it down at free-fall.

My evidence is physics. The machine room did not hover in place when the core had collapsed. As an experiment see if an object will hover in place when there is no support under it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 20, 2018, 03:42:45 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 20, 2018, 03:32:24 AM
After the east penthouse has collapsed, and that entire section of the core was gone.

No the failure of column 79, 80 and 81 would have been easily enough to cause the collapse of the east penthouse. These are not core columns.
Try again.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on February 20, 2018, 03:43:06 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 20, 2018, 03:40:35 AM
You're the one pushing for explosive demolition. There are a few ways to bring a building down. Fewer to bring it down at free-fall.

My evidence is physics. The machine room did not hover in place when the core had collapsed. As an experiment see if an object will hover in place when there is no support under it.
So what's your theory?
That the wtc7 was actually just a hologram?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 20, 2018, 03:44:37 AM
Quote from: User324 on February 20, 2018, 03:43:06 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 20, 2018, 03:40:35 AM
You're the one pushing for explosive demolition. There are a few ways to bring a building down. Fewer to bring it down at free-fall.

My evidence is physics. The machine room did not hover in place when the core had collapsed. As an experiment see if an object will hover in place when there is no support under it.
So what's your theory?

My theory is that something other than fire caused the collapse of wtc7 and that the NIST report on wtc 7 was a cover-up.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 20, 2018, 03:45:05 AM
Quote from: User324 on February 20, 2018, 03:43:06 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 20, 2018, 03:40:35 AM
You're the one pushing for explosive demolition. There are a few ways to bring a building down. Fewer to bring it down at free-fall.

My evidence is physics. The machine room did not hover in place when the core had collapsed. As an experiment see if an object will hover in place when there is no support under it.
So what's your theory?
That the wtc7 was actually just a hologram?

He won't commit to a point of view, he just waves his hands,  and pretends he never said it was demolished,   ( I'm pretty sure it was )
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 20, 2018, 03:46:24 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 20, 2018, 03:44:37 AM
Quote from: User324 on February 20, 2018, 03:43:06 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 20, 2018, 03:40:35 AM
You're the one pushing for explosive demolition. There are a few ways to bring a building down. Fewer to bring it down at free-fall.

My evidence is physics. The machine room did not hover in place when the core had collapsed. As an experiment see if an object will hover in place when there is no support under it.
So what's your theory?

My theory is that something other than fire caused the collapse of wtc7 and that the NIST report on wtc 7 was a cover-up.

See what I mean,  hand waving. 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on February 20, 2018, 03:47:44 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 20, 2018, 03:44:37 AM
Quote from: User324 on February 20, 2018, 03:43:06 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 20, 2018, 03:40:35 AM
You're the one pushing for explosive demolition. There are a few ways to bring a building down. Fewer to bring it down at free-fall.

My evidence is physics. The machine room did not hover in place when the core had collapsed. As an experiment see if an object will hover in place when there is no support under it.
So what's your theory?

My theory is that something other than fire caused the collapse of wtc7 and that the NIST report on wtc 7 was a cover-up.
Lol. So it's aliens then.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 20, 2018, 03:49:42 AM
Quote from: User324 on February 20, 2018, 03:47:44 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 20, 2018, 03:44:37 AM
Quote from: User324 on February 20, 2018, 03:43:06 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 20, 2018, 03:40:35 AM
You're the one pushing for explosive demolition. There are a few ways to bring a building down. Fewer to bring it down at free-fall.

My evidence is physics. The machine room did not hover in place when the core had collapsed. As an experiment see if an object will hover in place when there is no support under it.
So what's your theory?

My theory is that something other than fire caused the collapse of wtc7 and that the NIST report on wtc 7 was a cover-up.
Lol. So it's aliens then.

Disintegration ray from an invisible classified satellite?   Yep, that's more plausible than fire weakens steel. 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 20, 2018, 03:50:59 AM
Demolition is not always explosive.
Sorry, I thought you were aware.
My personal views on this aren't important. Debunking the NIST narrative on wtc 7 is enough.

No user, I don't think it was "like aliens".

Did you try the experiment? Will something hover in place with nothing underneath it or is that only ok on 9/11?

Shills are on damage control lol.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on February 20, 2018, 03:52:12 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 20, 2018, 03:50:59 AM
Demolition is not always explosive.
Sorry, I thought you were aware.
My personal views on this aren't important. Debunking the NIST narrative on wtc 7 is enough.

No user, I don't think it was "like aliens".

Did you try the experiment? Will something hover in place with nothing underneath it or is that only ok on 9/11?

Shills are on damage control lol.
In certain cases something does hover in place with nothing underneat it, but it depends on the circumstances and the definitions.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 20, 2018, 03:52:56 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 20, 2018, 03:49:42 AM
Disintegration ray from an invisible classified satellite?   Yep, that's more plausible than fire weakens steel.

Fire does weaken steel, that doesn't debunk any of the points raised on wtc 7. You're glowing in the dark so badly.

Quote from: User324 on February 20, 2018, 03:52:12 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 20, 2018, 03:50:59 AM
Demolition is not always explosive.
Sorry, I thought you were aware.
My personal views on this aren't important. Debunking the NIST narrative on wtc 7 is enough.

No user, I don't think it was "like aliens".

Did you try the experiment? Will something hover in place with nothing underneath it or is that only ok on 9/11?

Shills are on damage control lol.
In certain cases something does hover in place with nothing underneat it, but it depends on the circumstances and the definitions.

Like in orbit, maybe a bird caught in the wind, or on 9/11.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on February 20, 2018, 03:53:54 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 20, 2018, 03:52:56 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 20, 2018, 03:49:42 AM
Disintegration ray from an invisible classified satellite?   Yep, that's more plausible than fire weakens steel.

Fire does weaken steel, that doesn't debunk any of the points raised on wtc 7. You're glowing in the dark so badly.

Quote from: User324 on February 20, 2018, 03:52:12 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 20, 2018, 03:50:59 AM
Demolition is not always explosive.
Sorry, I thought you were aware.
My personal views on this aren't important. Debunking the NIST narrative on wtc 7 is enough.

No user, I don't think it was "like aliens".

Did you try the experiment? Will something hover in place with nothing underneath it or is that only ok on 9/11?

Shills are on damage control lol.
In certain cases something does hover in place with nothing underneat it, but it depends on the circumstances and the definitions.

Like in orbit, maybe a bird caught in the wind, or on 9/11.
Where did something hover on 9/11? I must have missed that.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 20, 2018, 03:56:28 AM
NIST claims the core had collapsed before the "facade" fell. We can see the machine room sitting on top of the building until immediately prior to the buildings collapse. The machine room was held up by the core columns. The machine room collapsed when the core failed.

Edit. Video.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on February 20, 2018, 03:58:14 AM
I can't see any machine room.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 20, 2018, 03:59:30 AM
There are two structures on top of wtc 7. One on the east and one on the west. The west one is the machine room. We call them plant rooms they hold all the aircon machinery, generators etc. There's a massive amount of weight in them.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on February 20, 2018, 04:01:31 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 20, 2018, 03:59:30 AM
There are two structures on top of wtc 7. One on the east and one on the west. The west one is the machine room. We call them plant rooms they hold all the aircon machinery, generators etc. There's a massive amount of weight in them.
From what it looks like, that machine room is collapsing nearly immediately after the core. Looks all legit to me.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 20, 2018, 04:02:24 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 20, 2018, 03:56:28 AM
NIST claims the core had collapsed before the "facade" fell. We can see the machine room sitting on top of the building until immediately prior to the buildings collapse. The machine room was held up by the core columns. The machine room collapsed when the core failed.

Where does NIST claim the west side of the core collapsed before the facade?   

Their fea analysis shows the west side collapsing at  about the same time as the facade buckled inwards.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 20, 2018, 04:06:13 AM
Quote from: User324 on February 20, 2018, 04:01:31 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 20, 2018, 03:59:30 AM
There are two structures on top of wtc 7. One on the east and one on the west. The west one is the machine room. We call them plant rooms they hold all the aircon machinery, generators etc. There's a massive amount of weight in them.
From what it looks like, that machine room is collapsing nearly immediately after the core. Looks all legit to me.

That's my point exactly. The machine room collapsed immediately after the core collapsed.

This debunks NISTs theory of the outer facade collapsing after the core collapsed because as you said yourself. The machine room collapses immediately after the core failure. The entire building comes down immediately after the machine room.

This is common sense.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 20, 2018, 04:08:10 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 20, 2018, 04:02:24 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 20, 2018, 03:56:28 AM
NIST claims the core had collapsed before the "facade" fell. We can see the machine room sitting on top of the building until immediately prior to the buildings collapse. The machine room was held up by the core columns. The machine room collapsed when the core failed.

Where does NIST claim the west side of the core collapsed before the facade?   

You've been claiming it all thread I-I just can't.

The NIST model is an art project they made to look like the collapse. Nothing more, the inputs haven't been released and it has never been peer reviewed. It's an art project.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 20, 2018, 04:08:50 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 20, 2018, 04:06:13 AM
Quote from: User324 on February 20, 2018, 04:01:31 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 20, 2018, 03:59:30 AM
There are two structures on top of wtc 7. One on the east and one on the west. The west one is the machine room. We call them plant rooms they hold all the aircon machinery, generators etc. There's a massive amount of weight in them.
From what it looks like, that machine room is collapsing nearly immediately after the core. Looks all legit to me.

That's my point exactly. The machine room collapsed immediately after the core collapsed.

This debunks NISTs theory of the outer facade collapsing after the core collapsed because as you said yourself. The machine room collapses immediately after the core failure. The entire building comes down immediately after the machine room.

This is common sense.

The NIST simulation matches your description perfectly.  So you are agreeing finally with NIST.



Skip to 4:20 or so if you just want the fea
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Heiwa on February 20, 2018, 04:13:58 AM
http://
Quote from: disputeone on October 27, 2017, 10:25:54 AM
If not now then when? If not you then who?
My explanation of the WTC7 destruction is at http://heiwaco.com/nist7.htm . It seems that supporting structure of all floors below floor #14 just suddenly disappeared ... and then the intact top dropped down.
What do you think?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 20, 2018, 04:16:43 AM
Quote from: crutonius on February 17, 2018, 09:37:37 AM
I don't see anything ban worthy I his recent posts. Unless it was something bad enough that it was quarantined.

Between wolf rejoining this thread and the new Russia indictments he's probably having a difficult time justifying his worldview.

The Russia indictments proved there was no collusion, lol have you read them? Russian spent something like 50-100k on facebook. This was the election hacking.

The US does far worse than this every year to nearly every country. The indictments proved there was no collusion by Trump. The CIA disposed Geoff Whitlam over Pine Gap, you staged a soft coup in my country for five eyes compliance. Don't even get me started. Your entire democracy is a joke.

I really do hope you are a chatbot.

For teh lulz.
Quote
The more I argued with shills, the better I came to know their dialectic. First they counted on the stupidity of their adversary, and then, when there was no other way out, they themselves simply played stupid. If all this didn't help, they pretended not to understand, or, if challenged, they changed the subject in a hurry, quoted platitudes which, if you accepted them, they immediately related to entirely different matters, and then, if again attacked, gave ground and pretended not to know exactly what you were talking about. Whenever you tried to attack one of these apostles, your hand closed on a jelly-like slime which divided up and poured through your fingers, but in the next moment collected again. But if you really struck one of these fellows so telling a blow that, observed by the audience, he couldn't help but agree, and if you believed that this had taken you at least one step forward, your amazement was great the next day. The shill had not the slightest recollection of the day before, he rattled off his same old nonsense as though nothing at all had happened, and, if indignantly challenged, affected amazement; he couldn't remember a thing, except that he had proved the correctness of his assertions the previous day.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 20, 2018, 04:17:50 AM
Quote from: Heiwa on February 20, 2018, 04:13:58 AM
http://
Quote from: disputeone on October 27, 2017, 10:25:54 AM
If not now then when? If not you then who?
My explanation of the WTC7 destruction is at http://heiwaco.com/nist7.htm . It seems that supporting structure of all floors below floor #14 just suddenly disappeared ... and then the intact top dropped down.
What do you think?

Absolutely exposing yourself as a bot mate. That post is months old.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 20, 2018, 04:24:56 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 20, 2018, 04:08:50 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 20, 2018, 04:06:13 AM
Quote from: User324 on February 20, 2018, 04:01:31 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 20, 2018, 03:59:30 AM
There are two structures on top of wtc 7. One on the east and one on the west. The west one is the machine room. We call them plant rooms they hold all the aircon machinery, generators etc. There's a massive amount of weight in them.
From what it looks like, that machine room is collapsing nearly immediately after the core. Looks all legit to me.

That's my point exactly. The machine room collapsed immediately after the core collapsed.

This debunks NISTs theory of the outer facade collapsing after the core collapsed because as you said yourself. The machine room collapses immediately after the core failure. The entire building comes down immediately after the machine room.

This is common sense.

The NIST simulation matches your description perfectly.

Ok so how did fire cause the entire core to fail simultaneously?

I swear to god if you try to claim columns 79, 80 and 81 as core columns again I'm just going to give up on this thread.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 20, 2018, 04:28:05 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 20, 2018, 04:24:56 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 20, 2018, 04:08:50 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 20, 2018, 04:06:13 AM
Quote from: User324 on February 20, 2018, 04:01:31 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 20, 2018, 03:59:30 AM
There are two structures on top of wtc 7. One on the east and one on the west. The west one is the machine room. We call them plant rooms they hold all the aircon machinery, generators etc. There's a massive amount of weight in them.
From what it looks like, that machine room is collapsing nearly immediately after the core. Looks all legit to me.

That's my point exactly. The machine room collapsed immediately after the core collapsed.

This debunks NISTs theory of the outer facade collapsing after the core collapsed because as you said yourself. The machine room collapses immediately after the core failure. The entire building comes down immediately after the machine room.

This is common sense.

The NIST simulation matches your description perfectly.

Ok so how did fire cause the entire core to fail simultaneously?

I swear to god if you try to claim columns 79, 80 and 81 as core columns again I'm just going to give up on this thread.

Watch it again,  can you see on the video how the core collapse progressed from east to west?    Be honest.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 20, 2018, 04:34:27 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 20, 2018, 04:28:05 AM
Quote
I swear to god if you try to claim columns 79, 80 and 81 as core columns again I'm just going to give up on this thread.

Watch it again,  can you see on the video how the core collapse progressed from east to west?    Be honest.

Oh man imagine my surprise that he plays dumb again. The east penthouse was underneath columns 79, 80 and 81. The east penthouse collapsed when these columns failed.

These weren't core columns. Come on man, don't play dumb. You've seen the layout drawings.

The machine room was above the core and it collapsed when the core collapsed.

There were two stages of collapse. The failure of columns 79, 80 and 81 then the simultaneous failure of the entire core.

You admitted it just before, the core failed when the machine room collapsed. The machine room did not hover in place cause gravity.

Typo.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 20, 2018, 04:41:00 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 20, 2018, 04:34:27 AM
Quote
Quote from: Rayzor on February 20, 2018, 04:28:05 AM
I swear to god if you try to claim columns 79, 80 and 81 as core columns again I'm just going to give up on this thread.

Watch it again,  can you see on the video how the core collapse progressed from east to west?    Be honest.

Oh man imagine my surprise that he plays dumb again. The east penthouse was underneath columns 79, 80 and 81. The west penthouse collapsed when these columns failed.

These weren't core columns. Come on man, don't play dumb. You've seen the layout drawings.

The machine room was above the core and it collapsed when the core collapsed.

There were two stages of collapse. The failure of columns 79, 80 and 81 then the simultaneous failure of the entire core.

You admitted it just before, the core failed when the machine room collapsed. The machine room did not hover in place cause gravity.

Typo.

Now I know for sure that you are just trolling.   But I liked the fact that you ended up debunking yourself.  That was classic. 

I did you a favour,  I solved the mystery of what they used for demolition.

(https://s9.postimg.org/nqq7rvwjj/krylon.png)

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 20, 2018, 04:42:24 AM
How did I debunk myself?

The east penthouse was above the columns 79, 80 and 81, these were not core columns.

What is incorrect?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 20, 2018, 04:44:27 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 20, 2018, 04:42:24 AM
How did I debunk myself?

The east penthouse was above the columns 79, 80 and 81, these were not core columns.

What is incorrect?

Tell me the sequence,  in your own words.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 20, 2018, 04:46:11 AM
Not surprised you wont answer.

I explained it before. You said I debunked myself, how did I debunk myself?

Quote
The east penthouse was underneath columns 79, 80 and 81. The east penthouse collapsed when these columns failed.

These weren't core columns. Come on man, don't play dumb. You've seen the layout drawings.

The machine room was above the core and it collapsed when the core collapsed.

There were two stages of collapse. The failure of columns 79, 80 and 81 then the simultaneous failure of the entire core.

You admitted it just before, the core failed when the machine room collapsed. The machine room did not hover in place cause gravity.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 20, 2018, 04:48:07 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 20, 2018, 04:46:11 AM
Not surprised you wont answer.

I explained it before. You said I debunked myself, how did I debunk myself?

Quote
The east penthouse was underneath columns 79, 80 and 81. The east penthouse collapsed when these columns failed.

These weren't core columns. Come on man, don't play dumb. You've seen the layout drawings.

The machine room was above the core and it collapsed when the core collapsed.

There were two stages of collapse. The failure of columns 79, 80 and 81 then the simultaneous failure of the entire core.

You admitted it just before, the core failed when the machine room collapsed. The machine room did not hover in place cause gravity.

So the east penthouse was underneath columns 79, 80, 81.   are you sure about that?

Yes the east penthouse collapsed,  then what happened.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 20, 2018, 04:49:18 AM
No the columns were below the penthouse, my bad. Been a long day.

(Edit. Some of us work and contribute to society for a living.)

How did I debunk myself? You said I debunked myself, how did I debunk myself.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 20, 2018, 04:52:25 AM
Corrected version because I made a mistake.

Yfw human. :).

""
The east penthouse was above columns 79, 80 and 81. The east penthouse collapsed when these columns failed.

These weren't core columns. Come on man, don't play dumb. You've seen the layout drawings.

The machine room was above the core and it collapsed when the core collapsed.

There were two stages of collapse. The failure of columns 79, 80 and 81 then the simultaneous failure of the entire core.

You admitted it just before, the core failed when the machine room collapsed. The machine room did not hover in place cause gravity.
""
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 20, 2018, 04:55:41 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 20, 2018, 04:52:25 AM
Corrected version because I made a mistake.

Yfw human. :).

""
The east penthouse was above columns 79, 80 and 81. The east penthouse collapsed when these columns failed.

These weren't core columns. Come on man, don't play dumb. You've seen the layout drawings.

The machine room was above the core and it collapsed when the core collapsed.

There were two stages of collapse. The failure of columns 79, 80 and 81 then the simultaneous failure of the entire core.

You admitted it just before, the core failed when the machine room collapsed. The machine room did not hover in place cause gravity.
""

Watch the video again,  you can see the collapse progress from east to west, watch the machine room roof line.



Skip to 7:24 and watch closely the machine room roof line.   It collapses in the east first.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 20, 2018, 04:58:03 AM
Yes. Columns 79, 80 and 81 fail causing the collapse of the east penthouse. The building then stays standing for a while supporting itself without these columns.

Then the core fails, we see this by the machine room collapse and the buildings roofline collapses immediately after.

How did I debunk myself?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 20, 2018, 04:59:49 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 20, 2018, 04:58:03 AM
Yes. Columns 79, 80 and 81 fail causing the collapse of the east penthouse. The building then stays standing for a while supporting itself without these columns.

Then the core fails, we see this by the machine room collapse and the buildings roofline collapses immediately after.

How did I debunk myself?

You figure it out,  you are a smart guy.    My shift at the troll farm just finished.  Tomorrow.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 20, 2018, 05:01:39 AM
So you can't tell me how I debunked myself yet you claim it.

Interesting.

I didn't know you had shift times. Suppose it's obvious. I highly doubt you don't run other botnet shill operations. You seem to have at least eight hours a day here to debunk "conspiracy nutters."
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Crouton on February 20, 2018, 06:03:59 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 20, 2018, 04:16:43 AM
Quote from: crutonius on February 17, 2018, 09:37:37 AM
I don't see anything ban worthy I his recent posts. Unless it was something bad enough that it was quarantined.

Between wolf rejoining this thread and the new Russia indictments he's probably having a difficult time justifying his worldview.

The Russia indictments proved there was no collusion, lol have you read them? Russian spent something like 50-100k on facebook. This was the election hacking.


I've read it and watched the press release.  Have you?  Because nothing you're saying here is remotely accurate.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 20, 2018, 06:05:43 AM
Sources needed.
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/09/06/technology/facebook-russian-political-ads.html?referer=https://duckduckgo.com/
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Crouton on February 20, 2018, 06:09:41 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 20, 2018, 06:05:43 AM
Sources needed.

The press release and the actual indictment.  They explicitly don't weigh in on the topics of trump collusion or actual impact.  Note that that's very different than proving no collusion.

Additionally this was not a conclusion to the investigation.  These were just the things that they legally had to announce.  Everything else is being kept tightly under wraps.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 20, 2018, 06:13:48 AM
Quote from: crutonius on February 20, 2018, 06:09:41 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 20, 2018, 06:05:43 AM
Sources needed.
No sources.

Trump will be impeached any day now. I'm sure you've been right this past year.

Go yell about Trump in the Trump thread.
Your government really did organize a soft coup in my country over Geoff Whitlam and Pine Gap. Get over yourselves.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Crouton on February 20, 2018, 06:17:22 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 20, 2018, 06:13:48 AM
Quote from: crutonius on February 20, 2018, 06:09:41 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 20, 2018, 06:05:43 AM
Sources needed.
No sources.

Trump will be impeached any day now. I'm sure you've been right this past year.

Go yell about Trump in the Trump thread.
Your government really did organize a soft coup in my country over Geoff Whitlam and Pine Gap. Get over yourselves.

You have the same information I do.  I just bothered to actually read it.

I don't think it's likely that Trump will be impeached fwiw.

You wanted to discuss it here...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 20, 2018, 06:20:14 AM
Let's not stand on ceremony and pretend you don't have a security clearance. Rayzor already admitted it you may as well.

I'm glad you've stopped pushing for a communist revolution against Trump in any case. I like eating and I'm sure your people do too.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Crouton on February 20, 2018, 07:17:15 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 20, 2018, 06:20:14 AM
Let's not stand on ceremony and pretend you don't have a security clearance. Rayzor already admitted it you may as well.

I'm glad you've stopped pushing for a communist revolution against Trump in any case. I like eating and I'm sure your people do too.

This whole shill/bot thing.  You know it's a really broken argument right?  It would be like if I accused you of being a New Zealander and based on that declared all of your arguments invalid.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 20, 2018, 07:21:43 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 20, 2018, 04:44:27 AM

Tell me the sequence,  in your own words.

I have already stated a sequence and the most likely way it was done. You scooted right past it because it would be very hard to debunk.

You keep talking about the penthouse, it collapsed a few feet, then what? It stopped....then the entire building came down as one, symmetrically at free fall, or at times a shy bit away from free fall. This doesn't happen in real life.

Even the NIST water colorings does not accurately represent what we saw...even then, it doesn't matter because they refuse to release the inputs and variables. Also, why don't they show the entire collapse?? Hmm... You always expose your disgusting dishonesty in just a few posts.


Quote from: crutonius on February 20, 2018, 06:09:41 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 20, 2018, 06:05:43 AM
Sources needed.

The press release and the actual indictment.  They explicitly don't weigh in on the topics of trump collusion or actual impact.  Note that that's very different than proving no collusion.

Additionally this was not a conclusion to the investigation.  These were just the things that they legally had to announce.  Everything else is being kept tightly under wraps.

Why are we still on collusion? The people involved themselves clearly said they didn't care about Trump winning or losing, they literally just wanted to turn our populous against our own government.

This liberal wet dream needs to be given up... isn't there something more productive to do?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Papa Legba on February 20, 2018, 10:00:30 AM
Funny how everyone IRL knows 9/11 was an inside job, but a poll on a supposed free thinker/truther forum says its a minority view...

Why?

Because fake poll, fake forum, and fake posters...

Bots!

https://medium.com/artificial-intelligence-policy-laws-and-ethics/artificial-intelligence-chatbots-will-overwhelm-human-speech-online-the-rise-of-madcoms-e007818f31a1
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 20, 2018, 11:06:09 AM
Quote from: Papa Legba on February 20, 2018, 10:00:30 AM
Funny how everyone IRL knows 9/11 was an inside job, but a poll on a supposed free thinker/truther forum says its a minority view...

Why?

Because fake poll, fake forum, and fake posters...

Bots!

https://medium.com/artificial-intelligence-policy-laws-and-ethics/artificial-intelligence-chatbots-will-overwhelm-human-speech-online-the-rise-of-madcoms-e007818f31a1

Fake poll, fake forum, and fake people highly possible. Bots, I have to disagree.

Even the link you posted said madcoms are in their rudimentary stages. That link was a warning to the near future.

The speech if the supposed bots are two complex for bots as of now. I think it is much more likely it is a few people controlling many accounts here and abroad, with the assistance of AI to make controlling so many at a time easier.

You used to think this as well until you went into the bot territory. I think the threat is absolutely real and will certainly be a reality in the next few years. Just not currently, at least not when it is people talking to people. I am sure there are many bots posting on Facebook/Twitter where complex communication is not required.

Long story short, it is great to be prepared for high level bots posing as humans as it will be a reality soon enough. However, you cannot ignore the threat in the now preparing for the future.

If someone has a gun to your head, yet you ignore that looking at the gun down the hallway someone could pick up...you won't be around long enough to worry about the possibility.

(I say this excluding Heiwa...that is the only poster speaking in the way a rudimentary bot would speak)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Papa Legba on February 20, 2018, 11:41:55 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 20, 2018, 11:06:09 AM
Quote from: Papa Legba on February 20, 2018, 10:00:30 AM
Funny how everyone IRL knows 9/11 was an inside job, but a poll on a supposed free thinker/truther forum says its a minority view...

Why?

Because fake poll, fake forum, and fake posters...

Bots!

https://medium.com/artificial-intelligence-policy-laws-and-ethics/artificial-intelligence-chatbots-will-overwhelm-human-speech-online-the-rise-of-madcoms-e007818f31a1

Fake poll, fake forum, and fake people highly possible. Bots, I have to disagree.

Even the link you posted said madcoms are in their rudimentary stages. That link was a warning to the near future.

The speech if the supposed bots are two complex for bots as of now. I think it is much more likely it is a few people controlling many accounts here and abroad, with the assistance of AI to make controlling so many at a time easier.

You used to think this as well until you went into the bot territory. I think the threat is absolutely real and will certainly be a reality in the next few years. Just not currently, at least not when it is people talking to people. I am sure there are many bots posting on Facebook/Twitter where complex communication is not required.

Long story short, it is great to be prepared for high level bots posing as humans as it will be a reality soon enough. However, you cannot ignore the threat in the now preparing for the future.

If someone has a gun to your head, yet you ignore that looking at the gun down the hallway someone could pick up...you won't be around long enough to worry about the possibility.

(I say this excluding Heiwa...that is the only poster speaking in the way a rudimentary bot would speak)

The medium.com article is way optimistic.

Deep learning AI algorithms are here, right now.

I've watched them evolve on this site, and with the correct analytical tools it could easily be proven.

Ever wondered what the true purpose of the hidden 'complete nonsense' sub forum is?

And why it involves so much word play and non intuitive reasoning?

To train AI algorithms in these concepts, that's why.

Same goes with 'angry ranting' to a lesser extent.

Carry on in your blindness if you wish, but I know for a fact what I am saying is true.

IRL people agree with me too, just as they agree 9/11 was a farce...

So that's a clincher.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 20, 2018, 11:48:46 AM
Didn't know they released the FBI files on the 5 Israelis detained for a few months after the attack under someone's request under the freedom of information act.

Anyone who believes all that is a coincidence I am sure believes everything else is a coincidence too involved in the fairy tale of 9/11. (Especially the damn van with a plane hitting the towers, I thought that was a Photoshop, but it was confirmed by FBI as well as the NYPD...don't worry, nothing to see here, all a coincidence)..

So we add at least 500 "coincidences" I can think of off the top of my head (there are more), the physical impossibilities of the 3 towers, the physical impossibilities of the Pentagon, of 93, etc etc etc...I couldn't even continue without a monster tl;Dr...and that is with just an outline.

As I have said before, people have been sentenced with not even a few percentile of proof there is for 9/11.

What type of brain dead person would support the official story? Unless they are required to keep up the agenda for some unknown reason
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on February 20, 2018, 11:52:41 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 20, 2018, 11:48:46 AM
Didn't know they released the FBI files on the 5 Israelis detained for a few months after the attack under someone's request under the freedom of information act.

Anyone who believes all that is a coincidence I am sure believes everything else is a coincidence too involved in the fairy tale of 9/11. (Especially the damn van with a plane hitting the towers, I thought that was a Photoshop, but it was confirmed by FBI as well as the NYPD...don't worry, nothing to see here, all a coincidence)..

So we add at least 500 "coincidences" I can think of off the top of my head (there are more), the physical impossibilities of the 3 towers, the physical impossibilities of the Pentagon, of 93, etc etc etc...I couldn't even continue without a monster tl;Dr...and that is with just an outline.

As I have said before, people have been sentenced with not even a few percentile of proof there is for 9/11.

What type of brain dead person would support the official story? Unless they are required to keep up the agenda for some unknown reason
Cute.
You might want to open a new 9/11 thread in 'angry ranting'?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 20, 2018, 11:59:00 AM
Quote from: Papa Legba on February 20, 2018, 11:41:55 AM
Ever wondered what the true purpose of the hidden 'complete nonsense' sub forum is?

And why it involves so much word play and non intuitive reasoning?

To train AI algorithms in these concepts, that's why.

This is interesting, I never thought of that. It is an interesting theory that as a sound concept behind it.

Quote
Carry on in your blindness if you wish, but I know for a fact what I am saying is true.

It's not blindnesses, I am just careful before jumping to a certain view. I want to make sure I don't hit the "can't see the forest for the trees" approach. Want to make sure I don't look too far down the line for an enemy while there is a gun to my head from a current threat.

If there are deep learning AI training in complete nonsense for example, I would think there would be at least one handler monitoring the progress and making adjustments as needed.

It is just my opinion, as of this moment we are seeing more human interaction that AI...I am definitely not blinded to the point the tables will turn as tech and training progress. Just don't see it as the most direct current threat, certainly a very direct near future threat.

Though I will go and check out complete nonsense again as that theory is very intriguing and I see it as a certain plausibility
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 20, 2018, 12:00:13 PM
Quote from: User324 on February 20, 2018, 11:52:41 AM
Cute.
You might want to open a new 9/11 thread in 'angry ranting'?

As usual another doltard gets mad and has no reply when facts are stated.

Nothing new
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on February 20, 2018, 12:02:53 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 20, 2018, 12:00:13 PM
Quote from: User324 on February 20, 2018, 11:52:41 AM
Cute.
You might want to open a new 9/11 thread in 'angry ranting'?

As usual another doltard gets mad and has no reply when facts are stated.

Nothing new
Lol, you didn't state one single relevant fact last few pages.
Also, whats a 'doltard', I've never heard that?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Papa Legba on February 20, 2018, 12:10:10 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 20, 2018, 11:59:00 AM
Quote from: Papa Legba on February 20, 2018, 11:41:55 AM
Ever wondered what the true purpose of the hidden 'complete nonsense' sub forum is?

And why it involves so much word play and non intuitive reasoning?

To train AI algorithms in these concepts, that's why.

This is interesting, I never thought of that. It is an interesting theory that as a sound concept behind it.

Quote
Carry on in your blindness if you wish, but I know for a fact what I am saying is true.

It's not blindnesses, I am just careful before jumping to a certain view. I want to make sure I don't hit the "can't see the forest for the trees" approach. Want to make sure I don't look too far down the line for an enemy while there is a gun to my head from a current threat.

If there are deep learning AI training in complete nonsense for example, I would think there would be at least one handler monitoring the progress and making adjustments as needed.

It is just my opinion, as of this moment we are seeing more human interaction that AI...I am definitely not blinded to the point the tables will turn as tech and training progress. Just don't see it as the most direct current threat, certainly a very direct near future threat.

Though I will go and check out complete nonsense again as that theory is very intriguing and I see it as a certain plausibility

Yes, this forum has a couple or three humans overseeing it over every twenty four hour period.

But their actual contributions are minimal.

The bots provide 99% of the content.

Post times alone prove this.

It is not a matter of being unable to see the forest for the trees.

It is a matter of seeing that both the forest and the trees do not exist.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 20, 2018, 12:15:57 PM
Quote from: User324 on February 20, 2018, 12:02:53 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 20, 2018, 12:00:13 PM
Quote from: User324 on February 20, 2018, 11:52:41 AM
Cute.
You might want to open a new 9/11 thread in 'angry ranting'?

As usual another doltard gets mad and has no reply when facts are stated.

Nothing new
Lol, you didn't state one single relevant fact last few pages.
Also, whats a 'doltard', I've never heard that?

Read (if you can) the released FBI files on the Israeli Nationals detained for a few months and you will see that is nothing but the truth. There were even things in the report I thought were made up. Fact.

Over a thousand coincidences to make the official fairy tale a reality...fact.

People have been convicted with not even a few percentile of proof and circumstantial that is involved in the 9/11 case...fact

100s of physical impossibilities that are required to buy the official account..fact

What type of person would accept this blindly? Either they are a doltard, or they are required to keep the story at all costs for some other outside reason...this is an obvious conclusion and fact.

So all facts, and that is just that one post.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on February 20, 2018, 12:19:09 PM
To continue with your flow of logic:

Offical story makes perfect sense.. fact.
No conspiracy involved.. fact.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 20, 2018, 12:22:11 PM
Quote from: User324 on February 20, 2018, 12:19:09 PM
To continue with your flow of logic:

Offical story makes perfect sense.. fact.
No conspiracy involved.. fact.

Only an idiot or a shill would come to that conclusion from what I posted.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Papa Legba on February 20, 2018, 12:29:20 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 20, 2018, 12:22:11 PM
Quote from: User324 on February 20, 2018, 12:19:09 PM
To continue with your flow of logic:

Offical story makes perfect sense.. fact.
No conspiracy involved.. fact.

Only an idiot or a shill would come to that conclusion from what I posted.

Or an AI algorithm.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on February 20, 2018, 12:36:09 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 20, 2018, 12:22:11 PM
Quote from: User324 on February 20, 2018, 12:19:09 PM
To continue with your flow of logic:

Offical story makes perfect sense.. fact.
No conspiracy involved.. fact.

Only an idiot or a shill would come to that conclusion from what I posted.
I wasn't trying to make a conclusion out of your post, I was rather showing you that I too can state random stuff and call it fact.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 20, 2018, 12:50:33 PM
Quote from: User324 on February 20, 2018, 12:36:09 PM
I wasn't trying to make a conclusion out of your post, I was rather showing you that I too can state random stuff and call it fact.

There was nothing random there. All facts. I know you have no idea what such a word is, but that doesn't change reality.

Quote from: papa legba
Or an AI algorithm

I don't think a bot could even mimic his moronic comments. It is very sad..
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on February 20, 2018, 12:51:08 PM
Quote from: Papa Legba on February 20, 2018, 12:10:10 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 20, 2018, 11:59:00 AM
Quote from: Papa Legba on February 20, 2018, 11:41:55 AM
Ever wondered what the true purpose of the hidden 'complete nonsense' sub forum is?

And why it involves so much word play and non intuitive reasoning?

To train AI algorithms in these concepts, that's why.

This is interesting, I never thought of that. It is an interesting theory that as a sound concept behind it.

Quote
Carry on in your blindness if you wish, but I know for a fact what I am saying is true.

It's not blindnesses, I am just careful before jumping to a certain view. I want to make sure I don't hit the "can't see the forest for the trees" approach. Want to make sure I don't look too far down the line for an enemy while there is a gun to my head from a current threat.

If there are deep learning AI training in complete nonsense for example, I would think there would be at least one handler monitoring the progress and making adjustments as needed.

It is just my opinion, as of this moment we are seeing more human interaction that AI...I am definitely not blinded to the point the tables will turn as tech and training progress. Just don't see it as the most direct current threat, certainly a very direct near future threat.

Though I will go and check out complete nonsense again as that theory is very intriguing and I see it as a certain plausibility

Yes, this forum has a couple or three humans overseeing it over every twenty four hour period.

But their actual contributions are minimal.

The bots provide 99% of the content.

Post times alone prove this.

It is not a matter of being unable to see the forest for the trees.

It is a matter of seeing that both the forest and the trees do not exist.
Bots add an empty space after every sentence from what I've heared. It's deep in their algorithm.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Papa Legba on February 20, 2018, 01:03:02 PM
Quote from: User324 on February 20, 2018, 12:51:08 PM
Quote from: Papa Legba on February 20, 2018, 12:10:10 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 20, 2018, 11:59:00 AM
Quote from: Papa Legba on February 20, 2018, 11:41:55 AM
Ever wondered what the true purpose of the hidden 'complete nonsense' sub forum is?

And why it involves so much word play and non intuitive reasoning?

To train AI algorithms in these concepts, that's why.

This is interesting, I never thought of that. It is an interesting theory that as a sound concept behind it.

Quote
Carry on in your blindness if you wish, but I know for a fact what I am saying is true.

It's not blindnesses, I am just careful before jumping to a certain view. I want to make sure I don't hit the "can't see the forest for the trees" approach. Want to make sure I don't look too far down the line for an enemy while there is a gun to my head from a current threat.

If there are deep learning AI training in complete nonsense for example, I would think there would be at least one handler monitoring the progress and making adjustments as needed.

It is just my opinion, as of this moment we are seeing more human interaction that AI...I am definitely not blinded to the point the tables will turn as tech and training progress. Just don't see it as the most direct current threat, certainly a very direct near future threat.

Though I will go and check out complete nonsense again as that theory is very intriguing and I see it as a certain plausibility

Yes, this forum has a couple or three humans overseeing it over every twenty four hour period.

But their actual contributions are minimal.

The bots provide 99% of the content.

Post times alone prove this.

It is not a matter of being unable to see the forest for the trees.

It is a matter of seeing that both the forest and the trees do not exist.
Bots add an empty space after every sentence from what I've heared. It's deep in their algorithm.

Funny thing is, nobody did that until I joined...

They even complained about it.

Yet now most of you do...

Kinda like you are a deep learning AI algorithm mimicking other people, in fact.

Here, check it out:

https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=63486.msg1682570#msg1682570

Yeah, busted again...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on February 20, 2018, 01:08:19 PM
Are you retarded?
Or just bad programmmed?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 20, 2018, 01:14:43 PM
^Useless as they come.

Sad.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on February 20, 2018, 01:16:12 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 20, 2018, 01:14:43 PM
^Useless as they come.

Sad.
You forgot to write 'fact' at the end to prove it beyond reasonable doubt.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 20, 2018, 01:24:58 PM
Just a random fact...I haven't looked at 9/11 videos in years, nor did I pay that much attention to them when I was heavy into 9/11 stuff. Too much disinformation and I preferred my own research and testing.

Anyways, just started scanning through some of the comments as that was what I was interested in with legba's talk of AI/bots etc.

Interesting enough, for every video there were at least a few posters that spoke just like Rayzor, almost word for word in many instances. There were a few that were identical to posts made here. Same with sockrual.

I find that very interesting.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on February 20, 2018, 01:27:20 PM
You forgot - once again - the evidence for your claim.

I start to see some pattern...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 20, 2018, 01:42:25 PM
Quote from: User324 on February 20, 2018, 01:27:20 PM
You forgot - once again - the evidence for your claim.

I start to see some pattern...

I state all evidence for things doing with 9/11.

My last post is simply stating an observation I found interesting. Thus why I did not state fact, just interesting.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Papa Legba on February 20, 2018, 01:54:49 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 20, 2018, 01:24:58 PM
Just a random fact...I haven't looked at 9/11 videos in years, nor did I pay that much attention to them when I was heavy into 9/11 stuff. Too much disinformation and I preferred my own research and testing.

Anyways, just started scanning through some of the comments as that was what I was interested in with legba's talk of AI/bots etc.

Interesting enough, for every video there were at least a few posters that spoke just like Rayzor, almost word for word in many instances. There were a few that were identical to posts made here. Same with sockrual.

I find that very interesting.

Start here:

https://steveblank.com/2009/08/03/the-secret-history-of-silicon-valley-part-vii-we-fought-a-war-you-never-heard-of/

Silicon valley was established by DARPA and the military industrial complex specifically to gain and keep control of all communication networks.

All of them.

Including the internet.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 20, 2018, 03:19:05 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 20, 2018, 01:42:25 PM
Quote from: User324 on February 20, 2018, 01:27:20 PM
You forgot - once again - the evidence for your claim.

I start to see some pattern...

I state all evidence for things doing with 9/11.

My last post is simply stating an observation I found interesting. Thus why I did not state fact, just interesting.

So why do you ignore the evidence that proves you wrong.  You falsely claimed the east penthouse only fell a few feet,  that's easily proved wrong. 
You claimed the internal structure all failed simultaneously,  that's also false, you can see the progression of the collapse from east to west, and then the facade crumples.

Nothing about the collapse supports a controlled demolition.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 20, 2018, 03:46:12 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 20, 2018, 03:19:05 PM
So why do you ignore the evidence that proves you wrong.  You falsely claimed the east penthouse only fell a few feet,  that's easily proved wrong. 
You claimed the internal structure all failed simultaneously,  that's also false, you can see the progression of the collapse from east to west, and then the facade crumples.

Nothing about the collapse supports a controlled demolition.

Again you ignore my post on my speculation of what could have happened, and you even asked the question. Don't ask questions you don't want the answer to (I wouldn't want to attempt debunking it either, Google will only get you so far)..

As for this obsession with the penthouse, I just went and looked at the best camera angle I could find uncut. Ok maybe ten feet at best it stops, then the entire building follows including the other penthouse. We have about a 4-6 second gap with this happening.

So what is your point? In a controlled demo you want the inside to fail slightly before the outside, helps prevent toppling from missed timing or charges that didnt ignite.

We see an asymmetrical partial collapse with an extreme minority of the building a few seconds before a full symmetrical collapse at free fall for the entire building.

Apparently you have never studied controlled demolition or had any training in it. I am trying to understand what you think you are proving with penthouse motion.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 20, 2018, 03:54:01 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 20, 2018, 03:46:12 PM

As for this obsession with the penthouse, I just went and looked at the best camera angle I could find uncut. Ok maybe ten feet at best it stops, then the entire building follows including the other penthouse. We have about a 4-6 second gap with this happening.


Nope, the east penthouse keeps falling.  Proving that the collapse of the internal structure was not simultaneous,  thus disproving your collapse scenario.

(https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/wtc7-window-wave-loop-youtube-2018-01-07-13-37-09-png.30897/)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 20, 2018, 04:16:52 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 20, 2018, 03:54:01 PM

Nope, the east penthouse keeps falling.  Proving that the collapse of the internal structure was not simultaneous,  thus disproving your collapse scenario.

(https://www.metabunk.org/attachments/wtc7-window-wave-loop-youtube-2018-01-07-13-37-09-png.30897/)

Lol...what? You think the penthouse acted like a piston lol??

Come on Rayzor...

Also, as for the characteristics of the smoke, have you never opened a door at one end of the house while one at the other end of the house was open? What happens? This is no different with getting a large opening at the top of a building while there is a large opening at the bottom.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 20, 2018, 11:25:36 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 20, 2018, 04:16:52 PM

Lol...what? You think the penthouse acted like a piston lol??

Come on Rayzor...

Also, as for the characteristics of the smoke, have you never opened a door at one end of the house while one at the other end of the house was open? What happens? This is no different with getting a large opening at the top of a building while there is a large opening at the bottom.

You didn't notice the distortion in the facade?   
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 20, 2018, 11:46:28 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 20, 2018, 11:25:36 PM

You didn't notice the distortion in the facade?

Well it is kind of hard to notice it when the video footage is taken for a potato.

Even with distortion in the facade, how is that surprising with a structurally comprised building? Doesnt matter if it took 6 seconds to collapse or 10..Neither can exist independently, they need each other to survive.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 21, 2018, 12:15:17 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 20, 2018, 11:48:46 AM
Didn't know they released the FBI files on the 5 Israelis detained for a few months after the attack under someone's request under the freedom of information act.

SHUT IT DOWN!
H
U
T

I
T

D
O
W
N
!
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 21, 2018, 12:21:31 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 20, 2018, 01:24:58 PM
Just a random fact...I haven't looked at 9/11 videos in years, nor did I pay that much attention to them when I was heavy into 9/11 stuff. Too much disinformation and I preferred my own research and testing.

Anyways, just started scanning through some of the comments as that was what I was interested in with legba's talk of AI/bots etc.

Interesting enough, for every video there were at least a few posters that spoke just like Rayzor, almost word for word in many instances. There were a few that were identical to posts made here. Same with sockrual.

I find that very interesting.

I've also noticed this. I've had debates on the chans about this with someone who types exactly like Rayzor and a few socks like sockarul. Usually the shills run away because we're still well in the majority but it is very interesting. They all seem to use the same tactics.

Maybe there's a big pastebin of pre recorded responses to phrases? It would explain why they are so predictable.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 21, 2018, 12:42:34 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 21, 2018, 12:15:17 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 20, 2018, 11:48:46 AM
Didn't know they released the FBI files on the 5 Israelis detained for a few months after the attack under someone's request under the freedom of information act.

SHUT IT DOWN!
H
U
T

I
T

D
O
W
N
!

I was actually shocked when I read the report. I have heard it before, but wrote it off as disinformation because it was so obvious. However, to read it in the reports supported by the FBI and NYPD as truth.... How can anyone in their right mind write it off? However, those same people can write off the 1000+ beyond rare coincidences needed to make the official story even remotely plausible (the odds get more and more slim the more rare coincidences you have to combine..it is not a static binary equation, it is dynamic), so I guess anything is possible.


Quote from: disputeone on February 21, 2018, 12:21:31 AM
I've also noticed this. I've had debates on the chans about this with someone who types exactly like Rayzor and a few socks like sockarul. Usually the shills run away because we're still well in the majority but it is very interesting. They all seem to use the same tactics.

Maybe there's a big pastebin of pre recorded responses to phrases? It would explain why they are so predictable.

The bin of available answers to choose from provides serious room for thought...there is a solid stack of evidence to provide weight to this theory.

Another thing all these "people" have in common. They attempt to take the moral high ground while attempting to belittle the other, they have no critical thinking skills, if it is outside mainstream it is wrong, and they all seem to be experts yet they have no experience...then when asked to prove why they have such merit to speak with such confidence, they respond with insults yet cannot provide any proof.

I may possess a PhD and a masters, as well as years of extracurricular training through the years, but I am no MD. Am I ignorant on medical issues, no...I have doctors as clients as well as always studying... however, I have a client that is a surgeon. Am I going to tell him how to perform surgery or act like I know more than him because I read some books?

Absolutely not.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 21, 2018, 02:04:26 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 20, 2018, 11:46:28 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 20, 2018, 11:25:36 PM

You didn't notice the distortion in the facade?

Well it is kind of hard to notice it when the video footage is taken for a potato.

Even with distortion in the facade, how is that surprising with a structurally comprised building? Doesnt matter if it took 6 seconds to collapse or 10..Neither can exist independently, they need each other to survive.

Potato?  what are you talking about? 

I'm still waiting for you to prove the core collapsed simultaneously  with the facade,  because the evidence doesn't support that conclusion.

Even d1 inadvertently agreed, but he never even noticed he shot down his own theory.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 21, 2018, 02:06:16 AM
Agreed, blowhards.

(https://s18.postimg.org/6ahczfqft/Urban_Moving_Systems_Van.jpg)

It's just unbelievable people would defend the official story.

Pure coincidence, goyim, pure coincidence.

I'm sleepy, who else is sleepy? Maybe we should just forget this nothingburger and have a nap.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 21, 2018, 02:13:34 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 21, 2018, 02:04:26 AM
Even d1 inadvertently agreed, but he never even noticed he shot down his own theory.

No you're lying again, you have failed to show this. Column 79 and most likely column 80 and 81 failed before the core. These were not part of the core.

(https://s18.postimg.org/fwaxft26x/WTC7-_Typical_Floor_Plan-_NIST.jpg)

If I have to tell you this one more time it's going to be embarrassing.

This is shown in the video evidence in the failure of the east penthouse. The building stands for a time with the core intact, this is shown in the video evidence by the machine room.  We see the core fail in front of us when the machine room collapses. The core fails simultaneously immediately before collapse.

They are called gambits for a reason Rayzor, sometimes when you gamble you can overplay a weak hand and lose very badly and very publicly.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 21, 2018, 02:26:16 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 21, 2018, 02:04:26 AM
Potato?  what are you talking about? 

I'm still waiting for you to prove the core collapsed simultaneously  with the facade,  because the evidence doesn't support that conclusion.

Even d1 inadvertently agreed, but he never even noticed he shot down his own theory.

Potato, it is slang for when something is filmed with super low resolution.

The video is my proof, I need none other...no need for equations or theory. No need to complicate something unnecessarily. We have a minority portion of the penthouse section that collapses a possible ten feet then stops. A few seconds later, the rest and majority of the penthouse section collapse along with the rest of the structure at free fall speed symmetrically.

It does not take rocket science or specialized schooling/experience to realize the structure as a whole must be compromised for this to happen. Just specialized schooling/experience helps to realize the situation much quicker.

I already gave a valid explanation and Theory of the catalyst and chain of events. You have not addressed it which means you have no rebuttal which is just fine.

Your only rebuttal is visual of the smoke, which I explained that. Even if I agreed the NIST fairy tale was correct (which I do not), the minority section of collapse would in no way create a piston effect when you include the majority of remaining structure. Especially with the windows remaining intact.

Nor could there anyway be a scenario with the design of the structure that the proposed minority point could collapse separate from the majority of the remaining structure of the building (this would require a Tl;Dr to explain fully, though what dispute has stated about the difference between core vertical compression supports from lateral sheering supports is on the right track) . If it weren't for the second and majority part of the penthouse remaining to tell us the story of the core's condition, I would not be able to say in such certainty the reality of the matter.

*Edit typo
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 21, 2018, 02:30:54 AM
Here it is before it was photoshopped.

(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTZO4PNxGqa7G0nOdQF_AVZC6WN7FXcesFWDD9-C5lQ_v2dGI4BdaAliQ)

Now imagine you are a group of Mossad agents planning to fly planes into the twin towers,  one guy says,  hey I've got a great idea, let's paint it on the side of our van, with a plane  flying into the twin towers. 

Seriously,  this is more like three stooges plot than carefully planned covert Mossad operations.

Have you lost your mind completely.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 21, 2018, 02:36:12 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 21, 2018, 02:26:16 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 21, 2018, 02:04:26 AM
Potato?  what are you talking about? 

I'm still waiting for you to prove the core collapsed simultaneously  with the facade,  because the evidence doesn't support that conclusion.

Even d1 inadvertently agreed, but he never even noticed he shot down his own theory.

Potato, it is slang for when something is filmed with super low resolution.

The video is my proof, I need none other...no need for equations or theory. No need to complicate something unnecessarily. We have a minority portion of the penthouse section that collapses a possible ten feet then stops. A few seconds later, the rest and majority of the penthouse section collapse along with the rest of the structure at free fall speed symmetrically.


Wrong the video shows the East Penthouse collapsing all the way down,   I posted the wave video earlier. \


Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 21, 2018, 02:26:16 AM
It does not take rocket science or specialized schooling/experience to realize the structure as a whole must be compromised for this to happen. Just specialized schooling/experience helps to realize the situation much quicker.

Agreed, the structure was compromised from that point onward collapse was inevitable.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 21, 2018, 02:26:16 AM
I already gave a valid explanation and Theory of the catalyst and chain of events. You have not addressed it which means you have no rebuttal which is just fine.

Your only rebuttal is visual of the smoke, which I explained that. Even if I agreed the NIST fairy tale was correct (which I do not), the minority section of collapse would in no way create a piston effect when you include the majority of remaining structure. Especially with the windows remaining intact.
You are the one raising the piston affect, as you call it.  I simply point to the fact that the East Penthouse collapsed all the way.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 21, 2018, 02:26:16 AM
Nor could there anyway be a scenario with the design of the structure that the proposed minority point could collapse separate from the majority of the remaining structure of the building (this would require a Tl;Dr to explain fully, though what dispute has stated about the difference between core vertical compression supports from lateral sheering supports is on the right track) . If it weren't for the second and majority part of the penthouse remaining to tell us the story of the core's condition, I would not be able to say in such certainty the reality of the matter.

*Edit typo

Do you agree that once the internal structure had collapsed, that a buckling lower down ( out of the view of the video ) is the likely cause of the facade collapse.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 21, 2018, 02:36:44 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 21, 2018, 02:30:54 AM
Here it is before it was photoshopped.

Incorrect. The FBI and NYPD both verified the van and it's "artwork" when they confiscated it (which also had remnants of explosives in the bed). I never put any credibility into the picture for years and years until reading the reports.

Of course the Israelis arrested and detained for a few months had an explanation for such artwork...but that is neither here nor there. They also sued the city in attempts to get their seized property back a few years later and lost.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 21, 2018, 02:40:26 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 21, 2018, 02:36:44 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 21, 2018, 02:30:54 AM
Here it is before it was photoshopped.

Incorrect. The FBI and NYPD both verified the van and it's "artwork" when they confiscated it (which also had remnants of explosives in the bed). I never put any credibility into the picture for years and years until reading the reports.

Of course the Israelis arrested and detained for a few months had an explanation for such artwork...but that is neither here nor there. They also sued the city in attempts to get their seized property back a few years later.

Now you believe the FBI and NYPD,  talk about cherry picking.  Do you have independant evidence supporting the incredible notion that a group planning to covertly demolish the twin towers would paint a mural on the side of their get away truck displaying the detail of their plot.   

That's why the rest of us call you  9/11 truthers, nutters.
 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 21, 2018, 02:48:02 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 21, 2018, 02:36:12 AM
Wrong the video shows the East Penthouse collapsing all the way down,   I posted the wave video earlier. \

No, watch the video, it collapses and stops...that is why it almost looks as it turns a flip, that is the mass responding to resistance.

Quote
You are the one raising the piston affect, as you call it.  I simply point to the fact that the East Penthouse collapsed all the way.

It does not as I stated above. You brought to the attention the movement of the smoke, I explained the catalyst of that. If you were not stating it was a piston effect then I retract it. Then we agree on what caused the reaction in the smoke.

Quote
Do you agree that once the internal structure had collapsed, that a buckling lower down ( out of the view of the video ) is the likely cause of the facade collapse.

No, if there was a full removal of vertical compression stability in the core, the the facade would technically not need to be compromised at any point and still fail. The facade had minimal vertical compression responsibility, it's main purpose was to add downward mass and help stabilize sheer stress.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 21, 2018, 02:50:43 AM
You're hitting the shill button so hard right now lol. I doubt Rayzor will be alone in here for long.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 21, 2018, 02:54:38 AM
Please note that Rayzor tried to lie then when was caught out acted like he had never lied and tried to change the subject.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 21, 2018, 02:36:44 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 21, 2018, 02:30:54 AM
Here it is before it was photoshopped.

Incorrect. The FBI and NYPD both verified the van and it's "artwork" when they confiscated it (which also had remnants of explosives in the bed). I never put any credibility into the picture for years and years until reading the reports.

Of course the Israelis arrested and detained for a few months had an explanation for such artwork...but that is neither here nor there. They also sued the city in attempts to get their seized property back a few years later and lost.

Quote from: Rayzor on February 21, 2018, 02:40:26 AM
you believe the FBI and NYPD?

That's why the rest of us call you  9/11 truthers, nutters.

Lolwut?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 21, 2018, 02:55:41 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 21, 2018, 02:40:26 AM
Now you believe the FBI and NYPD, 

I have never doubted the NYPD in this...they are small fish and not in on the gig. Sadly many of them lost their lives because of this.

Yes, I am surprised they would have something in plane sight such as that. That is why I wrote it off until it was confirmed by multiple official accounts, one being the NYPD. They were the ones responsible for locating the truck originally, simply by the plate number.

I never said it was a get away truck, plate records shows they drove by the towers then returned to their business that morning. Simply saying there was explosive residue in the bed, and it wasn't just that truck in their fleet.

Do you really think they would have been able to hold nationalist that long without probable cause? This was before the Patriot act, Homeland security etc etc.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 21, 2018, 03:01:31 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 21, 2018, 02:48:02 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 21, 2018, 02:36:12 AM
Wrong the video shows the East Penthouse collapsing all the way down,   I posted the wave video earlier. \

No, watch the video, it collapses and stops...that is why it almost looks as it turns a flip, that is the mass responding to resistance.

Ok, let's watch it again, note the window wave this time.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 21, 2018, 03:06:49 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 21, 2018, 03:01:31 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 21, 2018, 02:48:02 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 21, 2018, 02:36:12 AM
Wrong the video shows the East Penthouse collapsing all the way down,   I posted the wave video earlier. \

No, watch the video, it collapses and stops...that is why it almost looks as it turns a flip, that is the mass responding to resistance.

Ok, let's watch it again, note the window wave this time.



I can't tell anything from that video or what I am watching sorry. I need to watch something in real time and without molestation.

Watch the uncut video from multiple angles (which is surprisingly hard to find)..the penthouse stops and almost rolls which is a biproduct of resistance, then nothing happens for a few seconds until the entire structure comes down symmetrically at Free Fall speed.

We have a disturbance in the smoke, however, that is easily explained. Even you disregard the piston theory.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 21, 2018, 03:08:59 AM
There's a few topics that they absolutely dont want to talk about and this is one of them.

http://911research.wikia.com/wiki/Urban_Moving_Systems

https://archive.org/details/FBIandPoliceReportUrbanMoving

We have our own pastebins Rayzor.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 21, 2018, 03:09:52 AM
I watched it a few more times in attempts to see what you see...it is just pixelation from a potato as a camera. The entire facade is pixelated acting in unison.

That is all I see unless you want to explore abstract artwork
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 21, 2018, 03:10:38 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 21, 2018, 03:06:49 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 21, 2018, 03:01:31 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 21, 2018, 02:48:02 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 21, 2018, 02:36:12 AM
Wrong the video shows the East Penthouse collapsing all the way down,   I posted the wave video earlier. \

No, watch the video, it collapses and stops...that is why it almost looks as it turns a flip, that is the mass responding to resistance.

Ok, let's watch it again, note the window wave this time.



I can't tell anything from that video or what I am watching sorry. I need to watch something in real time and without molestation.

Watch the uncut video from multiple angles (which is surprisingly hard to find)..the penthouse stops and almost rolls which is a biproduct of resistance, then nothing happens for a few seconds until the entire structure comes down symmetrically at Free Fall speed.

We have a disturbance in the smoke, however, that is easily explained. Even you disregard the piston theory.

Watch the windows.  You can see the collapse.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 21, 2018, 03:12:02 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 21, 2018, 03:06:49 AM
Watch the uncut video from multiple angles (which is surprisingly hard to find)..the penthouse stops and almost rolls which is a biproduct of resistance, then nothing happens for a few seconds until the entire structure comes down symmetrically at Free Fall speed.

Exactly we can see that columns 76, 77 and 78 along with the rest of the core are intact from the video evidence. I'm not sure why Rayzor has to link to art projects.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 21, 2018, 03:13:54 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 21, 2018, 03:08:59 AM
There's a few topics that they absolutely dont want to talk about and this is one of them.

http://911research.wikia.com/wiki/Urban_Moving_Systems

https://archive.org/details/FBIandPoliceReportUrbanMoving

We have our own pastebins Rayzor.

LOL,  I'm impressed that you seriously think Mossad would paint a mural of their super secret cover operation on the side of their van.   

You are dumber than I thought,  and trust me that's about the level of a bag of rocks.  ( Yes that's an insult,  first for about a month or so ).


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 21, 2018, 03:17:39 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 21, 2018, 03:13:54 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 21, 2018, 03:08:59 AM
There's a few topics that they absolutely dont want to talk about and this is one of them.

http://911research.wikia.com/wiki/Urban_Moving_Systems

https://archive.org/details/FBIandPoliceReportUrbanMoving

We have our own pastebins Rayzor.

LOL,  I'm impressed that you seriously think Mossad would paint a mural of their super secret cover operation on the side of their van.   

Actually thats the NYPD and FBI the boys in blue were naturally very concerned. They were told by higher up to ignore it for some reason.

Why did you lie before when you claimed it was fake?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 21, 2018, 03:21:59 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 21, 2018, 03:10:38 AM
Watch the windows.  You can see the collapse.

All I see is overall pixelation on the entire facade. Only time I see window disturbance is when the entire building begins it's decent on a symmetrical free fall path.

Quote from: Rayzor on February 21, 2018, 03:13:54 AM

LOL,  I'm impressed that you seriously think Mossad would paint a mural of their super secret cover operation on the side of their van.   

You are dumber than I thought,  and trust me that's about the level of a bag of rocks.  ( Yes that's an insult,  first for about a month or so ).


I have thought it was bullshit for a years and years until I read the report. Even the mural was discussed by U.S. Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta in his official report, on top of the FBI and NYPD. This leaves out all the other issues found with those 5 people that was eventually deported, or the owner of the company that took the fuck off and went back to Israel right after.

They said it was showing community and world wide connection with the mural, since it was the world trade center and they did work there...that was their explanation at least.

Don't mind the bomb sniffing dogs that tipped on the trucks (wasn't just the one that had a mural on it), or failure of lie detector tests...or the fact they were held for months before the Patriot act, Homeland security etc etc...that alone should say something.

Then suddenly set free and allowed to go back home out of jurisdiction or extradition....I wonder where that order came from?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 21, 2018, 03:26:04 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 21, 2018, 03:21:59 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 21, 2018, 03:10:38 AM
Watch the windows.  You can see the collapse.

All I see is overall pixelation on the entire facade. Only time I see window disturbance is when the entire building begins it's decent on a symmetrical free fall path.

Quote from: Rayzor on February 21, 2018, 03:13:54 AM

LOL,  I'm impressed that you seriously think Mossad would paint a mural of their super secret cover operation on the side of their van.   

You are dumber than I thought,  and trust me that's about the level of a bag of rocks.  ( Yes that's an insult,  first for about a month or so ).


I have thought it was bullshit for a years and years until I read the report. Even the mural was discussed by U.S. Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta in his official report, on top of the FBI and NYPD. This leaves out all the other issues found with those 5 people that was eventually deported, or the owner of the company that took the fuck off and went back to Israel right after.

They said it was showing community and world wide connection with the mural, since it was the world trade center and they did work there...that was their explanation at least.

Don't mind the bomb sniffing dogs that tipped on the trucks (wasn't just the one that had a mural on it)

One last time.  Try to explain the logic of painting a Mural on the side of your van that exposes the super secret covert plot you and your Mossad buddies have planned,  do you understand how dumb that would be. 

This is more like comedy playhouse than conspiracy.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 21, 2018, 03:36:53 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 21, 2018, 03:26:04 AM
One last time.  Try to explain the logic of painting a Mural on the side of your van that exposes the super secret covert plot you and your Mossad buddies have planned,  do you understand how dumb that would be. 

This is more like comedy playhouse than conspiracy.

One last time...I didn't believe it until I read in the reports it was confirmed from the FBI, NYPD (they are the ones that tracked that vehicle down by plate number) as well as transportation Secretary Norman Mineta's official report. I guess sometimes the truth is stranger than fiction.

Also ever heard of the best place to hide something is in plain sight?

I also stated what their explanation was for such artwork.

Plus, do you really think a group of people that was authorized by the US government is nervous about being caught? The have a free pass...they knew there was already a scapegoat and people to take the wrap. Like the poor middle Eastern people who 13 of them were found alive and well after their "deaths"...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 21, 2018, 03:57:21 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 21, 2018, 03:17:39 AM
Why did you lie before when you claimed it was fake?

Whoops nearly missed this attack.

Here you go.  The pictures you posted are in fact photoshopped, and came from this guy's wordpress blog

https://kendoc911.wordpress.com/israeli-connections-to-911/mossad-truck-bombs/

I'm not aware of any real pictures of the vans mural,  but I did find a description.

Quote
The real van mural is quite different, very suggestive but showing more a military plane with camo pattern on it coming up from below the two towers. Still pretty striking. On the same mural underneath is in Hebrew "learn the fun of how to fly model planes" since it is a toyshop type mural.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 21, 2018, 04:02:11 AM
So you admit there was a plane and two towers mural on the side of the urban moving van (your link admits it) and you claim it's only coincidence? It's fine if that's your position. As I said, pure coincidence goyim.

You tried to imply there was no such mural until you were pushed on it in multiple posts. You now seem to know all about it.

Just, pure, coincidence.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 21, 2018, 04:07:50 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 21, 2018, 04:02:11 AM
So you admit there was a plane and two towers mural on the side of the urban moving van (your link admits it) and you claim it's only coincidence? It's fine if that's your position. As I said, pure coincidence goyim.

You tried to imply there was no such mural until you were pushed on it in multiple posts. You now seem to know all about it.

Just, pure, coincidence.

I called it as fake, when you first posted it.  I even posted a picture of the original van.

The picture you posted was a known photoshopped fake,  I'd like to see the real mural,  I bet it's not what you think.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 21, 2018, 04:10:23 AM
Declaring something fake does not make it so. it could be the real mural.
As you said they won't show us the '''official version''' of the mural, like the inputs for NIST's '''model''' this of course is pure coincidence, isn't it, Rayzor?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 21, 2018, 04:14:25 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 21, 2018, 04:10:23 AM
Declaring something fake does not make it so. it could be the real mural.
As you said they won't show us the '''official version''' of the mural, like the inputs for NIST's '''model''' this of course is pure coincidence, isn't it, Rayzor?

No, the guy who made up the photoshopped picture clearly said "This is photoshopped"  You can't blame him when conspiracy nutters grab the image as proof of a Mossad plot,  not bothering to think through, just exactly how dumb that scenario actually is.

I'd still like to see the original van mural.  Surely someone must have a picture somewhere?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 21, 2018, 04:16:00 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 21, 2018, 04:02:11 AM
So you admit there was a plane and two towers mural on the side of the urban moving van (your link admits it) and you claim it's only coincidence? It's fine if that's your position. As I said, pure coincidence goyim.

You tried to imply there was no such mural until you were pushed on it in multiple posts. You now seem to know all about it.

Just, pure, coincidence.

I have no comment but to laugh...

Coincidence....that is the favorite word besides pulverization and nutter.

Anyone wanna guess where an average citizen would be if this mountain of proof against the official story was hung on their head?

My guess would be a firing squad.

Quote from: Rayzor on February 21, 2018, 04:07:50 AM
I called it as fake, when you first posted it.  I even posted a picture of the original van.

The picture you posted was a known photoshopped fake,  I'd like to see the real mural,  I bet it's not what you think.


You need to make up your mind what you are trying to say.

Plus, you believe the government has told us the truth on everything, as well as defend them sight unseen. So I am sure you would not present the FBI, NYPD and the transportation secretary would lie about the mural right?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 21, 2018, 04:34:07 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 21, 2018, 04:16:00 AM
Anyone wanna guess where an average citizen would be if this mountain of proof against the official story was hung on their head?

My guess would be a firing squad.

So, let's say, someone photoshops a picture of your companies delivery van with a mural of 9/11,  and you get to face the firing squad for a fake picture?

Seriously?

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 21, 2018, 04:58:09 AM
He's shilling at a level that shouldn't be possible.

No for the mural of the plane and towers on the side of the van not the picture of it, the physical mural on the van found with trace explosives inside.

Also for the evidence laid out here.

http://911research.wikia.com/wiki/Urban_Moving_Systems

https://archive.org/details/FBIandPoliceReportUrbanMoving

Goodnight Rayzor.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 21, 2018, 12:11:27 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 21, 2018, 04:34:07 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 21, 2018, 04:16:00 AM
Anyone wanna guess where an average citizen would be if this mountain of proof against the official story was hung on their head?

My guess would be a firing squad.

So, let's say, someone photoshops a picture of your companies delivery van with a mural of 9/11,  and you get to face the firing squad for a fake picture?

Seriously?

Again it was verified by multiple government agencies...it is not conjecture..I thought it was nonsense for a while, but it was supported by multiple government agencies.

Are you saying we should not trust our government? I thought that was your thing?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on February 21, 2018, 01:19:44 PM
You guys truely are spam bots. Ridiculous.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 21, 2018, 06:26:52 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 21, 2018, 12:11:27 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 21, 2018, 04:34:07 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 21, 2018, 04:16:00 AM
Anyone wanna guess where an average citizen would be if this mountain of proof against the official story was hung on their head?

My guess would be a firing squad.

So, let's say, someone photoshops a picture of your companies delivery van with a mural of 9/11,  and you get to face the firing squad for a fake picture?

Seriously?

Again it was verified by multiple government agencies...it is not conjecture..I thought it was nonsense for a while, but it was supported by multiple government agencies.

Are you saying we should not trust our government? I thought that was your thing?

And after investigating they decided there was nothing in it.  Do you have a real picture of the van?

Quote
The arresting officers said they saw a lot that aroused their suspicion about the men. One of the passengers had $4,700 in cash hidden in his sock. Another was carrying two foreign passports. A box cutter was found in the van. But perhaps the biggest surprise for the officers came when the five men identified themselves as Israeli citizens.

Gee,  israeli's with foreign passports,  give me a break,  I have a stanley knife,  and a leatherman wave, in my pocket at times.  How is that scary?  As for the cash,  words fail me,  since when is it suspicious to carry a few thousand in cash. 

I smell a conspiracy beatup.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 21, 2018, 07:21:33 PM
We gave you the chance to say.
"Pure coincidence." Why didn't you take it the first time?

I suppose the trace explosives in the van were also pure coincidence?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 21, 2018, 07:33:44 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 21, 2018, 07:21:33 PM
We gave you the chance to say.
"Pure coincidence." Why didn't you take it the first time?

I suppose the trace explosives in the van were also pure coincidence?

I could find traces of explosives just about anywhere you choose.  It was a moving van,  who knows what stuff they might have carried over time.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 21, 2018, 07:43:47 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 21, 2018, 07:33:44 PM
I could find traces of explosives just about anywhere you choose. 

Lmao...really Rayzor?? That is all you could come up with?

So I guess the dogs at the boarder hit every car that drives comes through. No wonder ICE is so busy.

Don't unravel Rayzor.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 21, 2018, 08:20:35 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 21, 2018, 07:43:47 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 21, 2018, 07:33:44 PM
I could find traces of explosives just about anywhere you choose. 

Lmao...really Rayzor?? That is all you could come up with?

So I guess the dogs at the boarder hit every car that drives comes through. No wonder ICE is so busy.

Don't unravel Rayzor.

Border.

So, you are confirming that  don't know much about detecting explosives.  I would have thought you'd be up to speed on that stuff.

Did they find a carton or two of this stuff?

(https://s9.postimg.org/nqq7rvwjj/krylon.png)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 21, 2018, 09:27:53 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 21, 2018, 08:20:35 PM
Border.

So, you are confirming that  don't know much about detecting explosives.  I would have thought you'd be up to speed on that stuff.

Did they find a carton or two of this stuff?

Correcting my autocorrect...yep you are unraveling. Just like old times huh?

Tell you what...I am going to take one of my cars, at random and see if a dog hits on it for explosives...since they are everywhere according to you.

Hell you just proved my point on 9/11....the explosives were already in the building...THEY ARE EVERYWHERE!!! Going to start calling them Russians.

Now we know two things Rayzor checks under his bed for
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 21, 2018, 09:39:46 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 21, 2018, 09:27:53 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 21, 2018, 08:20:35 PM
Border.

So, you are confirming that  don't know much about detecting explosives.  I would have thought you'd be up to speed on that stuff.

Did they find a carton or two of this stuff?

Correcting my autocorrect...yep you are unraveling. Just like old times huh?

Tell you what...I am going to take one of my cars, at random and see if a dog hits on it for explosives...since they are everywhere according to you.

Hell you just proved my point on 9/11....the explosives were already in the building...THEY ARE EVERYWHERE!!! Going to start calling them Russians.

Now we know two things Rayzor checks under his bed for

I bet I could find some nanothermite in your car.  LOL

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 21, 2018, 09:48:22 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 21, 2018, 09:39:46 PM
I bet I could find some nanothermite in your car.  LOL

Someone broke Rayzor
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 21, 2018, 09:55:32 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 21, 2018, 09:48:22 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 21, 2018, 09:39:46 PM
I bet I could find some nanothermite in your car.  LOL

Someone broke Rayzor

LOL,  so what are the ingredients for nano thermite.  Let's see how you go.

BTW, You, and d1 need to take lessons in gaslighting.  I could give you a few tips.  Might help you get a date, that doesn't throw up.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 21, 2018, 10:00:02 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 21, 2018, 09:55:32 PM
LOL,  so what are the ingredients for nano thermite.  Let's see how you go.

BTW, You, and d1 need to take lessons in gaslighting.  I could give you a few tips.  Might help you get a date, that doesn't throw up.

Not trying to gaslight...I don't need that tactic to have a debate, especially when I have truth and logic on my side.

I was simply saying you seem to be broken..
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 21, 2018, 10:12:13 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 21, 2018, 10:00:02 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 21, 2018, 09:55:32 PM
LOL,  so what are the ingredients for nano thermite.  Let's see how you go.

BTW, You, and d1 need to take lessons in gaslighting.  I could give you a few tips.  Might help you get a date, that doesn't throw up.

Not trying to gaslight...I don't need that tactic to have a debate, especially when I have truth and logic on my side.

I was simply saying you seem to be broken..

For someone who pretends to know about demolition,  you seem pretty ignorant about explosives. 

So what are the ingredients for nano thermite? 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on February 21, 2018, 10:48:16 PM
What's that van about?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 21, 2018, 10:56:16 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 21, 2018, 10:12:13 PM
For someone who pretends to know about demolition,  you seem pretty ignorant about explosives. 

So what are the ingredients for nano thermite?

Lol, pretends, ok...do I need to prove you wrong as always? Though I would ask you to prove something about yourself and as always you cannot...just a Google warrior and/or shill.

Anyways...you realize on demo teams there are designers/installers/explosive techs etc..it isn't one person that does everything nor has the speciality.

As for the ingredients of thermite...it isn't complex, how would you know if I were right or wrong...oh yeah, Google it lol.

This whole thing started because you got stuck in a corner then said something ridiculous like explosive residue is everywhere lol...then attempt to say I know nothing of demolition because of your idiotic comment.

You are coming apart at a fast pace Rayzor
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 21, 2018, 11:03:58 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 21, 2018, 10:56:16 PM
This whole thing started because you got stuck in a corner then said something ridiculous like explosive residue is everywhere lol...then attempt to say I know nothing of demolition because of your idiotic comment.

ProTip: Learn to comprehend what you read.   You seem to have the uncanny ability to misread even the simplest sentences. 

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 21, 2018, 11:12:53 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 21, 2018, 11:03:58 PM
ProTip: Learn to comprehend what you read.   You seem to have the uncanny ability to misread even the simplest sentences.

Lol, your tactics have lost all effect now...what will you do?

Anyways, for the class here is your very amusing bottom of the barrel quote.

Quote from: Rayzor on February 21, 2018, 07:33:44 PM
I could find traces of explosives just about anywhere you choose.

Just lol...

You are unraveling.... compose yourself
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 21, 2018, 11:21:41 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 21, 2018, 11:12:53 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 21, 2018, 11:03:58 PM
ProTip: Learn to comprehend what you read.   You seem to have the uncanny ability to misread even the simplest sentences.

Lol, your tactics have lost all effect now...what will you do?

Anyways, for the class here is your very amusing bottom of the barrel quote.

Quote from: Rayzor on February 21, 2018, 07:33:44 PM
I could find traces of explosives just about anywhere you choose.

Just lol...

You are unraveling.... compose yourself

Let me help you, since you are obviously having trouble with the language,  I'll highlight the key word for you.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 21, 2018, 11:26:45 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 21, 2018, 11:12:53 PM
Lol, your tactics have lost all effect now...what will you do?

Lol.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 21, 2018, 11:31:10 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 21, 2018, 11:21:41 PM
Let me help you, since you are obviously having trouble with the language,  I'll highlight the key word for you.

Okay and??? It doesn't make it any less moronic.

You need to go meditate and pull yourself together.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 21, 2018, 11:38:17 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 21, 2018, 11:31:10 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 21, 2018, 11:21:41 PM
Let me help you, since you are obviously having trouble with the language,  I'll highlight the key word for you.

Okay and??? It doesn't make it any less moronic.

You need to go meditate and pull yourself together.

Sigh!   I try to help, and you still don't get it.   Have you ever done any testing for traces of explosives?   
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 21, 2018, 11:45:25 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 21, 2018, 11:38:17 PM
Sigh!   I try to help, and you still don't get it.   Have you ever done any testing for traces of explosives?

I am not an explosives expert, never said I was. However, I have a customer that trains explosives/narcotics/money detecting dogs. I have spent a fair amount of time with him and his team watching because it interests me. I know how their scent detection works (they smell as we see, so if there is red in the middle of a 100 colors, we will still see the red) and how they are trained to express themselves as well as motivation.

Either case, they would be completely useless if trace explosive residue was everywhere. Trace explosive residue is not everywhere, that is as dumb as it comes.... especially with dogs hitting on it (which is what they did to the trucks)..

Rayzor, you really are losing it. Take a vacation.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 21, 2018, 11:52:41 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 21, 2018, 11:45:25 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 21, 2018, 11:38:17 PM
Sigh!   I try to help, and you still don't get it.   Have you ever done any testing for traces of explosives?

I am not an explosives expert, never said I was. However, I have a customer that trains explosives/narcotics/money detecting dogs. I have spent a fair amount of time with him and his team watching because it interests me. I know how their scent detection works (they smell as we see, so if there is red in the middle of a 100 colors, we will still see the red) and how they are trained to express themselves as well as motivation.

Either case, they would be completely useless if trace explosive residue was everywhere. Trace explosive residue is not everywhere, that is as dumb as it comes.... especially with dogs hitting on it (which is what they did to the trucks)..

Rayzor, you really are losing it. Take a vacation.

Ok let's do baby steps, do you know the difference between finding traces of explosives and finding explosives.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 21, 2018, 11:55:17 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 21, 2018, 11:52:41 PM
Ok let's do baby steps, do you know the difference between finding traces of explosives and finding explosives.

Yes I do, I also know the difference in smoke and fire.. two different things but one leads to the other in any direction.

That thread keeps getting longer huh..
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on February 21, 2018, 11:56:52 PM
Why should there be traces of explosive at, for example, my own car?

Also, the guy in this looks like BHS, at least the hair does:
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 22, 2018, 12:00:43 AM
Quote from: User324 on February 21, 2018, 11:56:52 PM
Why should there be traces of explosive at, for example, my own car?


Because they are everywhere according to rayzor... even under his bed with the Russians.

Now stay with attempting to put the round block in the round hole. One day you will get it and I will be proud.

Rooting for you Bro Hym!
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on February 22, 2018, 12:02:44 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 22, 2018, 12:00:43 AM
Quote from: User324 on February 21, 2018, 11:56:52 PM
Why should there be traces of explosive at, for example, my own car?


Because they are everywhere according to rayzor... even under his bed with the Russians.

Now stay with attempting to put the round block in the round hole. One day you will get it and I will be proud.

Rooting for you Bro Hym!
Argumentum ad hominem ain't making you smarter though :)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 22, 2018, 12:05:49 AM
Quote from: User324 on February 21, 2018, 11:56:52 PM
Why should there be traces of explosive at, for example, my own car?

Also, the guy in this looks like BHS, at least the hair does:


There are traces of explosives everywhere,  detection limits these days is in the ppq levels.  But don't tell BHS. 

Also it depends on what chemicals you choose to regard as explosive.   Do you have any petrol in your car?   No, it's a lithium powered Tesla?  Lithium batteries are another story.

What about plastics?  Any plastics in your car with ppq levels of residual traces of peroxide used in polymerization?   

The fact that they found so called "traces of explosives" in a moving van,  doesn't mean anything in the real world.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 22, 2018, 12:06:40 AM
Quote from: User324 on February 22, 2018, 12:02:44 AM

Argumentum ad hominem ain't making you smarter though :)

Believe me, looking intelligent is not my goal with any post to you. I just enjoy making fun of you with a combination of truth and cannon fodder.

I realized some time ago, anything past the kindergarten level goes over your head...it takes time and thought to make meaningful​ posts, so I am certainly not going to waste that on someone like yourself.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 22, 2018, 12:09:23 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 22, 2018, 12:06:40 AM
Believe me, looking intelligent is not my goal with any post

You are succeeding like the bright spoon you are.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 22, 2018, 12:09:35 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 22, 2018, 12:05:49 AM
There are traces of explosives everywhere,  detection limits these days is in the ppq levels.  But don't tell BHS. 

Also it depends on what chemicals you choose to regard as explosive.   Do you have any petrol in your car?   No, it's a lithium powered Tesla?  Lithium batteries are another story.

What about plastics?  Any plastics in your car with ppq levels of residual traces of peroxide used in polymerization?   

The fact that they found so called "traces of explosives" in a moving van,  doesn't mean anything in the real world.

I figured you were gonna go for semantics in some nonsensical approach. Was just waiting for it, however, I was already prepared for your sad tactics.

The rebuttal is easy....dogs hit on the trucks, this does not happen by chance or magic.

You are unraveling in an embarrassing manner... compose yourself
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 22, 2018, 12:12:58 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 22, 2018, 12:09:35 AM
The rebuttal is easy....dogs hit on the trucks, this does not happen by chance or magic.

Did the dogs indicate what type or class of explosives?  Two barks for nitro,  one for peroxide.  LOL  What did subsequent forensic testing on the van show.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on February 22, 2018, 12:13:54 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 22, 2018, 12:05:49 AM
Quote from: User324 on February 21, 2018, 11:56:52 PM
Why should there be traces of explosive at, for example, my own car?

Also, the guy in this looks like BHS, at least the hair does:


There are traces of explosives everywhere,  detection limits these days is in the ppq levels.  But don't tell BHS. 

Also it depends on what chemicals you choose to regard as explosive.   Do you have any petrol in your car?   No, it's a lithium powered Tesla?  Lithium batteries are another story.

What about plastics?  Any plastics in your car with ppq levels of residual traces of peroxide used in polymerization?   

The fact that they found so called "traces of explosives" in a moving van,  doesn't mean anything in the real world.
Good argumentation, I guess that's true.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 22, 2018, 12:19:38 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 22, 2018, 12:12:58 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 22, 2018, 12:09:35 AM
The rebuttal is easy....dogs hit on the trucks, this does not happen by chance or magic.

Did the dogs indicate what type or class of explosives?  Two barks for nitro,  one for peroxide. 

You are unraveling faster and faster...

Now that your games are completely ineffective, how hollow you really are is showing.

I was quiet and even acted like I fell for your games or at least tolerated them until you showed all your cards. Now I know all your hands, not to mention you lost all elements of surprise...it's time to go regroup hotshot. (No I am not answering your dumb ass questions about the dogs...if you are interested (which I know you aren't) learn how they are trained, sense of smell works and their motivation.)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on February 22, 2018, 12:21:20 AM
The more personal attacks are coming from bhs, the more desperate he is. It's basically a linear function. Very interesting to observe!
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 22, 2018, 12:30:47 AM
Quote from: User324 on February 22, 2018, 12:21:20 AM
The more personal attacks are coming from bhs, the more desperate he is. It's basically a linear function. Very interesting to observe!

As much as your bubbles of delusions think you are important or mean something here...you are not even a blip on my radar. Basically just like reality for you..

No different than that white stuff that forms on the corner of your mouth when hot or waking up in the morning. Yeah it is there, but means nothing, you wipe it off and never think of it again.

Nice out of context quote FYI, you can use it because it truly is all you have.

Sad
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 22, 2018, 12:51:53 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 22, 2018, 12:19:38 AM
(No I am not answering your dumb ass questions about the dogs...if you are interested (which I know you aren't) learn how they are trained, sense of smell works and their motivation.)

Has a dog ever been called as an expert witness in a terrorism case?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on February 22, 2018, 12:53:40 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 22, 2018, 12:51:53 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 22, 2018, 12:19:38 AM
(No I am not answering your dumb ass questions about the dogs...if you are interested (which I know you aren't) learn how they are trained, sense of smell works and their motivation.)

Has a dog ever been called as an expert witness in a terrorism case?
Has a baby ever been called as an expert witness in a terrorism case?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 22, 2018, 12:55:58 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 22, 2018, 12:51:53 AM

Has a dog ever been called as an expert witness in a terrorism case?

Another moronic question... I could explain how canines are used in the legal system. But we all know you don't actually care..just another attempted derailment of your unraveling.

Take a break and regroup Rayzor.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 22, 2018, 01:00:59 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 22, 2018, 12:55:58 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 22, 2018, 12:51:53 AM

Has a dog ever been called as an expert witness in a terrorism case?

Another moronic question... I could explain how canines are used in the legal system. But we all know you don't actually care..just another attempted derailment of your unraveling.

Take a break and regroup Rayzor.

I'll take that as a no.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 22, 2018, 01:09:08 AM
^ unraveling at an expedited pace. As well as trying to shit post far away from actual posts with information.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 22, 2018, 01:12:26 AM
If Trace explosives are everywhere then why do the swabs never pick up trace explosives on me when I get on a plane?

They are clearly not everywhere. We have never once had a lift stuck in customs because it has trace explosives.

It seems trace explosives are in fact traces of explosives.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 22, 2018, 01:15:56 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 22, 2018, 01:12:26 AM
If Trace explosives are everywhere then why do the swabs never pick up trace explosives on me when I get on a plane?

They are clearly not everywhere. We have never once had a lift stuck in customs because it has trace explosives.

It seems trace explosives are in fact traces of explosives.

Some of those machines often only do nitro compounds,  some do chlorates,  probably not things like TATP,  although some later ones do.   Try dusting a little ammonium nitrate fertilizer in your carry on bag and see how you go. 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 22, 2018, 01:17:17 AM
Ammonium nitrate fertilizer is used to make explosives. That diesel and brake fluid. So I am not surprised it's a trace explosive. Being an explosive compound and all.

Would you like to retract your claim that trace explosives are everywhere?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 22, 2018, 01:19:27 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 22, 2018, 01:17:17 AM
Ammonium nitrate fertilizer is used to make explosives. That diesel and brake fluid. So I am not surprised it's a trace explosive. Being an explosive compound and all.

Would you like to retract your claim that trace explosives are everywhere?

Umm let me think ...  No
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 22, 2018, 01:21:17 AM
So there are trace explosives absolutely everywhere then?
Really you stand by this claim?

You just have to say that it is merely another coincidence to add to the hundreds of suspicious facts around 9/11 that are all obviously pure coincidence.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 22, 2018, 01:23:13 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 22, 2018, 01:21:17 AM
So there are trace explosives absolutely everywhere then?

You just have to say that it is merely another coincidence to add to the hundreds of suspicous facts around 9/11 that are all obviously pure coincidence.

So tell me about the foresnsic tests done on the Urban Moving Van,  and if you can find a real picture of the Mural.   

I'll wait.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 22, 2018, 01:25:42 AM
Where are the trace explosives in the banana I am eating Rayzor? In the peel or in the fruit? Wait, you claim trace explosives are absolutely everywhere so trace explosives are in both the skin and the fruit. Wow, explosive bananas you say?

It's in the FBI and NYPD releases. Any photograph I post you will merely scream fake.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 22, 2018, 01:26:57 AM
Bhs is right you are done.

Can we get a new one guys? This ones cooked.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 22, 2018, 01:40:00 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 22, 2018, 01:25:42 AM
Where are the trace explosives in the banana I am eating Rayzor? In the peel or in the fruit? Wait, you claim trace explosives are absolutely everywhere so trace explosives are in both the skin and the fruit. Wow, explosive bananas you say?

It's in the FBI and NYPD releases. Any photograph I post you will merely scream fake.

I had you tagged as a banana eater.  Please don't ask for an explanation.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 22, 2018, 01:49:32 AM
Bananas are good for you. Unlike lying and manipulating which is poision.

Where were the trace explosives in my banana?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 22, 2018, 01:55:31 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 22, 2018, 01:26:57 AM
Bhs is right you are done.

Can we get a new one guys? This ones cooked.

He is almost fully unraveled...just sputtering and kicking. You have to admit, he put up a very good fight.

Rayzor...

Simple facts, the dogs hit on the trucks...there are not trace explosives every where unless you want to play semantics.

The simple fact is three government agencies corroborated the story of these Israelis, their truck and their actions...things I didn't even believe.

The fact you are not allowed to say we cannot trust the government, the fact you cannot give any weight or credibility to the Israelis caught....you are in a catch 22...a check mate, no where to go.

So you are doing the only thing you have left besides bow out...shit post this thread to Oblivion...hoping not only to run people off out of boredom, but also attempt to gaslight either myself or D1 into getting side tracked.

I have been watching you and willingly playing into your game until I saw every hand you had, then waited for the perfect time to trap you.

You are unraveled...you have been weighed, measured and found lacking.

You are quite good, I hope one day you can put it towards a good cause.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 22, 2018, 01:58:06 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 22, 2018, 01:49:32 AM
Bananas are good for you. Unlike lying and manipulating which is poision.

Where were the trace explosives in my banana?

I'm pretty sure I could make Isoamyl Acetate into an explosive,  but here is a simpler way


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 22, 2018, 02:10:28 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 22, 2018, 01:55:31 AM
Simple facts, the dogs hit on the trucks...there are not trace explosives every where unless you want to play semantics.

The simple fact is three government agencies corroborated the story of these Israelis, their truck and their actions...things I didn't even believe.


So, why not show me a picture of the moving van mural and a link to the forensic report on the explosive traces. 

Yes I could look for them myself,  but this is your theory, so it's you who needs to support it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 22, 2018, 02:18:54 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 22, 2018, 02:10:28 AM
Yes I could look for them myself,  but this is your theory, so it's you who needs to support it.

It's not theory, just simply stating what the three government agencies said that you trust. No conjecture, I even wrote it off until I read the reports.

Look up the capabilities of canines, not going to explain that to you.

So are you saying these three government agencies lied with these reports? If so that is fine, just state it for the record.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 22, 2018, 02:20:22 AM
All the reports are here.

https://archive.org/download/FBIandPoliceReportUrbanMoving

You have to download them individually and the FBI documents are very poorly labeled.

I know you've read them however.

You will eventually have to remove your claim that bananas have trace explosives in them.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 22, 2018, 02:25:12 AM
This is a good quick rundown on the Israeli / Mossad connection to 9/11.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 22, 2018, 02:27:40 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 22, 2018, 02:20:22 AM
You will eventually have to remove your claim that bananas have trace explosives in them.

Even if they did, it doesn't matter as an explosives dog would not hit on a banana.

The fact that cannot be ignored is they hit on all the trucks, they are trained to respond to a certain combination of scents formed by multiple types of explosives. A dog trained for currency would ignore the scent of any explosives and vice versa for an explosives canine.

A dog trained to respond for bananas would ignore money, explosives and narcotics.

Rayzor is done...he is just trying to shit post this thread to no man's land as well as distract any honest poster here. It is the only play left besides bowing out, a nasty little hail Mary.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 22, 2018, 02:28:46 AM
I'm having fun tho :).
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 22, 2018, 02:32:41 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 22, 2018, 02:20:22 AM
All the reports are here.

https://archive.org/download/FBIandPoliceReportUrbanMoving

You have to download them individually and the FBI documents are very poorly labeled.

I know you've read them however.

You will eventually have to remove your claim that bananas have trace explosives in them.

So, of the seven vans,  none had a mural depicting the twin towers,  that might explain why no picture of such a van exists. 

Still no forensic reports on the explosive traces.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 22, 2018, 02:33:43 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 22, 2018, 02:20:22 AM
You will eventually have to remove your claim that bananas have trace explosives in them.

You didn't watch the video I linked to in the other thread?

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 22, 2018, 02:39:31 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 22, 2018, 02:32:41 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 22, 2018, 02:20:22 AM
All the reports are here.

https://archive.org/download/FBIandPoliceReportUrbanMoving

You have to download them individually and the FBI documents are very poorly labeled.

I know you've read them however.

You will eventually have to remove your claim that bananas have trace explosives in them.

So, of the seven vans,  none had a mural depicting the twin towers,  that might explain why no picture of such a van exists. 

Still no forensic reports on the explosive traces.

Get your story straight man.

Quote from: Rayzor on February 21, 2018, 03:57:21 AM

Quote
The real van mural is very suggestive but showing more a military plane with camo pattern on it coming up from below the two towers. Still pretty striking.

Btw military planes hit the towers so lol.

Edit.

They never released the forensic reports. As Bhs said the bomb squad dogs caught the explosive traces.

You are glowing in the dark.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 22, 2018, 02:40:54 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 22, 2018, 02:33:43 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 22, 2018, 02:20:22 AM
You will eventually have to remove your claim that bananas have trace explosives in them.

You didn't watch the video I linked to in the other thread?

This thread, you're breaking up botty boy.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 22, 2018, 03:03:39 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 22, 2018, 02:39:31 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 22, 2018, 02:32:41 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 22, 2018, 02:20:22 AM
All the reports are here.

https://archive.org/download/FBIandPoliceReportUrbanMoving

You have to download them individually and the FBI documents are very poorly labeled.

I know you've read them however.

You will eventually have to remove your claim that bananas have trace explosives in them.

So, of the seven vans,  none had a mural depicting the twin towers,  that might explain why no picture of such a van exists. 

Still no forensic reports on the explosive traces.

Get your story straight man.

Quote from: Rayzor on February 21, 2018, 03:57:21 AM

Quote
The real van mural is very suggestive but showing more a military plane with camo pattern on it coming up from below the two towers. Still pretty striking.

Btw military planes hit the towers so lol.

Edit.

They never released the forensic reports. As Bhs said the bomb squad dogs caught the explosive traces.

You are glowing in the dark.

Do I have to spell it out in agonizing detail. 

The mural van was something to do with a model aircraft learn to fly advert.  The Urban Moving Systems vans had no such mural,  the picture you posted is a fake, that someone photoshopped ( with the clear discalimer that it was photoshopped )

So no such israeli mural van exists.  Not to mention how dumb it would be to disclose the supposed super secret covert plot on the side of your van.  FFS.

As for the traces of explosives,  I guess we have to get fido on the stand to answer the question,  since the forensic reports are evidently not available.

I notice more than a few youtube videos claiming an Urban Moving Systems van with a mural, packed with explosives and driven by israeli's  was stopped by NYPD.  There is no evidence to support these exaggerated claims.

I call BS on the whole dancing israeli conspiracy.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 22, 2018, 03:08:07 AM
The van had a mural showing a plane and two towers, this van belonged to five dancing Israelis that were detained after 9/11. The bomb squad was called and the dogs used specifically to smell for trace explosives told their handlers that there was trace explosives in the van. They were all released without charge.

You are trying to deny this until it is proven, you then say it's no big deal.

This happened yesterday, you claimed there was no mural, then when you were forced you said the mural was no big deal.

You just did the exact same thing today.
Either you are multiple people using the same tactics, or you have a very poor memory indeed.

Time to call it a night mate.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 22, 2018, 03:18:52 AM
Also what would it matter if they slapped you in the face with the obvious?

(https://s13.postimg.org/tck1gsoev/hexagr24.jpg)

People would just call it a conspiracy theory and dismiss it encouraged by shills.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 22, 2018, 03:22:26 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 22, 2018, 03:18:52 AM
Also what would it matter if they slapped you in the face with the obvious?

(https://s13.postimg.org/tck1gsoev/hexagr24.jpg)

People would just call it a conspiracy theory and dismiss it encouraged by shills.

Do we have to keep debunking this stuff over and over.    Should I go get the sesame street count to tell you again how many states were in the original union.

Get something new.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 22, 2018, 03:24:32 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 22, 2018, 03:08:07 AM
The van had a mural showing a plane and two towers, this van belonged to five dancing Israelis that were detained after 9/11.

Not according to the published reports.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on February 22, 2018, 03:26:12 AM
I thought the mural was a photoshop?

Quote
Simple facts, the dogs hit on the trucks...there are not trace explosives every where unless you want to play semantics.
I don't usually agree with BHS, but here he's right.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 22, 2018, 03:31:45 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 22, 2018, 03:22:26 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 22, 2018, 03:18:52 AM
Also what would it matter if they slapped you in the face with the obvious?

(https://s13.postimg.org/tck1gsoev/hexagr24.jpg)

People would just call it a conspiracy theory and dismiss it encouraged by shills.

Do we have to keep debunking this stuff over and over.    Should I go get the sesame street count to tell you again how many states were in the original union.

Get something new.

See exactly. There was no reason not to have the picture of their plan on the side of their van.

What would it matter if they slapped you in the face with the obvious?
It wouldn't matter at all for most people.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 22, 2018, 03:32:59 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 22, 2018, 03:24:32 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 22, 2018, 03:08:07 AM
The van had a mural showing a plane and two towers, this van belonged to five dancing Israelis that were detained after 9/11.

Not according to the published reports.

Do I need to link to you admitting there was a mural of a plane and two towers on the side of the van again?

Call it a night mate.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 22, 2018, 03:40:30 AM
Quote from: User324 on February 22, 2018, 03:26:12 AM
I thought the mural was a photoshop?

Quote
Simple facts, the dogs hit on the trucks...there are not trace explosives every where unless you want to play semantics.
I don't usually agree with BHS, but here he's right.

the one dispute posted was a photoshopped fake,  ( again )  but there was another van, not associated with the israelis that apparently had an advertisment for learning to fly model planes, and the twin towers in the mural,  not all that surprising,  since the twin towers were a new york symbol, and this was apparently a new york hobby shop?  But the only reports are radio traffic which has never been all that reliable.   No pictures of the learn to fly models van that i've found.

None of the Urban Moving Systems vans had murals,  just company name some in black lettering,  some in orange and black lettering. 

The explosives report is just as vague,  some said TNT, and RDX,  but I've not seen any forensic reports. 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 22, 2018, 03:43:28 AM
The absolute state of Rayzor.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 22, 2018, 03:53:50 AM
Quote from: User324 on February 22, 2018, 03:26:12 AM
I thought the mural was a photoshop?

Quote from: https://www.metabunk.org/needs-debunking-nypd-transmission-9-11-exploding-mural-van.t3926/
According to someone who lives in NYC, the actual image on the side of the van showed more a military plane with camo pattern on it coming up from below the two towers. And underneath is in Hebrew "learn the fun of how to fly model planes". The van was just a delivery van for a toy shop."

There are other reports of a van packed full of explosives driven by two middle eastern men who didn't speak english,  but based on nothing much other than some radio traffic.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 22, 2018, 03:59:53 AM
Yes there is a lot of disinfo surrounding this. It makes it easier for shills. "Art of deception" lol you aren't fooling anyone important.

What Bhs and Myself are referencing are the NYPD and FBI reports
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 22, 2018, 04:11:34 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 22, 2018, 03:59:53 AM
Yes there is a lot of disinfo surrounding this. It makes it easier for shills. "Art of deception" lol you aren't fooling anyone important.

What Bhs and Myself are referencing are the NYPD and FBI reports

The FBI report makes no mention of a mural van,  and has no forensic report on tests for explosives.   

Unless it's in one of the redacted sections?   

I call BS on the mural van theory.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 22, 2018, 04:15:12 AM
Lol.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 22, 2018, 04:21:02 AM
Maybe the Russians made fake police reports to try and frame Israel? In preparation of their 2016 hack of paper ballots.

I bet the Russians did this.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 22, 2018, 04:24:01 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 22, 2018, 04:21:02 AM
Maybe the Russians made fake police reports to try and frame Israel? In preparation of their 2016 hack of paper ballots.

I bet the Russians did this.

Russian Jews?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 22, 2018, 04:26:16 AM
I like how you got the meme, I didn't expect anyone to. Seems you hang out on the same sites I do.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 22, 2018, 02:51:11 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 22, 2018, 04:11:34 AM
I call BS on the mural van theory.

Then you are saying the government has lied to us and we cannot trust them.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 22, 2018, 05:20:12 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 22, 2018, 02:51:11 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 22, 2018, 04:11:34 AM
I call BS on the mural van theory.

Then you are saying the government has lied to us and we cannot trust them.

I'm saying there was never an israeli mural van.   
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sokarul on February 22, 2018, 07:24:28 PM
As an American I heard the dancing Israeli story weeks after the attack.

Fake news is older than you know.


And dont forget the “Budweiser” delivery driver who was delivering beer to an Arab owned liquor store where the owner was happy. The driver has enough time to take all the Budweiser products out of the store.


Fake news is fake news.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 22, 2018, 08:09:47 PM
Quote from: sokarul on February 22, 2018, 07:24:28 PM
Fake news Fake news fake news.

Calm down you sound emotionally invested.

Are you calling the FBI and NYPD reports fake?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sokarul on February 22, 2018, 08:23:29 PM
Are you saying they were found guilty?

Do you have any other source other than that ABC article?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 22, 2018, 09:31:22 PM
The FBI and NYPD reports. Not an ABC article.

I can't provide a government website saying 9/11 was an inside job and we all know the government never lies about anything.

Case closed if 9/11 was an inside job we would have heard about it on CNN, check mate, conspiratards.

Except for this issue according to Rayzor, the FBI and NYPD lied about the Israeli connection apparently.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 22, 2018, 09:40:14 PM
Lol you shills are so high of your own farts you don't understand the vast majority of people irl know there was foul play on 9/11.

The only way you can force the appearance of a consensus is through sock puppets bots and professional shills.

Topkek.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 22, 2018, 09:54:40 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 22, 2018, 09:31:22 PM
Except for this issue according to Rayzor, the FBI and NYPD lied about the Israeli connection apparently.

The FBI reports never mention an Urban Moving Systems van with a mural.   Stop making stuff up, and posting fake pictures.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on February 22, 2018, 10:41:20 PM
Dispute is a disinformation shill.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 22, 2018, 10:51:17 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 22, 2018, 09:54:40 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 22, 2018, 09:31:22 PM
Except for this issue according to Rayzor, the FBI and NYPD lied about the Israeli connection apparently.

The FBI reports never mention an Urban Moving Systems van with a mural.

The NYPD reports do, thats why you only mention the FBI.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 22, 2018, 10:51:50 PM
Quote from: User324 on February 22, 2018, 10:41:20 PM
Dispute is a disinformation shill.

If that were correct it would confirm 9/11 was an inside job. Which is it?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on February 22, 2018, 11:04:24 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 22, 2018, 10:51:50 PM
Quote from: User324 on February 22, 2018, 10:41:20 PM
Dispute is a disinformation shill.

If that were correct it would confirm 9/11 was an inside job. Which is it?
Nice try; shill.

It'd prove that the earth is flat.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 22, 2018, 11:39:44 PM
I laughed out loud. See he has his moments Bhs. P.S I like your new sig.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 23, 2018, 12:36:28 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 22, 2018, 11:39:44 PM
I laughed out loud. See he has his moments Bhs. P.S I like your new sig.

Yeah, I suppose. Kind of like the retarded dog that finally held it and shit outside for once.

Quote from: sokarul on February 22, 2018, 08:23:29 PM
Are you saying they were found guilty?

Do you have any other source other than that ABC article?

They were not, they were deported back to Israel. And yes the information is public for anyone to see.

It is funny to me, "people" like yourself and Rayzor will support the fact that terrorist committed the act whose DNA was found in a situation that magically liquidated steel for months...or the passport that magically appeared when everything else was "vaporized"...or the fact the people "responsible" and suicided themselves was found alive and well...and...well I could keep going...

The simple fact, the official fairy tale is accepted no questions asked, yet a genuine lead reported by the FBI, NYPD and department of transportation (the latter two for the mural) is written off instantly.

As legba would say "why are y'all so mental"... however, I think we know why.

You people can try and shit post this thread away, but it won't work.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 23, 2018, 12:42:37 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 23, 2018, 12:36:28 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 22, 2018, 11:39:44 PM
I laughed out loud. See he has his moments Bhs. P.S I like your new sig.

Yeah, I suppose. Kind of like the retarded dog that finally held it and shit outside for once.

Exactly. A trained dog gets no praise for shitting outside because it's expected of it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 23, 2018, 02:03:27 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 22, 2018, 10:51:17 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 22, 2018, 09:54:40 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 22, 2018, 09:31:22 PM
Except for this issue according to Rayzor, the FBI and NYPD lied about the Israeli connection apparently.

The FBI reports never mention an Urban Moving Systems van with a mural.

The NYPD reports do, thats why you only mention the FBI.

Nope,  the NYPD reports don't mention a mural van belonging to Urban Moving Systems.   Another  dipstick fail.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on February 23, 2018, 02:48:21 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 22, 2018, 11:39:44 PM
P.S I like your new sig.
Yeah it's not bad, but kinda lacks a bit creativity.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: andrewchikoski on February 23, 2018, 06:23:42 PM
what about
Hijacked Planes were flown into the two towers. with a controlled demolition
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bullwinkle on February 23, 2018, 07:19:02 PM
Quote from: andrewchikoski on February 23, 2018, 06:23:42 PM
what about
Hijacked Planes were flown into the two towers. with a controlled demolition

No, you can't just make shit up.   ;)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 23, 2018, 09:12:50 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 23, 2018, 02:03:27 AM
Nope,  the NYPD reports don't mention a mural van belonging to Urban Moving Systems.   Another  dipstick fail.

Read the report shit bird. We all know you didn't.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: sokarul on February 23, 2018, 09:39:26 PM
I didn’t. Where is it located?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 24, 2018, 01:49:53 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 23, 2018, 09:12:50 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 23, 2018, 02:03:27 AM
Nope,  the NYPD reports don't mention a mural van belonging to Urban Moving Systems.   Another  dipstick fail.

Read the report shit bird. We all know you didn't.

Even your insults are borderline incoherent,   "shit bird"    ??   what?

Anyway,  show me where the NYPD mentions a mural van belonging to Urban Moving Systems,   I bet you can't,  simply because it doesn't exist. 

You seem so sure,  so prove me wrong.   Or forever shut the fuck up.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 24, 2018, 05:17:55 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 24, 2018, 01:49:53 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 23, 2018, 09:12:50 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 23, 2018, 02:03:27 AM
Nope,  the NYPD reports don't mention a mural van belonging to Urban Moving Systems.   Another  dipstick fail.

Read the report shit bird. We all know you didn't.

Even your insults are borderline incoherent,   "shit bird"    ??   what?

Anyway,  show me where the NYPD mentions a mural van belonging to Urban Moving Systems,   I bet you can't,  simply because it doesn't exist. 

You seem so sure,  so prove me wrong.   Or forever shut the fuck up.

.... crickets ....
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 24, 2018, 05:52:23 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 24, 2018, 05:17:55 PM
.... crickets ....

"A panel truck with a painting of a plane flying into the World Trade Center was stopped near the temporary command post. It proved to be rented to a group of ethnic Middle Eastern people who did not speak English. Fearing that it might be a truck bomb, the NYPD immediately evacuated the area, called out the bomb squad, and detained the occupants until a thorough search was made."

Read the transcripts from the 911 traffic and police intercom traffic. They speak of it, which is mentioned in the NYPD report and department of transportation report, though not the FBI report.

All reports speak of trace explosive residue the dogs hit on, but found no actual explosives.

It also seems the mural was not in color but black and white.

It doesn't matter to me one way or the other, I didn't care to begin with. However, found it interesting to read the reports from multiple agencies.

Are we done talking about this sidetrack yet?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 24, 2018, 05:55:10 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 24, 2018, 05:52:23 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 24, 2018, 05:17:55 PM
.... crickets ....

"A panel truck with a painting of a plane flying into the World Trade Center was stopped near the temporary command post. It proved to be rented to a group of ethnic Middle Eastern people who did not speak English. Fearing that it might be a truck bomb, the NYPD immediately evacuated the area, called out the bomb squad, and detained the occupants until a thorough search was made."

Read the transcripts from the 911 traffic and police intercom traffic. They speak of it, which is mentioned in the NYPD report and department of transportation report, though not the FBI report.

All reports speak of trace explosive residue the dogs hit on, but found no actual explosives.

It also seems the mural was not in color but black and white.

It doesn't matter to me one way or the other, I didn't care to begin with. However, found it interesting to read the reports from multiple agencies.

Are we done talking about this sidetrack yet?

So where does NYPD report mention that the van belonged to Urban Moving Systems?

Reminder:
Quote from: Rayzor on February 23, 2018, 02:03:27 AM
Nope,  the NYPD reports don't mention a mural van belonging to Urban Moving Systems.   Another  dipstick fail.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 24, 2018, 06:03:39 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 24, 2018, 05:55:10 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 24, 2018, 05:52:23 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 24, 2018, 05:17:55 PM
.... crickets ....

"A panel truck with a painting of a plane flying into the World Trade Center was stopped near the temporary command post. It proved to be rented to a group of ethnic Middle Eastern people who did not speak English. Fearing that it might be a truck bomb, the NYPD immediately evacuated the area, called out the bomb squad, and detained the occupants until a thorough search was made."

Read the transcripts from the 911 traffic and police intercom traffic. They speak of it, which is mentioned in the NYPD report and department of transportation report, though not the FBI report.

All reports speak of trace explosive residue the dogs hit on, but found no actual explosives.

It also seems the mural was not in color but black and white.

It doesn't matter to me one way or the other, I didn't care to begin with. However, found it interesting to read the reports from multiple agencies.

Are we done talking about this sidetrack yet?

So where does NYPD report mention that the van belonged to Urban Moving Systems?

Reminder:
Quote from: Rayzor on February 23, 2018, 02:03:27 AM
Nope,  the NYPD reports don't mention a mural van belonging to Urban Moving Systems.   Another  dipstick fail.

Sigh...it isn't, the FBI took it over once the bomb squad cleared and impounded the vehicle. The NYPD was simply on a BOLO and received a call via 911 on the vehicle. Then the police reported the same thing, and called the bomb squad. They didn't do much more, the FBI did all the investigation and held them for months.

Anything else?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 24, 2018, 06:09:43 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 24, 2018, 06:03:39 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 24, 2018, 05:55:10 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 24, 2018, 05:52:23 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 24, 2018, 05:17:55 PM
.... crickets ....

"A panel truck with a painting of a plane flying into the World Trade Center was stopped near the temporary command post. It proved to be rented to a group of ethnic Middle Eastern people who did not speak English. Fearing that it might be a truck bomb, the NYPD immediately evacuated the area, called out the bomb squad, and detained the occupants until a thorough search was made."

Read the transcripts from the 911 traffic and police intercom traffic. They speak of it, which is mentioned in the NYPD report and department of transportation report, though not the FBI report.

All reports speak of trace explosive residue the dogs hit on, but found no actual explosives.

It also seems the mural was not in color but black and white.

It doesn't matter to me one way or the other, I didn't care to begin with. However, found it interesting to read the reports from multiple agencies.

Are we done talking about this sidetrack yet?

So where does NYPD report mention that the van belonged to Urban Moving Systems?

Reminder:
Quote from: Rayzor on February 23, 2018, 02:03:27 AM
Nope,  the NYPD reports don't mention a mural van belonging to Urban Moving Systems.   Another  dipstick fail.

Sigh...it isn't, the FBI took it over once the bomb squad cleared and impounded the vehicle. The NYPD was simply on a BOLO and received a call via 911 on the vehicle. Then the police reported the same thing, and called the bomb squad. They didn't do much more, the FBI did all the investigation and held them for months.

Anything else?

Care to apologize?

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 24, 2018, 06:11:54 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 24, 2018, 06:09:43 PM
Care to apologize?

For what?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 24, 2018, 06:15:37 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 24, 2018, 06:11:54 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 24, 2018, 06:09:43 PM
Care to apologize?

For what?

This.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 23, 2018, 09:12:50 PM
Read the report shit bird. We all know you didn't.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 24, 2018, 06:17:41 PM
You didn't read it though. You wouldn't need to ask if you did.

The shit bird was for your rudeness to others.

I am sure it didn't hurt you that bad
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 24, 2018, 06:28:50 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 24, 2018, 06:17:41 PM
You didn't read it though. You wouldn't need to ask if you did.

The shit bird was for your rudeness to others.

I am sure it didn't hurt you that bad

It was you that didn't read it properly.   But that's what you always do,  you misread things, leap to unfounded conclusions.   Then refuse to apologize when you get called out, instead to retreat into insults  ( still no idea what "shit bird" is supposed to mean ). 

Dipshit, posted a well known fake picture,  then went off on his usual "Mossad did it rant".   He's just dumb and gullible.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 24, 2018, 06:37:11 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 24, 2018, 06:28:50 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 24, 2018, 06:17:41 PM
You didn't read it though. You wouldn't need to ask if you did.

The shit bird was for your rudeness to others.

I am sure it didn't hurt you that bad

It was you that didn't read it properly.   But that's what you always do,  you misread things, leap to unfounded conclusions.   Then refuse to apologize when you get called out, instead to retreat into insults  ( still no idea what "shit bird" is supposed to mean ). 


You had no idea the content of the reports...I did, I had just read them when I commented.

So what are you actually carrying on about? Or do you even know?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 24, 2018, 06:40:25 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 24, 2018, 06:37:11 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 24, 2018, 06:28:50 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 24, 2018, 06:17:41 PM
You didn't read it though. You wouldn't need to ask if you did.

The shit bird was for your rudeness to others.

I am sure it didn't hurt you that bad

It was you that didn't read it properly.   But that's what you always do,  you misread things, leap to unfounded conclusions.   Then refuse to apologize when you get called out, instead to retreat into insults  ( still no idea what "shit bird" is supposed to mean ). 


You had no idea the content of the reports...I did, I had just read them when I commented.

So what are you actually carrying on about? Or do you even know?

Nope,  I'd read the FBI report and the NYPD radio transcripts,  ages ago. 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 24, 2018, 06:43:36 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 24, 2018, 06:40:25 PM

Nope,  I'd read the FBI report and the NYPD radio transcripts,  ages ago.

Then why are you questioning about the mural, the Israelis etc?

Just wanting to deflect and make a fuss or something?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 24, 2018, 09:03:06 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 24, 2018, 06:43:36 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 24, 2018, 06:40:25 PM

Nope,  I'd read the FBI report and the NYPD radio transcripts,  ages ago.

Then why are you questioning about the mural, the Israelis etc?

Just wanting to deflect and make a fuss or something?

Stop proving me right,  the fact that you and I read the same information,  and  you misunderstood it completely says it all.

It was just another example of dispute being fooled by a fake picture,  that happened to fit his narrative about Israel.  He was guillible enough to believe that a super secret mossad agent would have painted on the side of their van all the details of a covert operation. 

Yes, it's so stupid that it beggars belief that he would genuinely accept that without question.   

You also accepted it, and argued that the mural van was real,  after having it pointed out to you, exactly how dumb that would be,  and anyway it's a known fake.

Here we are days later,  and you were still insulting me and arguing that I was wrong.   

You need help.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 24, 2018, 10:01:00 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 24, 2018, 09:03:06 PM
Stop proving me right,  the fact that you and I read the same information,  and  you misunderstood it completely says it all.

It was just another example of dispute being fooled by a fake picture,  that happened to fit his narrative about Israel.  He was guillible enough to believe that a super secret mossad agent would have painted on the side of their van all the details of a covert operation. 

Yes, it's so stupid that it beggars belief that he would genuinely accept that without question.   

You also accepted it, and argued that the mural van was real,  after having it pointed out to you, exactly how dumb that would be,  and anyway it's a known fake.

Here we are days later,  and you were still insulting me and arguing that I was wrong.   

You need help.

Literally what the fuck are you talking about?

All I ever said about the story is I was surprised it was real. I have known the truck is a Photoshop for a long time, I wrote the whole story off. However, I recently read the actual reports from the FBI, NYPD and the department of transportation and was surprised the story was true. I already said this but just repeating, apparently you have an issue with extrapolating information.

There was vans, a mural, 5 Israelis​, residual explosives etc etc...everything I said their was. So again, what the fuck are you talking about??

Also, I why are you bringing up dispute, you are talking to me. Also, I have no attachment to any group of people responsible for 9/11. I have my theories, and where the evidence points to.. however, if I am wrong and it turns out to be another group, I wouldn't cry about it.

The only thing I can do is prove who didn't do it, which was the terrorist the official story tried to blame (which are still alive lol), and what didn't happen with the collapse/crashes etc.

Always trying to put me in a box and failing.

"Stop proving me right,  the fact that you and I read the same information,  and  you misunderstood it completely says it all."

This type of arrogance from someone that has nothing to prove they can speak from such a high horse is simply amazing.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 24, 2018, 10:06:58 PM
Let me remind you of what you said.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 22, 2018, 02:51:11 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 22, 2018, 04:11:34 AM
I call BS on the mural van theory.

Then you are saying the government has lied to us and we cannot trust them.

Now you claim you knew it was fake?    Stop lying.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 24, 2018, 10:11:52 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 24, 2018, 10:06:58 PM

Now you claim you knew it was fake?    Stop lying.

Quit misrepresenting my posts...such a damn liar. You can't stop can you?

I clearly said the picture of the box truck posted was a fake. But there was a box truck with a mural, just not the one that was posted in a thread.

I also clearly said I have written the story off since the beginning, I assumed it was just a rumor and lie until I jist recently read the reports from multiple agencies and transcripts.

Stop being such a lying, gaslighting twat.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 24, 2018, 10:24:13 PM
Let's check on what you actually said.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 21, 2018, 03:36:53 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 21, 2018, 03:26:04 AM
One last time.  Try to explain the logic of painting a Mural on the side of your van that exposes the super secret covert plot you and your Mossad buddies have planned,  do you understand how dumb that would be. 

This is more like comedy playhouse than conspiracy.

One last time...I didn't believe it until I read in the reports it was confirmed from the FBI, NYPD (they are the ones that tracked that vehicle down by plate number) as well as transportation Secretary Norman Mineta's official report. I guess sometimes the truth is stranger than fiction.

Also ever heard of the best place to hide something is in plain sight?

I also stated what their explanation was for such artwork.

Plus, do you really think a group of people that was authorized by the US government is nervous about being caught? The have a free pass...they knew there was already a scapegoat and people to take the wrap. Like the poor middle Eastern people who 13 of them were found alive and well after their "deaths"...

You fell for it hook line and sinker.   Sorry that you aren't honest enough to admit it.


Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 24, 2018, 10:11:52 PM
I clearly said the picture of the box truck posted was a fake.

Umm,  no you didn't. 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 24, 2018, 10:58:04 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 24, 2018, 10:24:13 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 21, 2018, 03:36:53 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 21, 2018, 03:26:04 AM
One last time.  Try to explain the logic of painting a Mural on the side of your van that exposes the super secret covert plot you and your Mossad buddies have planned,  do you understand how dumb that would be. 

This is more like comedy playhouse than conspiracy.

One last time...I didn't believe it until I read in the reports it was confirmed from the FBI, NYPD (they are the ones that tracked that vehicle down by plate number) as well as transportation Secretary Norman Mineta's official report. I guess sometimes the truth is stranger than fiction.

Also ever heard of the best place to hide something is in plain sight?

I also stated what their explanation was for such artwork.

Plus, do you really think a group of people that was authorized by the US government is nervous about being caught? The have a free pass...they knew there was already a scapegoat and people to take the wrap. Like the poor middle Eastern people who 13 of them were found alive and well after their "deaths"...

You fell for it hook line and sinker.   Sorry that you aren't honest enough to admit it.

Remember when I said all of your tactics have already been exposed and are boring/ineffective now?

Everything I said in that post still stands, it was all in multiple reports from multiple agencies as well as 911 records and police  chatter. I never said that picture posted was a picture of the truck. Even if it wasn't photoshopped , the mural reported was not in color.

Any other deflection tactics you want to use princess? Or are we sticking with this?

Now quit lying and being a twat.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 24, 2018, 11:38:42 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 24, 2018, 10:58:04 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 24, 2018, 10:24:13 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 21, 2018, 03:36:53 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 21, 2018, 03:26:04 AM
One last time.  Try to explain the logic of painting a Mural on the side of your van that exposes the super secret covert plot you and your Mossad buddies have planned,  do you understand how dumb that would be. 

This is more like comedy playhouse than conspiracy.

One last time...I didn't believe it until I read in the reports it was confirmed from the FBI, NYPD (they are the ones that tracked that vehicle down by plate number) as well as transportation Secretary Norman Mineta's official report. I guess sometimes the truth is stranger than fiction.

Also ever heard of the best place to hide something is in plain sight?

I also stated what their explanation was for such artwork.

Plus, do you really think a group of people that was authorized by the US government is nervous about being caught? The have a free pass...they knew there was already a scapegoat and people to take the wrap. Like the poor middle Eastern people who 13 of them were found alive and well after their "deaths"...

You fell for it hook line and sinker.   Sorry that you aren't honest enough to admit it.

Remember when I said all of your tactics have already been exposed and are boring/ineffective now?

Everything I said in that post still stands, it was all in multiple reports from multiple agencies as well as 911 records and police  chatter. I never said that picture posted was a picture of the truck. Even if it wasn't photoshopped , the mural reported was not in color.

Any other deflection tactics you want to use princess? Or are we sticking with this?

Now quit lying and being a twat.

I wouldn't call it a tactic,  but just pointing out where you have been stupid and gullible,  your own words prove it.

But the reality is that you probably aren't actually as dumb as you seem,  you just lack the ability to read and comprehend simple concepts.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 24, 2018, 11:52:16 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 24, 2018, 11:38:42 PM
I wouldn't call it a tactic,  but just pointing out where you have been stupid and gullible,  your own words prove it.

But the reality is that you probably aren't actually as dumb as you seem,  you just lack the ability to read and comprehend simple concepts.

There is nothing I read wrong. Was a simple report and transcripts.

Just simply repeating what it says. If you think they are fake that is your prerogative. However, usually you trust the government so that would be strange for you.

Though I would be impressed, be a start to critical thought and independent thinking which is good.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 25, 2018, 04:16:35 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 24, 2018, 11:52:16 PM
There is nothing I read wrong. Was a simple report and transcripts.

Maybe it's not your reading, maybe its a brain malfunction?

Whatever it is it appears to have no cure.



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 26, 2018, 07:10:27 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 25, 2018, 04:16:35 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 24, 2018, 11:52:16 PM
There is nothing I read wrong. Was a simple report and transcripts.

Maybe it's not your reading, maybe its a brain malfunction?

Whatever it is it appears to have no cure.

Then by the god you don't believe in sake, please tell me where I am wrong with simply repeating what was reported.

I honestly could give two shits about the whole thing, it has no effect to my view of the 9/11 fairy tale. Just found it interesting and food for thought (especially since I wrote it off as nonsense for so long).

Now Mr. Genius, please point out where I am wrong...please spread your wisdom, truth and knowledge...dip yourself down to such a low level invilid such as myself... consider it a charity case.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 26, 2018, 07:28:07 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 26, 2018, 07:10:27 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 25, 2018, 04:16:35 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 24, 2018, 11:52:16 PM
There is nothing I read wrong. Was a simple report and transcripts.

Maybe it's not your reading, maybe its a brain malfunction?

Whatever it is it appears to have no cure.

Then by the god you don't believe in sake, please tell me where I am wrong with simply repeating what was reported.

I honestly could give two shits about the whole thing, it has no effect to my view of the 9/11 fairy tale. Just found it interesting and food for thought (especially since I wrote it off as nonsense for so long).

Now Mr. Genius, please point out where I am wrong...please spread your wisdom, truth and knowledge...dip yourself down to such a low level invilid such as myself... consider it a charity case.

You fell for the fake urban moving systems mural truck, and even after it was proven to be fake, you persisted saying that I hadn't read the FBI or NYPD reports that I actually used to confirm that no-one in either the NYPD or the FBI ever made the claim.

Here is your most recent post on the topic.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 24, 2018, 11:52:16 PM
There is nothing I read wrong. Was a simple report and transcripts.

Just simply repeating what it says. If you think they are fake that is your prerogative. However, usually you trust the government so that would be strange for you.

Though I would be impressed, be a start to critical thought and independent thinking which is good.

When did I ever say I thought the reports were false?  And when did you realize that the reports didn't support the theory that there was a urban moving systems mural truck.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 26, 2018, 10:18:47 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 26, 2018, 07:28:07 PM
You fell for the fake urban moving systems mural truck, and even after it was proven to be fake, you persisted saying that I hadn't read the FBI or NYPD reports that I actually used to confirm that no-one in either the NYPD or the FBI ever made the claim.

As always honest conversation is completely out of your reach. Really is pretty pathetic.

I never posted or said anything about the photoshopped picture posted here, nor did I post it as any proof (though how can we be sure the photoshopped picture isn't the truck without the mural made by someone like yourself? But that is neither here nor there)...I simply said the NYPD spoke about the mural (which it did, I posted it here, you agreed, just asked if it was the moving company), the police chatter and 911 call spoke about the mural (again you agreed to this as well) I said the mural was mentioned in the department of transportation report (which it was)...

So, quit lying, it is disgusting and a typical sign of a failure.

Quote
When did I ever say I thought the reports were false?  And when did you realize that the reports didn't support the theory that there was a urban moving systems mural truck.

Such 1 dimensional thinking as usual from you. This is why you have failed so many times with me..I think real world and in 3 dimensions. The NYPD mentioned the van, why it was impounded etc then it was turned over to the FBI...they didn't talk about the mural but explained it was impounded by the NYPD, but they spoke about the moving company they were apart of and the background since they were investigating, not the NYPD.

I could continue but will stop for now, about to go out for a bit.

Simply quit lying...

Also, food for thought...you think you know everything and so smart... however, a mouse might think it has it all figured out, yet it knows nothing...it just doesn't have the knowledge to know this. Ego is nothing without proof but hot air
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 26, 2018, 10:31:17 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 26, 2018, 10:18:47 PM
I simply said the NYPD spoke about the mural (which it did, I posted it here, you agreed, just asked if it was the moving company), the police chatter and 911 call spoke about the mural (again you agreed to this as well) I said the mural was mentioned in the department of transportation report (which it was)...

So, quit lying, it is disgusting and a typical sign of a failure.

No, you are still doing it,  there was no mention of an Urban Moving Systems Mural van either by the NYPD or the FBI.

The van that you are confused about belonged to a New York toy shop.  Nothing to do with Urban Moving Systems.

Learn to read.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 26, 2018, 11:57:29 PM
The Van had ties to Israel, so did Urban Moving, at the time it was thought to be owned by the dancing Israelis by the NYPD.

The FBI later said it was an unrelated coincidence. This is fine.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 26, 2018, 11:59:39 PM
Speaking of coincidences. I think we will all find this interesting, I certainly did.

Federal Prosecutor Thomas Wales was assassinated exactly one month after 9/11. Wales was investigating "Israeli Art Students" who were attempting to penetrate Department of Defense locations the year+ leading up to 9/11

Wales was shot multiple from outside his basement window 10/11/2001. This was the first and only federal prosecutor assassination in history.

https://www.salon.com/2002/05/07/students/

http://q13fox.com/2018/02/21/fbi-to-give-update-on-2001-slaying-of-seattle-prosecutor-thomas-wales/

Press conference to come this week?

http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2018/feb/21/federal-officials-to-provided-update-on-prosecutor/#/0
https://archive.is/p42FO

>SEATTLE – Sixteen years after federal prosecutor Thomas Wales was shot to death in his Seattle home, Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein said Wednesday the unsolved case remains a top priority of the Justice Department.

>Rosenstein joined other federal and local law enforcement officials in a conference room named for Wales to plead for anyone with knowledge about the killing to come forward. Several big-name law firms and some of Wales’ former colleagues said they were increasing the reward for information to $1.5 million.

>“It is not acceptable for Tom’s family, friends and colleagues to remain in a state of uncertainty about how he died,” Rosenstein said. “It is not acceptable that his killer remains unpunished.”

>Wales, an 18-year veteran of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Seattle and president of the gun-control group Washington CeaseFire, was shot through a window as he worked in his basement the night of Oct. 11, 2001. The killing happened at a time when authorities were focused on the terrorist attacks of a month earlier
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 27, 2018, 12:00:32 AM
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/a-cryptic-addition-to-a-long-standing-murder-mystery/553889/
https://archive.is/7Kllj

>Back in the fall of 2001, exactly one month after the 9/11 attacks, a lawyer in Seattle named Tom Wales was murdered as he worked alone at his home computer at night. Someone walked into the yard of Wales’s house in the Queen Anne Hill neighborhood of Seattle, careful to avoid sensors that would have set off flood lights in the yard, and fired several times through a basement window, hitting Wales as he sat at his desk. Wales died soon afterwards. He was 49, divorced, with two children in their 20s.

>The crime was huge and dismaying news in Seattle, where Wales was a prominent, respected, and widely liked figure. As a young lawyer in the early 1980s, he had left a potentially lucrative path with a New York law firm to come to Seattle and work as an assistant U.S. attorney, or federal prosecutor. That role, which he was still performing at the time of his death, mainly involved prosecuting fraud cases. In his off-duty hours, Wales had become a prominent gun-safety advocate. From the time of his death onward, the circumstances of the killing—deliberate, planned, nothing like a robbery or a random tragedy—and the prominence of his official crime-fighting record and unofficial advocacy role led to widespread assumption that his death was a retaliatory “hit.” The Justice Department considers him the first and only U.S. prosecutor to have been killed in the line of duty.

https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/crime/seattle-federal-prosecutor-thomas-wales-was-possibly-killed-by-hired-gunman-fbi-official-says/
https://archive.is/nbGjs

>The FBI and the Department of Justice have scheduled a news conference in Seattle for Wednesday, during which Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, the department’s No. 2 ranking official, is expected to discuss the unsolved 2001 homicide.

>The FBI has found evidence strongly suggesting that the fatal shooting of Seattle federal prosecutor Thomas Wales in 2001 involved a conspiracy and a hired gunman, according to an FBI official familiar with the investigation.

>Agents had pursued a single-shooter theory in the case and focused on a former Bellevue-area airline pilot who has long been a leading suspect in the shooting.

>While agents continue to look at all leads that remain in the 16-year-old investigation, they are reviewing possible ties between the pilot and a small circle of people who agents suspect were involved in the killing, the FBI official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitive nature of the investigation.

>The official said there is a “very small group” of people who know what happened. “They never talk about it,” the official said.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 27, 2018, 12:45:34 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 26, 2018, 11:57:29 PM
The Van had ties to Israel, so did Urban Moving, at the time it was thought to be owned by the dancing Israelis by the NYPD.

The FBI later said it was an unrelated coincidence. This is fine.

Prove it. 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 27, 2018, 12:49:32 AM
You'll just cry fake at anything you don't like. Why should I dance for you?

I do hope they find out who Murdered Thomas Wales, seems like they're pushing for closure. Maybe there'll be less columns in the way now.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 27, 2018, 12:59:12 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 27, 2018, 12:49:32 AM
You'll just cry fake at anything you don't like. Why should I dance for you?

You claim that the NYPD thought the toy shop mural van was connected to Urban Moving Systems,   if that's true, then it should be easy to prove.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 27, 2018, 01:26:11 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 27, 2018, 12:59:12 AM
You claim that the NYPD thought the toy shop mural van was connected to Urban Moving Systems,   if that's true, then it should be easy to prove.

It is easy to prove...the FBI talks about the box trucks/vans seized by the NYPD. The NYPD was on a BOLO for said vehicles, they responded​ to a 911 call about a van/box truck with said mural (proven by 911 records) the responding officers spoke of the mural (proof police chatter), however was scared the vehicle had explosives so they quarantined the area and called the bomb squad. After it was cleared they impounded it.

The NYPD impounded multiple vehicles, as did the FBI according to their investigation. As I said earlier, the FBI mentioned the vehicles impounded by the NYPD in their investigation. Yes they are the ones that mentioned the moving company, it was their investigation, the NYPD was just following orders.

Excluding the mural....why did every vehicle test positive for traces of explosives??


Funny part though, you really think I am taking the bait...I am simply humoring you...I know this nonsensical distraction you are attempting is a form of derailment from more serious subjects.

Shill on Rayzor...maybe tell me of the proof your still living terrorist committed these crimes lol.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 27, 2018, 01:34:42 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 27, 2018, 01:26:11 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 27, 2018, 12:59:12 AM
You claim that the NYPD thought the toy shop mural van was connected to Urban Moving Systems,   if that's true, then it should be easy to prove.

It is easy to prove...the FBI talks about the box trucks/vans seized by the NYPD. The NYPD was on a BOLO for said vehicles, they responded​ to a 911 call about a van/box truck with said mural (proven by 911 records) the responding officers spoke of the mural (proof police chatter), however was scared the vehicle had explosives so they quarantined the area and called the bomb squad. After it was cleared they impounded it.

The NYPD impounded multiple vehicles, as did the FBI according to their investigation. As I said earlier, the FBI mentioned the vehicles impounded by the NYPD in their investigation. Yes they are the ones that mentioned the moving company, it was their investigation, the NYPD was just following orders.

Excluding the mural....why did every vehicle test positive for traces of explosives??


Funny part though, you really think I am taking the bait...I am simply humoring you...I know this nonsensical distraction you are attempting is a form of derailment from more serious subjects.

Shill on Rayzor...maybe tell me of the proof your still living terrorist committed these crimes lol.

So after all that,  you still failed to produce evidence that the NYPD or FBI ever reported an Urban Moving Systems mural van.   Thanks for admitting it finally.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 27, 2018, 01:39:54 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 27, 2018, 01:34:42 AM

So after all that,  you still failed to produce evidence that the NYPD or FBI ever reported an Urban Moving Systems mural van.   Thanks for admitting it finally.

As I said earlier, it requires 3 dimensional thinking...(you remember that thread you failed miserably from your 1 dimensional thinking?) Or at a minimum honesty.

When the FBI is talking about the vehicles impounded by the NYPD in their investigation into the "moving company", it is not rocket science. It's like if I speak about a machine at my shop brought to me by a third party service, I could say "The machine that so and so company delivered" ..is this really rocket science?

Also, you are leaving out the department of transportation report as I have mentioned many times.


So how long are you going to attempt derailing with this subject? Just so I know
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 27, 2018, 01:52:23 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 27, 2018, 01:39:54 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 27, 2018, 01:34:42 AM

So after all that,  you still failed to produce evidence that the NYPD or FBI ever reported an Urban Moving Systems mural van.   Thanks for admitting it finally.

As I said earlier, it requires 3 dimensional thinking...(you remember that thread you failed miserably from your 1 dimensional thinking?) Or at a minimum honesty.

When the FBI is talking about the vehicles impounded by the NYPD in their investigation into the "moving company", it is not rocket science. It's like if I speak about a machine at my shop brought to me by a third party service, I could say "The machine that so and so company delivered" ..is this really rocket science?

Also, you are leaving out the department of transportation report as I have mentioned many times.


So how long are you going to attempt derailing with this subject? Just so I know

So three dimensional thinking is todays buzzword,  I doubt you even know what that actually means.   

And just for what it's worth, I don't recall the DOT mentioning an Urban Moving Systems mural van.   In fact I don't recall you mentioning DOT at all.  Please show me where you cited any DOT documents.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on February 27, 2018, 01:54:59 AM
I usually think im 4 dimensions, sometimes more.

Still doesn't make 9/11 conspiracy true.


[But seriously, dafuq is 3d thinkimg even supposed to mean? Doesn't sound like anything to me]
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 27, 2018, 07:07:24 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 27, 2018, 01:52:23 AM

So three dimensional thinking is todays buzzword,  I doubt you even know what that actually means.   

And just for what it's worth, I don't recall the DOT mentioning an Urban Moving Systems mural van.   In fact I don't recall you mentioning DOT at all.  Please show me where you cited any DOT documents.

Here...

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 21, 2018, 03:21:59 AM
Even the mural was discussed by U.S. Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta in his official report

As for 3 dimensional thinking, no not a buzz word, just a very good way of describing you. 1 dimensional thinking is a good way of describing not seeing the forest for the trees. Only being able to see and understand one side of an object that has three...

3 dimensional thinking is the polar opposite.

A good example would be that thread about load distribution. You and master did everything humanly possible to call me every name in the book, talk about how stupid I am etc etc etc...until the end when the realization came I was correct. Something I stated from the very first post. I see things as a whole in the real world, I don't keep my palm in front of my face.

Not to mention, the old man that raised me taught not to take financial advice from a broke man, relationship advice from a man that can not hold one and so forth. So I always look for proof of who someone is before I take what they have to say to heart.

If a quality MD told me about a medical issue I would listen...if some whack job that read a title on Google, was not an MD nor had any real world experience told me something...in one ear out the other.

This is why I ask, and so far all you have shown is dishonesty and bluster...

Certainly we cannot all be experts at everything, and that is just fine. However, I can promise, if I am not an expert on a subject with real world experience, I will listen to what is said from said expert with an open non biased mind....I simply just want knowledge and truth no matter what it may be.

This is another thing you have shown being incapable of...

So either you are a one dimensional thinker on an undeserved high horse, a dishonest person that only cares about ego everything else be damned, or a shill....the only one moderately acceptable is the first option, dumb is ok...though even dumb people who are honest can extrapolate information and find truth. So perhaps none are acceptable.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on February 27, 2018, 07:59:54 AM
Quote
Not to mention, the old man that raised me taught not to take financial advice from a broke man, relationship advice from a man that can not hold one and so forth. So I always look for proof of who someone is before I take what they have to say to heart.
That's a perfect example of one dimensional thinking.

Sure, it probably wouldn't be wise to take advice on how to get rich from a poor person or how to stay in a relationship from someone that always breaks up after 1 month.
But if you are thinking 3d (what a stupid expression that is...), you'd realize that it would be smart to take advice from someone that is in short relationships on how to NOT destroy a relationship because he has actually experienced at least one way of destroying a relationship.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 27, 2018, 10:09:19 AM
Quote from: User324 on February 27, 2018, 07:59:54 AM

Sure, it probably wouldn't be wise to take advice on how to get rich from a poor person or how to stay in a relationship from someone that always breaks up after 1 month.
But if you are thinking 3d (what a stupid expression that is...), you'd realize that it would be smart to take advice from someone that is in short relationships on how to NOT destroy a relationship because he has actually experienced at least one way of destroying a relationship.

That is why I said "CAN NOT" hold a relationship...that implies it is not possible. It does not imply there cannot be a failure involved, as there is much benefit to failure at times, though at present it may not been seen.

Now that we have addressed the fact you need to pay closer attention to detail before spouting off...I will say this is the most rational and thought out post I have seen you make. It makes me think this could be the very first baby step towards using that space between your eyes for more than a paper weight.

Don't backslide
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on February 27, 2018, 10:27:09 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 27, 2018, 10:09:19 AM
That is why I said "CAN NOT" hold a relationship...that implies it is not possible. It does not imply there cannot be a failure involved, as there is much benefit to failure at times, though at present it may not been seen.

Now that we have addressed the fact you need to pay closer attention to detail before spouting off...I will say this is the most rational and thought out post I have seen you make. It makes me think this could be the very first baby step towards using that space between your eyes for more than a paper weight.

Don't backslide
Dafuq are you talking about.
It's exactely what I said:
Someone that CAN NOT hold a relationship can give you tips about things you should NOT DO when in a relationship because he has EXPERIENCED THINGS THAT DESTROY A REALTIONSHIP. Got it now or do I need to use even more caps?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Wolvaccine on February 27, 2018, 02:40:04 PM
Quote from: User324 on February 27, 2018, 07:59:54 AM
Quote
Not to mention, the old man that raised me taught not to take financial advice from a broke man, relationship advice from a man that can not hold one and so forth. So I always look for proof of who someone is before I take what they have to say to heart.
That's a perfect example of one dimensional thinking.

Sure, it probably wouldn't be wise to take advice on how to get rich from a poor person or how to stay in a relationship from someone that always breaks up after 1 month.
But if you are thinking 3d (what a stupid expression that is...), you'd realize that it would be smart to take advice from someone that is in short relationships on how to NOT destroy a relationship because he has actually experienced at least one way of destroying a relationship.

I do not believe that was the implied meaning of the advice. You don't go to people to ask what NOT to do, you ask people advice on what TO DO.

Everyone knows gambling money through the pokies is not sound financial advice so why would ask a pokie addict for advice? And everyone knows that not giving a damn, cheating on your partner or beating the crap out of them is not good either, so why ask them?

If you wanted help on how to impress a girl and marry would you go to someone who has had a string of failures and never been successful at it? Or would you seek the wisdom of those who know what they are talking about and are successful themselves?

Getting advice on what NOT to do in a relationship will not help you figure out what TO DO.

You are just taking a dick view because you like being a dick to BHS. That is it. The only person who has demonstrated 1 dimensional thinking is YOU
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 27, 2018, 03:57:27 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 27, 2018, 07:07:24 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 27, 2018, 01:52:23 AM

So three dimensional thinking is todays buzzword,  I doubt you even know what that actually means.   

And just for what it's worth, I don't recall the DOT mentioning an Urban Moving Systems mural van.   In fact I don't recall you mentioning DOT at all.  Please show me where you cited any DOT documents.

Here...

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 21, 2018, 03:21:59 AM
Even the mural was discussed by U.S. Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta in his official report


Umm,  no you never linked to any DOT reports,  and Minetta did NOT mention an Urban Moving Systems mural van in his report,   no-one did. 

Why persist with the lies.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 27, 2018, 05:13:28 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 27, 2018, 03:57:27 PM
Umm,  no you never linked to any DOT reports,  and Minetta did NOT mention an Urban Moving Systems mural van in his report,   no-one did. 

Why persist with the lies.

I am done letting you shit post this thread from real issues, and attempted derailment. Your dishonesty is very annoying.

I have entertained you enough.

Back to topic
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 27, 2018, 08:08:07 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 27, 2018, 05:13:28 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 27, 2018, 03:57:27 PM
Umm,  no you never linked to any DOT reports,  and Minetta did NOT mention an Urban Moving Systems mural van in his report,   no-one did. 

Why persist with the lies.

I am done letting you shit post this thread from real issues, and attempted derailment. Your dishonesty is very annoying.

I have entertained you enough.

Back to topic

If you keep lying, I will keep calling you out.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 27, 2018, 09:02:34 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 27, 2018, 08:08:07 PM
If you keep lying, I will keep calling you out.

Projecting harder than CNN about Russia.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 27, 2018, 09:09:32 PM
Quote from: disputeone on February 27, 2018, 09:02:34 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 27, 2018, 08:08:07 PM
If you keep lying, I will keep calling you out.

Projecting harder than CNN about Russia.

Lol...I am not biting into his game anymore.

Quote from: Rayzor on February 27, 2018, 08:08:07 PM
If you keep lying, I will keep calling you out.


Everything I have said so far is the truth...that is what angers you.

Funny thing is, I don't really care one way or another on this subject. I find it interesting, as well as some of the evidence found, but that is as far as it goes.

Oh as for the DOT report, it mentions what the NYPD which can be traced back to the police chatter, 911 records and the NYPD records etc.

Anyways....back to the original topic.

(Oh, also, did you ever find out a good answer to why you can yell from your high horse? Any evidence there lol?)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on February 27, 2018, 09:46:24 PM
Quote from: Shifter on February 27, 2018, 02:40:04 PM
Quote from: User324 on February 27, 2018, 07:59:54 AM
Quote
Not to mention, the old man that raised me taught not to take financial advice from a broke man, relationship advice from a man that can not hold one and so forth. So I always look for proof of who someone is before I take what they have to say to heart.
That's a perfect example of one dimensional thinking.

Sure, it probably wouldn't be wise to take advice on how to get rich from a poor person or how to stay in a relationship from someone that always breaks up after 1 month.
But if you are thinking 3d (what a stupid expression that is...), you'd realize that it would be smart to take advice from someone that is in short relationships on how to NOT destroy a relationship because he has actually experienced at least one way of destroying a relationship.

I do not believe that was the implied meaning of the advice. You don't go to people to ask what NOT to do, you ask people advice on what TO DO.

Everyone knows gambling money through the pokies is not sound financial advice so why would ask a pokie addict for advice? And everyone knows that not giving a damn, cheating on your partner or beating the crap out of them is not good either, so why ask them?

If you wanted help on how to impress a girl and marry would you go to someone who has had a string of failures and never been successful at it? Or would you seek the wisdom of those who know what they are talking about and are successful themselves?

Getting advice on what NOT to do in a relationship will not help you figure out what TO DO.

You are just taking a dick view because you like being a dick to BHS. That is it. The only person who has demonstrated 1 dimensional thinking is YOU
Learn to read.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 27, 2018, 10:50:20 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 27, 2018, 09:09:32 PM
Everything I have said so far is the truth...that is what angers you.

Liar,  show me where either the FBI, NYPD or DOT mentioned an Urban Moving Systems mural van.   

You can't.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 27, 2018, 11:22:21 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 27, 2018, 10:50:20 PM
Liar,  show me where either the FBI, NYPD or DOT mentioned an Urban Moving Systems mural van.   

You can't.

I already explained.

The dishonesty is pathetic.

Maybe this matters more than I thought they way you are acting.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 27, 2018, 11:45:21 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 27, 2018, 11:22:21 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 27, 2018, 10:50:20 PM
Liar,  show me where either the FBI, NYPD or DOT mentioned an Urban Moving Systems mural van.   

You can't.

I already explained.

The dishonesty is pathetic.

Maybe this matters more than I thought they way you are acting.

No you didn't explain, because you can't.   The most generous explanation I can give is that you are incapable of reading and comprehending simple sentences.

The Urban Moving Systems mural van, never existed. 

If you disagree,  show me where either the FBI, NYPD or DOT mentioned an Urban Moving Systems mural van.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 27, 2018, 11:54:48 PM
Quote
PROVE 9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB USING ONLY THE COMMISSION REPORT CNN and MSNBC!!!

IF YOU CAN'T THEN I WIN!!!

You win, Rayzor.

Who killed Thomas Wales?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 28, 2018, 12:05:11 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 27, 2018, 11:45:21 PM
No you didn't explain, because you can't.   The most generous explanation I can give is that you are incapable of reading and comprehending simple sentences.

The Urban Moving Systems mural van, never existed. 

If you disagree,  show me where either the FBI, NYPD or DOT mentioned an Urban Moving Systems mural van.

Ok....this is literally the last time I am talking about this...either you are very very dumb (which I doubt this is the case) or very dishonest/have skin in the game.

Let's say you have three people bill, harry and Sam. Bill found a Arrowhead, he notes it has a mark on it. Harry talks about the arrow Head bill found but doesn't mention the mark. Harry also decides to investigate further and finds more arrowheads. Sam talks about the Arrowhead bill found as well as the ones harry found.

See how that works?

I could care less about the mural, I would be more concerned​ with the trace explosive residue found in the vehicles....that is NOT normal. Then you look at their drive patterns before the "attacks" and their proxy to the towers it certainly raises a flag.

Though if they did have a hand in the demolitions, I doubt they did anything that morning except for maybe a once over.


Back to the topic now.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on February 28, 2018, 12:13:13 AM
I agree the trace explosives in the van is much stronger evidence than a mural.

Did you read the pasta here Bhs? I think you'll find it interesting.

Quote from: disputeone on February 26, 2018, 11:59:39 PM
Federal Prosecutor Thomas Wales was assassinated exactly one month after 9/11. Wales was investigating "Israeli Art Students" who were attempting to penetrate Department of Defense locations the year+ leading up to 9/11

Wales was shot multiple from outside his basement window 10/11/2001. This was the first and only federal prosecutor assassination in history.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 28, 2018, 01:02:28 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 28, 2018, 12:13:13 AM
I agree the trace explosives in the van is much stronger evidence than a mural.

Did you read the pasta here Bhs? I think you'll find it interesting.

Quote from: disputeone on February 26, 2018, 11:59:39 PM
Federal Prosecutor Thomas Wales was assassinated exactly one month after 9/11. Wales was investigating "Israeli Art Students" who were attempting to penetrate Department of Defense locations the year+ leading up to 9/11

Wales was shot multiple from outside his basement window 10/11/2001. This was the first and only federal prosecutor assassination in history.

Yeah, that certainly is suspicious...and there is definitely something with those art students. None of that makes sense, plus the people they were harassing, the places there were going etc... however, lets ignore that and believe in DNA that can survive in melted steel, magic passports, planes that "vaporize", oh, and the damn people that "did it" are still magically alive lol...I could keep going, but that is enough for now...too easy and sad.


Also, there are tons of mysterious deaths of 9/11 witnesses that go against the official fairy tale. Usually it is the higher up, or people with the most credibility that end up being suicided, murdered, ran over with mystery cars, plane crashes etc etc ...

Just a few, but there are tons...

Salvatore Princiotta- fire fighter, direct witness of explosions, damage to the truck from explosions etc....murdered, no leads

Barry Jennings- New York Housing Authority Emergency Coordinator.  He was in tower 7, explained multiple explosions at different times in 7...ones that knocked him and Michael Hess over. Walking over dead bodies trying to get out of the building. Explosions right before the collapse...etc. Mysterious death with no explanation.

Beverly Eckert, husband died in the demo...knew the official story was bullshit, spoke out against it...offered money to shut the fuck up from the government. She rejected it, then she died in a airplane crash...

Kenneth Johannemann- Janitor, witness explosions at base of towers. Rescued multiple people from the base that was burned badly. Suicide for no apparent reason. (There were multiple janitors that said the same thing..one that went on tour speaking out with the help of a businessman..this was until he got threats that scared the hell out of him and also had a family member die very mysteriously)

Christopher Landis, Former Operations Manager Safety Service Patrol for the Virginia Department of Transportation. Had pictures of the Pentagon "crash" from his direct unobstructed view. Many not released, many showing direct evidence of a cover up. He was nervous talking about it and very rarely did, he finally gave his evidence to the makers of the "Pentacon" film photo collection as well as did an interview and answered all their questions. A week after this he committed suicide with no further details given.

Paul Smith- Was on one of the choppers that witnessed the second plane. He did not agree with what the plane was, he was killed by a taxi running from a mysterious "black car"...his camera man that was on the chopper with him, John Del Giorno, refuses to speak about anything he saw to anyone. He is still currently alive.

Deborah Palfrey- There is too much to write about her and her prosecution ring that dealt with high profile government clientele. Long story short, she tried to come forward with information she thought would be useful to the commission report from what she heard and knew with her clientele. She instead was found hung in a back alley.

David Graham- saw three of the supposed "highjackers" at Shreveport with a Pakistani business man. FBI threatened him when he reported it to him. He was found poisoned to death with no investigation into his murder.



I could keep going on and on....also remember, all the 1000s of reports (no matter how solid of a witness) that went against the official story was stricken from the record and they researched no other options for the towers.

Also remember, they already had the official story ready to go at hour one at ground zero (they already had the ground zero name picked out as well as you can see)..



This shit gives me the creeps every single time.


And if anyone thinks that there isn't something wrong with the media finding a guy out of all the pandemonium that just so happens to know the official story already to a T and knows 9/11 buzzwords before they were even used before the dust has even settled. Then him seeming happy about it, laughing and excited, also there bring a guy in a suit monitoring the interview, controlling the interview and then him saying one word it is instantly over and the interviewee goes over and stands next to him (even giving him a thumbs up at 1:43)...I truly don't know what to say to you.

Edit for link
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 28, 2018, 01:23:10 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 27, 2018, 11:54:48 PM
Who killed Thomas Wales?

A gun crazy from Yuba City,  You seriously didn't know this?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 28, 2018, 03:27:29 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 28, 2018, 01:23:10 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 27, 2018, 11:54:48 PM
Who killed Thomas Wales?

A gun crazy from Yuba City,  You seriously didn't know this?

More gaslighting from Rayzor...how did I know you would skip over my last post.

I must be a psychic....I am going to add that to my resume.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on February 28, 2018, 04:07:16 AM
If I had more spare time, I'd make a statistic counting insults overall and per post of each user.

I'd bet 100$ BHS is ahead of rayzor in terms of insults... he just likes to pretend he's the good guy.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 28, 2018, 01:42:30 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 28, 2018, 03:27:29 AM
I must be a psychic....I am going to add that to my resume.

It's spelt psychotic.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 28, 2018, 08:03:13 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 28, 2018, 01:42:30 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 28, 2018, 03:27:29 AM
I must be a psychic....I am going to add that to my resume.

It's spelt psychotic.

I knew you wouldn't address the post, typical attempt at gas lighting and deflection.

Noted and sad.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bullwinkle on February 28, 2018, 08:12:36 PM
BHS, Las Vegas just called. It's wondering why we aren't there yet.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 28, 2018, 10:26:46 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 28, 2018, 08:03:13 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 28, 2018, 01:42:30 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 28, 2018, 03:27:29 AM
I must be a psychic....I am going to add that to my resume.

It's spelt psychotic.

I knew you wouldn't address the post, typical attempt at gas lighting and deflection.

Noted and sad.

You must be kidding.   If you knew I was going to ignore your tl;dr; conspiracy rant,  why did you bother to post it. 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 28, 2018, 11:00:45 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 28, 2018, 10:26:46 PM
You must be kidding.   If you knew I was going to ignore your tl;dr; conspiracy rant,  why did you bother to post it.

You never know, I always look at the bright side but plan for the obvious/worse.

So you see nothing that could be wrong with such strange convenient deaths? That is just a small percentage of them as well.

Or how about that "interview".. you see nothing wrong with the guys demeanor (happy, smiling, excited), the fact he used buzz words that didn't come out till much later, knew the official story while there was dust still in the air, injected that story in a manner that was obviously rehearsed, had a government spook that was monitoring the entire interview like a hawk and controlling the interview as well as deciding when it is done, the interviewee even giving a covert thumbs up to the spook?? Then hanging out with said spook after the interview...

You see absolutely nothing wrong, interesting or worth while to look into from any of this?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on February 28, 2018, 11:26:46 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 28, 2018, 11:00:45 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 28, 2018, 10:26:46 PM
You must be kidding.   If you knew I was going to ignore your tl;dr; conspiracy rant,  why did you bother to post it.

You never know, I always look at the bright side but plan for the obvious/worse.

So you see nothing that could be wrong with such strange convenient deaths? That is just a small percentage of them as well.

Or how about that "interview".. you see nothing wrong with the guys demeanor (happy, smiling, excited), the fact he used buzz words that didn't come out till much later, knew the official story while there was dust still in the air, injected that story in a manner that was obviously rehearsed, had a government spook that was monitoring the entire interview like a hawk and controlling the interview as well as deciding when it is done, the interviewee even giving a covert thumbs up to the spook?? Then hanging out with said spook after the interview...

You see absolutely nothing wrong, interesting or worth while to look into from any of this?

You know that ground zero is a common term,  it came into popular jargon during the cold war. 

Have you ever been interviewed by the media, or been close by when someone got interviewed?   

It's normal behaviour for passers by to hang about and gawk from the sidelines. 

Just because you are paranoid,  you see all kinds of things that aren't really what you think.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on February 28, 2018, 11:39:09 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on February 28, 2018, 11:26:46 PM
You know that ground zero is a common term,  it came into popular jargon during the cold war. 

Have you ever been interviewed by the media, or been close by when someone got interviewed?   

It's normal behaviour for passers by to hang about and gawk from the sidelines. 

Just because you are paranoid,  you see all kinds of things that aren't really what you think.

Yes, the last time was when we were inspecting the apartment complex after the fire seeing if it would be stable enough for safe entry for SR.

The media or anyone else did not start using the phrase for some time after the collapse.

Sure it is normal for people to be outside seeing what is going on. The honest people were mortified, confused, incoherent etc etc...not laughing, smiling excited.

Also these traits

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 28, 2018, 11:00:45 PM
Or how about that "interview".. you see nothing wrong with the guys demeanor (happy, smiling, excited), the fact he used buzz words that didn't come out till much later, knew the official story while there was dust still in the air, injected that story in a manner that was obviously rehearsed, had a government spook that was monitoring the entire interview like a hawk and controlling the interview as well as deciding when it is done, the interviewee even giving a covert thumbs up to the spook?? Then hanging out with said spook after the interview...

Are not normal..

Yet despite all the red flags you don't think it deserves even a second look.

Wow
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 01, 2018, 12:53:07 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 28, 2018, 01:02:28 AM
Quote from: disputeone on February 28, 2018, 12:13:13 AM
I agree the trace explosives in the van is much stronger evidence than a mural.

Did you read the pasta here Bhs? I think you'll find it interesting.

Quote from: disputeone on February 26, 2018, 11:59:39 PM
Federal Prosecutor Thomas Wales was assassinated exactly one month after 9/11. Wales was investigating "Israeli Art Students" who were attempting to penetrate Department of Defense locations the year+ leading up to 9/11

Wales was shot multiple from outside his basement window 10/11/2001. This was the first and only federal prosecutor assassination in history.

Yeah, that certainly is suspicious...and there is definitely something with those art students. None of that makes sense, plus the people they were harassing, the places there were going etc... however, lets ignore that and believe in DNA that can survive in melted steel, magic passports, planes that "vaporize", oh, and the damn people that "did it" are still magically alive lol...I could keep going, but that is enough for now...too easy and sad.


Also, there are tons of mysterious deaths of 9/11 witnesses that go against the official fairy tale. Usually it is the higher up, or people with the most credibility that end up being suicided, murdered, ran over with mystery cars, plane crashes etc etc ...

Just a few, but there are tons...

Salvatore Princiotta- fire fighter, direct witness of explosions, damage to the truck from explosions etc....murdered, no leads

Barry Jennings- New York Housing Authority Emergency Coordinator.  He was in tower 7, explained multiple explosions at different times in 7...ones that knocked him and Michael Hess over. Walking over dead bodies trying to get out of the building. Explosions right before the collapse...etc. Mysterious death with no explanation.

Beverly Eckert, husband died in the demo...knew the official story was bullshit, spoke out against it...offered money to shut the fuck up from the government. She rejected it, then she died in a airplane crash...

Kenneth Johannemann- Janitor, witness explosions at base of towers. Rescued multiple people from the base that was burned badly. Suicide for no apparent reason. (There were multiple janitors that said the same thing..one that went on tour speaking out with the help of a businessman..this was until he got threats that scared the hell out of him and also had a family member die very mysteriously)

Christopher Landis, Former Operations Manager Safety Service Patrol for the Virginia Department of Transportation. Had pictures of the Pentagon "crash" from his direct unobstructed view. Many not released, many showing direct evidence of a cover up. He was nervous talking about it and very rarely did, he finally gave his evidence to the makers of the "Pentacon" film photo collection as well as did an interview and answered all their questions. A week after this he committed suicide with no further details given.

Paul Smith- Was on one of the choppers that witnessed the second plane. He did not agree with what the plane was, he was killed by a taxi running from a mysterious "black car"...his camera man that was on the chopper with him, John Del Giorno, refuses to speak about anything he saw to anyone. He is still currently alive.

Deborah Palfrey- There is too much to write about her and her prosecution ring that dealt with high profile government clientele. Long story short, she tried to come forward with information she thought would be useful to the commission report from what she heard and knew with her clientele. She instead was found hung in a back alley.

David Graham- saw three of the supposed "highjackers" at Shreveport with a Pakistani business man. FBI threatened him when he reported it to him. He was found poisoned to death with no investigation into his murder.



I could keep going on and on....also remember, all the 1000s of reports (no matter how solid of a witness) that went against the official story was stricken from the record and they researched no other options for the towers.

Also remember, they already had the official story ready to go at hour one at ground zero (they already had the ground zero name picked out as well as you can see)..



This shit gives me the creeps every single time.


And if anyone thinks that there isn't something wrong with the media finding a guy out of all the pandemonium that just so happens to know the official story already to a T and knows 9/11 buzzwords before they were even used before the dust has even settled. Then him seeming happy about it, laughing and excited, also there bring a guy in a suit monitoring the interview, controlling the interview and then him saying one word it is instantly over and the interviewee goes over and stands next to him (even giving him a thumbs up at 1:43)...I truly don't know what to say to you.

Edit for link

This is a really good post, I meant to respond to it the other night but I forgot.

All these people died for us, it's important we remember their sacrifice.

The list of people who have died for the truth is nearly endless.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 01, 2018, 03:14:06 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 28, 2018, 11:39:09 PM
Yet despite all the red flags you don't think it deserves even a second look.

I see nothing more than people reacting to being interviewed.   You jump at shadows.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 01, 2018, 03:27:30 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 01, 2018, 03:14:06 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 28, 2018, 11:39:09 PM
Yet despite all the red flags you don't think it deserves even a second look.

I see nothing more than people reacting to being interviewed.   You jump at shadows.

Let's just focus on that one interview...can you give me valid reasons to these questions?

Why was there a government official monitoring the interview, controlling it and then calling an end to it?

Why did the interviewee give a sly thumbs up to the government official?

Why did the interviewee know future buzz words of 9/11 before they were used? Why did he interject the official story narrative so strangely in a flowing rehearsed line that did not fit the interview?

Why was the interviewee so happy, excited and smiling during this time of death and pandemonium?

Why did he say he saw both planes hit, and then reiterated that fact again? I can understand seeing the second plane hit as everyone within visual distance would be watching after the first...but very few people saw the first plane (especially as far as his apartment was away from the towers). People in new York don't​ just sit around and watch the towers and wait for something to happen.

If you can actually answer these with answers that make sense in reality, I will drop it. 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bullwinkle on March 01, 2018, 03:31:12 AM
Because the only people who see ghosts are people who believe in ghosts.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 01, 2018, 03:42:03 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 01, 2018, 03:27:30 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 01, 2018, 03:14:06 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on February 28, 2018, 11:39:09 PM
Yet despite all the red flags you don't think it deserves even a second look.

I see nothing more than people reacting to being interviewed.   You jump at shadows.

Let's just focus on that one interview...can you give me valid reasons to these questions?

Why was there a government official monitoring the interview, controlling it and then calling an end to it?

Why did the interviewee give a sly thumbs up to the government official?

Why did the interviewee know future buzz words of 9/11 before they were used? Why did he interject the official story narrative so strangely in a flowing rehearsed line that did not fit the interview?

Why was the interviewee so happy, excited and smiling during this time of death and pandemonium?

Why did he say he saw both planes hit, and then reiterated that fact again? I can understand seeing the second plane hit as everyone within visual distance would be watching after the first...but very few people saw the first plane (especially as far as his apartment was away from the towers). People in new York don't​ just sit around and watch the towers and wait for something to happen.

If you can actually answer these with answers that make sense in reality, I will drop it.

Take things one at a time,  what evidence do you have that the on-looker was a government agent,   there's the first flaw in your argument.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 01, 2018, 03:47:41 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 01, 2018, 03:42:03 AM

Take things one at a time,  what evidence do you have that the on-looker was a government agent,   there's the first flaw in your argument.

Suit and ear piece just like the government agent they went to after that. Not hard to spot or tell, they had agents from many different agencies all over the area after this.

So, any answers?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 01, 2018, 03:48:30 AM
Quote from: Bullwinkle on March 01, 2018, 03:31:12 AM
Because the only people who see ghosts are people who believe in ghosts.

Did you even watch the interview? Or just working on your witty remarks?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 01, 2018, 03:49:18 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 01, 2018, 03:47:41 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 01, 2018, 03:42:03 AM

Take things one at a time,  what evidence do you have that the on-looker was a government agent,   there's the first flaw in your argument.

Suit and ear piece just like the government agent they went to after that. Not hard to spot or tell, they had agents from many different agencies all over the area after this.

So, any answers?

So you think anyone in a suit is a government agent?   I didn't see an earpiece,  but the video is pretty blurry.



Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 01, 2018, 04:05:47 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 01, 2018, 03:49:18 AM

So you think anyone in a suit is a government agent?   I didn't see an earpiece,  but the video is pretty blurry.

Yes, it is visible multiple times during the interview.

So why was this government agent (or random guy in a suit with an ear piece) monitoring, controlling then calling the interview over?

There are my other questions as well. If this is so easily explainable, then it should require no effort... correct?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 01, 2018, 04:11:22 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 01, 2018, 04:05:47 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 01, 2018, 03:49:18 AM

So you think anyone in a suit is a government agent?   I didn't see an earpiece,  but the video is pretty blurry.

Yes, it is visible multiple times during the interview.

So why was this government agent (or random guy in a suit with an ear piece) monitoring, controlling then calling the interview over?

There are my other questions as well. If this is so easily explainable, then it should require no effort... correct?

Show me the earpiece.  I didn't see it.   Do a screen capture and point it out.

Let's assume for a minute that he was a government agent,  why would he stand around in front of the camera,  that's the worst thing he could do.

Why do you suggest he was controlling the interview?  How do you you think he was controlling it?

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 01, 2018, 04:28:01 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 01, 2018, 04:11:22 AM

Show me the earpiece.  I didn't see it.   Do a screen capture and point it out.

Let's assume for a minute that he was a government agent,  why would he stand around in front of the camera,  that's the worst thing he could do.

Why do you suggest he was controlling the interview?  How do you you think he was controlling it?

I am on mobile. Look at when he is standing in the center you will see it flash in the sun from time to time.

Who cares if he is an agent visible, they were everywhere at that point.

Why he was controlling? He was clearly monitoring every word. The reporter walked off, you can see them speak for a second in one angle, then suddenly he calls the reporter back over there to reiterate multiple planes and the timing of the collapse, gives covert thumbs up to the agent, then the agenda says one word to call it off and the interview is done instantly without one more word.

Not to mention this interviewee was that far away from the scene yet was able to tell what Precinct fire crews and first responders were there before the collapse. (Another question to answer).

The attention is always in the details. I use this method all the time, spots out liars, bad investments, bad designs etc etc etc.

So will you answer the questions I asked if it is so easy? Please stop playing your game of stalling, deflection and attempting distraction to lead me else where...you always do this when you cannot think of an answer.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 01, 2018, 04:36:06 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 01, 2018, 04:28:01 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 01, 2018, 04:11:22 AM

Show me the earpiece.  I didn't see it.   Do a screen capture and point it out.

Let's assume for a minute that he was a government agent,  why would he stand around in front of the camera,  that's the worst thing he could do.

Why do you suggest he was controlling the interview?  How do you you think he was controlling it?

I am on mobile. Look at when he is standing in the center you will see it flash in the sun from time to time.

Who cares if he is an agent visible, they were everywhere at that point.

Why he was controlling? He was clearly monitoring every word. The reporter walked off, you can see them speak for a second in one angle, then suddenly he calls the reporter back over there to reiterate multiple planes and the timing of the collapse, gives covert thumbs up to the agent, then the agenda says one word to call it off and the interview is done instantly without one more word.

Not to mention this interviewee was that far away from the scene yet was able to tell what Precinct fire crews and first responders were there before the collapse. (Another question to answer).

The attention is always in the details. I use this method all the time, spots out liars, bad investments, bad designs etc etc etc.

So will you answer the questions I asked if it is so easy? Please stop playing your game of stalling, deflection and attempting distraction to lead me else where...you always do this when you cannot think of an answer.

The guy said he was on the 43rd floor of a building and saw it all clearly.   As far as the fires go, it was the first thing that people were talking about causing the collapse,  I recall saying the same to my son while watching it live.  We were talking about how strong the buildings were to withstand the impact and recalling the WW2 bomber that hit the empire state,  when WTC2 collapsed we both said that's got to be the fire.   There was nothing else going on that could have caused it.

Your claim to be good at detail, but you misinterpret everything, you see conspiracy everywhere.  You have to be more skeptical.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 01, 2018, 04:56:19 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 01, 2018, 04:36:06 AM

The guy said he was on the 43rd floor of a building and saw it all clearly.   As far as the fires go, it was the first thing that people were talking about causing the collapse,  I recall saying the same to my son while watching it live.  We were talking about how strong the buildings were to withstand the impact and recalling the WW2 bomber that hit the empire state,  when WTC2 collapsed we both said that's got to be the fire.   There was nothing else going on that could have caused it.

Your claim to be good at detail, but you misinterpret everything, you see conspiracy everywhere.  You have to be more skeptical.

So you can't answer my questions?

Number one, I live in the penthouse floor of my place 40 plus stories high and 5 blocks at an angle is not a clear view in the city. I certainly could not see what Precincts were present at the scene from that far away. I also asked about the first plane pretty much no one saw, how did he see it? Especially at that time of morning, without a balcony.

People were all over the place on the collapse at that time. It was before 7 collapsed. They were talking about bombs (most first responders at the time were scared of bombs), fire, planes etc etc...everything was all over the place. Yet this guy repeated word for word the official story in a rehearsed manner, as well as using future buzz words.

Yet you claim that exact moment on TV you knew it was fire and nothing else could have caused it lol...you say I need to be more skeptical lol. I am glad you are not a detective...

As for me being skeptical, I am very, that is why you don't like me and try to insult me at every avenue, or say I am crazy etc etc. I have to be..with investments I have to figure out if the person is a liar or full of shit and stay 5 steps ahead. With designs have to think past/present/future...even with a seemingly good design you must be skeptical, almost guaranteed there are bugs waiting to be discovered...with everything I do is based in skepticism and living in the real world.


So can you please answer my questions, I listed them very clearly.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 01, 2018, 05:30:26 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 01, 2018, 04:56:19 AM
So can you please answer my questions, I listed them very clearly.

Not really,  you just spouted a lot of unsupported assertions,  which I've already explained aren't necessarily true.

1. There is no evidence the on-looker was a spook.
2. The guy was saying stuff that everybody else was saying at the time.
3. The is no way a real spook would hang around in front of the camera.

If you can prove any of your assertions,  then let's see the proof,  all you have done so far is just make a series of wild assumptions.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Wolvaccine on March 01, 2018, 12:34:54 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 01, 2018, 05:30:26 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 01, 2018, 04:56:19 AM
So can you please answer my questions, I listed them very clearly.

Not really,  you just spouted a lot of unsupported assertions,  which I've already explained aren't necessarily true.

1. There is no evidence the on-looker was a spook.
2. The guy was saying stuff that everybody else was saying at the time.
3. The is no way a real spook would hang around in front of the camera.

If you can prove any of your assertions,  then let's see the proof,  all you have done so far is just make a series of wild assumptions.

That's exactly what a spook would want you to believe. Plausible deniability "I'm not a spook! C'mon, look at me hanging around in front of a camera" You shilling for spooks now? Are you a spook?

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 01, 2018, 03:37:44 PM
Quote from: Shifter on March 01, 2018, 12:34:54 PM
That's exactly what a spook would want you to believe. Plausible deniability "I'm not a spook! C'mon, look at me hanging around in front of a camera" You shilling for spooks now? Are you a spook?

So you must be a spook, because that's exactly what a spook would say.  Let's hear you deny it.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Wolvaccine on March 01, 2018, 03:56:38 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 01, 2018, 03:37:44 PM
Quote from: Shifter on March 01, 2018, 12:34:54 PM
That's exactly what a spook would want you to believe. Plausible deniability "I'm not a spook! C'mon, look at me hanging around in front of a camera" You shilling for spooks now? Are you a spook?

So you must be a spook, because that's exactly what a spook would say.  Let's hear you deny it.

And Rayzor gaslights me on cue. Typical and predictable. I'm not here to aid your deflection games. You are a spook. You have already admitted working for an alphabet agency (DoD). Please inform your handlers you have failed and for them to get someone else for us to destroy
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 01, 2018, 04:13:57 PM
Quote from: Shifter on March 01, 2018, 03:56:38 PM
And Rayzor gaslights me on cue. Typical and predictable. I'm not here to aid your deflection games. You are a spook. You have already admitted working for an alphabet agency (DoD). Please inform your handlers you have failed and for them to get someone else for us to destroy

You've just been herdcored.   LOL


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Wolvaccine on March 01, 2018, 04:16:04 PM
This one is clearly broken. What an embarrassment
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 01, 2018, 04:37:23 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 01, 2018, 05:30:26 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 01, 2018, 04:56:19 AM
So can you please answer my questions, I listed them very clearly.

Not really,  you just spouted a lot of unsupported assertions,  which I've already explained aren't necessarily true.

1. There is no evidence the on-looker was a spook.
2. The guy was saying stuff that everybody else was saying at the time.
3. The is no way a real spook would hang around in front of the camera.

If you can prove any of your assertions,  then let's see the proof,  all you have done so far is just make a series of wild assumptions.

So you can't provide answers. I didn't think you would be able to..

As for a government agent not wanting to be on camera, why not? It was normal, they were everywhere by that time from all available agencies. There was another one just a few feet away the report went to.

As for not knowing if it was a government agent or not...well despite there was another just a few feet away in the same attire and ear piece the reporter recognized as one...let's just assume he is not one (which obviously he was to anyone with half a functioning brain or experience in life)...

Let's just assume he is not, why was a random man in a clean suit with an ear piece monitoring, controlling then ending the interview?

Also no, that guy was not saying things every body was saying at the time...there was no official story yet, no ground zero, no structural failure from the fires being to intense nadda...it was pure pandemonium still.

So can you answer all my questions? Or is this a lost cause?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 01, 2018, 05:10:21 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 01, 2018, 04:37:23 PM
So can you answer all my questions? Or is this a lost cause?

Just ask one question at a time.  Try to be clear and concise.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 01, 2018, 05:26:36 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 01, 2018, 05:10:21 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 01, 2018, 04:37:23 PM
So can you answer all my questions? Or is this a lost cause?

Just ask one question at a time.  Try to be clear and concise.


Pick any one you like to start with.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 01, 2018, 06:40:04 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 01, 2018, 05:26:36 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 01, 2018, 05:10:21 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 01, 2018, 04:37:23 PM
So can you answer all my questions? Or is this a lost cause?

Just ask one question at a time.  Try to be clear and concise.


Pick any one you like to start with.

Ok, lets start with the guy you think is a spook,  prove that he is a government agent.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 01, 2018, 07:01:29 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 01, 2018, 06:40:04 PM
Ok, lets start with the guy you think is a spook,  prove that he is a government agent.

Such a fucking con Rayzor, you are very dishonest and your attempted deflection is old at best...

One more time

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 01, 2018, 04:37:23 PM
Let's just assume he is not, why was a random man in a clean suit with an ear piece monitoring, controlling then ending the interview?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 01, 2018, 07:11:07 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 01, 2018, 07:01:29 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 01, 2018, 06:40:04 PM
Ok, lets start with the guy you think is a spook,  prove that he is a government agent.

Such a fucking con Rayzor, you are very dishonest and your attempted deflection is old at best...

One more time

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 01, 2018, 04:37:23 PM
Let's just assume he is not, why was a random man in a clean suit with an ear piece monitoring, controlling then ending the interview?

What are you going on about?   You wanted me to choose a question,  don't complain when I pick one you don't like.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 01, 2018, 07:15:55 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 01, 2018, 07:11:07 PM
What are you going on about?   You wanted me to choose a question,  don't complain when I pick one you don't like.

I already addressed it, I reposted my post you have no answer for.

Noted and expected
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 01, 2018, 07:19:53 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 01, 2018, 07:15:55 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 01, 2018, 07:11:07 PM
What are you going on about?   You wanted me to choose a question,  don't complain when I pick one you don't like.

I already addressed it, I reposted my post you have no answer for.

Noted and expected

So you pick the question then,  or stop complaining that I don't answer.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 01, 2018, 07:26:43 PM

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 01, 2018, 04:37:23 PM
Let's just assume he is not, why was a random man in a clean suit with an ear piece monitoring, controlling then ending the interview?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 01, 2018, 08:37:48 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 01, 2018, 07:26:43 PM

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 01, 2018, 04:37:23 PM
Let's just assume he is not, why was a random man in a clean suit with an ear piece monitoring, controlling then ending the interview?

I looked again,  still no positive id of an earpiece,  but the video is pretty blurry.   Also I can't see why you think he was controlling the interview,  and how do you think he ended it?

Here is a discussion about Mark Walsh and how close he was.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=111&v=jYKqBCZMFIE

Also, I've seen the suggestion that the guy in the suit was Mark Walsh's room mate.   If that's true,  then that pretty much debunks the spook theory.  But watching it again it's more obvious that they seem to know each other.

Quote
wish they would have asked Mark about the Fox interview he did on 911 and specifically about the MIB/Agent/black guy that stood behind him and gets involved with the conversation when Mark gestures behind him and starts talking about his room mate and the MIB says "yeah" at the end. The MIB is not Mark's room mate so what was going on? Why did the MIB think he had to pretend to be Mark's room mate?

(another commented)
Yes it is.  He admitted it after 9/11 and again here in 2011.

 

 Skip to 21 minutes or so.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 01, 2018, 08:53:33 PM
That YouTube thing only spoke about his Harley Davidson shirt.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 01, 2018, 09:11:03 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 01, 2018, 08:53:33 PM
That YouTube thing only spoke about his Harley Davidson shirt.

That just confirms the Harley Guy is in fact Mark Walsh  ( aka psycho-Mark)

He mentions his room mate, and gestures to the man in a suit,  When I re-watched it I thought it was obvious they knew each other.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 01, 2018, 10:24:48 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 01, 2018, 09:11:03 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 01, 2018, 08:53:33 PM
That YouTube thing only spoke about his Harley Davidson shirt.

That just confirms the Harley Guy is in fact Mark Walsh  ( aka psycho-Mark)

He mentions his room mate, and gestures to the man in a suit,  When I re-watched it I thought it was obvious they knew each other.

He gestured like that every time he spoke about his place, where he watched etc etc...he kept gesturing every 5-10 seconds. He never introduced him as his roommate, nor did they associate as roommates.

I also never questioned the identity of mark, that was a no brainer. I question the motives of mark and who the black guy was behind him eves dropping and calling the interview.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on March 01, 2018, 10:29:41 PM
Everyone is an FBI agent.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 01, 2018, 10:33:45 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 01, 2018, 10:24:48 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 01, 2018, 09:11:03 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 01, 2018, 08:53:33 PM
That YouTube thing only spoke about his Harley Davidson shirt.

That just confirms the Harley Guy is in fact Mark Walsh  ( aka psycho-Mark)

He mentions his room mate, and gestures to the man in a suit,  When I re-watched it I thought it was obvious they knew each other.

He gestured like that every time he spoke about his place, where he watched etc etc...he kept gesturing every 5-10 seconds. He never introduced him as his roommate, nor did they associate as roommates.

I also never questioned the identity of mark, that was a no brainer. I question the motives of mark and who the black guy was behind him eves dropping and calling the interview.

I don't know if he was Mark's roommate or not,  but he gestured to him when he said "my roommate and I",   that's stronger evidence for his being a roommate rather than being a spook.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 01, 2018, 11:18:06 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 01, 2018, 10:33:45 PM
I don't know if he was Mark's roommate or not,  but he gestured to him when he said "my roommate and I",   that's stronger evidence for his being a roommate rather than being a spook.

He pointed that way when he was describing where he watched from. He did that every time, and the time you speak of he was mentioned where him and his roommate watched from.

I remember some time ago there was a couple people that researched him and found out he didn't have a legal roommate at that time (as in lease was only in mark's name)...they did further research and seemed he did have someone staying with him. Some white/Latino dude that worked with him or something. I tried to find that again but couldn't. Going to look again later.

While I look for that care to answer any of the other questions?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 01, 2018, 11:46:07 PM
He's not here for an actual discussion Bhs.

Quote
The more I argued with shills, the better I came to know their dialectic. First they counted on the stupidity of their adversary, and then, when there was no other way out, they themselves simply played stupid. If all this didn't help, they pretended not to understand, or, if challenged, they changed the subject in a hurry, quoted platitudes which, if you accepted them, they immediately related to entirely different matters, and then, if again attacked, gave ground and pretended not to know exactly what you were talking about. Whenever you tried to attack one of these apostles, your hand closed on a jelly-like slime which divided up and poured through your fingers, but in the next moment collected again. But if you really struck one of these fellows so telling a blow that, observed by the audience, he couldn't help but agree, and if you believed that this had taken you at least one step forward, your amazement was great the next day. The shill had not the slightest recollection of the day before, he rattled off his same old nonsense as though nothing at all had happened, and, if indignantly challenged, affected amazement; he couldn't remember a thing, except that he had proved the correctness of his assertions the previous day.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 01, 2018, 11:59:46 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 01, 2018, 11:46:07 PM
He's not here for an actual discussion Bhs.

Quote
The more I argued with shills, the better I came to know their dialectic. First they counted on the stupidity of their adversary, and then, when there was no other way out, they themselves simply played stupid. If all this didn't help, they pretended not to understand, or, if challenged, they changed the subject in a hurry, quoted platitudes which, if you accepted them, they immediately related to entirely different matters, and then, if again attacked, gave ground and pretended not to know exactly what you were talking about. Whenever you tried to attack one of these apostles, your hand closed on a jelly-like slime which divided up and poured through your fingers, but in the next moment collected again. But if you really struck one of these fellows so telling a blow that, observed by the audience, he couldn't help but agree, and if you believed that this had taken you at least one step forward, your amazement was great the next day. The shill had not the slightest recollection of the day before, he rattled off his same old nonsense as though nothing at all had happened, and, if indignantly challenged, affected amazement; he couldn't remember a thing, except that he had proved the correctness of his assertions the previous day.

Where did this quote come from? This is literally 100 percent Rayzor (and others)...wow
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 02, 2018, 12:16:34 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 01, 2018, 11:18:06 PM
While I look for that care to answer any of the other questions?

Ask away.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 02, 2018, 12:19:04 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 01, 2018, 11:46:07 PM
He's not here for an actual discussion Bhs.

Quote
The more I argued with shills, the better I came to know their dialectic. First they counted on the stupidity of their adversary, and then, when there was no other way out, they themselves simply played stupid. If all this didn't help, they pretended not to understand, or, if challenged, they changed the subject in a hurry, quoted platitudes which, if you accepted them, they immediately related to entirely different matters, and then, if again attacked, gave ground and pretended not to know exactly what you were talking about. Whenever you tried to attack one of these apostles, your hand closed on a jelly-like slime which divided up and poured through your fingers, but in the next moment collected again. But if you really struck one of these fellows so telling a blow that, observed by the audience, he couldn't help but agree, and if you believed that this had taken you at least one step forward, your amazement was great the next day. The shill had not the slightest recollection of the day before, he rattled off his same old nonsense as though nothing at all had happened, and, if indignantly challenged, affected amazement; he couldn't remember a thing, except that he had proved the correctness of his assertions the previous day.

Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 02, 2018, 12:22:29 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 02, 2018, 12:19:04 AM
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

Proving what he said true^
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 02, 2018, 12:24:41 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 02, 2018, 12:22:29 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 02, 2018, 12:19:04 AM
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

Proving what he said true^

So you have no more examples of your gullibility that you want to explore?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 02, 2018, 12:38:32 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 02, 2018, 12:24:41 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 02, 2018, 12:22:29 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 02, 2018, 12:19:04 AM
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

Proving what he said true^

So you have no more examples of your gullibility that you want to explore?

Lol, Rayzor...master of mind games!
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 02, 2018, 12:39:34 AM
>Believes what he's told 100% of the time.
>Calls others gullible.
>? ? ? ?
>Profit.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 02, 2018, 12:45:44 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 02, 2018, 12:38:32 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 02, 2018, 12:24:41 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 02, 2018, 12:22:29 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 02, 2018, 12:19:04 AM
Stop gilding the pickle, you demisexual aromantic homoflexible snowflake.

Proving what he said true^

So you have no more examples of your gullibility that you want to explore?

Lol, Rayzor...master of mind games!

If you had a functioning mind,  I'd probably agree,  but I was serious,  ask your next question.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 02, 2018, 12:46:33 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 02, 2018, 12:39:34 AM
>Believes what he's told 100% of the time.
>Calls others gullible.
>? ? ? ?
>Profit.

It is tough to tell if it is this equation, or if it is a little out of order.

>Profit
>Believe what he is told 100 percent of the time
>? ? ? ?
>Call others gullible

This could be an accurate equation as well.

The sad thing is, about the only thing I can say about him, he is not stupid nor a moron. So really that leaves brainwashed or a shill. About the only two options.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 02, 2018, 12:53:16 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 02, 2018, 12:46:33 AM
The sad thing is, about the only thing I can say about him, he is not stupid nor a moron. So really that leaves brainwashed or a shill. About the only two options.

Or it could be that I require verifiable evidence before I leap to the conclusion of conspiracy. 

9/11 involved two conspiracies,  that I can prove. 

One,  Al Qaeda planned and executed a jihadist attack on the United States.   Not the first, and probably not the last. 
Two.  The Bush WH conspired with intelligence agencies to cover up the fact that they failed to stop the plot despite clear signs and warnings.

Their excuse was that they had an over-reliance on electronic surveillance and a lack of "boots on the ground"  collecting human intel. 

Now read on.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 02, 2018, 01:10:00 AM
They not only failed to stop the attacks but also Mossad infiltrated the terrorist cells and organised and carried out the 9/11 attack assisted by the CIA in order to kick start their illegal wars and their plan for global domination.

That's why the Intelligence Agencies covered up foreknowledge.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 02, 2018, 01:12:39 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 02, 2018, 01:10:00 AM
They not only failed to stop the attacks but also Mossad infiltrated the terrorist cells and organised and carried out the 9/11 attack assisted by the CIA in order to kick start their illegal wars and plan for global domination.

Yep, heard it,  got the T shirt, but no supporting evidence.   Just because it fits your anti-semitic buddies on 4chan doesn't make it true.

That plan for global domination,  how's that working out?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 02, 2018, 01:13:44 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 02, 2018, 12:53:16 AM
Or it could be that I require verifiable evidence before I leap to the conclusion of conspiracy. 

9/11 involved two conspiracies,  that I can prove. 

One,  Al Qaeda planned and executed a jihadist attack on the United States.   Not the first, and probably not the last. 
Two.  The Bush WH conspired with intelligence agencies to cover up the fact that they failed to stop the plot despite clear signs and warnings.

Their excuse was that they had an over-reliance on electronic surveillance and a lack of "boots on the ground"  collecting human intel. 

Now read on.

You purposely ignore anything that contradicts your preconceived notions (which you admit you made up your might on the day of 9/11) no matter how solid the proof. You refuse to give it even a second look.

You choose to believe magic DNA, magic passports and people that have been proven to be alive that are supposedly dead.

You also fit the quote dispute posted to an absolute perfect T...

So what are you? Brainwashed or have skin in the game? That is the only two options available.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 02, 2018, 01:17:52 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 02, 2018, 01:12:39 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 02, 2018, 01:10:00 AM
They not only failed to stop the attacks but also Mossad infiltrated the terrorist cells and organised and carried out the 9/11 attack assisted by the CIA in order to kick start their illegal wars and plan for global domination.
anti-semitic

It's not anti-semitic to accuse Mossad of a crime, Mossad had foreknowledge of 9/11. Mossad infiltrates terrorist cells, it's literally their job and they are surrounded by the nations the west declared war on after 9/11. They not only knew about 9/11 but masterminded it, if it was guys in caves planning 9/11 NORAD would have just shot the planes down after the first crash.

The planes were allowed free reign in restricted airspace because,
reasons.

Where's your evidence for your Jihadi Conspiracy?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 02, 2018, 01:19:35 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 02, 2018, 01:13:44 AM
You choose to believe magic DNA, magic passports and people that have been proven to be alive that are supposedly dead.

The answer is simple, where is the evidence?  Prove what you are saying.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 02, 2018, 01:22:04 AM
You will only accept the NIST and commision report as evidence. Everything else is dismissed out of hand as "conspiracy theory."

If you want us to prove 9/11 is an open conspiracy using only the commission report I can't.

You win, the 9/11 commission report agrees with you, I can't deny the commission report is in-line with what you say.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 02, 2018, 01:24:56 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 02, 2018, 01:17:52 AM
It's not anti-semitic to accuse Mossad of a crime, Mossad had foreknowledge of 9/11. Mossad infiltrates terrorist cells, it's literally their job and they are surrounded by the nations the west declared war on after 9/11. They not only knew about 9/11 but masterminded it, if it was guys in caves planning 9/11 NORAD would have just shot the planes down after the first crash.



Quote from: disputeone on March 02, 2018, 01:17:52 AM
The planes were allowed free reign in restricted airspace because,
reasons.

That's not what happened.

Quote from: disputeone on March 02, 2018, 01:17:52 AM
Where's your evidence for your Jihadi Conspiracy?

There's thousands and thousands of verifiable facts.  But start here.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2004/10/30/bin-laden-claims-responsibility-for-11.html
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 02, 2018, 01:29:09 AM
Your best evidence is a fake confession?

The confession of an old CIA asset who's family was good friends with the Bush family?

That's the evidence you believe confirms the official story?

Genuinely curious.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 02, 2018, 01:31:16 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 02, 2018, 01:29:09 AM
Your best evidence is a fake confession?

The confession of an old CIA asset who's family was good friends with the Bush family?

That's the evidence you beleive confirms the official story?

Genuinely curious.

I believe the facts that can be proven.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 02, 2018, 01:31:45 AM
That's not an answer.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 02, 2018, 01:35:00 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 02, 2018, 01:19:35 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 02, 2018, 01:13:44 AM
You choose to believe magic DNA, magic passports and people that have been proven to be alive that are supposedly dead.

The answer is simple, where is the evidence?  Prove what you are saying.

Evidence of what? I am just reading what the official story is, that is all. It reads like a fairy tale. 13 people that were supposed to be dead found alive. All the planes pulverized to where there is literally nothing left, however a passport made it out perfectly in tact. As did all the DNA (where did they find samples of the terrorist to compare anyways?)..

Yet nothing sounds out of place to you. How could an intelligent person feel this way unless they are brainwashed or a shill?

Could you imagine bringing the case to an actual court/judge and asking for a conviction?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 02, 2018, 01:35:35 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 02, 2018, 01:31:45 AM
That's not an answer.


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 02, 2018, 01:38:21 AM
Use your words like a big boy.

The tapes aren't lost anymore, clearly.
I wonder why they lost them in the first place? Seems like important tapes to keep.

You guys have a funny habit of losing things like this.

Still this.
Quote
The confession of an old CIA asset who's family was good friends with the Bush family?

That's the evidence you beleive confirms the official story?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 02, 2018, 01:45:22 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 02, 2018, 01:38:21 AM
That's the evidence you beleive confirms the official story?


You asked about NORAD,  I was pointing out it was NEADS,  watch the video.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 02, 2018, 01:46:29 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 02, 2018, 01:35:00 AM
Could you imagine bringing the case to an actual court/judge and asking for a conviction?

Yes.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 02, 2018, 01:52:08 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 02, 2018, 01:46:29 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 02, 2018, 01:35:00 AM
Could you imagine bringing the case to an actual court/judge and asking for a conviction?

Yes.

Explain to me how they got DNA (and a passport) from something pulverized, not only that but was in heat hot enough to melt steel for months. Where did they get DNA samples for comparison? Why were these "terrorist" that supposedly​ were pulverized found alive later on?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 02, 2018, 02:01:25 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 02, 2018, 01:52:08 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 02, 2018, 01:46:29 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 02, 2018, 01:35:00 AM
Could you imagine bringing the case to an actual court/judge and asking for a conviction?

Yes.

Explain to me how they got DNA (and a passport) from something pulverized, not only that but was in heat hot enough to melt steel for months. Where did they get DNA samples for comparison? Why were these "terrorist" that supposedly​ were pulverized found alive later on?

Not everything got pulverized. 

Anyway,  where is the proof that the terrorists were found alive?

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 02, 2018, 02:12:31 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 02, 2018, 02:01:25 AM

Not everything got pulverized. 

Anyway,  where is the proof that the terrorists were found alive?

I know a landing gear was supposedly​ found. Was there DNA of the highjackers on the landing gear? Where did they get the sample to compare this to? How did the DNA get on the landing gear when everything was pulverized on impact?

I know people think this is a joke, but this one incident destabilized an entire regions, killed millions and put us in trillions over trillions of debt.

Seriously, just imagine if I told you a plane got pulverized and sat in liquid steel for two months...yet I found a perfectly intact passport and perfectly intact DNA for everyone...would you not laugh at me. I know you would, everyone else with a right mind would as well.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 02, 2018, 02:17:29 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 02, 2018, 02:12:31 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 02, 2018, 02:01:25 AM

Not everything got pulverized. 

Anyway,  where is the proof that the terrorists were found alive?

I know a landing gear was supposedly​ found. Was there DNA of the highjackers on the landing gear? Where did they get the sample to compare this to? How did the DNA get on the landing gear when everything was pulverized on impact?

I know people think this is a joke, but this one incident destabilized an entire regions, killed millions and put us in trillions over trillions of debt.

Seriously, just imagine if I told you a plane got pulverized and sat in liquid steel for two months...yet I found a perfectly intact passport and perfectly intact DNA for everyone...would you not laugh at me. I know you would, everyone else with a right mind would as well.

You know that's not how it happened.  There was debris everywhere after the impact.  To suggest that everything sat in molten steel for two months is just being stupid.

Anyway, they found six passports in total that belonged to hijackers.  Plus I already linked to DNA analysis earlier in this thread,  I could find it again,  but why should I,  it's your case to prove. Not mine.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 02, 2018, 02:34:48 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 02, 2018, 02:17:29 AM

You know that's not how it happened.  There was debris everywhere after the impact.  To suggest that everything sat in molten steel for two months is just being stupid.

Anyway, they found six passports in total that belonged to hijackers.  Plus I already linked to DNA analysis earlier in this thread,  I could find it again,  but why should I,  it's your case to prove. Not mine.

Where? I have seen maps of sporadic dots for the debris at the towers and where they were found. Though have only seen a few pictures of such materials. Though the official report uses the term "vaporized" many times over for the planes.

So which one is it? You can't have both.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on March 02, 2018, 03:08:16 AM
Well the 6 passport thing is quite sketchy/peculiar.
Althought they obviously were not 'perfectely intact' for sure (that is just a bhs strawman).
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 02, 2018, 03:30:58 AM
Quote from: User324 on March 02, 2018, 03:08:16 AM
Well the 6 passport thing is quite sketchy/peculiar.
Althought they obviously were not 'perfectely intact' for sure (that is just a bhs strawman).

So metal can be pulverized but paper is fine? The black box pulverized but flesh survived? Something hot enough to keep metal in it's liquid state for months but DNA survived?

Come on user... surely even you if honest can see a very serious issue with this story. If I alone told this story without the support of a mainstream source, anyone here would call me a nut job.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on March 02, 2018, 03:42:11 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 02, 2018, 03:30:58 AM
Quote from: User324 on March 02, 2018, 03:08:16 AM
Well the 6 passport thing is quite sketchy/peculiar.
Althought they obviously were not 'perfectely intact' for sure (that is just a bhs strawman).

So metal can be pulverized but paper is fine? The black box pulverized but flesh survived? Something hot enough to keep metal in it's liquid state for months but DNA survived?

Come on user... surely even you if honest can see a very serious issue with this story. If I alone told this story without the support of a mainstream source, anyone here would call me a nut job.
Did you even read what I wrote?
1. I said I find the passport thing strange
2. Of course the passports they claimed to have found were not in perfect condition. Noone claims that except you to create a strawman.
3. Especially bone is very resistant. Also, by the explosion some body parts might have 'escaped' the building and thus not been damaged as much by the fire. An explosion doesn't really destroy dna.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 02, 2018, 04:28:21 AM
Quote from: User324 on March 02, 2018, 03:42:11 AM
Did you even read what I wrote?
1. I said I find the passport thing strange
2. Of course the passports they claimed to have found were not in perfect condition. Noone claims that except you to create a strawman.
3. Especially bone is very resistant. Also, by the explosion some body parts might have 'escaped' the building and thus not been damaged as much by the fire. An explosion doesn't really destroy dna.

Something that vaporizes aluminum, copper, steel and titanium...do you really think there would be anything what so ever left of the paper passports. Certainly bone would not be able to with stand more than these metals.

Yes, an explosion won't destroy DNA instantly, however, a flash fire or even moderate heat can destroy parts or a complete segment of DNA to the point it cannot be used to find a match. This happens all the time in the legal system, degradation of DNA. I mean geez it even destroyed the black boxes.

Also, where did the DNA from the supposed highjackers come from to even compare?

Are you not seeing all these holes and impossibilities...would you not laugh at me if I told you this story?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 02, 2018, 04:42:45 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 02, 2018, 04:28:21 AM
Quote from: User324 on March 02, 2018, 03:42:11 AM
Did you even read what I wrote?
1. I said I find the passport thing strange
2. Of course the passports they claimed to have found were not in perfect condition. Noone claims that except you to create a strawman.
3. Especially bone is very resistant. Also, by the explosion some body parts might have 'escaped' the building and thus not been damaged as much by the fire. An explosion doesn't really destroy dna.

Something that vaporizes aluminum, copper, steel and titanium...do you really think there would be anything what so ever left of the paper passports. Certainly bone would not be able to with stand more than these metals.

Yes, an explosion won't destroy DNA instantly, however, a flash fire or even moderate heat can destroy parts or a complete segment of DNA to the point it cannot be used to find a match. This happens all the time in the legal system, degradation of DNA. I mean geez it even destroyed the black boxes.

Also, where did the DNA from the supposed highjackers come from to even compare?

Are you not seeing all these holes and impossibilities...would you not laugh at me if I told you this story?

Really?  So you think nothing survived.

(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/02/09/article-1355083-0AF04DFE000005DC-801_634x395.jpg)
(https://www.yourdailyjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/web1_Streetview.jpg)
(https://cbsnews3.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/r/2011/09/05/ea8300b7-a644-11e2-a3f0-029118418759/resize/620x465/a43205f4698ef70fa9edd362bb8842af/wtc_then_now_engine.jpg)
(https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/xFlight_11_Seat_Cushion_Large.jpg)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 02, 2018, 04:44:54 AM
Quote
Also, where did the DNA from the supposed highjackers come from to even compare?

Here

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2808599.stm

Quote from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2808599.stm
Ms Borakove said the New York medical teams had set themselves a target of identifying at least 2,000 sets of remains.

"We'll keep working for as long as it takes, there's no time limit. It could be years," she said.

Of the nearly 20,000 body parts recovered after the tragedy, a majority have yet to be identified.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on March 02, 2018, 04:45:36 AM
Quote
Something that vaporizes aluminum, copper, steel and titanium...do you really think there would be anything what so ever left of the paper passports.
Once again you create a strawman.
1) I even said it twice now, but a third time for you: I find it strange that they supposedly found passports.
2) not ALL copper/steel etc has been 'vaporized' (I doubt any notable amount of ot has been 'vaporized'). It's a logical fallcy (or strawman) to pretend just because some places got very hot, everything got very hot and had to be destroyed.

Quote
Also, where did the DNA from the supposed highjackers come from to even compare?
Well I guess the terrorists did not just appear at the airport out of nowhere.
I suppose they used vehicles to get there, they had flats/hotels or whatever where they stayed at. I'm sure it was not THAT hard for the fbi to trace them back and get some dna.
Also, dna that matched to noone that was expected to be in the plane or building was likely to be from a terrorist.
So easy to compare some dna and conclude which one was likely a terrorist.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 02, 2018, 04:49:55 AM
Passports

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/six-passports-salvaged-911-hijackers-janice-kephart

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bullwinkle on March 02, 2018, 07:53:39 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 01, 2018, 03:48:30 AM
Quote from: Bullwinkle on March 01, 2018, 03:31:12 AM
Because the only people who see ghosts are people who believe in ghosts.

Did you even watch the interview? Or just working on your witty remarks?

I think the cameraman is a secret agent. Nobody expects the cameraman to be the secret agent. Notice he doesn't say anything at all? Isn't that suspicious?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on March 02, 2018, 07:58:10 AM
Quote from: Bullwinkle on March 02, 2018, 07:53:39 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 01, 2018, 03:48:30 AM
Quote from: Bullwinkle on March 01, 2018, 03:31:12 AM
Because the only people who see ghosts are people who believe in ghosts.

Did you even watch the interview? Or just working on your witty remarks?

I think the cameraman is a secret agent. Nobody expects the cameraman to be the secret agent. Notice he doesn't say anything at all? Isn't that suspicious?
By suspecting him to be the secret agent you have already disproven your argument, unless you consider yourself as nobody.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bullwinkle on March 02, 2018, 08:36:49 AM
Quote from: User324 on March 02, 2018, 07:58:10 AM
Quote from: Bullwinkle on March 02, 2018, 07:53:39 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 01, 2018, 03:48:30 AM
Quote from: Bullwinkle on March 01, 2018, 03:31:12 AM
Because the only people who see ghosts are people who believe in ghosts.

Did you even watch the interview? Or just working on your witty remarks?

I think the cameraman is a secret agent. Nobody expects the cameraman to be the secret agent. Notice he doesn't say anything at all? Isn't that suspicious?
By suspecting him to be the secret agent you have already disproven your argument, unless you consider yourself as nobody.


You are trying to car wax my argument.
A nobody is still somebody.

I read on the internet that the cameraman may be a secret agent.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on March 02, 2018, 08:38:33 AM
Quote from: Bullwinkle on March 02, 2018, 08:36:49 AM
You are trying to car wax my argument.
Are you trying to microwave me now??

Quote from: Bullwinkle on March 02, 2018, 08:36:49 AM
A nobody is still somebody.
A nobody yes. But nobody isn't somebody.

Quote from: Bullwinkle on March 02, 2018, 08:36:49 AM
I read on the internet that the cameraman may be a secret agent.
Which makes your initial argument even worse.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 02, 2018, 05:00:45 PM
Quote from: Bullwinkle on March 02, 2018, 07:53:39 AM
I think the cameraman is a secret agent. Nobody expects the cameraman to be the secret agent. Notice he doesn't say anything at all? Isn't that suspicious?

Bullwinkle was the cameraman?   How else could he have such detailed inside knowledge.   No, I'm not roll casting his lure.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bullwinkle on March 02, 2018, 05:48:48 PM
Quote from: User324 on March 02, 2018, 08:38:33 AM
Quote from: Bullwinkle on March 02, 2018, 08:36:49 AM
A nobody is still somebody.
A nobody yes. But nobody isn't somebody.

Everybody knows anybody can be a nobody and still be somebody.
Stop trying to tangerine the issue.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bullwinkle on March 02, 2018, 05:56:26 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 02, 2018, 05:00:45 PM
Bullwinkle was the cameraman?   How else could he have such detailed inside knowledge.   No, I'm not roll casting his lure.


Quote from: Bullwinkle on March 02, 2018, 08:36:49 AM
I read on the internet that the cameraman may be a secret agent.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 02, 2018, 06:11:44 PM
Quote from: Bullwinkle on March 02, 2018, 05:56:26 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 02, 2018, 05:00:45 PM
Bullwinkle was the cameraman?   How else could he have such detailed inside knowledge.   No, I'm not roll casting his lure.


Quote from: Bullwinkle on March 02, 2018, 08:36:49 AM
I read on the internet that the cameraman may be a secret agent.

Only a secret agent would be clever enough and have access to the resources to create such an elaborate cover story.    Secret agent confirmed.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bullwinkle on March 02, 2018, 06:35:29 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 02, 2018, 06:11:44 PM
Quote from: Bullwinkle on March 02, 2018, 05:56:26 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 02, 2018, 05:00:45 PM
Bullwinkle was the cameraman?   How else could he have such detailed inside knowledge.   No, I'm not roll casting his lure.


Quote from: Bullwinkle on March 02, 2018, 08:36:49 AM
I read on the internet that the cameraman may be a secret agent.

Only a secret agent would be clever enough and have access to the resources to create such an elaborate cover story.    Secret agent confirmed.


Stop trying to prune-juice my facts.
I can cite the source!
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 02, 2018, 07:56:48 PM
Quote from: Bullwinkle on March 02, 2018, 06:35:29 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 02, 2018, 06:11:44 PM
Quote from: Bullwinkle on March 02, 2018, 05:56:26 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 02, 2018, 05:00:45 PM
Bullwinkle was the cameraman?   How else could he have such detailed inside knowledge.   No, I'm not roll casting his lure.


Quote from: Bullwinkle on March 02, 2018, 08:36:49 AM
I read on the internet that the cameraman may be a secret agent.

Only a secret agent would be clever enough and have access to the resources to create such an elaborate cover story.    Secret agent confirmed.


Stop trying to prune-juice my facts.
I can cite the source!

I also sighted the sauce,  tomato it was.  Hot sauce doth varnish no furniture.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bullwinkle on March 02, 2018, 08:15:35 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 02, 2018, 07:56:48 PM
Quote from: Bullwinkle on March 02, 2018, 06:35:29 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 02, 2018, 06:11:44 PM
Quote from: Bullwinkle on March 02, 2018, 05:56:26 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 02, 2018, 05:00:45 PM
Bullwinkle was the cameraman?   How else could he have such detailed inside knowledge.   No, I'm not roll casting his lure.


Quote from: Bullwinkle on March 02, 2018, 08:36:49 AM
I read on the internet that the cameraman may be a secret agent.

Only a secret agent would be clever enough and have access to the resources to create such an elaborate cover story.    Secret agent confirmed.


Stop trying to prune-juice my facts.
I can cite the source!

I also sighted the sauce,  tomato it was.  Hot sauce doth varnish no furniture.


I don't think you are taking this serious.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 02, 2018, 09:30:22 PM
Quote from: Bullwinkle on March 02, 2018, 08:15:35 PM
I don't think you are taking this serious.

That's exactly what a secret agent would say.   Your denials doth butter no parsnips.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Twerp on March 02, 2018, 09:32:37 PM
Are you guys trying to talk like the kewl seventeen-year-olds from 4chan?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 02, 2018, 09:46:54 PM
Quote from: Boots on March 02, 2018, 09:32:37 PM
Are you guys trying to talk like the kewl seventeen-year-olds from 4chan?

Fixed that for you
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 02, 2018, 09:50:41 PM
Quote from: Boots on March 02, 2018, 09:32:37 PM
Are you guys trying to talk like the kewl seventeen-year-olds from 4chan?

Secret code words.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on March 02, 2018, 10:32:59 PM
Quote from: Bullwinkle on March 02, 2018, 05:48:48 PM
Quote from: User324 on March 02, 2018, 08:38:33 AM
Quote from: Bullwinkle on March 02, 2018, 08:36:49 AM
A nobody is still somebody.
A nobody yes. But nobody isn't somebody.

Everybody knows anybody can be a nobody and still be somebody.
Stop trying to tangerine the issue.
Nobodoy =/= a nobody
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 04, 2018, 10:52:56 PM
Quote from: User324 on March 02, 2018, 10:32:59 PM
Quote from: Bullwinkle on March 02, 2018, 05:48:48 PM
Quote from: User324 on March 02, 2018, 08:38:33 AM
Quote from: Bullwinkle on March 02, 2018, 08:36:49 AM
A nobody is still somebody.
A nobody yes. But nobody isn't somebody.

Everybody knows anybody can be a nobody and still be somebody.
Stop trying to tangerine the issue.
Nobodoy =/= a nobody

Know body would know who knows.

I see BHS,  has retreated yet again,  he always goes quiet when I prove him wrong.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on March 04, 2018, 10:55:58 PM
He's like that one bird, I don't know it's name in english, but it always puts its head into the sand if there is trouble.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 05, 2018, 01:25:30 AM
Quote from: User324 on March 04, 2018, 10:55:58 PM
He's like that one bird, I don't know it's name in english, but it always puts its head into the sand if there is trouble.

You are thinking of the Ostrich. 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 05, 2018, 07:12:49 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 04, 2018, 10:52:56 PM

Know body would know who knows.

I see BHS,  has retreated yet again,  he always goes quiet when I prove him wrong.

What the hell are you talking about? You just can't help yourself from lying can you? Typical of your sorts.

I haven't been paying attention to this thread because you have been attempting to shit post it away. Lost at all the recent posts. One of your usual tactics when you are stuck.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on March 05, 2018, 07:16:59 AM
Honestly, if I were a 1 dimensional thinker like you, I'd keep my mouth shut...
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 05, 2018, 07:45:38 AM
Quote from: User324 on March 05, 2018, 07:16:59 AM
Honestly, if I were a 1 dimensional thinker like you, I'd keep my mouth shut...

Says the nobody that has done nothing. Your voice is literally as valuable as flatulence in the wind
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on March 05, 2018, 08:01:55 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 05, 2018, 07:45:38 AM
Quote from: User324 on March 05, 2018, 07:16:59 AM
Honestly, if I were a 1 dimensional thinker like you, I'd keep my mouth shut...

Says the nobody that has done nothing. Your voice is literally as valuable as flatulence in the wind
In the grand scheme, that applies to your voice, too.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 05, 2018, 10:14:21 AM
Quote from: User324 on March 05, 2018, 08:01:55 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 05, 2018, 07:45:38 AM
Quote from: User324 on March 05, 2018, 07:16:59 AM
Honestly, if I were a 1 dimensional thinker like you, I'd keep my mouth shut...

Says the nobody that has done nothing. Your voice is literally as valuable as flatulence in the wind
In the grand scheme, that applies to your voice, too.

In the grand scheme of things all of our voices are just flatulence on the wind.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on March 05, 2018, 10:20:17 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 05, 2018, 10:14:21 AM
Quote from: User324 on March 05, 2018, 08:01:55 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 05, 2018, 07:45:38 AM
Quote from: User324 on March 05, 2018, 07:16:59 AM
Honestly, if I were a 1 dimensional thinker like you, I'd keep my mouth shut...

Says the nobody that has done nothing. Your voice is literally as valuable as flatulence in the wind
In the grand scheme, that applies to your voice, too.

In the grand scheme of things all of our voices are just flatulence on the wind.
Very true.

Btw the evolution thread still waits for your amswers.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 05, 2018, 03:46:03 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 05, 2018, 07:12:49 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 04, 2018, 10:52:56 PM

Know body would know who knows.

I see BHS,  has retreated yet again,  he always goes quiet when I prove him wrong.

What the hell are you talking about? You just can't help yourself from lying can you? Typical of your sorts.

I haven't been paying attention to this thread because you have been attempting to shit post it away. Lost at all the recent posts. One of your usual tactics when you are stuck.

Just waiting for you to retract your assertion that nothing could have survived the aircraft impact.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bullwinkle on March 05, 2018, 06:07:00 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 05, 2018, 07:45:38 AM

Says the nobody that has done nothing.



Describe a somebody who has done something without using the word I.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 05, 2018, 06:21:00 PM
Quote from: Bullwinkle on March 05, 2018, 06:07:00 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 05, 2018, 07:45:38 AM

Says the nobody that has done nothing.



Describe a somebody who has done something without using the word I.

Mark Cuban, Donald Trump?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bullwinkle on March 05, 2018, 07:05:29 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 05, 2018, 06:21:00 PM
Quote from: Bullwinkle on March 05, 2018, 06:07:00 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 05, 2018, 07:45:38 AM

Says the nobody that has done nothing.



Describe a somebody who has done something without using the word I.

Mark Cuban, Donald Trump?

Oh, sorry, we weren't looking for people who have accumulated more things, stuff and items than others.

The correct answer is Mother Theresa. And I'm an atheist.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 05, 2018, 07:13:49 PM
Quote from: Bullwinkle on March 05, 2018, 07:05:29 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 05, 2018, 06:21:00 PM
Quote from: Bullwinkle on March 05, 2018, 06:07:00 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 05, 2018, 07:45:38 AM

Says the nobody that has done nothing.



Describe a somebody who has done something without using the word I.

Mark Cuban, Donald Trump?

Oh, sorry, we weren't looking for people who have accumulated more things, stuff and items than others.

The correct answer is Mother Theresa. And I'm an atheist.

I would have liked to put Bill Gates, he has literally give many many many many billions and helped people from all parts of the glove. A true example what a billionaire should be. I believe he has helped more people than anyone, I could be wrong.

Mark Cuban is not a bad guy either.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bullwinkle on March 05, 2018, 07:28:03 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 05, 2018, 07:13:49 PM
Quote from: Bullwinkle on March 05, 2018, 07:05:29 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 05, 2018, 06:21:00 PM
Quote from: Bullwinkle on March 05, 2018, 06:07:00 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 05, 2018, 07:45:38 AM

Says the nobody that has done nothing.



Describe a somebody who has done something without using the word I.

Mark Cuban, Donald Trump?

Oh, sorry, we weren't looking for people who have accumulated more things, stuff and items than others.

The correct answer is Mother Theresa. And I'm an atheist.

I would have liked to put Bill Gates, he has literally give many many many many billions and helped people from all parts of the glove. A true example what a billionaire should be. I believe he has helped more people than anyone, I could be wrong.

Mark Cuban is not a bad guy either.


The American People have given many many many TRILLIONS of dollars, at their own personal loss, to help people across the disk.




Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 05, 2018, 08:20:17 PM
Quote from: Bullwinkle on March 05, 2018, 07:28:03 PM
The American People have given many many many TRILLIONS of dollars, at their own personal loss, to help people across the disk.

The difference is Bill does it by choice, we are forced to.

Also, we harm as many people as we help, and quite honestly I am not sure which one is a larger number.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bullwinkle on March 05, 2018, 08:51:52 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 05, 2018, 08:20:17 PM
Quote from: Bullwinkle on March 05, 2018, 07:28:03 PM
The American People have given many many many TRILLIONS of dollars, at their own personal loss, to help people across the disk.

The difference is Bill does it by choice, we are forced to.

Also, we harm as many people as we help, and quite honestly I am not sure which one is a larger number.


In 2016 Americans voluntarily gave $390 Billion to charity. Almost $4 Trillion per decade. Voluntarily. The amount we are forced to give is on top of that.

Well, you are forced to give. I don't pay taxes. My giving is pure gift.




Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Twerp on March 05, 2018, 09:06:05 PM
Quote from: Bullwinkle on March 05, 2018, 08:51:52 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 05, 2018, 08:20:17 PM
Quote from: Bullwinkle on March 05, 2018, 07:28:03 PM
The American People have given many many many TRILLIONS of dollars, at their own personal loss, to help people across the disk.

The difference is Bill does it by choice, we are forced to.

Also, we harm as many people as we help, and quite honestly I am not sure which one is a larger number.


In 2016 Americans voluntarily gave $390 Billion to charity. Almost $4 Trillion per decade. Voluntarily. The amount we are forced to give is on top of that.

Well, you are forced to give. I don't pay taxes. My giving is pure gift.

Meese are tax exempt.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bullwinkle on March 05, 2018, 09:20:23 PM
Quote from: Boots on March 05, 2018, 09:06:05 PM
Quote from: Bullwinkle on March 05, 2018, 08:51:52 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 05, 2018, 08:20:17 PM
Quote from: Bullwinkle on March 05, 2018, 07:28:03 PM
The American People have given many many many TRILLIONS of dollars, at their own personal loss, to help people across the disk.

The difference is Bill does it by choice, we are forced to.

Also, we harm as many people as we help, and quite honestly I am not sure which one is a larger number.


In 2016 Americans voluntarily gave $390 Billion to charity. Almost $4 Trillion per decade. Voluntarily. The amount we are forced to give is on top of that.

Well, you are forced to give. I don't pay taxes. My giving is pure gift.

Meese are tax exempt.

Disability income sucks ass.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 07, 2018, 12:03:40 AM
What caused all the slide posts? I'll have to read the thread back.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 07, 2018, 02:30:47 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 07, 2018, 12:03:40 AM
What caused all the slide posts? I'll have to read the thread back.

BHS is still pretending he can't read. 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 07, 2018, 02:37:27 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 07, 2018, 02:30:47 AM
BHS is still pretending he can't read.

You really do always accuse your opponent of what you are currently doing don't you.

Slight of hand.
"We want to create cyber magicians."
GCHQ

https://www.scribd.com/doc/233890686/The-Art-of-Deception-GCHQ

It's just that we're much better than you.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 07, 2018, 02:56:59 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 07, 2018, 02:37:27 AM
It's just that we're much better than you.

Is that why you come across as a complete idiot all the time?   

BHS claimed that nothing could have survived the WTC 1 and 2 impacts,  I just proved him wrong and he ran away,  ( like he usually does )

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 07, 2018, 03:05:00 AM
That's your opinion and one that you are more than entitled to. I think deep down you know otherwise.

Quote from: Rayzor on March 07, 2018, 02:56:59 AM
BHS claimed that nothing could have survived the WTC 1 and 2 impacts,  I just proved him wrong and he ran away.

I'm quite sure you're playing semantics again in an attempt to avoid engaging with an argument. I'm thinking you are using the word "nothing" as your crutch and have thoroughly torn apart a strawman.

You guys get so defensive over the passports.

(https://s10.postimg.org/tnch7e4qt/SIX-the-joker-35085823-1600-900.jpg) (https://postimg.org/image/tnch7e4qt/)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 07, 2018, 03:12:02 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 07, 2018, 03:05:00 AM
That's your opinion and one that you are more than entitled to. I think deep down you know otherwise.

Quote from: Rayzor on March 07, 2018, 02:56:59 AM
BHS claimed that nothing could have survived the WTC 1 and 2 impacts,  I just proved him wrong and he ran away.

I'm quite sure you're playing semantics again in an attempt to avoid engaging with an argument. I'm thinking you are using the word "nothing" as your crutch and have thoroughly torn apart a strawman.

You guys get so defensive over the passports.

(https://s10.postimg.org/tnch7e4qt/SIX-the-joker-35085823-1600-900.jpg) (https://postimg.org/image/tnch7e4qt/)

He was saying it was impossible for DNA to have survived.   Do you agree with BHS?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 07, 2018, 03:22:57 AM
It depends on the circumstance. I would doubt dna survived in the molten steel pits that lasted for weeks after the collapses.

There might have been dna that survived the worst of the crash which survived.

I wonder how the CIA already had the dna in their database of the alleged hijackers to compare and confirm their identities. Seems like an awfully convenient coincidence to me.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on March 07, 2018, 03:58:10 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 07, 2018, 03:22:57 AM
There might have been dna that survived the worst of the crash which survived.
Did it survive tho?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 07, 2018, 04:06:47 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 07, 2018, 03:22:57 AM
It depends on the circumstance. I would doubt dna survived in the molten steel pits that lasted for weeks after the collapses.

There might have been dna that survived the worst of the crash which survived.

I wonder how the CIA already had the dna in their database of the alleged hijackers to compare and confirm their identities. Seems like an awfully convenient coincidence to me.

It was the FBI,  not the CIA,  and no they didn't already have the hijackers DNA in their database. 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Wolvaccine on March 07, 2018, 12:44:19 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 07, 2018, 04:06:47 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 07, 2018, 03:22:57 AM
It depends on the circumstance. I would doubt dna survived in the molten steel pits that lasted for weeks after the collapses.

There might have been dna that survived the worst of the crash which survived.

I wonder how the CIA already had the dna in their database of the alleged hijackers to compare and confirm their identities. Seems like an awfully convenient coincidence to me.

It was the FBI,  not the CIA,  and no they didn't already have the hijackers DNA in their database.

This sounds like very intimate knowledge and you sound too sure of its authenticity. Shill confirmed
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on March 07, 2018, 12:46:53 PM
Quote from: Shifter on March 07, 2018, 12:44:19 PM
Spam deleted

Shittler shitposting confirmed.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Wolvaccine on March 07, 2018, 01:36:36 PM
Quote from: User324 on March 07, 2018, 12:46:53 PM
Quote from: Shifter on March 07, 2018, 12:44:19 PM
This sounds like very intimate knowledge and you sound too sure of its authenticity. Shill confirmed

(https://kokkieh.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/11-spam-03.jpg)

^Rayzor lapdog confirmed
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 07, 2018, 02:46:30 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 07, 2018, 04:06:47 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 07, 2018, 03:22:57 AM
It depends on the circumstance. I would doubt dna survived in the molten steel pits that lasted for weeks after the collapses.

There might have been dna that survived the worst of the crash which survived.

I wonder how the CIA already had the dna in their database of the alleged hijackers to compare and confirm their identities. Seems like an awfully convenient coincidence to me.

It was the FBI,  not the CIA,  and no they didn't already have the hijackers DNA in their database.

How did they confirm the identity of the hikackers with only one set of DNA then? Usually DNA found at the crime scene is compared to DNA on record to obtain a positive identification.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 07, 2018, 02:48:06 PM
Quote from: User324 on March 07, 2018, 03:58:10 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 07, 2018, 03:22:57 AM
There might have been dna that survived the worst of the crash which survived.
Did it survive tho?

According to the official story it did. They used it to ID the alleged hijackers.

I'm not sure how they did this without their dna on record previously.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bullwinkle on March 07, 2018, 03:01:22 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 07, 2018, 02:46:30 PM
How did they confirm the identity of the hikackers with only one set of DNA then? Usually DNA found at the crime scene is compared to DNA on record to obtain a positive identification.

THEY already have everyone's DNA of file.

I read that on the internet.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 07, 2018, 03:02:45 PM
Quote from: Bullwinkle on March 07, 2018, 03:01:22 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 07, 2018, 02:46:30 PM
How did they confirm the identity of the hikackers with only one set of DNA then? Usually DNA found at the crime scene is compared to DNA on record to obtain a positive identification.

THEY already have everyone's DNA of file.

That's what the 23andme is about but they don't have everyones DNA on file, especially some alleged terrorists living in caves.

https://www.23andme.com/
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bullwinkle on March 07, 2018, 03:10:01 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 07, 2018, 03:02:45 PM
Quote from: Bullwinkle on March 07, 2018, 03:01:22 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 07, 2018, 02:46:30 PM
How did they confirm the identity of the hikackers with only one set of DNA then? Usually DNA found at the crime scene is compared to DNA on record to obtain a positive identification.

THEY already have everyone's DNA of file.

That's what the 23andme is about but they don't have everyones DNA on file, especially some alleged terrorists living in caves.

https://www.23andme.com/ (https://www.23andme.com/)


The WHO pretends to be giving away vaccinations.
They are really collecting DNA samples.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bullwinkle on March 07, 2018, 03:12:35 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 07, 2018, 03:02:45 PM
Quote from: Bullwinkle on March 07, 2018, 03:01:22 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 07, 2018, 02:46:30 PM
How did they confirm the identity of the hikackers with only one set of DNA then? Usually DNA found at the crime scene is compared to DNA on record to obtain a positive identification.

THEY already have everyone's DNA of file.

That's what the 23andme is about but they don't have everyones DNA on file, especially some alleged terrorists living in caves.

https://www.23andme.com/ (https://www.23andme.com/)


Oh, SHIT !   https://www.23andme.com/ (https://www.23andme.com/)  is down right now!   

That was quick.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 07, 2018, 03:51:58 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 02, 2018, 04:44:54 AM
Quote
Also, where did the DNA from the supposed highjackers come from to even compare?

Here

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2808599.stm

Quote from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2808599.stm
Ms Borakove said the New York medical teams had set themselves a target of identifying at least 2,000 sets of remains.

"We'll keep working for as long as it takes, there's no time limit. It could be years," she said.

Of the nearly 20,000 body parts recovered after the tragedy, a majority have yet to be identified.

Since you are too lazy to search and BHS ran away, I'm reposting. 

Quote from: FBI
The FBI had collected the DNA from tiny traces of skin on the steering wheels of vehicles hired by the hijackers and from hair samples recovered from their hotel rooms.

Earlier this month, the FBI provided profiles of all 10 hijackers, including alleged ringleader Mohammad Atta, so their remains could be separated from those of victims.

"No names were attached to those profiles. We matched them, and we have matched two of those profiles to remains that we have," Ms Borakove said.

"We haven't finished our work, so it may be more," she added.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 07, 2018, 04:06:49 PM
I have been busy with other things. I am not a paid shill that does this 24/7 lol.

So what did I run from again?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 07, 2018, 04:12:32 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 07, 2018, 04:06:49 PM
I have been busy with other things. I am not a paid shill that does this 24/7 lol.

So what did I run from again?

Nothing,  get drunk and go back to sleep.  I'll remind you later.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 07, 2018, 04:19:41 PM
Quote from: Bullwinkle on March 07, 2018, 03:10:01 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 07, 2018, 03:02:45 PM
Quote from: Bullwinkle on March 07, 2018, 03:01:22 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 07, 2018, 02:46:30 PM
How did they confirm the identity of the hikackers with only one set of DNA then? Usually DNA found at the crime scene is compared to DNA on record to obtain a positive identification.

THEY already have everyone's DNA of file.

That's what the 23andme is about but they don't have everyones DNA on file, especially some alleged terrorists living in caves.

https://www.23andme.com/ (https://www.23andme.com/)
The WHO pretends to be giving away vaccinations.
They are really collecting DNA samples.

Nice sliding.

Also this.

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 07, 2018, 04:06:49 PM
I am not a paid shill that does this 24/7 lol.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 07, 2018, 04:26:23 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 07, 2018, 04:12:32 PM
Nothing,  get drunk and go back to sleep.  I'll remind you later.

Nice answer, you and others have been shit posting for pages now, haven't seen an actual thought for a while now.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 07, 2018, 04:28:26 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 07, 2018, 04:26:23 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 07, 2018, 04:12:32 PM
Nothing,  get drunk and go back to sleep.  I'll remind you later.

Nice answer, you and others have been shit posting for pages now, haven't seen an actual thought for a while now.

You mean like my post immediately before your answer, that you running away from. That's why I said, go back to sleep.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bullwinkle on March 07, 2018, 04:33:05 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 07, 2018, 04:19:41 PM

Nice sliding.



Nice tire rotating.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 07, 2018, 04:38:28 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 07, 2018, 04:28:26 PM
You mean like my post immediately before your answer, that you running away from. That's why I said, go back to sleep.

Do you mean the nonsense you posted from the FBI. Stories are always so convenient and magical with the official narrative.

Plus their story doesn't even match itself. Was the plane vaporized as we saw on camera and as they say? Or was it not? You cannot have both.

Looking at the map of the few pieces found such as a random landing gear..how would DNA get there?

Let's go inside the building. Are you telling me it is feasible to find viable DNA on a plane that was vaporized, exposed to extreme heat flash, survive the vaporizing tower collapse, be in heat hot enough to liquefy metal for months? Do you even know how delicate DNA is? How many samples have been degraded to the point it isn't​valid in court for even an ounce of the outside forces this DNA would have had to endure?

Must have had the same magic spell on it the passport had lol.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 07, 2018, 05:04:59 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 07, 2018, 04:38:28 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 07, 2018, 04:28:26 PM
You mean like my post immediately before your answer, that you running away from. That's why I said, go back to sleep.

Do you mean the nonsense you posted from the FBI. Stories are always so convenient and magical with the official narrative.

Plus their story doesn't even match itself. Was the plane vaporized as we saw on camera and as they say? Or was it not? You cannot have both.

Looking at the map of the few pieces found such as a random landing gear..how would DNA get there?

Let's go inside the building. Are you telling me it is feasible to find viable DNA on a plane that was vaporized, exposed to extreme heat flash, survive the vaporizing tower collapse, be in heat hot enough to liquefy metal for months? Do you even know how delicate DNA is? How many samples have been degraded to the point it isn't​valid in court for even an ounce of the outside forces this DNA would have had to endure?

Must have had the same magic spell on it the passport had lol.

Ok,  ignore the evidence,  that's a sure sign of delusion.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Wolvaccine on March 07, 2018, 05:12:13 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 07, 2018, 05:04:59 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 07, 2018, 04:38:28 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 07, 2018, 04:28:26 PM
You mean like my post immediately before your answer, that you running away from. That's why I said, go back to sleep.

Do you mean the nonsense you posted from the FBI. Stories are always so convenient and magical with the official narrative.

Plus their story doesn't even match itself. Was the plane vaporized as we saw on camera and as they say? Or was it not? You cannot have both.

Looking at the map of the few pieces found such as a random landing gear..how would DNA get there?

Let's go inside the building. Are you telling me it is feasible to find viable DNA on a plane that was vaporized, exposed to extreme heat flash, survive the vaporizing tower collapse, be in heat hot enough to liquefy metal for months? Do you even know how delicate DNA is? How many samples have been degraded to the point it isn't​valid in court for even an ounce of the outside forces this DNA would have had to endure?

Must have had the same magic spell on it the passport had lol.

Ok,  ignore the evidence,  that's a sure sign of delusion.

Sounds like you are ignoring logic. And even greater sign of delusion
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 07, 2018, 05:13:15 PM
Since when is Magic considered evidence?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bullwinkle on March 07, 2018, 05:17:29 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 07, 2018, 05:13:15 PM
Since when is Magic considered evidence?

No shit!  Evidence is a combination of conjecture and opinion.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 07, 2018, 05:56:32 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 07, 2018, 05:13:15 PM
Since when is Magic considered evidence?

I'd call 20,000 dna samples evidence wouldn't you?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 07, 2018, 08:53:45 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 07, 2018, 05:56:32 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 07, 2018, 05:13:15 PM
Since when is Magic considered evidence?

I'd call 20,000 dna samples evidence wouldn't you?

BHS runs away again...   
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Wolvaccine on March 07, 2018, 08:57:57 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 07, 2018, 08:53:45 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 07, 2018, 05:56:32 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 07, 2018, 05:13:15 PM
Since when is Magic considered evidence?

I'd call 20,000 dna samples evidence wouldn't you?

BHS runs away again...

More like he has a life because he doesn't earn money shilling on a forum perhaps? Give your 'runs away' a rest Rayzor. You know your argument is a joke and false. Stop trying to manufacture victories for yourself where none exist.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 07, 2018, 09:01:28 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 07, 2018, 08:53:45 PM
BHS runs away again.

He's got a job.

At this point you can't deny that at the very least you are unemployed and put in 8-12 hours a day here discrediting things that go against the intelligence agencies narrative.

We both know that you are a professional shill however.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 07, 2018, 09:02:08 PM
Quote from: Shifter on March 07, 2018, 08:57:57 PM
he doesn't earn money shilling on a forum perhaps?

I was beaten, it seems.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 07, 2018, 09:29:51 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 07, 2018, 08:53:45 PM
BHS runs away again...

Again, I am not a professional shill, I can't get back to you every time without delay.

Anyways to your question, I can say whatever I want. I can say I found 20,000 DANA samples in my asshole... doesn't mean it is true.

If you tell me something impossible as a "fact", that does not change it to being true, it's just nonsense...magic.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Wolvaccine on March 07, 2018, 09:36:28 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 07, 2018, 09:29:51 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 07, 2018, 08:53:45 PM
BHS runs away again...

Again, I am not a professional shill, I can't get back to you every time without delay.

Anyways to your question, I can say whatever I want. I can say I found 20,000 DANA samples in my asshole... doesn't mean it is true.

If you tell me something impossible as a "fact", that does not change it to being true, it's just nonsense...magic.

Rayzor has sunk pretty low to start using magic as his defence. The desperation is sad and pathetic. He must be scared of the consequences of telling his handlers that he failed
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 07, 2018, 10:08:54 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 07, 2018, 09:29:51 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 07, 2018, 08:53:45 PM
BHS runs away again...

Again, I am not a professional shill, I can't get back to you every time without delay.

Anyways to your question, I can say whatever I want. I can say I found 20,000 DANA samples in my asshole... doesn't mean it is true.

If you tell me something impossible as a "fact", that does not change it to being true, it's just nonsense...magic.

The process is still continuing,  you could go talk to the New York City Medical Examiner and ask for yourself.

Or you could continue to do what all conspiracy loonies do when confronted with incontrovertible evidence and just pretend it doesn't exist.

So seeing your reaction,  you first run away, then when called on it.  You pretend you didn't see it,  then call it magical nonsense.   
You seem to have a experience putting things in your arse, maybe that's where your reasoning skills come from.

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 07, 2018, 10:43:55 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 07, 2018, 10:08:54 PM
There are five lights.

Sorry Rayzor, there are only 4 no matter what mind games you attempt.

Just a reminder..

Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 07, 2018, 04:38:28 PM
Plus their story doesn't even match itself. Was the plane vaporized as we saw on camera and as they say? Or was it not? You cannot have both.

Looking at the map of the few pieces found such as a random landing gear..how would DNA get there?

Let's go inside the building. Are you telling me it is feasible to find viable DNA on a plane that was vaporized, exposed to extreme heat flash, survive the vaporizing tower collapse, be in heat hot enough to liquefy metal for months? Do you even know how delicate DNA is? How many samples have been degraded to the point it isn't​valid in court for even an ounce of the outside forces this DNA would have had to endure?

Must have had the same magic spell on it the passport had lol.

Of course you didn't address that, which I understand why.

Plus you are relying on the word of an agency that even you admit is lying and hiding things. An agency that is a proven liar is trying to get us to believe in magic again.

Red flag maybe? As Judge Judy says "if it doesn't make sense it is not true"
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 07, 2018, 10:50:55 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 07, 2018, 10:43:55 PM
Plus you are relying on the word of an agency that even you admit is lying and hiding things. An agency that is a proven liar is trying to get us to believe in magic again.

Really?   According to you,  the  New York City Medical Examiner  is part of the conspiracy, which is,  as you may not be aware, is doing on-going DNA identifications of 9/11 victims.

Are you sure you want to die on this particular hill?

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Wolvaccine on March 07, 2018, 11:06:57 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 07, 2018, 10:50:55 PM
Are you sure you want to die on this particular hill?

Wow, when magic fails he now threatens to kill you. What a pathetic shill
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 07, 2018, 11:55:57 PM
How much money would it take for you to sell your soul?

Nearly everyone has a price and those that don't simply die in suspicous deaths or succumb after their families are threatened. Bhs posted a huge list of suspicious deaths of 9/11 witnesses.

Your whole argument is "conspiracies don't exist."

You are fine to have that opinion but don't be so naive to think that no one would ever lie for money.

You do, every day.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on March 07, 2018, 11:57:13 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 07, 2018, 11:55:57 PM
How much money would it take for you to sell your soul?
Tree fiddy
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 07, 2018, 11:58:47 PM
That was about the time when I realised it wasn't user324 but the Loch Ness monster.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 08, 2018, 12:01:47 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 07, 2018, 11:55:57 PM
Your whole argument is "conspiracies don't exist."

You have a short attention span,  9/11 involved two conspiracies.   

1. Al Qaeda terrorist conspired to fly hijacked planes into the WTC and Pentagon. 
2. The Bush Whitehouse conspired to cover up the fact that they had warning signs beforehand that something was going on, and failed to communicate between the agencies and act to prevent the plot.

But since you have a mind like a goldfish,  you forgot that I've explained this before.   Or is it that illicit medication you are becoming so fond of?
 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 08, 2018, 12:05:33 AM
You believe unsolved conspiracies don't exist.

My bad.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 08, 2018, 12:39:33 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 07, 2018, 10:50:55 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 07, 2018, 10:43:55 PM
Plus you are relying on the word of an agency that even you admit is lying and hiding things. An agency that is a proven liar is trying to get us to believe in magic again.

Really?   According to you,  the  New York City Medical Examiner  is part of the conspiracy, which is,  as you may not be aware, is doing on-going DNA identifications of 9/11 victims.

Are you sure you want to die on this particular hill?

If someone tells me something that is using magic as a form of proof of course I am going to question it. I know you wouldn't, but we both know why.

Honestly there isn't that much out there on the chain of command for supposed samples. There really isn't that much information on the DNA evidence at all available. I do know the supposed high jackers remains are being held in a non disclosed area not available for examination.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 08, 2018, 12:45:23 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 08, 2018, 12:39:33 AM
I do know the supposed hijackers remains are being held in a non disclosed area not available for examination.

Pure coincidence.
Again, wow how many is that now?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 08, 2018, 01:07:23 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 08, 2018, 12:39:33 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 07, 2018, 10:50:55 PM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 07, 2018, 10:43:55 PM
Plus you are relying on the word of an agency that even you admit is lying and hiding things. An agency that is a proven liar is trying to get us to believe in magic again.

Really?   According to you,  the  New York City Medical Examiner  is part of the conspiracy, which is,  as you may not be aware, is doing on-going DNA identifications of 9/11 victims.

Are you sure you want to die on this particular hill?

If someone tells me something that is using magic as a form of proof of course I am going to question it. I know you wouldn't, but we both know why.

Honestly there isn't that much out there on the chain of command for supposed samples. There really isn't that much information on the DNA evidence at all available. I do know the supposed high jackers remains are being held in a non disclosed area not available for examination.

Actually there is plenty of publicaly available information on the DNA testing results,  you just are too dumb to find it. 

Only two of the ten hijackers have been identified from DNA evidence so far.

Quote
For the past 15 years, the Medical Examiner’s office has tested and retested the 21,905 human samples recovered at Ground Zero. They have been able to identify 14,320 fragments of bone and teeth — two of the hardest materials to identify.

The last 9/11 victim to be identified by the Medical Examiner was in March 2015, when forensic scientists linked a fragment to 26-year-old Matthew Yarnell, a Jersey City man who was working at Fiduciary Trust Company International when the towers fell.

Over the past 15 years, 1,637 of the 2,753 victims have been identified through DNA matching, officials said.

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/214781_2.pdf
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/7474405_DNA_Identifications_After_the_911_World_Trade_Center_Attack
https://www.nij.gov/journals/256/Pages/lessons-learned.aspx
https://www.promega.com/~/media/files/resources/conference%20proceedings/ishi%2013/oral%20presentations/hennesseyrev1.pdf

Is it time for you to run and hide again.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bullwinkle on March 08, 2018, 01:29:41 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 08, 2018, 12:39:33 AM
I do know the supposed high jackers remains are being held in a non disclosed area not available for examination.


It's area 51
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bom Tishop on March 08, 2018, 01:42:15 AM
Quote from: Bullwinkle on March 08, 2018, 01:29:41 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 08, 2018, 12:39:33 AM
I do know the supposed high jackers remains are being held in a non disclosed area not available for examination.


It's area 51

No, it is someplace in Jersey if I remember right.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bullwinkle on March 08, 2018, 01:48:10 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 08, 2018, 01:42:15 AM
Quote from: Bullwinkle on March 08, 2018, 01:29:41 AM
Quote from: Babyhighspeed on March 08, 2018, 12:39:33 AM
I do know the supposed high jackers remains are being held in a non disclosed area not available for examination.


It's area 51

No, it is someplace in Jersey if I remember right.

Ha, what better place to hide dead bodies.   :)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: MicroBeta on March 08, 2018, 08:22:20 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 07, 2018, 02:46:30 PM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 07, 2018, 04:06:47 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 07, 2018, 03:22:57 AM
It depends on the circumstance. I would doubt dna survived in the molten steel pits that lasted for weeks after the collapses.

There might have been dna that survived the worst of the crash which survived.

I wonder how the CIA already had the dna in their database of the alleged hijackers to compare and confirm their identities. Seems like an awfully convenient coincidence to me.

It was the FBI,  not the CIA,  and no they didn't already have the hijackers DNA in their database.

How did they confirm the identity of the hikackers with only one set of DNA then? Usually DNA found at the crime scene is compared to DNA on record to obtain a positive identification.
I seem to remember a flight attendant calling from the plane and identifying which seats the hijackers came from.  I don't remember which flight that was but I do know they used more than just DNA to identify them.

Mike
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 15, 2018, 11:30:06 PM
O-oy v-vey. I-it w-wasnt Israel g-goys, It was the Saudis and the U.S!!

https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2018/03/15/9-11-israel-didnt-do-it-the-plan-was-co-led-by-u-s-saud-governments/

Desperation level, over 9000.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 15, 2018, 11:33:20 PM
THE FIRST REPORTED VICTIM OF 9/11 WAS A ZIONIST COMMANDO CAPTAIN IN ISRAEL'S SAYERET MATKAL.

HE JUST HAPPENED TO BE SEATED BETWEEN TWO HIJACKERS ON AAF11, THE FIRST PLANE TO HIT THE WTC.

His name is/was Daniel Lewin.

And it's said he was stabbed to death before the plane crashed into the WTC. This was the same plane the "Dancing Israelis" were witnessed and reported celebrating and photographing from Doric Towers in NJ. They worked for Urban Moving Systems, which was quickly abandoned by Jewish owner Dominik Suter, who fled to Israel with his Jewish wife.

Please look into Daniel Lewin. We all know 9/11 raises lots of questions, that normies ignore. But the Daniel Lewin story is so incredulous their ears will perk up. If the first victim of 9/11 was indeed a hero who tried to kill the hijackers, why is not known by 19.99/20 Americans?

>Daniel Lewin
>Edmund Glazer
>Omer Marmari
>Oded Ellner
>Paul Kurzberg
>Sivan Kurzberg
>Yaron Shmuel
>Dominik Suter
>Dov Zakheim
>Michael Chertoff


Specific Israelis/Sayanim involved in 9/11

>AIR TEAM
Daniel Lewin (AAF11) (Sayeret Matkal captain)
Edmund Glazer (AAF11) (Lewin's seat mate)

>GROUND TEAM
Oded Ellner (arrested) (Urban Moving Systems)
Omer Marmari (arrested) (UMS)
Yaron Shmuel (arrested) (UMS)
Paul Kurzberg (arrested) (UMS)
Sivan Kurzberg (arrested) (UMS)
Dominik Suter (UMS boss/owner) (fled to Israel with wife, abandoning UMS offices in NJ and selling house, after one round of FBI questioning; multiple PCs seized by FBI from UMS remain classified)

>US GOV OPERATIONS / COVERUP
Dov Zakheim (head of Pentagon, certified practicing rabbi) (formerly of SPC Systems, which specialized in advanced confidential automated/remote milcraft flight technology)
Michael Chertoff (ordered deportation of five arrested UMS Israelis and dropped FBI investigation, after pressure from Jewish state) (initiated surveillance/security state, reaping millions in profit from scanners etc, now owns Chertoff Group, which lobbies for new scanner tech to US Gov)
Larry Silverstein (his role/foreknowledge is exaggerated; he was a billionaire sayanim who looked the other way and was rewarded) (then new owner of WTC)

These names/people are the strings we yank to unravel the Israeli plot that was 9/11. While there were likely some Saudi hijackers aboard the aircraft, they were completely shadowed by Israeli operatives, as seen with the "Israeli art students" in Hollywood FL. Speculation: Some of the identified hijackers were professionally stolen identities used by Sayeret Matkal operatives who casually dressed as Muslims on 9/11.

A very interesting detail: in an official 9/11 FBI report, Anne Lewin, the Jewish wife of Daniel Lewin, confided that when he boarded AAF11 on 9/11, he was wearing a metal "Swatch watch." In 2000, Lewin was photographed wearing this watch at his company office by photog Jason Grow. The watch is a retrodated match for the Hijacker model in the Irony Collection seen on Swatch's website
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 15, 2018, 11:39:25 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 15, 2018, 11:30:06 PM
O-oy v-vey. I-it w-wasnt Israel g-goys, It was the Saudis and the U.S!!

https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2018/03/15/9-11-israel-didnt-do-it-the-plan-was-co-led-by-u-s-saud-governments/

Desperation level, over 9000.

The article has some truth, but still a lot of speculation about to what extent the Saudi's who were sympathetic to Al Qaeda and supported them financially,  did they actually know anything about what Al Qaeda were up to as far as the terrorist attacks were concerned.   Maybe?  But no proof is being offered.   

Radical Islam has deep roots in Saudi.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 15, 2018, 11:44:59 PM
Indeed, you will blame anyone but Israel at this point. Even the U.S.A.

Telling.

Throw in the towel we won't settle for half the truth. It's a tactic you so often use and we won't fall for it again.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Definitely Not Swedish on March 15, 2018, 11:52:41 PM
Why you hate israel so much? Is it because of the jews?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 15, 2018, 11:53:14 PM
Mainly their international crimes.

I'm not fond of the puppet masters in the US or AUS either to tell the truth.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 16, 2018, 01:25:01 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 15, 2018, 11:53:14 PM
Mainly their international crimes.

I'm not fond of the puppet masters in the US or AUS either to tell the truth.

Puppet masters need puppets,  otherwise they would be masters of nothing.   Maybe bates?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 16, 2018, 01:28:38 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 16, 2018, 01:25:01 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 15, 2018, 11:53:14 PM
Mainly their international crimes.

I'm not fond of the puppet masters in the US or AUS either to tell the truth.

Puppet masters need puppets,  otherwise they would be masters of nothing.

Correct. That's why I so often say that all we have to do is stand up to them and they will fall.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 16, 2018, 01:34:23 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 16, 2018, 01:28:38 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 16, 2018, 01:25:01 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 15, 2018, 11:53:14 PM
Mainly their international crimes.

I'm not fond of the puppet masters in the US or AUS either to tell the truth.

Puppet masters need puppets,  otherwise they would be masters of nothing.

Correct. That's why I so often say that all we have to do is stand up to them and they will fall.

Didn't you say the Israelis were the puppets.  I'm confused.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 16, 2018, 01:40:55 AM
No, you're out of tricks.



THE FIRST REPORTED VICTIM OF 9/11 WAS A ZIONIST COMMANDO CAPTAIN IN ISRAEL'S SAYERET MATKAL.

HE JUST HAPPENED TO BE SEATED BETWEEN TWO HIJACKERS ON AAF11, THE FIRST PLANE TO HIT THE WTC.

His name is/was Daniel Lewin.

And it's said he was stabbed to death before the plane crashed into the WTC. This was the same plane the "Dancing Israelis" were witnessed and reported celebrating and photographing from Doric Towers in NJ. They worked for Urban Moving Systems, which was quickly abandoned by Jewish owner Dominik Suter, who fled to Israel with his Jewish wife.

Please look into Daniel Lewin. We all know 9/11 raises lots of questions, that normies ignore. But the Daniel Lewin story is so incredulous their ears will perk up. If the first victim of 9/11 was indeed a hero who tried to kill the hijackers, why is not known by 19.99/20 Americans?

>Daniel Lewin
>Edmund Glazer
>Omer Marmari
>Oded Ellner
>Paul Kurzberg
>Sivan Kurzberg
>Yaron Shmuel
>Dominik Suter
>Dov Zakheim
>Michael Chertoff


Specific Israelis/Sayanim involved in 9/11

>AIR TEAM
Daniel Lewin (AAF11) (Sayeret Matkal captain)
Edmund Glazer (AAF11) (Lewin's seat mate)

>GROUND TEAM
Oded Ellner (arrested) (Urban Moving Systems)
Omer Marmari (arrested) (UMS)
Yaron Shmuel (arrested) (UMS)
Paul Kurzberg (arrested) (UMS)
Sivan Kurzberg (arrested) (UMS)
Dominik Suter (UMS boss/owner) (fled to Israel with wife, abandoning UMS offices in NJ and selling house, after one round of FBI questioning; multiple PCs seized by FBI from UMS remain classified)

>US GOV OPERATIONS / COVERUP
Dov Zakheim (head of Pentagon, certified practicing rabbi) (formerly of SPC Systems, which specialized in advanced confidential automated/remote milcraft flight technology)
Michael Chertoff (ordered deportation of five arrested UMS Israelis and dropped FBI investigation, after pressure from Jewish state) (initiated surveillance/security state, reaping millions in profit from scanners etc, now owns Chertoff Group, which lobbies for new scanner tech to US Gov)
Larry Silverstein (his role/foreknowledge is exaggerated; he was a billionaire sayanim who looked the other way and was rewarded) (then new owner of WTC)

These names/people are the strings we yank to unravel the Israeli plot that was 9/11. While there were likely some Saudi hijackers aboard the aircraft, they were completely shadowed by Israeli operatives, as seen with the "Israeli art students" in Hollywood FL. Speculation: Some of the identified hijackers were professionally stolen identities used by Sayeret Matkal operatives who casually dressed as Muslims on 9/11.

A very interesting detail: in an official 9/11 FBI report, Anne Lewin, the Jewish wife of Daniel Lewin, confided that when he boarded AAF11 on 9/11, he was wearing a metal "Swatch watch." In 2000, Lewin was photographed wearing this watch at his company office by photog Jason Grow. The watch is a retrodated match for the Hijacker model in the Irony Collection seen on Swatch's website
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 16, 2018, 01:42:12 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 15, 2018, 11:53:14 PM
Mainly their international crimes.

I'm not fond of the puppet masters in the US or AUS either to tell the truth.

Who are the puppets?

Quote
A very interesting detail: in an official 9/11 FBI report, Anne Lewin, the Jewish wife of Daniel Lewin, confided that when he boarded AAF11 on 9/11, he was wearing a metal "Swatch watch." In 2000, Lewin was photographed wearing this watch at his company office by photog Jason Grow. The watch is a retrodated match for the Hijacker model in the Irony Collection seen on Swatch's website

I've no idea what you are trying to say,  can you be specific?

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 16, 2018, 01:43:58 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 16, 2018, 01:42:12 AM
Who are the puppets?

(You) are a good example.

Dance for me Rayzor.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 16, 2018, 01:50:58 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 16, 2018, 01:42:12 AM
Quote
A very interesting detail: in an official 9/11 FBI report, Anne Lewin, the Jewish wife of Daniel Lewin, confided that when he boarded AAF11 on 9/11, he was wearing a metal "Swatch watch." In 2000, Lewin was photographed wearing this watch at his company office by photog Jason Grow. The watch is a retrodated match for the Hijacker model in the Irony Collection seen on Swatch's website

I've no idea what you are trying to say,  can you be specific?
(0.02c per line)
(0.02c per line)

Sure.

In an official 9/11 FBI report, Anne Lewin, the Jewish wife of Daniel Lewin, confided that when he boarded AAF11 on 9/11, he was wearing a metal "Swatch watch."

In 2000, Lewin was photographed wearing this watch at his company office by photog Jason Grow. The watch is a retrodated match for the Hijacker model in the Irony Collection seen on Swatch's website.

It's an interesting coincidence.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 16, 2018, 01:55:59 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 16, 2018, 01:43:58 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 16, 2018, 01:42:12 AM
Who are the puppets?

(You) are a good example.

Dance for me Rayzor.

Are you sure you know who is dancing, and who is pulling the strings?    Seems like a simplistic way of arguing.  But I guess that fits your capacity for thought.
 
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 16, 2018, 01:56:41 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 16, 2018, 01:50:58 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 16, 2018, 01:42:12 AM
Quote
A very interesting detail: in an official 9/11 FBI report, Anne Lewin, the Jewish wife of Daniel Lewin, confided that when he boarded AAF11 on 9/11, he was wearing a metal "Swatch watch." In 2000, Lewin was photographed wearing this watch at his company office by photog Jason Grow. The watch is a retrodated match for the Hijacker model in the Irony Collection seen on Swatch's website

I've no idea what you are trying to say,  can you be specific?
(0.02c per line)
(0.02c per line)

Sure.

In an official 9/11 FBI report, Anne Lewin, the Jewish wife of Daniel Lewin, confided that when he boarded AAF11 on 9/11, he was wearing a metal "Swatch watch."

In 2000, Lewin was photographed wearing this watch at his company office by photog Jason Grow. The watch is a retrodated match for the Hijacker model in the Irony Collection seen on Swatch's website.

It's an interesting coincidence.

What was the coincidence?   Plenty of people wear watches?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 16, 2018, 01:57:29 AM
They sure do mate.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 16, 2018, 02:02:55 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 16, 2018, 01:57:29 AM
They sure do mate.

Which question were you answering?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 16, 2018, 02:06:36 AM
You're playing a dangerous game pretending not to be able to follow a chain of conversation.

Maybe quoting it in the order it was in will help you follow along.

Quote from: Rayzor on March 16, 2018, 01:56:41 AM
(0.02c per line)
What was the coincidence?   Plenty of people wear watches?
(0.02c per line)

Quote from: disputeone on March 16, 2018, 01:57:29 AM
They sure do mate.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 16, 2018, 02:10:19 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 16, 2018, 02:06:36 AM
You're playing a dangerous game pretending not to be able to follow a chain of conversation.

Maybe quoting it in the order it was in will help you follow along.

Quote from: Rayzor on March 16, 2018, 01:56:41 AM
(0.02c per line)
What was the coincidence?   Plenty of people wear watches?
(0.02c per line)

Quote from: disputeone on March 16, 2018, 01:57:29 AM
They sure do mate.

You skipped a question I asked, and then start a side issue about a watch,   but I'll play your game, what evidence do you have that Daniel Lewin ever owned a Swatch Hijacker Model?
And why do you think that matters?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 16, 2018, 02:15:16 AM
Rayzor oh Rayzor.

The puppets are the polliticians, the puppet masters are the international bankers. You are well aware.

The coincidence is the watch being the "hijacker model" as you proved you were already well aware in your last post.

The proof is, again, in the FBI reports and the photograph of him wearing the watch in 2000.

This is just an interesting coincidence it's not proof of anything. I am not claiming it as proof it's merely the lowest hanging fruit in that post.

The only thing you will address. You were the one that singled out the watch. Lol.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 16, 2018, 02:21:44 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 16, 2018, 02:15:16 AM
Rayzor oh Rayzor.

The puppets are the polliticians, the puppet masters are the international bankers. You are well aware.

The coincidence is the watch being the "hijacker model" as you proved you were already well aware in your
 last post.

The proof is, again, in the FBI reports and the photograph of him wearing the watch in 2000.

This is just an interesting coincidence it's not proof of anything. I am not claiming it as proof it's merely the lowest hanging fruit in that post.

The only thing you will address. You were the one that singled out the watch. Lol.

You were the one that raised it, and since he was an Israeli commando you thought it was somehow significant,  what you don't know is that he invented the Akamai protocols one of which uses BGP hijacking as a traffic control mechanism.   If in fact he did own a Swatch Hijacker model, it wouldn't be unexpected.


So you think politicians are puppets?  Is this just another bit of conspiracy crap, or do you have any proof?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 16, 2018, 02:23:24 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 16, 2018, 02:21:44 AM
he was an Israeli commando

Indeed, a coincidence, as I stated.

You have been calling Trump a puppet for a year. Take a break mate, regroup for damage control.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 16, 2018, 02:27:46 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 16, 2018, 02:23:24 AM
Indeed, a coincidence, as I stated.

You have been calling Trump a puppet for a year. Take a break mate, regroup for damage control.

The watch is not proven, and even if it is, it's still not a coincidence,  and in any case irrelevant.

Trump is Putin's puppet,  the evidence is irrefutable.

Is Putin one of the 13 families?  Illuminati?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 16, 2018, 02:32:20 AM
Actually Putin is connected to the families, indirectly, so is Trump, so was JFK.

You don't get close to power without that connection. It doesn't mean their future is set in stone.

Let's be real, if there was any irrefutable evidence that Trump was a foreign agent he would be in jail and not still be president.

Unless you think Russia has secretly taken complete control of the US?

Lol.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 16, 2018, 02:33:13 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 16, 2018, 02:32:20 AM
Actually Putin is connected to the families, indirectly, so is Trump, so was JFK.

You don't get close to power without that connection. It doesn't mean their future is set in stone.

Let's be real, if there was any irrefutable evidence that Trump was a foreign agent he would be in jail and not still be president.

Unless you think Russia has secretly taken complete control of the US?

Lol.

So what do you think Putin has on Trump?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 16, 2018, 02:36:18 AM
Quote from: Rayzor on March 16, 2018, 02:33:13 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 16, 2018, 02:32:20 AM
Actually Putin is connected to the families, indirectly, so is Trump, so was JFK.

You don't get close to power without that connection. It doesn't mean their future is set in stone.

Let's be real, if there was any irrefutable evidence that Trump was a foreign agent he would be in jail and not still be president.

Unless you think Russia has secretly taken complete control of the US?

Lol.
(0.02c per line)
So what do you think Putin has on Trump?
(0.02c per line)

A couple hundred nuclear warheads. Apart from that not much more than any other leader.

It's funny Putins puppet has pledged to fight Putin hey?

Or is that just part of your conspiracy theory?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 16, 2018, 02:52:36 AM
Look at how you jump between pretending you're totally ignorant to knowing intimate details of what I'm talking about.

Lol.
Quote from: Rayzor on March 16, 2018, 01:56:41 AM
What was the coincidence?   Plenty of people wear watches?

Quote from: Rayzor on March 16, 2018, 02:21:44 AM
he was an Israeli commando you thought it was somehow significant,  what you don't (do) know is that he invented the Akamai protocols one of which uses BGP hijacking as a traffic control mechanism.
Lol.

Bye for now five eyes enjoy your evening.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 16, 2018, 06:20:35 PM
Quote from: disputeone on March 16, 2018, 02:52:36 AM
Look at how you jump between pretending you're totally ignorant to knowing intimate details of what I'm talking about.

I looked him up,  so sue me.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 17, 2018, 05:30:57 PM
(https://s14.postimg.org/4n7iu4xk1/1521322305849m.jpg)
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Rayzor on March 18, 2018, 01:10:17 AM
Quote from: disputeone on March 17, 2018, 05:30:57 PM
(https://s14.postimg.org/4n7iu4xk1/1521322305849m.jpg)

If there was a point to this, I'm afraid it missed the mark. 


Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Bullwinkle on March 18, 2018, 01:16:51 AM
<pic>
<pic>
<video>
<video>
<video>
<link>
<link>


expect this

Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on March 18, 2018, 11:44:21 PM
It's a joke. Because more than half of the world knows the 9/11 commission report was a cover-up.

Kinda like the Russia investigation.

@Bullwinkle.
What evidence led you to believe the Earth is a flat disk?
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Jaoheah on March 25, 2018, 06:28:05 AM
So Y'all don't believe in the police all of a sudden? Why there is picture proof of cops.
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 04, 2018, 04:55:00 PM
Pastedump mofos.

[Open]
>"If you take out Saddam, Saddam's regime, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region." -- Netanyahu, 2002

>Netanyahu Says 9/11 Terror Attacks Good for Israel
http://haaretz.com/news/report-netanyahu-says-9-11-terror-attacks-good-for-israel-1.244044

http://www.haaretz.com/sharon-says-u-s-should-also-disarm-iran-libya-and-syria-1.18707
>Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said yesterday that Iran, Libya and Syria should be stripped of weapons of mass destruction after Iraq. "These are irresponsible states, which must be disarmed of weapons mass destruction, and a successful American move in Iraq as a model will make that easier to achieve," Sharon said to a visiting delegation of American congressmen.

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=128491&page=1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Liberation_Act
>Iraq Liberation Act was signed by Bill Clinton in 1998 to topple Saddam Hussein, as a response to pressure and open letter by Jewish neocons and Israel

>Israeli lobbyist in the American Jewish Congress calls for a new false flag attack to kick off the war between the West and Iran
[Open]

>Israel and Saudi Arabia: The relationship emerging into the open
https://www.bbc.com/news/amp/world-middle-east-43632905
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: disputeone on April 10, 2018, 03:11:31 PM
Most people prefer to believe that their leaders are just and fair, even in the face of evidence to the contrary, because once a citizen acknowledges that the government under which he lives is lying and corrupt, the citizen has to choose what he or she will do about it. To take action in the face of corrupt government entails risks of harm to life and loved ones. To choose to do nothing is to surrender one's self-image of standing for principles. Most people do not have the courage to face that choice. Hence, most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all.

Michael Rivero
Title: Re: 911 What is the truth?
Post by: Billy Mays on April 13, 2018, 09:32:50 AM
39% of people just can't accept that bad things can happen without it being an inside job.